World State (1 Viewer)

[Phoenix Fury]

I can't see it happening, and if it does it will be a very long time from now, when the earth is pretty much dead.

 

[theism]

no no it will happen very soon.

they will say something bout more economic integration, maybe dumping the US currency, and using the euro.

as you know, there's the EU, which is the major trading bloc, then there's NAFTA, and that other thing where the US, Canada and Mexico are one country, etc.

ASEAN, APEC.. all of these will combine under a unified frontier to fight terrorism/protectionism

 

[zaxmacks]

It will happen.

Look at our history - we started out in small tribes, which then progressively grew into larger states of authority.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Where we have stayed for a very long time, and there hasn't really been any thing to make me inclined to believe that will change.

 

[zaxmacks]

Where we have stayed for a very long time, and there hasn't really been any thing to make me inclined to believe that will change.

EU is the next progression.

 

[redmayne]

How about we just have no states? Dissolve all national governments. Allow people to move and trade freely.

A global government only serves to centralize more power in an ever smaller number of people.

You're an idiot.

We already have a world government. A hidden shadow government pulling the strings of Barack Jihad Hussein Obama.

Enjoy the FEMA death camps you slave scum.

And so are you.

 

[moll.]

It will happen.

Look at our history - we started out in small tribes, which then progressively grew into larger states of authority.

Yeah, and then European colonialism ended and nationalism spread and since that time we've had the addition of some 100+ nation states to the world order. That hardly quantifies with your theory.
In fact, just looking at Europe, there hasn't been this many individual states on that continent since 18th century. The number of nations in the world ebbs and flows throughout history.

EU is the next progression.

The EU is only the next progression in the developped world. The developing world is still in the process of splitting into smaller and smaller states.
In fact, I would theorise that once a population reaches a certain level of material comfort and good governance, nationalism becomes a secondary concern and it is recognised that the extra economies of scale and competitiveness gained from reintegration and unification outweigh any loss of national identity.

 

[moll.]

no no it will happen very soon.

they will say something bout more economic integration, maybe dumping the US currency, and using the euro.

as you know, there's the EU, which is the major trading bloc, then there's NAFTA, and that other thing where the US, Canada and Mexico are one country, etc.

ASEAN, APEC.. all of these will combine under a unified frontier to fight terrorism/protectionism

This would just result in the creation of super-states, not a one-world government. There is a significant difference.
The only impetus for the creation of super-states is competition. How the hell could Germany, France or Britain on their own stand up to the full might of the US military and political power? They can't. But they can together. Hence unification. Ditto to all the other blocs emerging.
If competition is the only impetus for unification, then it stands to reason that a one-world government is impossible, as there would be no more competition (excluding the possibility of space-colonies or competition with aliens). The closest we'll ever get to a world government is two mega-states that have divided the world between them.

 

[zaxmacks]

Yeah, and then European colonialism ended and nationalism spread and since that time we've had the addition of some 100+ nation states to the world order. That hardly quantifies with your theory.
In fact, just looking at Europe, there hasn't been this many individual states on that continent since 18th century. The number of nations in the world ebbs and flows throughout history.


The EU is only the next progression in the developped world. The developing world is still in the process of splitting into smaller and smaller states.
In fact, I would theorise that once a population reaches a certain level of material comfort and good governance, nationalism becomes a secondary concern and it is recognised that the extra economies of scale and competitiveness gained from reintegration and unification outweigh any loss of national identity.

Variations in state sizes are always going to occur, human societies aren't linear. The fact that the EU exists proves my point. It's legislative power is higher than that of it's member states, so that when an EU law conflicts with a member states law, the EU law takes precedence. Moreover, they recently appointed a president of the EU. Basically, it's becoming a singular state. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next hundred years the member states are dissolved into one state.

 

[moll.]

Variations in state sizes are always going to occur, human societies aren't linear. The fact that the EU exists proves my point. It's legislative power is higher than that of it's member states, so that when an EU law conflicts with a member states law, the EU law takes precedence. Moreover, they recently appointed a president of the EU. Basically, it's becoming a singular state. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next hundred years the member states are dissolved into one state.

Yeah, I didn't deny any of that. My point was that the unification of the EU doesn't necessarily point to a magical linear and coherent progression from tribes to a one-world government. Need I remind you that less than a century ago 25% of the world population was controlled by London. That's more than any current state can lay claim to.
Besides which, it's unlikely that the EU will actually turn into anything more than a tight economic and legal unit. Their foreign policies are wide and varied, their militaries are fiercely nationalistic and the people have no coherent culture, language or set of values. At the very least, the member states will never fully dissolve. It'll just become like a fucked-up version of the US, where the states exercise even more power in the federal process than currently occurs across the Atlantic.

 

[theism]

This would just result in the creation of super-states, not a one-world government. There is a significant difference.
The only impetus for the creation of super-states is competition. How the hell could Germany, France or Britain on their own stand up to the full might of the US military and political power? They can't. But they can together. Hence unification. Ditto to all the other blocs emerging.
If competition is the only impetus for unification, then it stands to reason that a one-world government is impossible, as there would be no more competition (excluding the possibility of space-colonies or competition with aliens). The closest we'll ever get to a world government is two mega-states that have divided the world between them.

it's interesting you mention aliens.

this watchmen has told me that when one day, an alien arrives on earth and tells the world that they either 'bring peace to the earth', or that they seek to bring planet earth into the federation of other planets.. galaxies etc', that i should be careful as the end is very near

 

[scuba_steve2121]

one state.. sounds a little socialist

sides its impossible religion/ culture prevents a mass unification forming.

the only way to have one state, would be for one state to rise up and kick everybody's ass. though again this seems very unlikely thank goodness.

 

[Fish Tank]

Idealistically it'd be good having a world state, so that laws are all common and I would imagine movement around the world would be a lot easier. However, it'd be hard to govern, unless it was broken up into provinces or something and then the point of the world state is defeated.

I'll support a world state when humans move beyond Earth and start living on other planets.

 

[SSRabbitohs2009]

I say, rather than one world-nation, we divide the world into a handful or so of super-nations. That way, they can continue to compete with each other and advance, whilst still maintaining good economies of scale in governorship. We can call these states Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia!
It's foolproof!

I'm reading that at the moment.

 

[biopia]

You know what I can imagine...
If they actually start to create a nation state one country at a time, you'll end up with similar divisions as in Orwell's 1984 :S

So no, I am not for a nation state. I reckon it would cause more problems that it would be fixing.

Edit: I posted from the first page lol, so I now see I was beaten to the punch with the Orwell reference haha

 

[Sadiah]

Not possible.

 

[VicerExciser]

OP is a ZOG agent

with all your gross arab hair everywhere? no thanks

all moslems are arabs, according to the bos.

 

[NoName91]

What's a moslem?

 

[Sadiah]

What's a moslem?

Perhaps, the "modern" way of saying 'Muslim'.

 

[Tangent]

OP is a ZOG agent

Yush, we're trying to appeal to the younger gen now days.
I love BoS, you learn so much here.

On a more serious note, why would it be bad becoming one nation? If there was a way to please the majority, break down the barriers that seperate countries peacefully, and ensure that everyone lived happily and have their rights respected, then why not?

As i said before, i realise this is gigantically idealistic, but i like the concept. We are all one people, seperated by invisible lines.