Do you think it will be a great idea to have one world government, becoming citizens of earth instead of man made borders.
The system would be a federal government. The stats/provinces would be based upon ethnicity, religion, culture and political stance.
There will be imposed a low amount of taxes for the central government, the rest will be up to the individual stat/province to decide upon. So both, socialistic and capitalistic people can live in their representative society.
The central governments main role will be to ensure peace and order + helping the poor standing on their own feet.
I don't think you realize how complicated things are, and why we can't just do these things. Were in too deep in Nation State ways and affairs. Also, a centralized government is not what you can call stable (not what I want either). A world where Bipolarity (two countries leading the smaller countries) is the most stable if you look at it. Also, a multipolar world (the kind we live in today) is just as unstable as a Unipolar world (A world where only one country leads all, in this case one big government.)
Did you know most parts of the UN aren't even strong enough to be the worlds Police? And only the UN security council has power!
It's just way too hard to explain IR theory and global politics. Read up on it! It will help you understand!
Do you think it will be a great idea to have one world government, becoming citizens of earth instead of man made borders.
No. That would be a disastrous idea.
The stats/provinces would be based upon ethnicity, religion, culture and political stance.
No, they wouldn't. That doesn't even begin to make sense.
There will be imposed a low amount of taxes for the central government, the rest will be up to the individual stat/province to decide upon.
No, there won't.
So both, socialistic and capitalistic people can live in their representative society.
Which could only be managed under separate government systems. Socialism and capitalism are diametrically opposed. You can't maintain both at the same time.
A world where Bipolarity (two countries leading the smaller countries) is the most stable if you look at it. Also, a multipolar world (the kind we live in today) is just as unstable as a Unipolar world (A world where only one country leads all, in this case one big government.)
Not really. The stability of a nation is directly related to isolation and inversely related to size (within reasonable limits for a nation, of course). The problem with tiny island nations is not instability, but reduced economic growth.
Do you think it will be a great idea to have one world government, becoming citizens of earth instead of man made borders.
What? Is that a real question? Of course not! Why? Well some Nations will have more citizens so they would have more senators and culture of small would slowly die. Also some Nations would be compleatly industrielized and some would just have agriculture. I can go so on and on...
So both, socialistic and capitalistic people can live in their representative society.
What? what? what?
JUST WHAT?
If you do that than this isn't actually one world country.You can not mix capitallisam and comunisam. There would been wars about it. + economi will be divided on 3 block: 1. Just capittalism ; 2.Just comunisam ; 3.The traders between those.
This idea would saperate world apart if it ever comes to life!!!
First of all, I want to point out the common misconception, communism and socialism is not one and same.
Back to the topic. You guys don't seems to be able to grasp the idea of socialism and capitalism living in a common government. Let me clarify how it is possible.
The central government will impose taxes that will cover it expenses. That includes:
- Military
- Police
- Central governments workers
- A bit for infrastructure
The central government will only impose the very basic rules that requires to maintain humanity. Basically no killing, stealing, genocide etc.
Everything else will be up to the specific stat/province to decide. To give you an idea on how it will work, then take EU as example. Every single country have completely sovereignty over it own nation, but they have to be under EUs framework. This new central government will be of course different, but basic structural line will be the same.
To answer you question shortly, then it will be up to the individual stat/province to decide whether they wanna follow the capitalistic model or the socialistic etc.
Having one central government, where there is free movement around the world and people aren't restraint to specific borders, will not only boost the economy world wide, but also increase the poor peoples income.
To give you an idea on how it will work, then take EU as example.
EU is not a state.
The central government
And all people of world will vote? India,China,Indonesia,Bangladas... would be the states with most votes. This would produce to destruction of traditional culture of small countries. And with globaliszation of the biggest there would be mix and no traditional culture. With no traditions Nations won't be abel to identify them selfs so at end there would be just one nation-The humans.
communism and socialism is not one and same
Yes they aren't the same. Comunisam is more extremistic. In comunisam there must be a dictator. But China is in comunisam (1/7 of population),and some othere countries and thay are vrs. free trade so the trade would be dificult.
+ I have a question
Why would anyone want this "Country of world"? The people are already boned on so many ways.Is pushing it further realy better?
And all people of world will vote? India,China,Indonesia,Bangladas... would be the states with most votes. This would produce to destruction of traditional culture of small countries. And with globaliszation of the biggest there would be mix and no traditional culture. With no traditions Nations won't be abel to identify them selfs so at end there would be just one nation-The humans.
Your entire comment haven't even the slightest to do with what I wrote, and have literally ignored all my statements. So right now I am not writhing to you, because you have stated points worth while, but because I have nothing better to do :P
As I stated in both of my posts. The stats will be independent from each other, just like EU. So what Bangladesh, China etc. does in their stats will not effect stats like Ukraine, Germany etc. The only difference there will be, is that there will be a central government for the entire world. Something similar to UN, just more organized and more influential.
And regarding culture. Define culture...
Culture have been changing since day one. What culture one had 100 years ago is by far difference than the one we have now(regardless of which country one lives). This is especially more effected in industrialized countries.
Yes they aren't the same. Comunisam is more extremistic. In comunisam there must be a dictator. But China is in comunisam (1/7 of population),and some othere countries and thay are vrs. free trade so the trade would be dificult.
I have no idea what you just said....
+ I have a question
Why would anyone want this "Country of world"? The people are already boned on so many ways. Is pushing it further realy better?
- It will increase the economy
- Lessen poverty
- Lessen the war
- It will push the technological advancement
- Lessen the gab between ethnicities, cultures, religion etc.
- World problems will be easier to address and solve
Instead of bashing the idea out of hand, why don't we discuss some particular aspects of DSM's idea? I, for one, understand very little of politics - especially on this scale. Right now we're getting bogged down in definitions of economic and political structure. But it seems to me that there are bigger questions to address.
1) DSM - you mention that we would all become citizens of Earth, thus getting rid of man-made borders. But you also mention individual states/provinces. I'm assuming these would have borders, right? How do we get rid of this tension?
2) Would we just have one currency for all of Earth? If so, how would this affect the economy of the states/provinces and citizens of Earth?
3) What do we do if a particular region doesn't want to join the New World Order? There are many, many marginalised groups of all sorts that might not feel as though their needs and desires would be fulfilled in such a system. How do we deal with that?
2) Would we just have one currency for all of Earth? If so, how would this affect the economy of the states/provinces and citizens of Earth?
I'm going to leave out the rest of the thread out of my post for now but....I think this is one of the huge stumbling blocks for any potential world union. Specifically, it would take some time adapting...and with that a healthy dose of pain and possible austerity, which we are all adverse to!
We all saw what happens when we link countries together via a common currency and some of the currency zone's members do not comply with pre-agreed standards of fiscal responsibility, as per the Maastricht Treaty, during the Euro sovereign debt crisis. The big big fear is if nations sidestep guidelines ( Eg Greece and Italy under-reporting their debt levels), in order to join or stay in the currency zone.
Countries will also naturally be loath to acquiesce to foreign meddling since having a common currency would necessarily mean a fixed financial standards to make it viable, such as limiting deficit spending and debt levels. If a common currency is to work, we have to take it in very carefully planned stages (Such as joining the ERM II for aspiring EU members). Strict regulations and fulfilling of responsible guidelines would be the bare minimum for it to happen, lest the mistakes the PIGS made come back to haunt us.
Stronger nations on the other hand, will have their fortunes (Pun intended!) bound by an iron shackle as they will be more perilously linked to weaker economies. The German and French public aren't happy at all that they have to support their weaker neighbours with bailout money coming from their taxpayers. It would also mean that each individual government gives up a huge amount of control and power over its economy, since it would mean that a country loses the precious ability to set its own interest rates, which is an extremely useful and prudent tool. If ever an economic crisis were to strike, a country would have to rely only on fiscal policy and labour market reforms.
Perhaps we could also have a balanced system whereby nations can op-out of a common currency (Though this might encourage a less than hoped for participation rate), such as what the UK has been doing when she kept the pound sterling. Or the Swedish, when they are deliberately avoiding joining the voluntary ERM II, one of the 5 criterion of adopting the Euro.
A world union without a common currency would IMO be self-defeating and lose half of its intended purpose, as there is such a range of benefits to be derived from it; easier trade, markets are larger, more liquid and homogeneous, the costs of an exchange rate vanish, etc. Yet we must also remember that the very reasons why a common currency is so desirable can make it a very sharp double-edged sword.
As pointed out, there are some gaps in the main idea. However, the deeper we go, more questions pop up, even more difficult to answer. Here is a simple example. I will examine only a very specific aspect of the "no man made borders" part:
As you obviously know, there has to be some sort of regulation on regional immigration in every area of the planet. This is especially the case in Africa and the Middle East where there are many third world countries right next to much more stable and developed areas. So how is the degradation of those regions going to be stopped? Won't warlords attempt to expand their influence without border control?
This is just one example of the countless problems in the concept of globalization. It may work in a way in some cases like you said (one of which is the EU) but only with the cooperation of the different governments, not with the merging of all of them into one.
Other problems include almost every aspect of our everyday lives like:
- Health
- Education
- Science
- Transportation and Communications
- Justice
Yes they aren't the same. Comunisam is more extremistic. In comunisam there must be a dictator. But China is in comunisam (1/7 of population),and some othere countries and thay are vrs. free trade so the trade would be dificult.
Um, no. Communism does not require a dictator or oppose free trade. China is not a communism. There has never been a communist government to date.
As I stated in both of my posts. The stats will be independent from each other, just like EU. So what Bangladesh, China etc. does in their stats will not effect stats like Ukraine, Germany etc. The only difference there will be, is that there will be a central government for the entire world.
Who, if anyone, is electing the central government?
- It will increase the economy - Lessen poverty - Lessen the war - It will push the technological advancement
- Lessen the gab between ethnicities, cultures, religion etc.
- World problems will be easier to address and solve
You keep saying this, but I've yet to see any explanation for even one of these boastful assertions.
- It will increase the economy - Lessen poverty - Lessen the war - It will push the technological advancement - Lessen the gab between ethnicities, cultures, religion etc. - World problems will be easier to address and solve
Economy- Hardly
Less poverty-why would this happen?
pushment of tehnological advancement-there is a question Is that realy that much good?
lessen the grabs between cultures,ethnics,religions- Nooooooooooo. Never. I said -> fade of culture -> fade of tradition -> los of culture and tradition -> only one mixed up culture,tradition and religion -> One nation with it's own culture and religion- The Eatrhans. Why would someon wont this? Can't you see world is beutiful because of it's difrences. Our difrence make ous who we are, But if there were no difrences who would we be?
1) DSM - you mention that we would all become citizens of Earth, thus getting rid of man-made borders. But you also mention individual states/provinces. I'm assuming these would have borders, right? How do we get rid of this tension?
2) Would we just have one currency for all of Earth? If so, how would this affect the economy of the states/provinces and citizens of Earth?
3) What do we do if a particular region doesn't want to join the New World Order? There are many, many marginalised groups of all sorts that might not feel as though their needs and desires would be fulfilled in such a system. How do we deal with that?
Realy great questions. I would like an answer from DSM.
Who, if anyone, is electing the central government?
Yeah. If all citizens of earth wote wouldn't the countries with more citizens like China and India have more senators and by that decision of more questions?
I say the only perfect government is to go back to the time of oppressive tyrant kings! It was a much simpler time then. you could just sow fields all day. farm animals to keep you warm in your manure - insulated house. No free speech meant that there was no fighting or debates, and if you had a dispute, you settled it in blood combat. It was a simpler time, a better time!
