Nationalism. Is there an up side?

[ronmcd]

What a load of crap, that nations are a necessity and will always be.

The world population is about 7 billion. 1.2 billion live in China. 1 billion in India.
There's no reason, other than historical borders, that nations are necessary or even particularly good.
If China and India combined, that would be a third the world living in one country. So saying that it could never happen is clearly wrong. There's nothing in human nature stopping it. Only the relics of history, and the economic and political differences that history has dumped on the present.

If Hitler had won the war, and got the bomb long before anyone else, you could have had all of Europe and the USSR as one country by now. It was quite close at times. And he probably wouldn't have stopped there.

We all live in countries that are the end result of various wars. Nice.

Bizarre. I've said before, and I'll say it again; you don't get to choose or impose your idea of government on others. If you don't want individual governments, feel free to campaign for such a policy. Let us know how you get on.

The only way in 2012 to have a single world government would be to ignore the will of the people in each country. A Mistermack benevolent dictatorship perhaps. Terrifying. I prefer democracy.

[mistermack]

Bizarre. I've said before, and I'll say it again; you don't get to choose or impose your idea of government on others.

Gosh ! Now you've really taken the wind out of my sails.

I WAS going to email Bronco Bamma and tell him what I'd decided, but I'm going to have to reconsider, in light of this new information.
You do realise that you've just changed the course of world history, with that post?

I hope you can live with that.

[ronmcd]

Bizarre. I've said before, and I'll say it again; you don't get to choose or impose your idea of government on others.

Gosh ! Now you've really taken the wind out of my sails.

I WAS going to email Bronco Bamma and tell him what I'd decided, but I'm going to have to reconsider, in light of this new information.
You do realise that you've just changed the course of world history, with that post?

I hope you can live with that.

Brilliant.

What's your world government political party going to be called, by the way? Election slogans?

"I know better than you! So vote for me!"
"I don't consider your country even exists. So vote for me!"

Wait ... I've just realised ... if it's a worldwide political party you are starting, you'll need to translate your name, slogans, manifesto etc into every single language in the world. Hmm. This might be expensive.

I dunno ... I'm not entirely convinved you've thought this world government thing through ...

[mistermack]

I dunno ... I'm not entirely convinved you've thought this world government thing through ...

Shame for you that the Scots don't share your stone-age mindset ennit?

You wouldn't stand the slightest chance even, if it weren't for the EU, which is itself a big step along the road to unity.

It's obviously you that's paddling a sinking boat.

[ronmcd]

I dunno ... I'm not entirely convinved you've thought this world government thing through ...

Shame for you that the Scots don't share your stone-age mindset ennit?

Scots? Who they? I thought there were no countries, or Scots, and we all lived in perfect harmony on Macca's global piano of peace and unity?

You wouldn't stand the slightest chance even, if it weren't for the EU, which is itself a big step along the road to unity.

It's obviously you that's paddling a sinking boat.

So you do want the EU to decide on your political system, legal & justice system (common law? civil law?), energy policy (nuclear? windmills?), etc? Rather than in your own country? I don't believe that for a second.

What Scotland would do if independent is open to question, probably join - or remain in - EU but perhaps join the EFTA free trade group. But either way, it will be about cooperation as independent countries, as UK does now in EU. I don't see the clamour in UK for Westminister to be disbanded and all decisions shipped to Brussels, or Washington. Or Beijing.

[ronmcd]

Shame for you that the Scots don't share your stone-age mindset ennit?

You appear happy to smear those who don't agree with your assertion that individual countries are irrelevant, but I still see no explanation from you about what YOU think.

So please, tell me: how would you feel about a single world government run from Beijing or Tripoli deciding policies for England? And should it be imposed on people without them being able to veto it (as they absolutely 100% would want to).

[mistermack]

If there was a world government, it wouldn't bother me. So long as everybody gets a democratic vote.
And where it's headquarters were wouldn't bother me either.

There would be a huge peace dividend. People now working on weapons could be producing useful stuff.
Armies, navies, air forces, all doing useful work.
The entire world could contribute to one single space program.
The poorest areas could benefit from much more tourism, and the latest technology and scientific research.

There is absolutely no doubt that the human race would be better off.

If you're trying to say I think it could happen tomorrow, that's crap. It's a gradual process.

And yes, I would be perfectly happy with the EU having a single government. I would vote for that now.
I'm absolutely sure it would be better than what we have now.

[ronmcd]

If there was a world government, it wouldn't bother me. So long as everybody gets a democratic vote.
And where it's headquarters were wouldn't bother me either.

There would be a huge peace dividend. People now working on weapons could be producing useful stuff.
Armies, navies, air forces, all doing useful work.
The entire world could contribute to one single space program.
The poorest areas could benefit from much more tourism, and the latest technology and scientific research.

There is absolutely no doubt that the human race would be better off.

If you're trying to say I think it could happen tomorrow, that's crap. It's a gradual process.

And yes, I would be perfectly happy with the EU having a single government. I would vote for that now.
I'm absolutely sure it would be better than what we have now.

Well, life would be dull if we all thought the same on every topic. I suspect you would be in a very small minority however in voting for a more distant seat of government than already exists in UK.

I'm still not sure you would accept a government run from Beijing or Tehran or Canberra, benevolent and well intentioned though a distant government might be. How can such a distant government create policies which are relevant for people in UK or US or Africa, all at once? It would be very likely some policies would harm some areas while helping others. There might be an argument that the good of the many outweighs the one, but the end reult of such policies would be ... wait for it ... demands for more local decision making and self determination!

[Gallstones]

What a load of crap, that nations are a necessity and will always be.

The world population is about 7 billion. 1.2 billion live in China. 1 billion in India.
There's no reason, other than historical borders, that nations are necessary or even particularly good.
If China and India combined, that would be a third the world living in one country. So saying that it could never happen is clearly wrong. There's nothing in human nature stopping it. Only the relics of history, and the economic and political differences that history has dumped on the present.

If Hitler had won the war, and got the bomb long before anyone else, you could have had all of Europe and the USSR as one country by now. It was quite close at times. And he probably wouldn't have stopped there.

We all live in countries that are the end result of various wars. Nice.

Hitler was opposed. Who was he opposed by--the other nations who did not want to be one with Germany.
In this fantasy land of all-is-One there will still never be stasis and harmony. Individuals will oppose the policies and practices of the One, they will band together into groups that oppose the policies and practices of the One. When the groups get disgruntled enough and big enough and bold enough there will be aggression to oppose the One. And then the One makes aggressive (violent) efforts to quash the group---probably groups, because although they share a common goal, there will be differences among them. They will want their version to be the One, if only for themselves.

We already share resources, that is called free enterprise. When the resources become dear there is competition.
And people will band together in groups to compete for their best interests, even unto violence. You are not entitled to what other people have and have worked for. They are not entitled to what you have and worked for. Deals can be made so people get some of what others have by giving up some of what they have. That is commerce.

You want world peace, then leave people the fuck alone. Don't presume to coerce them into joining your club.

[Thinking Aloud]

But I wanna be in charge! <--- Too many of these in the world to ever settle under one government.

[Robert_S]

Should the US let the South go its own way now that they are not really in a position to enslave minorities any more?

Which way would California go? Missouri? Kansas? Dos anyone even care which way Kansas would go?

[Gallstones]

Should the US let the South go its own way now that they are not really in a position to enslave minorities any more?

Which way would California go? Missouri? Kansas? Dos anyone even care which way Kansas would go?

Splitter!

[Jason]

Definitely a long-term view from me...

But one that can allow some local traditions and pride to exist, as well as the equivalent of local council elections for every-day stuff, while leaving the heavy-weight decision making processes to a United Earth Government...

A United Earth Government ... I admit I have no rational explanation for why that sounds such a really really bad idea. And I like Star Trek! I just suspect it will be more Blake's 7 than StarFleet.

(joking aside, united government with the eradication of poverty and hunger, I agree. I just think humanity will have been wiped out long before such a thing could happen. That huge asteroid gets more and more overdue ....)

I expect the future to be more like Red Dwarf than Star Trek. I like Trek, but I think I have to go with Red Dwarf.

[Hermit]

Nationalism =/= diversity.

...and conversely, world government =/= homogeneity.

[ronmcd]

Definitely a long-term view from me...

But one that can allow some local traditions and pride to exist, as well as the equivalent of local council elections for every-day stuff, while leaving the heavy-weight decision making processes to a United Earth Government...

A United Earth Government ... I admit I have no rational explanation for why that sounds such a really really bad idea. And I like Star Trek! I just suspect it will be more Blake's 7 than StarFleet.

(joking aside, united government with the eradication of poverty and hunger, I agree. I just think humanity will have been wiped out long before such a thing could happen. That huge asteroid gets more and more overdue ....)

I expect the future to be more like Red Dwarf than Star Trek. I like Trek, but I think I have to go with Red Dwarf.

Smmeeeeeeeeg .... smmmmmmmeeeeeeeg. Bah!