World as one country (death, terror, state, selfishness)

[TheViking85]

Originally Posted by Daveyboyy

Yes he did the OP said "one World Religion" to stop religious strife.

I read that as "With one country, and religious freedom, tension would end."

But yes, if the idea was that there'd be only one religion, or no religion at all, it's a silly notion, unless it's based on a couple of decades of further evolution.

[Daveyboyy]

thats the whole point having all these religions and different cultures in one big country would cause horrendous strife and problems these people just DONT get along with each other. you Cant Paint everyone with the same brush just doesnt work.

[Shkumat]

Thanks, Viking for stating your arguments point by point. I am glad to see people who use arguments, instead of just screaming "you are wrong, you idiot with a stupid opinion and you should freakin kill yourself" at the top of their lungs.
So:

Originally Posted by TheViking85

1. There would still be wars, but they would be privatized. Private enterprises (such as Aegis etc.) would expand their security businesses further, most likely hired by the one centralized or local government to fight the local militias and militant groups that would still exist, and the new ones that would undoubtedly surface.

Yes, traditional war, in the sense of one country bombing another would stop, but war would still be here, I don't see how a one nation world would best cater everyones needs and as such keep conflicts to a minimum.

Well, that's what I've been saying. Stopping traditional wars. Surely there'd be other kinds of conflicts, but getting rid of this ones would be nice, don't you think?
We now have gangs/mafias/triads/you name it, fighting. It's bad, but not devastating. We may leave it to some other projects to fight. But as for one country invading another and people killing each other just because they were born a few hundred miles to the west - if there was a chance to make sure it doesn't happen, i think it's worth a lot.
Unless, of course, you don't expect some Skynet to take lead in the business world. I hope you don't expect that, do you?

Originally Posted by TheViking85

2. Why would it be harder for criminals and terrorists (which essentially are still just criminals) to hide?

Well, say if you have a criminal hiding in your country and you know the house where he is hiding, you can go there and arrest him.
If you have a criminal hiding in a different country and you know the house where he is hiding, you can go there and hear "get the hell out of our country, you have no jurisdiction here you invading sunovagun".
See my point now?

Originally Posted by TheViking85

3. Yet, the money is still stolen, isn't it? I don't understand how this would be a positive?

Ok. Let's look at an example: a politician steals a million dollars from the budget, right? There can be two outcomes for the country:
1. He goes abroad and parties them all down the drain on girls, cars, villas. The country which he has stolen from doesn't get jack.
2. He stays home and parties them all down the drain on girls, cars, villas. By doing such he pays:
to the workers who built those villas
to those girls after all
to guys who made the alcohol he's drinking
to barmen who served this alcohol
etc.
You see my point now?
Stealing is a bad thing, of course. And there will always be people stealing and not getting caught. But if a person at least spends it in his home country, he creates work places. He's simply a redistributor. He doesn't hurt the economy that much.

Originally Posted by TheViking85

4. Why would competition stop? Is there no competition amongst privateers? Is there no space race between private business entities?

That competition will make sense.
When Soviet Union first went to space and US first landed on the moon, do you know how much scientific data they collected (say, samples from the surface of the moon)? Zero. They did it for the lulz. They did it just to show of. To show their people and the world what they're capable. Business PR is not that stupid. Companies can always come to an agreement.

Originally Posted by TheViking85

5. Why not? Do you really think everyone would speak the same language, and even if they did regional differences would probably mean that someone from some part of the world would be hard pressed to understand someone from another part of the world.

Like i said (and like you said) - two languages is the way to go. It's not that hard to speak two languages and it will bring closer cooperaton of the worlds scientists, medics, etc. It will require some government guidance at first, but the results might be worthy.

Originally Posted by TheViking85

6. Oh trust me, there'd be political conflict, what makes you think there wouldn't be?

What's up with that phrase "trust me", anyways?
Why should i trust you?
No matter. "No political conflict" as in cold war kinda stuff. When two or more political systems are fighting. Surely, there'd be election race and fights in the legislation, but at least no missiles pointed at each other.
(in advance, i am asking whoever got an idea to comment anything on the "cold war" here (historically wise), please don't. Unless you were a president you don't know jack about what REALLY happened).

Originally Posted by TheViking85

7. Why would they? There's just as good of an argument to make that the religious tension would increase, because the "free reign" would put more pressure on small or "attacked" religious expressions.

Well, we don't have buddists beating christians with sticks here in russia screaming "buddha is the man, yo, you cross worshippin sucka!!". As far as i know you don't have them in the US either.
Religions are used as disguises to cover the conflicts of countries, regions, governments. Truly free religion will not let this happen.
And by small religious expressions do you mean cults?

Originally Posted by TheViking85

The world isn't fine the way it is, but I don't see how making it one nation will better aid the needs of many, honestly, it might be better to walk in the other direction in certain countries (the US springs to mind), dividing it into a few smaller countries (2-3) with governments that could better cater for the needs of the region. However, a centralized, global community, trans-border, with increased trade, more or less free flow of people (some limitations, but much less than now) I think is a viable option. Sort of a light model of what EU is today.

EU has never been weaker, the Union and the direction it's taking has been severely haltered lately, and I don't see it continuing in that vain. I think it'll have to backtrack a little bit, lessen the "governmental grip" it has over sovereign nations and be more of an enabler than a law maker again.

Small country doesn't necessarily mean that the government will cater for the region better either. Look at Ukraine.

World as one country can become a pinnacle of globalization.
It will allow complete freedom for people and businesses to develop.
That is the true free market.
Or maybe not. can't say i "got it all figured out".

[Shkumat]

Originally Posted by Daveyboyy

thats the whole point having all these religions and different cultures in one big country would cause horrendous strife and problems these people just DONT get along with each other. you Cant Paint everyone with the same brush just doesnt work.

But you already got a bunch of religions in the US, right?
And none of them is officially THE religion, right?
And as far as i know they coexist quite peacefully.
No same brush here. Just freedom. The one you Americans are quite proud of.

[TheViking85]

Originally Posted by Shkumat

Well, that's what I've been saying. Stopping traditional wars. Surely there'd be other kinds of conflicts, but getting rid of this ones would be nice, don't you think?
We now have gangs/mafias/triads/you name it, fighting. It's bad, but not devastating. We may leave it to some other projects to fight. But as for one country invading another and people killing each other just because they were born a few hundred miles to the west - if there was a chance to make sure it doesn't happen, i think it's worth a lot.
Unless, of course, you don't expect some Skynet to take lead in the business world. I hope you don't expect that, do you?

Well, to talk about this, we actually have to agree on what traditional wars are. So what exactly is traditional war? WWII? Because that form of warfare is most certainly over.

Traditional warfare, in it's most traditional sense IS over. Warfare today most times include an army, and some, slightly less concise "enemy". Traditional warfare is in essence over, and what we're left with, is a type of warfare that there's no reason to think will cease to exist.

Look at the Palestine/Israel conflict, a big country, and a small group, or rather, several small groups. Do you think that this conflict would end in a one country world? If so, then what makes you think that?

What about The West (using terms loosely here) vs. Taliban, AlQuaeda, etc. do you see borders as being the primary reason for the conflict, and a one country world as a solution?

I could go on, including the conflicts Russia is involved in, but almost all of them paint somewhat of the same picture, though, not always for the same reasons nor with the same legitimacy.

I don't see how these conflicts would end, simply by removing borders.

The positive side is that war has never been so bad at taking lives. Less are killed in wars today than ever before, and there's less conflict than what we've ever seen. That tells me that we're moving in the same direction, even if it's painstakingly slow.

Originally Posted by Shkumat

Well, say if you have a criminal hiding in your country and you know the house where he is hiding, you can go there and arrest him.
If you have a criminal hiding in a different country and you know the house where he is hiding, you can go there and hear "get the hell out of our country, you have no jurisdiction here you invading sunovagun".
See my point now?

I see what you mean, but it's not entirely true, with globalisation, as we're witnessing now, comes global challenges, including global crime.

That's what we have Interpol for and other transnational cooperations. Despite what you say, we see more and more often that criminals ARE brought to justice, even if their crime isn't committed in the country they reside in. Something the global, multinational police raids on child pornography rings are good examples of.

Borders does not have to inhibit justice, and in some cases it even protects people from unjust treatment, people who, in their home country would face terrible wrongdoings can seek refuge, behind the borders of a better country.

To sum up, I don't see borders as an inhibitor of justice, and I think there's ample proof to my statement. I'm aware that criminals walk free, hiding in states where crime fighting have different standard than mine, but criminals evade justice here to, and even if they're caught, they'll sometimes go free, that's an inevitable price we pay, to live in a society.

Originally Posted by Shkumat

Ok. Let's look at an example: a politician steals a million dollars from the budget, right? There can be two outcomes for the country:
1. He goes abroad and parties them all down the drain on girls, cars, villas. The country which he has stolen from doesn't get jack.
2. He stays home and parties them all down the drain on girls, cars, villas. By doing such he pays:
to the workers who built those villas
to those girls after all
to guys who made the alcohol he's drinking
to barmen who served this alcohol
etc.
You see my point now?
Stealing is a bad thing, of course. And there will always be people stealing and not getting caught. But if a person at least spends it in his home country, he creates work places. He's simply a redistributor. He doesn't hurt the economy that much.

Stealing is bad, you say it yourself, and there you have it. I don't think it's any less bad if the what is stolen is being spent in my country, be that a world country or one of many.

What you're arguing here isn't actually solving the problem, it's simply hiding it by extending the limits of where it can be spent, however, the money is still stolen, and does it really matter if it's stolen in Russia and spent in China instead of stolen in the region Russia and spent in the region China?

I think your logic is flawed here, but, if I were to look past that, for the sake of entertaining your thought, I would argue that the redistribution of wealth to poorer and less developed countries is far more favorable than distributing it in an already rich economy, which I live under. But like I said, I think the logic is flawed because it doesn't address the issue, it simply redefines what to call it.

Originally Posted by Shkumat

That competition will make sense.
When Soviet Union first went to space and US first landed on the moon, do you know how much scientific data they collected (say, samples from the surface of the moon)? Zero. They did it for the lulz. They did it just to show of. To show their people and the world what they're capable. Business PR is not that stupid. Companies can always come to an agreement.

I don't understand how corporate showing off is better than nations showing off? Do you think corporations mainly work for progress, or for money? To make money you generally need exposure (with a few exceptions), you get exposure by showing off.

That said, governments have turned slightly away from showing off and more in a direction of working together, even when there are differences.

You mentioned the space race, but today we have a joint space stations, with the nations working together, not against each other. The governments, and countries, have come to the agreement you say corporations will find.

We can see this in many other areas as well, it's not exclusive to space technology. International policing, laws protecting human rights, recognized and ratified by more and more countries, working together to try and solve the energy, resource and pollution problems we are currently facing. Not always reaching a binding agreement, but usually getting a step closer each time.

Originally Posted by Shkumat

Like i said (and like you said) - two languages is the way to go. It's not that hard to speak two languages and it will bring closer cooperaton of the worlds scientists, medics, etc. It will require some government guidance at first, but the results might be worthy.

What stops us from speaking two languages now? Or three, which is what the UN recommends. Borders is not a boundary for languages. You yourself speak or at least type English, I do the same, even though it's not my native tongue. In addition to that I understand a tiny bit of two-three other languages and a decent amount of a couple of others. Borders have not stopped me from learning that.

Originally Posted by Shkumat

What's up with that phrase "trust me", anyways?
Why should i trust you?
No matter. "No political conflict" as in cold war kinda stuff. When two or more political systems are fighting. Surely, there'd be election race and fights in the legislation, but at least no missiles pointed at each other.
(in advance, i am asking whoever got an idea to comment anything on the "cold war" here (historically wise), please don't. Unless you were a president you don't know jack about what REALLY happened).

For one, I don't see how there's any possibility of simply two parties representing the will of 6 billion people, you'd have far far more, and you would, in some regions, just like present time, see tension rise and sometimes not being able to coexist peacefully, a centralized, global government would not stop this, if you have an idea otherwise, I'd love to hear it, because I don't see how it can be done.

Originally Posted by Shkumat

Well, we don't have buddists beating christians with sticks here in russia screaming "buddha is the man, yo, you cross worshippin sucka!!". As far as i know you don't have them in the US either.
Religions are used as disguises to cover the conflicts of countries, regions, governments. Truly free religion will not let this happen.
And by small religious expressions do you mean cults?

Well, you do have some pretty radical religious groups both in Russia and in the US, the latest train bombings in Moscow being one example, the arrest of the members of the group Hutaree in the US being another.

I do realize that in the case of the Moscow bombing it regards mostly politics, though wailed partly by religion, as such it is exactly what you're talking about.

But what will this truly free religion be, how will it work, how will it be put into effect, or will it evolve?

Will your free religion stop radical Muslims from trying to spread Islam and Sharia law using bombs? Will it stop Christian fundamentalists from plotting to kill cops as step one in a war against the devil (government)?

Essentially, will it stop people from fighting for and because of what they believe to be the ultimate truth? No matter how extreme it may be.

Religion is just as often a conflict of politics,ideas and cultures as it is a conflict of region and countries, and cultures cannot be forced to change, only encouraged to evolve, the same can be said for ideas. They are hard to break.

Originally Posted by Shkumat

Small country doesn't necessarily mean that the government will cater for the region better either. Look at Ukraine.

World as one country can become a pinnacle of globalization.
It will allow complete freedom for people and businesses to develop.
That is the true free market.
Or maybe not. can't say i "got it all figured out".

I never said that all governments and countries take care of their inhabitants, but the fact that they don't always do isn't automatically saying that a central government will. There are far worse examples than Ukraine, look at Somalia, with no real government at all it's one of the worst countries in the world, of not THE worst country in the world. But their inability to currently take care of themselves, does not mean that I nor any other outer force will have a better idea of how to do it. We've tried to force change before, and it's rarely worked, enabling change generally reap far better results.

Instead of essentially forcing a one world government, which would either be incapable of serving everyone as best it could, or be so horribly burdened by different interests and bureaucracy that it wouldn't work at all, we can enable those countries that govern themselves poorly, or not at all, to change that.

We can bring what expertise we might have, and attempt to help, instead of force change, letting the people who live there make the decisions that are right for the region.

I said earlier that culture has to evolve, not be forced. Taking a system that works one place and introducing it unchanged somewhere else is often typical of an attempt at forced cultural change.

I think a good example, illustrating this was an MSF vaccination program I once heard of, I forget which African country it was in, but it was in Africa. The doctors came into a village and told the people they needed this vaccine, that it would keep them healthy and well, protect them. They were surprised when almost no one showed up to get the vaccine, and they didn't know why until one doctor heard some rumors that could explain it.
As it turns out, the witchdoctor in that village had warned the villagers not to take the white mans medication, it would curse them, bring unhappiness, misfortune and maybe even death.
The doctor, being a man who seeking to resolve their differences sat down with the witchdoctor to figure out why it was that he was advocating against the vaccine. Turns out, the witchdoctor, who was a prominent figure in the village, and lived off of what donations (or payment if you wish) people would give him for his services, was intimidated by white mans medicine, and was afraid he would lose his position within the village, if this vaccine were to work. Put simply, he was afraid of being "unemployed".
The result that was brokered was that the white doctors would indeed administer their vaccine, but only when the witchdoctor had performed his rituals, removing the curse surrounding the vaccine, making it safe for the villagers to get. By enabling an evolution the culture could accept, instead of forcing one they could not, everyone won and everyone was happy. The doctors got their jobs done, the people were vaccinated and the witchdoctor maintained his position in society.


If you want a world with no borders it is essential to allow the different cultures to evolve to a place where they can accept such a change, but once you've gotten to that point, you've already solved most of the problems you raise in your OP, so what would be the point?

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Shkumat

So wouldn't it better if the whole world would be just one country?

1. There'd be no wars
2. It would be harder for terrorsists and and criminals to hide
3. Even if somebody will steal a lot of money, it will still remain in the country
4. Cooperation rather than competition (not the communistic kind of cooperation, of course but still - no stupid "be the first in space/on the moon racing".
5. No language barriers
6. No political conflicts
7. With official freedom of the world religion the religious tensions will fade.

Or is the world fine the way it is?

We would be be ants

[texdav]

look at eureope they fought wars until they basically went bankrupt and killed off most its youth in two hum dingers in WWI and WWII after centuries of fueds.Many hiostroians consider both wars to be europes civil wars actually over empires.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by Shkumat

So wouldn't it better if the whole world would be just one country?

1. There'd be no wars
2. It would be harder for terrorsists and and criminals to hide
3. Even if somebody will steal a lot of money, it will still remain in the country
4. Cooperation rather than competition (not the communistic kind of cooperation, of course but still - no stupid "be the first in space/on the moon racing".
5. No language barriers
6. No political conflicts
7. With official freedom of the world religion the religious tensions will fade.

Or is the world fine the way it is?

The world would still have the same problems. Why? Becuase people are still the same regardless of how we are segregated.

For the sake of argument let us simply compare how people behave under the same country like in the U.S. We are one country and yet we are still divided in 50 states. Well, for some bean counter out there I will say states and commonwealths before he tries to crucify me. For the sake of clarity I will address to all states and commonwealths as state, sorry.

In all states people still have regional anomosities and in one form or another fight against each other. Look at their congressmen how they argue for their own interest and break deals for their own interests.
Do you believe that if the whole world is one country people would not argue for their own interests? You bet they will and will even try to secede once they do not get what they want and go back to having their own countries.

Also, to make the whole world do you mean forcing people to learn one language? Good luck. Remember when the U.S. tried to convert into the metric system? Do you meant to tell me that having people to change their language would be much easier? Also for the sake of argument let us say they all agree to change into on language. Which language? We could have an argument with vicious threats from those that their language was not selected to be the universal language.

No competition. Look even within the same cities. People do not compete within neighborhoods to get what they want from city hall and get into heated debates about it even by demonstrating and by some type of terrorism?

Going down the list I see the same thing. Again, becuase people like to segregate themselves into group that share some common bond whether they are single, married, a certain religion, type of food they like to eat, type of music they love, etc. To try to make it one single country means to force people to be all the same in everything to avoid problems.
Personnaly, that would be great but the reality is not so good in trying to create this utopiand world.

You have a great day.
El Amigo

[jertheber]

"Human history is the sad result of each one looking out for himself."
Author: Julio Cortazar

This has been the curse of humans from the beginning, borders are simply lines drawn between selfish groups of people, those lines don't in any way diminish the fact of human self centeredness. Separate or together, people are this way and will not be changing anytime soon.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by jertheber

"Human history is the sad result of each one looking out for himself."
Author: Julio Cortazar

This has been the curse of humans from the beginning, borders are simply lines drawn between selfish groups of people, those lines don't in any way diminish the fact of human self centeredness. Separate or together, people are this way and will not be changing anytime soon.

Selfishness is not the issue. Unless you think it is selfish for you to buy your kid a bicycle, but not the kid next door. Human civilization evolved through a natural sense of giving priority treatment and preotection to those within your family, clan, community, state, etc.