If the entire world was one country...

[FrostyBoy]

Disagreements, disputes, resouces, etc, lead to wars, its bad enough that two countries have to quarrel over something.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bush's face should be printed on every ply on every toilet roll in the world, so that everyone of us can smear our own **** on his face.

Yeah I know. It's hilarious making leftists pay 10 bucks for a toilet paper roll with Bush's face.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
Well, I meant war as in disputes, ceasefires, etc.

For example, there is an area in the ocean between Australia and Indonesia that contains a lot of oil, the two countries are disputing over who should have it. This to me is a war, perhaps a "soft-war", this sort of competition can be made redundant in the far future, where we can all work for each other, rather than against.

That's probably not "light sweet" crude, not from that part of the world.

[Heraclitus]

If the entire world was one country...

...no religion too?

[Qilue]

Why should the US have any input into a democratic world government with principles of justice and liberty when they can barely live up to those principles written into their own constitution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

(and a thousand other urls on this Act.)

I can think of a few hundred other reasons, not the least of which the poor environmental record, abuse of human rights, inability to obey international law and a legal system which rewards stupidity and irresponsible behavior.

Personally, I believe modern Europe is a far better model for a world government.

[Heresson]

Re: If the entire world was one country...

Originally posted by Heraclitus
...no religion too?

It is a nice song, but I choked when I actually made effort to listen to the lyrics.

[Sprayber]

One only has to open their eyes and look around the world to realize that people can't get along well enough to be under one political system. The only way humans unite is if there is an outside threat. No coming together in joyous harmony to unite our common dreams but instead as a response to an external threat.

[FrostyBoy]

Aggressive aliens would make for nice motivation then.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ninot
I think I agree with Ben

Obama pandering as the agent of change does not make him a valid candidate alone. Showing how the change would be a good thing would make him worthy.

Now that being said, I still prefer him over McCain personally, however I completely agree with Ben that voting for him because he's racially mixed is in itself a form of racism.

+1

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Qilue
Personally, I believe modern Europe is a far better model for a world government.

i think the EU today is a perfect example of why there will never be one world government.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by C0ckney


i think the EU today is a perfect example of why there will never be one world government.

Ahhh, but what if a United Europe (eventually) turns out to be a good idea? (currently the EU is in a bad place because of the Irish no, but perhaps a future organisatio)

You can't begin to realise what a good thing this is for Eastern Europe, the EU funds are forcing goverments to become more efficent and less cleptocratic. EU human rights and environmental standars are the best in the world.


I somethimes think that the EU would work better without the big western countries (especially France and Britain). They are the ones who haven't gotten over the fact that they are irrelevant in the global order. Small countries, rich or poor are used to that idea. They also realise how helpless they are individually to affect the global economy.

[dannubis]

Well, at least them islanders need to be either out or in.

[C0ckney]

hera, i think the EU can do many good things (although i disagree with 2 of your 3 points), but i don't think a united europe can work, nor do i believe it's desirable. we really need to have a new thread about the EU, maybe i'll make one after the weekend.

and dannubis makes my point for me beautifully. with the EU you have a group of countries which, despite being very different, at least share similar values, government by consent (though sadly many politicians and pro-european types seem to have forgotten this when it comes to the constitution/treaty), human rights, democracy, free expression, the rule of law and so on. whereas, the russians, the chinese, the arabs and the africans by and large do not share our values and organise their societies in very different ways. if our leaders in europe cannot find a vision, or rather they do not have the courage to present one, for the future which attracts public support, imagine the difficulty in trying to find one which accommodates the whole world and attracts the support of its peoples.

[dannubis]

Lets say that you Brits haven't really put your money where your mouth is... literally

For the rest, if you don't agree with a general course taken, please get out of the way of those who do.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by C0ckney
hera, i think the EU can do many good things (although i disagree with 2 of your 3 points), but i don't think a united europe can work, nor do i believe it's desirable. we really need to have a new thread about the EU, maybe i'll make one after the weekend.

and dannubis makes my point for me beautifully. with the EU you have a group of countries which, despite being very different, at least share similar values, government by consent (though sadly many politicians and pro-european types seem to have forgotten this when it comes to the constitution/treaty), human rights, democracy, free expression, the rule of law and so on. whereas, the russians, the chinese, the arabs and the africans by and large do not share our values and organise their societies in very different ways. if our leaders in europe cannot find a vision, or rather they do not have the courage to present one, for the future which attracts public support, imagine the difficulty in trying to find one which accommodates the whole world and attracts the support of its peoples.

One of the reasons the EU isn't working, if I adhere to your terminology, is because the UK has had an anti-EU policy for years. Blair made a few good openings here and there, but the British reluctance towards the EU remains widespread nonetheless.

You won't hear me say everything is Britain's fault or Poland's fault and so on, but think about this then: Britain doesn't want to yield political power to a higher EU-level. If every country follows that logic, EU institutions (I'm primarily thinking of the council by the way) will keep their conservative voting methods (unanimous consent necessary, implying veto power). Therefore, if the EU needs to make a strong unified statement, it will fail. Pretty much like what happened with Georgia. Noobs like Frattini (that guy really has his head up his arse btw) only cry out their self-interested opinions. At the same time it is those people, in casu the Brits, who complain about poor EU stances when it is negotiating. That's pretty ironic, because it's exactly countries like the UK who don't want EU institutions to become stronger. This of course, at the expense of national governments, but who cares. In our globalized world and especially in the EU, in which 3/4th of national law is replaced by EU law, national governments should try to follow their own course simply to show the world how big their dick is. The colonial times are over.

Shifting more power to EU-institutions doesn't mean there's no room for cultural differences. That there isn't is a well-established myth propagated by anti-EU people.