World Nation or many nations?

[Holiday20310401]

What is more ethical in the present era? Having a world nation, the world consisting of only 1 country, society type, whatever you'd call it; or the way it is in reality?

By having a world nation I mean everybody having an equal lifestyle, therefore most certainly implying averaging lifestyles so as to create equality.

Does a world wide mergence imply...

• the need to abandon religion or unify it.
• would the outcome be of an anarchy or democracy or totalitarian?
• I'm sure that it is impossible but that kind of thinking defies the point of conversation here.
• Once establishing worldwide nation would there be peace or would it evoke hate.
• would the public be allowed to know of an actual mergence?
• would it be economically beneficial to everybody
• would there just be moral chaos or allow for a broader view of rationalizing?
• Would it be a complex bureaucracy, or simple ( no its not fun to consider the fact that the system would probably just branch off into subnational 'bureaus' anyways)
• Would scientific progress become stagnant or become more innovative?
• Would this just evoke a World War 3 due to potential instability, and therefore providing the chance to destroy humanity making the unity concept completely irrational for our time. Or would the World War three be a stage to the completion of a world wide single nation?

[urangutan]

If its prime motivation is to feed the world, protect the innocent and heel the ill, then you can brush the rest of the problems with it aside. They are formed from greed and belief and with the guns in the right hands, they can be shut up.

[ThouAreThat]

World Nation or many nations?

This question is worthy of study. I see green-agenda.com as an introduction to the goals of Agenda 21, an effort well under way for precisely the purpose of a one world government. I also see freedom21.org/un-alternative.htm as a small but growing force opposing the agenda. As for answers to those questions, there may only be the effort of individual study to find out for oneself.

[Didymos Thomas]

If we are going to be idealistic enough to consider the possibility of one world government, much less one that actually provides equality for all people, why not be idealistic enough to consider no government at all?

When talking about idealistic organizations for society, the small agrarian commune sounds much more appealing than some world dominating political entity.

[urangutan]

It may seem an ideal situation Didymos Thomas however, the overall planning for community structure would have to lead above the rule of a singularity.

I believe that in the United States of America, you have one vote that leads to government. That is, who you vote for in the county of where ever, should they win of course, they rule the place of election. Providing that this is the way the government is decided, a whole lot of places that join to form the body of the government, I do not see a problem. Where we are, we have to vote three times for the same place and we may win three times and still hold no place in the form of the ruling government. That is local, state and federal government. That is a waste of effort and I would say expenses.

Hey don't quote me on how your government works, I can not be sure I have a grip on the ins and outs of its workings.

Ideally that was the purpose of the United Nations but they never did a thing right and that was from conception.

[Didymos Thomas]

It may seem an ideal situation Didymos Thomas however, the overall planning for community structure would have to lead above the rule of a singularity.

We're talking about impossible, idealistic structures of society. The practical implications are such that both the pluralistic, independent commune is impossible as well as singular rule.

Hey don't quote me on how your government works, I can not be sure I have a grip on the ins and outs of its workings.

And I have no idea how the Australian democracy functions. In the US, we have many tiers of government. The most basic, and most important, are the state and federal (central government in Washington) levels. When we vote, we usually vote on many things. Take a Presidential election - all Americans will vote on the President, many Congressional seats will be up for contest, and various states will vote on referendum issues. An American might go in to vote for the President, and wind up casting ten other votes on any number of issues.

We also have a hierarchy of laws. State law may contradict Federal law, but Federal law is seem as supreme in these cases. However, when these conflicts do arise, a state might not enforce the Federal law, leaving enforcement up to the Federal government. There's also the issue of state's rights - powers not given to the Federal government which state government can invoke. For example, we might not have a prohibition against alcohol on a Federal level, but an individual state could pass such a measure. Enforcement would then be the burden of the state, and not the Federal government. State's rights have basically disappeared after the American Civil War.

[Holiday20310401]

Why is a singular nation not possible? I'm sure it isn't today but what is the closest form of leadership that could allow for one nation of the world?

[Didymos Thomas]

Why is a singular nation not possible?

Dissent and ego - sometimes both.

[Holiday20310401]

Alright, then how do you 'uniformalize' the ego and dissent of people in a rational manner?

[Didymos Thomas]

Alright, then how do you 'uniformalize' the ego and dissent of people in a rational manner?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'uniformalize'. But, it sounds like the idea is contrary to the notion of dissent and the notion of ego.

Of course, the idea of a single world government just makes me sick to my stomach.