Jump to content

A Single Country in the World


House Balstroko

Recommended Posts

Quote

The one thing that doesn't belong on that list are artificial borders that seclude people into enclaves not of their choosing.

Yeah, no:

  • Increased cultural tensions in existing superstrutures. For example: Uygurs in China, Catalonia in spain, Syria, Tchetchenia, Sudan, Belgium, Brexit-->UK vs Scotlant/Ireland.
  • Rise of cultural divisions, notably with religion (islam around here) but also around race issues (see: black lives matter)
  • Social divisions reaching an all-time high, with the poor (getting poorer) class voting en-masse for nationalistic parties and populist bastards (all of EU countries, Trump, most notably) and thus showing a specter of national fragmentation
  • Unrest against state rule rising, and civil society weighting more, to a point where the state feels the need to show its muscles (Occupy, Podemos, and various civil movements -often linked to ecology- refusing the law and founding sortof autonomous region: example in France would be the occupation of an airport contruction site or a nuclear junkyard site)

 

But all of this is wind: the real question is: how do you implement that? Force YOUR language on others, your laws, your worldview, your capital? You don't, that's what.

What you are advocating is a third world war, with US as the aggressors (and they don't even have the military power)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MercurialCannibal said:

This might be the dumbest idea I have ever read. 

Hey, guys. Let's all surrender to one government rule and one language. What could possibly go wrong? 

It will be like some hippy commune. We will all prosper and shit. It will be great!

How about you actually tell me why you think its wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

Creating a language from scratch would at least not give preference to one of the existing linguistic groups. Or, it actually might, depending on who is creating a language - because this group of people would still be starting from their own position, probably making the new language syntactically similar to their own, because it seems the most natural and logical to them. Everybody is influenced by their own language.

I think humanity should be restricted to Earth because we are pigs enough (no offence to pigs meant) to ruin our own planet and should not be allowed to do so to the planets that are not ours to ruin. For the benefit of the possible civilisation and life forms that might develop on those other planets thousands of years into the future if we let their planets' environments be. I just dislike expansionistic tendencies.

Humans have always been pigs. It hasn't stopped us from discovering and settling America and Australia to name a few places. There are plenty of decent people in the world as well. 

(Also, the idea of space travel IRL personally creeps me out. It is fine in SciFi, but that is where it should stay. Some things should better stay a mystery. I usually do not find it "good news" when they report a sonde landed on Mars or wherever. Just does not seem important to me and not something humanity should be dealing with. Of course this is just a personal taste thing that should not be affecting and political opinions.)

What part of it freaks you out? is it the long journeys? The sense of emptiness. Of course it will be a long and hard journey, but then again so were the journeys conducted by the first conquistadors. 

 

4 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Did you just list Russia as a democratic country? For fucking real?

I'm no fan of Putin but he was democratically elected. Russia is nowhere near as democratic as many western countries but to call it totalitarian would be far-fetched. 

Democracy, fuck yeah!
Overthrown by whom?

By the people. You need to take into consideration that in this kind of society it would be very hard for a totalitarian government to arise due to the fact that all information is readily available.

 

4 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

What you advocate is some version of Plato’s Republic. A benevolent construction that runs society to the benefit of everybody. This dream has been with us for centuries, and most political philosophies are subject to this “spell of Plato” in some version or the other.

i'm not well versed with his works, but based on your description i would say its a fair assessment. 

I completely reject this. The main reason is the empirical observation that people has different goals, both as individuals and as groups. These goals are in conflict with each other. People simply disagree in how the ideal state looks, and this disagreement is a good thing. From this disagreement is born a rich tapestry of different ways of organising societies. This is a good thing; most human progress (intellectual as well as moral) is born out of this diversity of ideas (manifested in diverse organisational structures).

I agree with your premise that people have different goals. An open society doesn't stop one from pursuing those goals. An open society creates a framework that enables individuals of different backgrounds to work out their differences. You are right that society can be organized in different ways and I am in no way advocating that there is a simple solution to global problems, but instead of dealing with them in a fractured way we can analyze them with the objective of working for the betterment of mankind.

The strongest antidote for the spell of Plato (and the totalitarian dream of a world government) is Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies (which, to my surprise, was immensely readable.) 

See this is where I disagree.  A lot of people believe that a world government needs to be totalitarian by construct, which is a premise I strongly reject. This is why there is strong opposition to movements such as the NWO, but there is nothing stopping people from creating a global society based on tolerance and mutual respect.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

I thought about this for a while and think uniting all countries in the world would be beneficial in the long run. Countries are an outdated concept. If we look at our world today, we see increased globalization on all fronts. There is growing international trade, companies are becoming multinational, the internet is used globally to communicate with people all over the world... The one thing that doesn't belong on that list are artificial borders that seclude people into enclaves not of their choosing. I know there is a lot of protectionism going on with people wanting to preserve culture and language and feel that due to ideology these things wouldn't work, but I disagree and believe these issues do not hamper globalization.

Here are some of the benefits:

1. True multiculturalism: It is high time people embrace diversity. 

2. Tackling global issues: As a single nation, any problem that pops up instantly becomes a global problem, therefore it can be tackled collectively.

3.Greater income equality: Since every one falls under one banner, wealth can be distributed more evenly.

4. Expanding humanity's presence in space: Earth will always be our home and we should take good care of it. That being said, the future lies in space. We need to establis settlements on other worlds so that humanity can thrive without being constricted by the limited resources of the Earth.

5. Less Conflict: Every squabble becomes a global issue, therefore can be tackled without the gridlock of the current setup.

6.Standardization: There are too many discrepancies between countries such as laws, language, units of measurement, racial and sexual tolerance that can be universally applied for the benefit of all.

7. Greater Social Mobility: By having a single nation, there would be no need to go through lengthy immigration procedures to migrate to a different locale. People would be able to choose there location via personal preference.

I do believe certain sacrifices would have to be made in order to achieve it.

Language: Very controversial, but I believe English should become the global language since it's been the dominant one since the industrial revolution. Adopting any other language would become a long hassle as we would have to drastically change the current setup. That being said regional languages should be preserved and maintained.

-Center of Power: Citizens can choose what the capital city will be. This can be adjusted to avoid preferential treatment.

-Cultural Values: Progressive ideas should be adopted. Discriminating against individuals on the basis of gender, ethnicity or religion will not be tolerated.

 

This is all wishful thinking on my part, but I do believe that we would be better off like this.

 

How do you deal with those parts of the world that decline the invitation to join the World State?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Yeah, no:

  • Increased cultural tensions in existing superstrutures. For example: Uygurs in China, Catalonia in spain, Syria, Tchetchenia, Sudan, Belgium, Brexit-->UK vs Scotlant/Ireland.
  • Rise of cultural divisions, notably with religion (islam around here) but also around race issues (see: black lives matter)
  • Social divisions reaching an all-time high, with the poor (getting poorer) class voting en-masse for nationalistic parties and populist bastards (all of EU countries, Trump, most notably) and thus showing a specter of national fragmentation
  • Unrest against state rule rising, and civil society weighting more, to a point where the state feels the need to show its muscles (Occupy, Podemos, and various civil movements -often linked to ecology- refusing the law and founding sortof autonomous region: example in France would be the occupation of an airport contruction site or a nuclear junkyard site)

 

But all of this is wind: the real question is: how do you implement that? Force YOUR language on others, your laws, your worldview, your capital? You don't, that's what.

What you are advocating is a third world war, with US as the aggressors (and they don't even have the military power)

The reason there is a lot of racial and ethnic tension is due to a lack of tolerance. Of course if we have a world where there are nearly 200 countries and countless dependencies, it is expected that local groups within those superstructure will push for independence. However if you create a one world government with a policy of tolerance then you are reducing the need for independence since all societies will be equally represented. 

My ideas regarding the implementation are a general framework. I explained why i think English is the best choice. It's most definitely not driven by nationalism although a lot of people will see it that way. However, if people want a different global language then they are free to do so. The same applies to the capital, it is based off popular vote.

I'm definitely not advocating any war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

However if you create a one world government with a policy of tolerance then you are reducing the need for independence since all societies will be equally represented.

Will they? How? Independence movements in democracies tend to happen because smaller groups feel their rights or wishes are being overridden by being part of a larger group of people that doesn't agree with them. Lumping everyone into a world state just means you're gonna get everyone thinking their rights or wishes are being overruled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

Why would they not join it when it will be mutually beneficial to them?

Because not everyone is perfectly rational and even if they are they may not agree that this is to their benefit.  Now, rather than begging the question how does the "World State" deal with Nation-States that decline the World State's invitation to join its polity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

I think humanity should be restricted to Earth because we are pigs enough (no offence to pigs meant) to ruin our own planet and should not be allowed to do so to the planets that are not ours to ruin. For the benefit of the possible civilisation and life forms that might develop on those other planets thousands of years into the future if we let their planets' environments be. I just dislike expansionistic tendencies.

Unless your assuming that any other civilization wouldn't "ruin" its planet I don't see how this argument makes sense. We'll change shit, and that's terrible because some hypothetical future entity might be negatively affected. Might as well not do anything by that logic. We should kill ourselves because we might be stopping fucking raccoons from developing sentience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Unless your assuming that any other civilization wouldn't "ruin" its planet I don't see how this argument makes sense. We'll change shit, and that's terrible because some hypothetical future entity might be negatively affected. Might as well not do anything by that logic. We should kill ourselves because we might be stopping fucking raccoons from developing sentience.

At  which point Raccoon nihilists will say the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leap said:

Although I'm a huge fan of national space agencies like NASA and ESA, it's a questionable use of taxpayers money given it is by definition outside of the state's borders. 

 

 

Yeah but to be fair if we did have one human nation then anywhere humanity is or reaches is within the state's borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

if you create a one world government with a policy of tolerance then you are reducing the need for independence since all societies will be equally represented. 

Excuse me? Did you not notice most of my examples were of tensions within a single country? I fail to see how giving the world less independence will decrease those tensions.

Anyhow, you did not answer the real question: HOW DO YOU FORCE THE WORLD TO ADOPT THIS IDEA?

 

Quote

However, if people want a different global language then they are free to do so. The same applies to the capital, it is based off popular vote.

"People", huh? Why should minorities accept the majority vote? ETA, actualy, screw that, why should and would they agree to vote on that?

 

Quote

I'm definitely not advocating any war. 

Oh, no, just advocating killing diversity on earth, and somehow not seeing that people will fight to the death against it... I repeat: how are you going to make everyone comply, already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Will they? How? Independence movements in democracies tend to happen because smaller groups feel their rights or wishes are being overridden by being part of a larger group of people that doesn't agree with them. Lumping everyone into a world state just means you're gonna get everyone thinking their rights or wishes are being overruled.

While you do have a good point, in all your scenarios independence movements arise because the minority group sees that the majority group has it's independent state therefore they feel they should be able to become independent. If there are no independent states to begin with, who are you gaining independence from?

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because not everyone is perfectly rational and even if they are they may not agree that this is to their benefit.  Now, rather than begging the question how does the "World State" deal with Nation-States that decline the World State's invitation to join its polity?

By promoting global integration. If there are only a few independent states left then they will see that their countries are lacking behind the "World State" by a considerable margin. of course i'm only advocating peaceful methods, any form of violence would be counter-productive.

13 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Unless your assuming that any other civilization wouldn't "ruin" its planet I don't see how this argument makes sense. We'll change shit, and that's terrible because some hypothetical future entity might be negatively affected. Might as well not do anything by that logic. We should kill ourselves because we might be stopping fucking raccoons from developing sentience.

Exactly.We should take good care of the Earth, but there is no reason to impede progress because of some hypothetical scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, House Balstroko said:

By promoting global integration. If there are only a few independent states left then they will see that their countries are lacking behind the "World State" by a considerable margin. of course i'm only advocating peaceful methods, any form of violence would be counter-productive.

Kinda like Europe, the integration policy works well, the US even proposed to join. Oh wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

Kinda like Europe, the integration policy works well, the US even proposed to join. Oh wait...

To a certain extent, but far more than that. The very fact that the EU even exists as an organization is a sign that people of different countries are willing to cooperate with one another, especially after seeing the disasters brought forth by the two World Wars when nationalism was at an all time high.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

To a certain extent, but far more than that. The very fact that the EU even exists as an organization is a sign that people of different countries are willing to cooperate with one another, especially after seeing the disasters brought forth by the two World Wars when nationalism was at an all time high.

Hmm, did you miss the latest news from Europe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HB,

You are buying into Fukuyama that posits the western style "State" as "the end of history".  It is shortsighted and ethnocentric.

Let's say the US and Canada join the WS.  What happens when they decide they no longer want to be a part of the WS and stop abiding by the dictates of the WS congress and executive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...