Can we make all the nations in the world into one country?

Please clarify so I can think clearly. Today, or in a hundred years or a thousand?

That’s a wonderful idea.

So… exactly what system of government do you believe this country should use.

Bonus question: How, exactly , do you plan to convince other nation states with radically opposing ideologies that they should abandon their system of government in favor of your ideology.

Sure, but I think 50% of the population will need testosterone-blocking drugs.

Seriously though, I think this is not really that desirable. Some people want to live in theocracies but a lot of people don’t; some people value social welfare and other people don’t; some people value a free market and other people don’t, and so on. Having multiple governments gives you the option of finding a country that suits you, or making your country more suited to you (i.e., by voting).

I do think humanity would be better off if we eased up on border restrictions and made legal immigration more feasible.

So we can all be fucked up together?

That was actually the main reason for me thinking about this, the border restrictions and immigration @nikipedia .
I have never understood why i can’t move country without all kind of limitations.
@YoBob Don’t know about what kind of system it should have.
I ask you and your fellow Jellies.
The only one i have lived in is democracy and that seems to me to be quite okay, but there may be other, better systems.
@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I am afraid i can’t put it much clearer, sorry.

Yes it is possible in theory. All you would need is for people to believe that there is one government and that it is stable so that they accept it. I accept that there is an American government that is stable, I have never seen it, I just talk to it in the mail.

The key is it would need to be a democracy, with a social safety net. A good democracy is really very stable. Revolution in a democracy is a self inflicted wound. It gives just enough appearance of self determination.

Pro and Con – Think of a Big America or any other western democracy. Just the whole world.

Well, you see @rebbel, therein lies the problem. There are many nations with radically differing ideas on the best way to go about running a country/civilization and one of the major causes of conflict since the beginning of time as been over the ideology of which system will ultimately prevail. Take World War II for example. On the one side you had those who believed in totalitarian rule and on the other side you had those who believed in democratic self determination.

I, for one, am glad the side of freedom and democracy prevailed. Personally I would like to see democracy break out all over the world and live on a planet where power flows from the people upwards. Unfortunately, there are places on earth that believe that the thought of anything other than fundamentalist theocratic rule is the will of god and are willing to strap bombs to children to detonate in public places in order to further their cause. So… how do you plan to convince them that democracy is a good thing and they should just abandon their core beliefs in favor of the system we have grown to prefer?

That would be one confusing medals table at the Olympics!

The idea of a one world government is commendable, but I’m afraid it’s a long way off.

I can see the benefits of such a system: lack of war, which doesn’t necessarily mean there will be no violence between individuals or even factions; no need for an army just a police force; freedom of movement around the globe; there would be an increased ability to focus resources on problem areas; and assuming we use democracy, it will bring an egalitarian air to much of the world that lacks it presently.

I mentioned that it’s a long way off, because tribalism is alive and well on this planet. It’s often difficult to get people to see past what their immediate surroundings are telling them.

And what culture would be dominant?

Some of us prefer our own culture, and national pride to joining in the white mass.

I like all your pros @hawaii_jake , those things fly round in my thoughts but i couldn’t put them on paper, you did put it well, thanks!
@ucme Got me there! When i was writing in the details i wanted to write one football team but then i saw the flaw…, no other nations to play against…
Same with your Olympics.
You tell me @squirbel, it is a question.

@rebbel Yeah, trust me to bring sport into it ;¬}

The more political “states” there are, the harder it is for a bad idea to take root and do damage to humanity. Imagine if Hitler had come to power in a single world government.
World government would be an unchecked power. Unchecked political power always leads to tyranny.

I am afraid that it would create a homogeneous world, which would start missing the local flavor of individual countries.

Plus, there would be no other countries or bodies of power to keep the government of the single state in check.

Yes, that could happen when people learn to behave in a civilized manner. It will never happen in my lifetime.

This will never happen because of religion.

Yes, it is possible. It would take a tremendous amount of strategic planning and buy-in from all nations. This takes time. It would also take a lot of open forums where people can openly speak about their concerns and have them answered or considered if they have not come up in the planning process.

If we were to take the best demonstrated practices from each country, the pros could be:
* A better healthcare system
* A better government
* No more war
* Better education (which would include learning about other cultures, including different religions, as they will still exist)
* Earth could become more sustainable

The cons?
* I cannot think of one.

Yes. And it shall be named Germany!

No… not Germany… (I come from there).

Great idea… but it will last like 200 years… when you look to Europe and the EU… Regions and States within the same culture, same history and now growing together… with problems after two world wars in the last century… slowly, but growing together further and further… when I see the world’s different cultures and RELIGIONS I am afraid it will be a very hard job to do. Perhaps the internet will help… to let freedom win… and individuality, freedom of thought, speech… a dream…

Even if this happened, it may not change much. We would probably need a very hierarchical system of government with a world government and than more and more local governments (similar to what the US, German, India, Canada all do with their federal, state/provincial, city, etc… governments). Only really global problems could be solved by the global government. As a problem gets more local, it would need to be solved by the appropriate level of government. I’m not sure what kinds of problems are best left to the global government but a few come to mind:
> Global climate change
> Disease control
> Certain bits of economic management

This just relabeling—If all one big nation, no more international wars—they will be called interstate [interprovince] wars.
Image 12th century Italy as the World-Nation!

I will vote for it if there are guarantees that the Constitution would still hold in effect. : )

The Albanian Constitution, that is?

[ rolls eyes ]

Ah, you are American @CaptainHarley , i see now.
But couldn’t we do without arms in this new nation, please?

the German Constitution, of course

I don’t see it being successful. Europe has several times formed large multicultural countries only to have them fragment after a relatively short period of time.

If generally similar cultures cannot hold it together for any length of time, how will a world wide body with several drastically divergent cultures survive?

@rebbel

It’s the armed citizen who keeps those who run the government from trampling on the rest of us.

Europeans could start to colonize other less stronger countries but this time it’s for world union and without after war policies. Many countries may hesitate and blood will be shed eventually but in the end the strongest will always win. I know violence is wrong but without risk there would be no result. I won’t suggest diplomacy path since many countries will always defend their independent nation and it would be impossible to persuade them.

Unite America with other Europeans and other friendly-related countries then start to conquer other weaker, less submissive countries then slowly expand the other countries. After all those terrible pain and loss in the end one powerful, rich, and sustainable sole country with one language one currency will thrive.

@Your_Majesty If that blueprint worked, we would all be speaking Latin, Egyptian or Persian. It has been tried and each time it eventually collapsed.

@WestRiverrat History will not always repeat itself. Why is that? Only language/s of the superior country will be spoken. We might have failed at one time (If it ever happened) but will a lot of policy improvements and perfection will may get what we long to. No risk no gain.

Edit: I meant “We might have failed at one time (If it ever happened) but will with a lot of policy improvements and perfection will we may get what we long to”

@Your_Majesty : History does repeat itself. That’s why we had first the Egyptians, then the Persians, and then the Romans, and then other dominant countries that rose and fell as @WestRiverrat mentioned.

It’s a funny consequence of the EU that the smaller languages are actually flourishing there. Take Basque for instance. It’s stronger than ever due to the regulations put in place by the EU countries protecting the smaller languages.

I don’t want any part of any attempt to dominate and subjugate smaller countries by more powerful ones. That’s the opposite of policy improvement and perfection.

I think the United Earth gets formed in the 22nd century. That is if we consider Gene Roddenberry to be a soothsayer.

Only if you can unite them for a common cause, however looking back at history, it seems as though man has a tendency to unite together against a common evil they see that poses a significant threat to all of them.

So if you could get maybe an unbiased terrorist cell going, why the hell not?

@King_Pariah When the martians land, earth will unite. The. The “them” as in us and them, will be the extraterrestrials, and all of human kind will be the us.

@JLeslie Psssshh! Clearly someone hasn’t read the critically acclaimed historical novel “War of the Worlds” else they’d have known Martians got served by the influenza, small pox, and syphilis.

The bigger the less efficient and the more corruption. Are you sure you even want to think about such a horrible thing?

@perspicacious It pays to think about everything. But you have a good point about bureaucracy and corruption. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done properly. There are some global problems in the world and they may well need global solutions. The right form of global governance is probably a pretty limited form.

Yes. Let it be Fluther.

Anyway I’m of a more anarchist mindset, so… yeah… I’ll fight ya’all every step of the way. :P

We might when the Vulcans decide to visit our planet.

Remember the Tower of Babel from the Book of Genesis of the Bible. According to the story, a united humanity of the generations following the Great Flood, speaking a single language and migrating from the east, came to the land of Shinar where they resolved to build a city with a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth

God came down to see what they did and said: “They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withheld from them which they purpose to do.” “Come, let us go down and confound their speech.” And so God scattered them upon the face of the Earth, and confused their languages, so that they would not be able to return to each other, and they left off building the city, which was called Babel “because God there confounded the language of all the Earth”.

yeah, what a dick.