Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the world at the top is by its nature is anarchic. Nation-States will never give up one shread of anything that even looks like sovereignty without a clear way to get it back and something useful in return i.e. the EU.
Essentially there are no rules, but power and will on the Nation-State level whether that be hard or soft power. No one can force a nation-state to do something it does not want unless they have the ablity and will to apply enough power to achieve the desired result. At the moment there is no one in the world with the will and might needed to create a world government so it will not happen for now.
No one's talking about forcing nations to join. Create a system that works and nations will want to join.
The EU is a prime example of nations with brutal histories fighting one another coming together for a greater good. No doubt there will soon be a North American Union and perhaps and Asian Union.
No one's talking about forcing nations to join. Create a system that works and nations will want to join.
The EU is a prime example of nations with brutal histories fighting one another coming together for a greater good. No doubt there will soon be a North American Union and perhaps and Asian Union.
Yes it is, but I would hardly call the EU a sovereign European government. It does have some power, but real control still rests with the member states. All member states are required to approve things, and mention anything like federalism in most European countries and you will have an argument on your hands right quick. Power in Europe still rests in Berlin, Athens, London, Madrid etc. The European Union is great for promoting environmentalism, commerce, monetary policy, human rights etc. but it is highly lacking in its ablity to create a clear foreign policy, it lacks any semeblence of federal control and members can easily get opt outs of anything they don't like. In fact is only just now working out a vague document that resembles aconstitution, which they can't call a constitution because if they name it that it will be rejected out of hand.
Alot of Brits would like to be rid of the EU,and get rid of the Euro.Things are hardly fair in your idea of "one world".The less gain at the expense of others.Britian's trade is far from balanced with countries like Spain and France.
...and is Mississippi's trade balanced with New York's? West Virginia's with California's? Yet they all came together under a federal union.
Unifying governments aren't there to make sure everybody gets 3 cookies and only three cookies. They can provide peace and unify resources (such as currency, the topic of this thread) for a common purpose.
Alot of Brits would like to be rid of the EU,and get rid of the Euro.Things are hardly fair in your idea of "one world".The less gain at the expense of others.Britian's trade is far from balanced with countries like Spain and France.
Not that it will ever happen though. Both Labour and the Tories are committeed to the EU. Also if I recall correctly going anti-Europe has been the death or aided in the death of many British politicians as was the case with the Labour party in 1983 and Margaret Thatcher in 1988-1990.
Freedom-powered globalization => good, economically beneficial, and inevitable.
Government-powered globalization => bad, and could lead to a universal tyranny from where there's no escape!
Free market in currency => good: gold, platinum, chickens, bank notes, whatever - digital technology makes conversion elementary.
Government-enforced currency => bad, on any level, whether national, continental, or global.
I am not sure if I understand this could you please explain what you mean by Government-enforce curreny? Do you mean the use of pegs, fx interventions and central banks or government set limits on currency transactions and investment?
Same with Government Powered Globalization, what do you mean here?
Could you explain what each of the terms you are using mean in other words. I should be able to get the theortical gist I just am confused as to meat of what you mean with the terms.
I don't understand why we don't make a global government. Besides terror cells, it would ensure world peace. Obviously the League of Nations was attempted after WWI and the United Nations after WWII. Perhaps it will take one more major global war for us to finally realize we're all on this little planet together.
People thought it was impossible for the various states to join under a union, but that happened and the idea of states fighting one another today is absurd.
Only a matter of time...
Because of many reasons. Such a large government would never truly represent everyone. It would create a dramatic loss of freedom. Perfect opportunity for a global dictatorship at that. And frankly, competition is good to a large degree. Gives more choices as far as freedom, method of government, etc., and if one country collapses others may not. Global government screws up and the whole world is in big trouble. And this is only a brief start on a list of problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
