NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is another thread I created on this subject: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464791

And, while it was half in jest, I am actually a believer in the World State, impossible as it may be to create.

What does everybody think?

Here is another thread I created on this subject: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464791

And, while it was half in jest, I am actually a believer in the World State, impossible as it may be to create.

What does everybody think?

the world state would be cool, but it wouldn' work if ppl were to vote, you'd need to opress them, and kill everyone

Ideally, I don't support "states", I'm a communist, and I hope one day we'll reach a classless, stateless society.

But in the meanwhile, a world "state" could be a very major step towards a better world: no war, better distribution of ressources, better control on pollution, global rights, global working code and minimal wages preventing outsourcing, ...

But I agree it's not easy at all to implement, and that it could also become a way of oppression, if this world "state" falls into the bad hands (like, become controlled by bush-like crownies). Somehow a world "state" is what US is trying to do through the "Pax Americana", the IMF, the WTO, ... but they do it all the wrong way around :(

Sorry, but the ideal doesn't even hold up as far as I am concerned. There is no way human's could ever run this world state without it turning into 1984. Even in that fictional book it is awknowledged that such a state of affairs would require three seperate states where two of them combined cannot topple the other. Keeping so many people on the same page would require war. (Take a look at the effect of the "War on Terror") Without a strong enough foe to strike fear into the masses they would never submit to a single government. Maybe if there were massive super-terrorist networks it could turn into an us vs. them scenerio but that doesn't sound like the ideal you are referring to.

It is perfectly possible. First based on federational system and later on, as nationalism as an idea is made to look like Nazism nowadays, "The Creator of All Evil and Wrong, The Reason of Wars and Suffer" (which both claims happen to be quite true also if you look at the history), the unification process can develop even further, ultimately making the borders to completely fade and vanish away.
We have several examples of huge nations like this, Rome beeing propably the best of them. Limits for its grow were there because of the technology level and the fact there weren't anything worth conquering within their range, limited by the mentioned techical issues. In this era of information technology, No such limitations exist. If we'd have a system good as the Romans had, and both economically, militarily and culturally above the comperirors, it could happen.


So, I think it is theoretically possible. Not likely, but possible.
Would this be a good thing, I do not know... I think that getting rid of the class system and borders within the societies is more important than removing those between nations.

It is perfectly possible. First based on federational system and later on, as nationalism as an idea is made to look like Nazism nowadays, "The Creator of All Evil and Wrong, The Reason of Wars and Suffer" (which both claims happen to be quite true also if you look at the history), the unification process can develop even further, ultimately making the borders to completely fade and vanish away.
We have several examples of huge nations like this, Rome beeing propably the best of them. Limits for its grow were there because of the technology level and the fact there weren't anything worth conquering within their range, limited by the mentioned techical issues. In this era of information technology, No such limitations exist. If we'd have a system good as the Romans had, and both economically, militarily and culturally above the comperirors, it could happen.



...what. Your post is kind of jumpy but your last line sums it up. "If we'd have a system good as the Romans had, and both economically, militarily and culturally above the comperirors, it could happen." I guess that last word is competitors but in a world state there are techinically no competitors beyond terrorists as I stated. The Romans used conquest and war in large part to help unite it's people as you awknowledge by saying "militarily" in addition to the other attributes. What happens when there is no one to conquer? The Roman empire pretty much collapsed. In a world with "no limits" as you say that would mean you would have to manage every human person on Earth under one state. You ignore the act of convincing all humans to fall under the same rule and thus be forced to agree with it's laws and ideals. How have you address this difficulty in any way at all?

Not only is it possible, it is happening as we speak. Of course, there is no actual deliberate plan to do so, it's just a tendency, with globalisation of companies and western states who start working together more closely (excluding poorer countries)

Not only is it possible, it is happening as we speak. Of course, there is no actual deliberate plan to do so, it's just a tendency, with globalisation of companies and western states who start working together more closely (excluding poorer countries)

I see no tendancy. When the Congo is annexed to the United States let me know.

Imperialism yes, World State never.

Rome didn't collapse for lack of peoples to conquer (the Goths, the Scots, the Irish etc.), but rather the internal weight of corruption and a shift towards a lazy superiority complex. Besides that, the only way to unifiy the world would be through massive bloodshed and under one authoritarian system, a global empire. Otherwise, the choices of a 'free' and 'democratic' system would lead to seperate competing interests and a communist state is only applicable in theory, the system is too open to corruption as evidenced in the USSR and any number of tinpot banana republics.

It could exist - although it probably wouldn't differ very much to what we have today. Current states would all become "provinces" or something similar, with a Governor like US states. And then, there would be an overall, elected President.

But if you think about it, the system we have now with the UN etc, isn't that far off. Legislature passed in the General Assembly applies to all member states, but doesn't govern the states individually. Personally, I think it would take one hell of a person to rule the entire world single-handedly, in an Imperial-Presidency type thing. To effectively govern 6 billion people is a little too much for anyone to take on.

Which is why I totally agree with the UN - it means that all the nations come together and make international legislative decisions for the greater good of the people, but still retain their sovereignty, individuality and autonomy.

Eventually, I think a "world-state" would collapse - all great political and social collaberative entities (like Empires) must reach their zenith and ultimately fall into oblivion. To cite examples previously mentioned, Rome, the Ottoman Empire, China, Japan, our very own British Empire - how did we manage to mislay that? - etc. Each one comes with its own period of relative peace: Pax Romana; Pax Brittanica etc. Now we are in the age of the "American Empire," and the so-called Pax Americana. Even that will ultimately disintegrate.

Nothing is eternal.

I'll shut up now.

Here is another thread I created on this subject: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464791

And, while it was half in jest, I am actually a believer in the World State, impossible as it may be to create.

What does everybody think?

Your opinions on international unification aside, I want you to consider what your other political ideas are. Are you a libertarian? A socialist, a conservative, a liberal? It doesn't matter what you are, because I now want you to imagine that the world population elect leaders with the exact antithesis of your ideology. If this happens now, you can run away, move to a different country, or at least TRY to. If there is a one world government, there is nowhere to hide.

If you believe in socialism and the right of workers to earn a decent living, imagine that the one-world government is a property-toting, welfareless corporatist jungle of brutal competition and wage-slavery.

If you believe in capitalism and the right of property owners to be free from persecution and taxation, imagine that the one-world government is a communist police state which demands your immediate co-operation and submission or death.

Whichever way you weigh it, a single world government makes it more likely that you will be oppressed by the type of government you don't like AND have nowhere better to go.

The Roman Empire did, in fact, collapse in part due to lack of land being conquered. Their economy was based on plundering gold and riches from other lands. As soon as this stopped the economy began to stagnate and then decline. Corruption, non-Roman military, and complacency combined with the weak economy brought the empire toppling down.

So, why again would we an world "state" that had an economy like Rome's?

I would never give up my national sovereignty to a world body.