World Nation or many nations?

[krazy kaju]

This is kind of a continuation of what I was saying in the Kantian ethics thread, but there really is no such thing as a "nation." There are only a group of individuals that are collectively labeled a "nation" based on some shared characteristics like skin color, culture, structural features, etc. A "country" is nothing more than individuals within a certain confined geographical area set apart from other geographical areas by invisible lines.

So I think a discussion of "many nations" vs. "one nation" is kind of besides the point, since the best system would be one that takes into account the needs of all individuals individually: either anarchy, panarchy, or kritarchy.

[Didymos Thomas]

Except that there are countries. We do not concluded that people do not exist simply because we can divide people into smaller parts, like cells.

I do agree with your final point, though.

[krazy kaju]

My point being that countries are simply inventions of mankind, nothing more than invisible lines and democratically granted monopolies that dictate what you can and cannot do to an unfair degree.

[Didymos Thomas]

My point being that countries are simply inventions of mankind, nothing more than invisible lines and democratically granted monopolies that dictate what you can and cannot do to an unfair degree.

Sure. It's funny how people become so attached to these inventions. Not only do we allow these inventions push us around, but some of us actually feel obligated to these inventions.

Better to be obligated to mankind instead of some arbitrary selection of mankind.

[Zetetic11235]

It not longer seems to me that we are heading towards a world government. It did before China stood up, before putin became 'prime minister'. Even then the U.S. had a strong set of tensions with the EU. These have lessened in the face of more pressing concerns. I think it is possible we might have a North American UnionNorth American Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but I don't see how this would be beneficial. The U.S. would not be benefitted by inducting Mexico and canada into its economy and legal system.

If the EU and the U.S. had some sort of definitive merger, we might see a need for decentralized government. A government of that size over that many different areas with different ideologies must be minimal in its universal laws and largely decentralized in order to be properly responsive to its populace. Even in the U.S. I would argue that decentralization is needed, our laws do not provide the ideal situation. If we decentralized the bulk of social laws and put more local focus on them, we would end up with a populace which is more geographicaly ordered and more satisfied with its state of affairs and legal system. I think most drug laws should be left up to the state as it is clearly the case that certain states what to legalize drugs like marijuana while others do not. I think education should be made more competitive and teachers should have their pay based upon performance by what ever set of attributes economics finds attracts parents to the different schools.

If there was a one world government, it would not serve the people and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to overthrow if the government were too strong, on the other hand, if the government is too weak, it will fall at the first sign of tension. I think decentralization would be key to such a singular power, but it could be its downfall as well. The people must always be held above government, no government for any reason be it cohesion or otherwise, can override the voice of its people. I just do not think that freedom can be maintained with a single world government, at least not for hundreds of years with no major wars.

[astrotheological]

To have one world nation would be impossible. There are too many problems in the world right now and so many religions. Also eventually when certain places run out of resources they would fight over it with other parts of the world. Although that will probably already happen anyways in the future.

I actually think that one world nation would be so much better. There could be one religion or no religion at all. (Even though that would be impossible)

Also everyone would be forced to be on one side. Countries wouldn't be at war with another country. Although there would be probably be some sort of war that would help determine the existence of a world nation.

Also there could be one specific army instead of having all of these types of different armies. This would help force nations to come together and be on one side.

Technologies could be shared all around the world and places would be developed faster. If the world nation had one and only one currency everything would be a lot easier. Economies could be developed faster. Undeveloped nations would become developed.

The world could also abide by one set of laws that would be beneficial to everyone in the world. Hopefully this would promote peace and stability.

Another nice thing would be that there could be a world leader like a president that controls the world like it would control a country.

A problem though in having a world nation or something that would be of a nuisance world be the fact that there are hundreds of different languages in the world. Its too bad that the world didn't have one language. It would make the developing stages in making a world nation a lot easier.

Another problem is trying to keep the world stable when applying these things to make a world nation. Obviously not everyone is with the idea of a world nation so it would eventually become corrupt anyways. It would also take years of development for this sort of thing to happen anyways. Also if this were to happen people in the world should have no knowledge of this sort of thing to happen.

Looking at the world now though it is kind of already in its developing stages for a world nation. There is a European union, an Asian union, a South American union, North American union, an African union and a Pacific union. These unions have been made to promote peace and help with trade relations.

Why not have the whole world come together in the future? Could it not have those same advantages.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

We are also forgetting what would happen to the Cultures and customs of all of the Nations. The USSR destroyed all if its subcultures. I am definately in favour of uniting the nations and increasing tollerance and trade and communication and exchange and scientific progress. But eliminating nations is eliminating diversity.

[SummyF]

Originally Posted by Binyamin Tsadik

We are also forgetting what would happen to the Cultures and customs of all of the Nations. The USSR destroyed all if its subcultures. I am definately in favour of uniting the nations and increasing tollerance and trade and communication and exchange and scientific progress. But eliminating nations is eliminating diversity.

Is see the important point, yet through the advancements of technology we are enjoying culture wouldn't have enjoyed in the past, and our cultures and morals are becoming the same

watch star trek

one day we will have a human culture, because the next adventure of humanity is finding the cultures of space

[Binyamin Tsadik]

Originally Posted by SummyF

Is see the important point, yet through the advancements of technology we are enjoying culture wouldn't have enjoyed in the past, and our cultures and morals are becoming the same

watch star trek

one day we will have a human culture, because the next adventure of humanity is finding the cultures of space

Firstly I would like to say welcome back SummyF. Havent seen you post for a while.

Secondly Star Trek is fiction.

[Khethil]

A few thoughts on this issue, if I might:

Originally Posted by Binyamin Tsadik

We are also forgetting what would happen to the Cultures and customs of all of the Nations. The USSR destroyed all if its subcultures...

To say that this is how it happened before therefore that is how it will happen again isn't supported. What cultural damage was wrought by the Soviet Union was a product of many factors, not the least of which is the mindset and goals pervasive during that time and with those people.

Whether or not a world government would decimate cultural differences would be dependent on a host of factors. In my perfect world, such a government would only concern itself with those issues concerning ALL humans; leaving individual administration of current cultures (nation-states) in tact. This wouldn't solve all the problems, to be sure, but I think it's a good, productive start.

Without having researched the subject at-large, my feeling is this (and yes, this is very subjective): I am a Human first, then I am an American. As such, my concern is with divisive elements within the world that divide and polarize us. These can't be whisked away, Indeed nor may they ever! But in any case where people can be brought together in cooperation, it deserves our utmost effort. The human animal prospers when endeavoring with its fellows. Nation-states are no different.

Originally Posted by Binyamin Tsadik

Secondly Star Trek is fiction.

awww.. dang.

Thanks!

---------