A world united as ONE state

[UndertheOcean]

Poll question: A world united as ONE state

with individual rights, justice , Freedom for everyone.

Maybe it will happen within a 100 years , or 1000 years .

[Rosemary2205]

1. I'm glad it won't happen in my lifetime.

I like the diversity. Of course with it comes the battle over resources.

[UndertheOcean]

4. Ethnic Diversity will remain , I don't understand your point.

[realisticphish]

diversity of political thought

not just ethnicity

[LeftishBrit]

36. This wouldn't prevent diversity...

one can have a state without borders, without abolishing ethnic or cultural diversity.

I suppose I'm thinking of a single world state, in the sense of (a) freedom of movement; (b) an overarching human-rights-based law applied to everyone. I would envisage such a state as federal, including many individual states with their own laws, but subject to the 'world state' law on crucial matters concerning human rights.

But I don't think it'll happen. "Imagine there's no countries/ It isn't hard to do/ Nothing to fight or die for.." It isn't hard to *imagine* but it would be very hard to *achieve*.

[Leopolds Ghost]

62. I thought "imagine there's no countries" meant no nation states. Period.

A nation state is an artificial concept. Who gave anyone the right to say 90% of the rulers in the world
must use a single, highly questionable and pathetically manipulable, and intrinsically corporate oriented
parliamentary system to secure popular consent for establishment of borders in which they may rule?
It certainly bears no relation to traditional ideas of the nation / society (separate and larger than any
possible premodern state).

[provis99]

2. But there would be no more wars?

Are you oppoosed to wars? :sarcasm:

[xchrom]

3. sameness is a fuckin nightmare. nt

[Deja Q]

5. "Can't we all just get along?"

[realisticphish]

6. it would last

precisely 35 seconds. i'm sorry, but there will always be radicals, and people who think differently. There would inevitably be a schism. It's just human nature. the only way it could be maintained is by military force, a la 1984


It IS an interesting thought, though. It is technically possible, theoretically, given better communication tech

also, thats kind of a false dichotomy. I don't think either one is ideal.

[Speck Tater]

7. Other

Countries are already too big. We need a series of small nation-states. The U.S. needs to be broken into at least a dozen separate countries.

[PATRICK]

8. Yep

750 people huddled around the God Emperor Phocion Bush in the new unspoiled, ice free continent of Antarctica.

[realisticphish]

9. lol

honestly, though, that's the only way that it would happen. A post apocalyptic population that must band together

[LeftishBrit]

37. In the words of E.Y. Harburg ("Rhymes for the Irreverent")

Will little drops of fallout
And dabs of radiation
Finally unite us all
In the Ignited Nations?

[realisticphish]

47. ha

i like it

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. "My name is a killing word." --God Emperor Bush

[ixion]

10. there is already one world government, and look where that's got us

the shadow government (e.g Bilderbergs, etc) for all practical purposes creating what you speak of. Judging from what we've seen thus far, the future would not be as rosy as you predict.

[bamacrat]

11. Fuck no.

Thats what they want. it's the ultimate plan of our controllers. Oh yeah next is RFID chips that have all our info on them implanted in us, so they can tell who the dissidents are.

[Beregond2]

12. Obviously,

there will come a time when world-government will be a reality. The question is, what form will it take? After the now inevitable climate disaster, most of the world's population will be gone, and it will be a chance to start over, with a sensible system in place. Let's hope those people get it right...but I doubt they will. The sociopaths will rise to the top again, and the decent people will be oppressed, as always.

[Swamp Rat]

13. Is it time for Carousel yet?

[weezy2736]

14. I'm actually in the middle of writing something on the subject!

Would you mind if I cite this poll in it? I'm not going to ever do anything with it, probably, but it's just nice to have things like that on record.

[UndertheOcean]

15. Go ahead

[TheWatcher]

16. It would be the worst thing that could happen to humanity.

Because of who would run it.

I am stunned at the number of people who are actually for it.

All I can say to them is be careful what you wish for.

You haven't got a clue how wrong you are.

[Dogtown]

41. And the status quo

is working so very well!

Please enlighten us so we aren't so clueless.

I just hope you're not going to identify your mystery rulers as:

the protocols of Zion (or other aspects of "international jooree")

the Illuminati

the New World Order

the World Bank

the Beast

or any other mystically mythical creatures.

[TheWatcher]

50. The current system is not working very well.

But instead of being weak, cowardly, willfully ignorant, little jellyfish, willing to roll over, piss your pants, and scream "Oh, Please SAVE US With One World Government, so we can continue to swill our beer, munch our cheeseburgers, beat our chest for our Sports Teams, and veg out on the Cathode Goodness that is American Idol and other distractions, and not have to be inconvenienced by actually defending our sovereignty, Constitution, and Democracy, or for that matter having to think for ourselves and actually be independently functioning beings", it would be much better to stand up and take our country back and FIX the things that are wrong.

We may ultimately fail to tyranny, but it would be far better than the Tyranny that would result from a One World Government.

And I personally am willing to fight to prevent that which you are so willingly to roll over and submit to like some sort of vaccination for all the problems.

Deal With It.

Your ignorance to the way things really work outside the flowery little Matrix you so desperately want to believe in, doesn't equate to One World Government being the answer.

Good Day.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. Interesting illogic.

Do you often accuse opponents of your "World Government" idea of nutjobbery?

(those of us who don't care about the idea and have no interest in it since we know it'll
never happen, and we don't particularly want it, not those who actually believe it exists)

There is of course a unified State system but that is really imposed by US British and French economic
hegemony over former colonies, not by any world government. And nobody accuses folks of being nutjobs
for believing this hegemonic system of international law, enforced by Western courts, exists.

Corporations are the only entities that are going to rule over the future stateless society
that neolibs and neocons would like to see -- until the oil runs out, that is.
Then the whole idea falls apart.

[Canuckistanian]

17. States, countries, borders....

An antiquated idea that needs to be seriously reconsidered.

The present system doesn't work for 95% of it's inhabitants.

Scrap everything and start over.

[fishwax]

18. I believe that a world united as one would more likely impede rights, justice, and freedom

than ensure them.

[UndertheOcean]

20. why do you think that ?

[fishwax]

23. i see no reason to think otherwise

justice and freedom require struggle because there are differences of opinion about what constitutes justice, about prioritizing rights which are sometimes in conflict, etc. In a one-state world, there would be no "outside" to host a critique of the state's notions of such things. Currently, such conflicts are carried out on the international stage (between states), but they are also an important reference point for those conflicts within a state. (The discussion of health care provides a prime example.)

Besides, states can be quite dangerous things, and a one-world state would be difficult to keep in check--if the wrong people were to come to power, the results would be disastrous.

This is not to say that I like things the way that they are or even that I think the nation-state will rule forever; indeed, I believe it's on its way out, but I don't think that means an end to the struggle for justice :)

[hack89]

66. What if your wourld government was not enlightened?

what if it didn't reflect western ideal of freedom and individual rights?

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. Like the EU is doing with speech and dress laws, targeting Muslims etc.

[LeftishBrit]

80. This is not an EU policy. It happens in some individual EU countries...

and the Europaean Court and the Human Rights Act actually offer some protection against such things.

[opihimoimoi]

19. We should find ways to make it work so well that we be kicking ourselves it took so long..

We simply have no choice in order to advance our species,,,else we adhere to Destiny....not Opportunity

[MrSlayer]

21. As long as such idiocy as organized religion exists, this is impossible.

It's a nice dream though.

[UndertheOcean]

22. right , Religion, hopefully that will be forgotten soon

[spoony]

29. I'd say your faith in a single world government is far more naive

and destructive than any religious thought that has ever been entertained.

[UndertheOcean]

49. why ?

[spoony]

31. Or land, or resources, or political parties, or militaries

or about a thousand other things that make the notion of a united world ridiculous beyond words. It's either adorably juvenile or hopelessly biased thinking that cites religion as THE barrier to this global utopia.

[MrSlayer]

57. I don't think it's THE barrier but it is certainly right at the top.

I don't think there is anything that has contributed more to death and misery in human history than religion.

[Jack_DeLeon]

24. Eventually, but hopefully only after we have other planets as thier own states...

I dont think its a good thing for all of humanity to be under the rule of one person or group. It opens the possibility of terrible things happening.

[The2ndWheel]

25. Not sure that I like the way things are

But no.

I do like that for a question dealing with billions of different people, we are given two options, and they're either one of the greatest thing to ever happen to our species, or the status quo.

If we have the energy to do it, I can't see how it won't happen. That's the general trend of the last few thousand years. That's what all the wars over time have been fought for. It's the drive toward the one best way, the drive toward efficiency, the drive toward standardization, specialization, predictability. Mass society, mass production, mass transportation, mass anything. More and more people living under the same system, paying into the same system, living the same way, nowhere to go if you don't agree with it, because there is no where anymore. There are no particular people, no particular places. Everyone becomes more of a number, more of a cog, because how the hell are you supposed to keep track of everyone? We just become more of a statistic. It's much easier to deal with numbers at great distances than people up close.

I'd rather there be a million different states, with a million different ways of living in the world. But then a million different states would be only one way of seeing the world, my particular way. How do I know I'd be right? Thankfully I don't have the power to implement any of this. I don't think anyone should have that power. Crap! I did it again.

[Tyler Durden]

26. A condition much to be desired.

As long as Nation-States exist outside of a Federation or Confederation, there will be political/economic competition and conflict. Our species does not play well with others, and the only way for us not to fight with "them" if for the entire species to be "US." We can't even cooperate enough to make plans to stop a comet or asteroid from slamming into the planet and making us all burnt toast.

Cooperate or die. That's our choice.


"You disapprove? Well, too bad! We're in this war for the species, boys and girls." Colonel Carl Jenkins, Starship Troopers.

And yeah it's a tacky film, but the concept is sound.

[realisticphish]

30. but there's the problem

in starship troopers, there was an external enemy to focus on. Artificially removing political boundaries won't remove the need for an outgroup

[Tyler Durden]

42. Why can't we make the outgroup the "comet"...

...or poverty, or hunger, or the deteriorating environment, or energy, or inequality????

We don't need a scapegoat, we need a CAUSE. That's why we're in it for the species.

[realisticphish]

46. because

not everyone agrees on positions on those issues. We two might, as might most people on DU, but i doubt the world will agree anytime soon, though of course it is possible, if unlikely :shrug:

[Edweird]

78. Maybe you should read some of the comments here on DU about water rights

and you'll see that there really is no "US". It's all about "ME". Human nature trumps idealism.

[cali]

27. your proposal is far too vague to even comment on as is.

I would not be opposed to a confederation of states like the EU. I think that would be a good thing.

[tom_paine]

28. That presupposes such a state would have rights, freedom and justice for everyone

I am not certain that is possible, given human nature and it's relationship to increasing levels of power.

Thus I believe your poll is something of a false dichotomy and can't vote.

Generally I would vote 'no', because I do not believe a world united as one state would have rights, freedom, and justice for all.

It would be BushPutinism (Inverted Totalitarianism) magnified or WORSE.

However I will say this: If I though for a moment that such a world state WAS possible, with rights, freedom, and justice for all, I would vote yes.

[TheWatcher]

51. And so would I, tom.

But I think we both know if such a State came to be, it would be Hell On Earth because of who would be RUNNING IT. Who would be IN CHARGE.

And that's where most people who seem to want to succumb and submit to this, can't seem to grasp, or are unwilling to let themselves, that is the primary reason it must be avoided.

It's not the CONCEPT, it is who would be IN CHARGE OF RUNNING, IMPLEMENTING, and CONTROLLING the Concept.

If people think they know what Tyranny is now, they have not one single clue what would await them.

But then again, I am beginning to think that many in this country really don't want to be free. They want to have their stuff and distractions, and cultural whims, and not have to be bothered with such complex issues as freedom and democracy. It's just too much hard work.

When the time comes for the mask to come off, many of us are going to be surprised how many Good Germans we really have in this country.

[blindpig]

32. One world, or else

There is no way that our varied environmental disasters can in any way be dealt with except on a planetary basis. Likewise for social and economic justice.

Socialists have been saying this all along.

[EstimatedProphet]

33. Hey! We could have every country managed by a supercomputer!

It would make all the decisions for everyone, so that there would be no war ever again! We could call it Colossus!

[Leopolds Ghost]

71. Would it play tic-tac-toe?

Or possibly this:

http://games.yahoo.com/free-games/argent-burst

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

34. We are headed to a One World Order, but not the one you or John Lennon envisioned.

It will be a Corporate run totalitarian government.

It has already started in the guise of trade agreements...ie the EU. The EU is now trying to force a Constitution on its members. That Constitution will trump the laws of its member nations.

[tom_paine]

40. Exactly n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. It doesn't have to be totalitarian. We are already living in it.

It is a scientific system quite openly developed since the 1600s under modernist schools of thought dedicated to the promotion of the "productive" overclass and the Calvinist ethic through a non-centrally-run but nevertheless neocolonial empire. The goal is to ensure peace and harmony by reducing all relations to that of a consumer of products.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

79. No, it doesn't have to be totalitarian, but with the world become smaller by technology

and access to information is making it neccessary for Them to crack down on "freedoms".

[LeftishBrit]

35. I voted for it as an ideal...

but practically, I don't think it will happen.

[Marrah_G]

38. Even our country is far to big for one government,

[many a good man]

39. Let's replace the nation-state with a series of interconnected circles

Larger units of power tend to corrupt and create larger amounts of damage. Small is beautiful but there must be a way to connect it to the greater whole. There is a way to achieve this.

Political organization should remain at the local and regional level based on economic and cultural factors. This gives people more input to the decisions that affect their lives. These units will be too small to be economically self-sufficient so they will voluntarily band together with other like-minded communities to achieve mutual benefit. This larger circle can find common ground with larger communities on specific issues of common interest and agreement. Membership in these larger circles can be negotiated and passed by referendum.

A way to help lift poorer regions can be found. The larger circles can offer assistance to poorer areas based on the achievement of goals that improve human rights, law, and sustainable development. Doing so can be seen in their self interest because it reduces war and environmental degradation.

[Greyhound]

43. A binary view of the world and it's possibilities, is exactly what those that we obey

want.

"The only way to win is not to play" - W.H.O.P.E.R.

[slackmaster]

44. People in different cultures have different notions of rights, justice, and freedom

Try telling people in a conservative Muslim society that women deserve the same treatment as men.

[biermeister]

45. why don't we wait until the US, Canada & Mexico

are united under the North American Union (google SPP) and see how we like it first. I think Mexico's constitution is as good as our so at least we'll have similar protection of our basic rights

[Jack_DeLeon]

48. In theory...

Mexicans also have the right to keep and bear arms...

In practice that right is more severely restricted than our own.

I personally wouldnt have a problem with us uniting with Mexico and Canada as long as all our rights are still respected.

[Richard Steele]

52. If we had freedom & justice for everyone, what would it matter how many States there were? nm

[Runcible Spoon]

61. ebcause freedom and justice are NOT universally agreed upon notions.

if they were, the Bush admin. wouldn't be able to fucking take so many of them away without people noticing.

[paparush]

53. United? Are you kidding me? We've got Red Staters and Blue Staters ready to restart

the Civil War here in the US. There is so much ethnic diversity, so much prejudice, so much ignorance and greed. I won't say "never" but I think its very unlikely.

[galledgoblin]

54. I could go with one larger over-arching government

but smaller states should still exist, unless you're talking a faraway future with instant traveling, resources spread evenly, instant communication and high tech equipment everywhere etc where states to represent regional interests are no longer needed.

but as long as we're talking dreamy utopias, I'd really like a pony.

[stevedeshazer]

55. Didn't you watch 'Futurama"? It's already been done ...992 years from now.

Earthicans Unite!

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

<snip>

The most significant change in global politics presented in Futurama's view of the 31st century is that the whole of Earth is governed by a single united government. This united government has many similarities to the present-day United States' political system; its capital is Washington, D.C., it is a two-party system with a number of smaller third parties, the government is headed by a president, and there are references to a constitution and an expanded bill of rights. Citizens of Earth are referred to as "Earthicans". The Earth Government is composed of various member nations which maintain many of their own cultures and languages, but also show evidence of multiculturalism (France now speaks English, for example).

"Old Freebie" is the fictional flag of Earth in Futurama. It contains the thirteen stripes of the Flag of the United States but instead of the 50 stars at the side it has a picture of the planet Earth (the former American part). In the episode "A Taste of Freedom", Doctor Zoidberg eats the flag, causing an interplanetary incident.

[Monk06]

56. And what would that Super State look like America, Russia, China or the EU. No thanks.

[readmoreoften]

58. How about WITHOUT a state? Why not dream big?

Neither global nationalism or global totalitarianism are much protection from either capitalist world-robbing or a police state.

[Runcible Spoon]

60. you're absolutely correct; the best thing really is more isolationism even though that sounds bad.

I'm not some crazy Buchanan worshiping conservative, either, but someone who has thought and studied quite a bit about globalization and neoliberal capitalism.

NAtions need to learn agricultural self sufficiency first and foremost, and countries that cannot need to align with nearby neighbors in order to do so.

There has always been a sense of "home" in human history; trying to make some global power the dominant identity leaves a sense of rootlessness and thus it is weak. Add to the fact that in order to have a "nation" or any like idea (since these concepts are purely symbolic in that they are not "things") there needs to be a shared set of values that allow one citizen to feel connected to all other citizens under that definition. I can't imagine how one world power could define something strong enough yet vague enough to simultaneously being cohesion through identity while not contradicting other important identities a person might have.

I guess a lot of DUers want to sing kumbaya and think that we can all band together if we have to, but in all reality populations would rather bomb each other off the face of this planet than accept ONE power.

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. Besides, the whole concept of a central state falls apart when there's no "other" to protect us from

[Runcible Spoon]

59. oh HELL no! Anyone supperting this should research Empires and their heinous acts..

especially to the "fringe" populations. Conquered populations never conform culturally to the dominant power in every way. Some empires allowed for a degree of heterogeneity, which increased the area of territory the core could take over by allowing existing political structures to remain in power as long as their were complicit with the central power. However, this was also less reliable politically and the peripherals were almost always in a state of semi-rebellion, if not through warfare then through trade disruptions.

Empires who required cultural homogeneity, especially through the installation of a religion, were brutal and only achieved subordination of the natives through cruel and inhumane torture and fear. Add a little plague in there and voila! a weak and broken population. The problem with this was that the weaker the populations were, the less valuable they were in terms of producing resources and trade.

There is only one way, in the current situation of the countries of the world, to bring about New World Order, and that is if all the Western Powers decided to pool their military resources and take over the peripheries by sheer force and occupation.

The biggest question is how anyone could ever decide who is worthy of ruling the world? Globalization theory (Appadurai etc) has proven OVER AND OVER AND OVER that as much as it seems that there is widescale homogenization of all cultural institutions, be it media, technology, language, culture, religion, etc., there is also a resultant fragmentation of these institutions at the local level which results in a certain percentage of the population striving to recover an idealized "past".

It's dangerous to think of one power controlling everything. Even if that power were benign, the homogenizing forces of a global empire would no doubt result in the heterogenization of groups which might make Al Qaida pale in comparison.

Globalization and forced modernization in the Middle East created Islamic fundamentalism; it's not just a bunch of old-fashioned crazies who are living the way "things used to be".

I really hope DU doesn't buy into this scary New World Order stuff. :scared:

[Leopolds Ghost]

69. Have you read Day of Empire -- the Origin and Fall of Hyperpowers by Amy Chua?

A Harvard economist. Much of what she says agrees with Jared Diamond and others.

Her section on the Dutch Hyperpower and how it invented both capitalism and the
modern state economic system and spread these models throughout Europe
is particularly illustrative.

[Runcible Spoon]

72. No, my reading lists came from anthropology, sociology, history, and poli sci for the most part...

I tend to avoid most work by economists for two reason: 1. it's really time consuming to read every field's approach; there's plenty of overlap to get a good taste and 2.I don't see economy as the base motivator for cultural shifts in the processes of globalization. I certainly read and learned much from Marx, but it's a tad materialist in pure form and tend to agree more with a hybrid approach of post-Marxist Practice Theory.

However, I am familiar with the big players and read/emjoyed a lot of Stiglitz and Greider.

I will def. give Chua a glance though :wave:

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. Will your World Government continue to waste money on highways and other oil powered tech?

oops, I forgot: per Kunstler and Jared Diamond and Amy Chua and others who have recently written about world powers and
economic state collapse, you need an energy surplus to sustain what we consider the only acceptable civilization model.

:shrug:

In the old days, kleptocracies ensured that this surplus was created by giving artists and technology a reason to exist--
to benefit those chosen few who were worshipped as gods because they didn't have to spend their lives on the farm. Not
unlike modern celebrities.

[Runcible Spoon]

73. READ THIS --.--.-- ---.-.- -->SNOWCRASH.

Neal Stephenson. Probably what things would look like :scared:

[Orsino]

74. Did 57% of us miss the part about individual rights, justic and freedom...

...or do they believe America currently offers those things? :crazy:

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. A world united, yes...but FUCK THE STATE!

[blindpig]

76. yep

but getting from here to there, that's the rub. Lot's of ink spilled on that.

[Edweird]

77. One state? Awful idea. When things go wrong there will be no help from anywhere.

No peers. No alternatives. I see nothing but eventual slavery for all but the ruling class.