A Single Country in the World

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

How would democracy even work in a situation like this. I think the assumption is that everything is standardised. But how do you standardise opinions? You will always have people who believe different things. Seems to me what the OP is advocating is a totalitarian state based on modern liberal values.. a bit like New Labour in the UK! 

Basically you can't just force people to believe in something or change their views on things unless you are Stalin.

HB

Is this pure or representative democracy?  If the latter how will votes be distributed?  Will the legislature be bi or unicameral?  Will there be an executive?  If so how much power will be invested in that executive will the executive be one person or a committiee.  How will the executive be selected?  What type of judicial system should the WS have?  

Every point I raise (and many more beside) is a point of contention and conflict. Do  you really think this can be adopted without significant conflict and potential military conflict.

[SeanF]

In response to the O/P, the only way that such a State could be established and maintained would be through massive armed coercion.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is this pure or representative democracy?  If the latter how will votes be distributed?  Will the legislature be bi or unicameral?  Will there be an executive?  If so how much power will be invested in that executive will the executive be one person or a committiee.  How will the executive be selected?  What type of judicial system should the WS have?  

Every point I raise (and many more beside) is a point of contention and conflict. Do  you really think this can be adopted without significant conflict and potential military conflict.

Essentially I think power would need to be devolved downwards into sectors (countries, states) or some smaller element of power. Without that you'd basically have entire swathes of people who are really unhappy that they aren't be represented. The OP seems to want to impress his world view on others and make sure that everybody thinks the same way, but of course that could never happen. 

You can see in Europe and even the US that massive groups of people with opposing ideas are being forced into a grouping that doesn't satisfy them. The US is almost 2 countries, red and blue, and its almost gotten to the point where they cannot live alongside each other. That on a massive scale wouldn't last very long. 

Your right that none of this would come about without war of some kind, nor would it last long without another war. I can imagine the only way to hold it together would be something incredibly totalitarian.
 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

5 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

 I think English has a good chance of winning in a popular vote because it has a larger global presence then Mandarin. In many former British colonies, English is treated like a second language. Mandarin does have a larger domestic presence.

Well, but considering the WS you have proposed, there is bound to be large scale migration from developing countries to developed countries, China most certainly among them.

In fact English being the only "global" language they know would give an additional incentive for people to migrate to English-speaking countries itself, such as the US, Canada or UK.

So in a few years time, you're looking at a situation where Mandarin could very well have a "global" presence as well, just due to population redistribution. What then?

This is not even touching the immense social unrest which will emerge due to population and economic redistribution.

[Buckwheat]

19 hours ago, felice said:

On the other hand, you can't have public discourse if everyone is speaking different languages and most people don't understand what anyone else is saying. And I'm not convinced computer translation of everything is ever going to be sufficiently accurate or practical. I recommend Esperanto; it's nobody's native language, so ideal as everybody's second language.

I agree that it is not going to be, that is why more translators are needed.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

In response to the O/P, the only way that such a State could be established and maintained would be through massive armed coercion.

Which also isn't feasible any longer due to the existence of nuclear weapons. You were born in the wrong century, OP. Although to be fair no empire that has existed ever really came close to true global dominance. 

[sologdin]

i like translator microbes more than universal translators.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

What would the marriage laws be like in this new World? Will Polygamy be legal for instance?

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

i like translator microbes more than universal translators.  

Cool! A Farscape reference.

[Weeping Sore]

The question isn't whether a World State would require violence and coercion (it would), but rather would it be worth the trade-offs? There would be no need for armies, only World Police, who would monopolize the legitimate use of violence.

Would religion(s) still be allowed? Or just a World State worshipping pastiche? I feel like you'd need some kind of real or simulated God-On-Earth to make it work.

ETA: I say we bring a beautiful and terrible psychic mermaid back from Europa, place her in a massive crystalline throne-sphere of water, and have her rule the planet from the former Constantinople.*

*or simulate this on the off chance we are unable to find powerful alien mermaids on Europa.

[Theda Baratheon]

i like the translation system from fire upon the deep

the little translaters the skroderiders wear 

[Wrl6199]

Just now, Theda Baratheon said:

i like the translation system from fire upon the deep

the little translaters the skroderiders wear 

Id never heard of that book but it looks pretty cool. It looks like the system from the book is a bit like the Usenet computer program from the 80s.

[Theda Baratheon]

1 minute ago, Wrl6199 said:

Id never heard of that book but it looks pretty cool. It looks like the system from the book is a bit like the Usenet computer program from the 80s.

i really enjoyed the book 

[The Anti-Targ]

The nation-state is still a good administrative/governing unit, but a world govt with enforceable laws (and no nations with veto powers) governing inter-state matters is our future. I like to look at sci-fi writers and how they envisage the world of the future. Most of the time they envisage a world govt of some sort.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The nation-state is still a good administrative/governing unit, but a world govt with enforceable laws (and no nations with veto powers) governing inter-state matters is our future. I like to look at sci-fi writers and how they envisage the world of the future. Most of the time they envisage a world govt of some sort.

And how many wars will be fought to accomplish this pipe dream?

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And how many wars will be fought to accomplish this pipe dream?

Many conflicts and crises will occur until the world realises that it's the only way to go. But no one is going to go to war to force a world govt on us. It will arise from a collective realisation of need not from the imposition of a coercive force.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Many conflicts and crises will occur until the world realises that it's the only way to go. But no one is going to go to war to force a world govt on us. It will arise from a collective realisation of need not from the imposition of a coercive force.

This is "Empire" with a nicer name, that's all.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is "Empire" with a nicer name, that's all.

Aside from family, what level of social organisation isn't "Empire" but on smaller scales? You yourself believe ultimately in a global Empire under Jesus returned, yes? Kingdom of God on Earth. I happen to agree with that vision, only without Jesus as the immortal permanent king over all the world.

Social organisation has been largely driven by the concept of us and them. As our vision of "us" expands we naturally assume a larger scope in our level of organisation. At the moment out biggest concept of "us" is the nation, EU notwithstanding. But if we view all of humanity as "us" and there being no "them" then it is natural that we apply a level of social organisation at the world scale.

We've already got quite a bit of global organisation both formal and informal. A world parliament / congress is not that far from what we already have.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Aside from family, what level of social organisation isn't "Empire" but on smaller scales? You yourself believe ultimately in a global Empire under Jesus returned, yes? Kingdom of God on Earth. I happen to agree with that vision, only without Jesus as the immortal permanent king over all the world.

Social organisation has been largely driven by the concept of us and them. As our vision of "us" expands we naturally assume a larger scope in our level of organisation. At the moment out biggest concept of "us" is the nation, EU notwithstanding. But if we view all of humanity as "us" and there being no "them" then it is natural that we apply a level of social organisation at the world scale.

We've already got quite a bit of global organisation both formal and informal. A world parliament / congress is not that far from what we already have.

I'll direct you to my points from this morning and reiterate that each of those points (and many more) are points over which people can and will fight vigorously about.  How, without significant merging of cultures can such a world state be viable?

[The Anti-Targ]

26 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'll direct you to my points from this morning and reiterate that each of those points (and many more) are points over which people can and will fight vigorously about.  How, without significant merging of cultures can such a world state be viable?

If you are arguing against the concept in the OP, i.e. the elimination of the nation-state, then we are talking about different things. Just as lower levels of govt must exist within the nation-state, so with a world parliament the nation-state must still exist.

A world federal system similar to (but not the same as) the USA is a natural evolutionary step of a world that already operates in a border-less fashion in so many ways.