NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to preface this by saying that this is a purely theoretical, philosophical question whose attributes should not be assessed realistically, but rather morally.

We all know that there are many dysfunctional governments in the world; they oppress their people, squash any attempts at democracy, subject their citizenry to horrible conditions, implement flawed economic systems, etc. We also acknowledge that the US, while some may not think it the best country in the world, excels at social and economic policy. It is the most affluent country in the world (both absolutely and per capita) and it has a splendidly high quality of life; in any case, it is evident that the US is much better off than a very large majority of countries. Let's assume that you could press a button. The effect of such an action would be this: the US government would be extended to control all the world's countries, without a shot being fired; it would be a completely peaceful transition. The corrupt governments of certain states would be replaced by democracy and controlled by the US, ensuring access to freedom for all of their civilians. Do you think such an action would have a positive or negative overall effect on the world? Poll coming.

Your assuming that this world government would a perfect clone of the government of the United States, with a geographic area as large as the world our political and economic system would undergo extreme changes.

We'd be living in the world of Jennifer Government. You forgot to specify that pressing the button also made all people in the converted countries happy with the idea. And we'd have to expand the Capitol Building to fit in all the new Senators and representatives. Think of the gerrymandering possibilities!

replaced by democracy and controlled by the US

What weird definition of democracy are you using here?

as a minarchist.......that both scares and disgusts me.

No. I could live with the idea of extending American democracy to some of the worst countries in the world, but I see no reason to extend it to those countries that are in no need of it.

Long term I think it would be a net positive, but even if we could press a button and take over bloodlessly, many people will engage in terrorism and revolution after we've taken over. Even after those early rebellions it may be unpleasant for some, but in the long term I think most people on earth would benefit from better security, economic opportunity, and freedom.

Do you even know what you're saying?

No? I didn't think so.

as a minarchist.......that both scares and disgusts me.

What in particular scares you? The fact that the dis-advantaged will have access to a better standard of living through both social and economic freedom? Does the increased quality of life which goes hand-in-hand with democracy disgust you?

as a minarchist.......that both scares and disgusts me.

Is a minarchist one who favors the rule of the short?

Absolutely not.

The US may be rich, but it's got little else going for it. Your quality of life is no better than western Europe, the US exploits a stupendous amount of natural resources, and its income disparity leaves an enormous amount to be desired.

And you can't install democracy. That just makes no sense. If people are content enough not to lauch a revolution against their leaders, then the policies inside their countries must at least be keeping them reasonably calm.

Although it will never happen:

In the long run it will be positive, as it will unify the Earth and create peace as well as greatly improve the quality of life.

What weird definition of democracy are you using here?

The people can vote for whomever they want, but they will be governed by representatives elected from all over the world under the framework of the US constitution.

Do you even know what you're saying?

No? I didn't think so.

Yawn, another person here just to flame MTAE. Thats original :rolleyes:

uh no. Absolutley not.

Absolutely not.

The US may be rich, but it's got little else going for it. Your quality of life is no better than western Europe, the US exploits a stupendous amount of natural resources, and its income disparity leaves an enormous amount to be desired.

And you can't install democracy. That just makes no sense. If people are content enough not to lauch a revolution against their leaders, then the policies inside their countries must at least be keeping them reasonably calm.

It would be better for the starving masses in the third world. Any civilized, modern country taking over would be good for the third world. USA, France, UK, Japan, all of those are less corrupt and offer better freedom and security as well as better economic conditions than nations like China, Zimbabwe, or Venezuela. It's just not realistic.

zAnd you can't install democracy. That just makes no sense. If people are content enough not to lauch a revolution against their leaders, then the policies inside their countries must at least be keeping them reasonably calm.

Do you think that the people in North Korea are reasonably calm? They simply lack the will or means to revolt, or feel that subjecting their country to a terrible civil war will be counter-productive to raising the quality of life. Also, note that this is simply an assumption: if democracy could be peacefully installed, would you be in favour of the idea?

What in particular scares you? The fact that the dis-advantaged will have access to a better standard of living through both social and economic freedom?
The US isn't particularly socially free. Your age for consent is too high, your age to allow people to drink alcohol far, far too high (think about, say, five years too high) and gay marriage isn't endorsed by the state.

Economic freedom in the US is thus - if you have money, you can do what you like with it. If you don't, you're going to get fucked over by the rich until you die.

Plus since they're a minarchist, it's the world being under the control of a huge government that will worry them the most.
Does the increased quality of life which goes hand-in-hand with democracy disgust you?
Yes, I'm sure most Iraqis would agree that their quality of life has gone up massively since the fall of Saddam Hussein :rolleyes:

In any case the world would tear itself up again anyway. Global Domination in ANY way would never succeed.

Do you think that the people in North Korea are reasonably calm?
Yes... or they'd have revolted by now...
They simply lack the will or means to revolt, or feel that subjecting their country to a terrible civil war will be counter-productive to raising the quality of life.
"They lack the will or means, or realise that it's a bad idea"... this really suggests that they don't want things to go even further downhill, no?
Also, note that this is simply an assumption: if democracy could be peacefully installed, would you be in favour of the idea?
Nope. Let people move at their own pace, and also realise that democracy is also utterly unsuitable to some areas.

There are too many unknowns here for me to consider it (what about culture? representation? law enforcement? public opinion? method of takeover? etc., etc., etc.)

The only form of world government I would support would be either a confederation of democratic nation-states or a single, neutral governing body presiding over member states that retain some autonomy (think the UN with actual power).

Expansive empires controlled by a single nation, however, tend to corrupt and fail, no matter how democratic they are. Nationalism and patriotism often takes precedence over other considerations.

And if you disagree, MTAE, think of it this way: if you could press a button that would place all nations, including the United States, under the authority of a single, neutral, benevolent and democratic authority, would you do it?

Global control would not be particularly good for either the World or the US. I would agree that some countries could benifit form political power that isnt stark-raving mad or bases their opinions on failed models- but US reign would be a bad and violent thing for the more civilized world. In my opinion, local rule is almost always favorable then rule from some central power.

The people can vote for whomever they want, but they will be governed by representatives elected from all over the world under the framework of the US constitution.
Guns for all?

Hahahahahaha no.

The US isn't particularly socially free. Your age for consent is too high, your age to allow people to drink alcohol far, far too high (think about, say, five years too high) and gay marriage isn't endorsed by the state.

The majority of the world's countries are far less socially free than the US. In certain places, you can be executed if you convert to the "wrong" religion, if you don't cover your face, etc. Count your blessings; the US is incredibly free socially. In any case, these issues would be decided democratically -- the majority opinion of all the world's people would prevail.

Economic freedom in the US is thus - if you have money, you can do what you like with it. If you don't, you're going to get fucked over by the rich until you die.

We provide welfare to our citizens. Before you critique the US economic system, look at how life is in certain African countries, in North Korea, etc. In Lagos, for example, there are millions of poor people who are literally starving in the street.

Yes, I'm sure most Iraqis would agree that their quality of life has gone up massively since the fall of Saddam Hussein :rolleyes:

That's because of the violence; I assumed a peaceful transition.

The people can vote for whomever they want, but they will be governed by representatives elected from all over the world under the framework of the US constitution.
There is no real democracy in imperialism. See Northern Ireland.

Do you think that the people in North Korea are reasonably calm? They simply lack the will or means to revolt, or feel that subjecting their country to a terrible civil war will be counter-productive to raising the quality of life. Also, note that this is simply an assumption: if democracy could be peacefully installed, would you be in favour of the idea?

One type of Government won't work for every place in the world. Thats why there are different types of Governments. Sure you have a lovefest with Democracy in America. But thats because it works there. It just doesnt work in places like Iraq or such becuase the concept is completly obsurd to them. Its not that they like being oppressed, they dont. YOU CAN HAVE FREEDOM WITHOUT DEMOCRACY. Cultural differences and economic differences and the sheer size of some nations simply doesnt allow it to work.

What in particular scares you? The fact that the dis-advantaged will have access to a better standard of living through both social and economic freedom? Does the increased quality of life which goes hand-in-hand with democracy disgust you?

I tend to shy away from uber-big government.

If people want that for themselves they can fight for it, forcing them to live like you think they should........well, it gets messy.

"They lack the will or means, or realise that it's a bad idea"... this really suggests that they don't want things to go even further downhill, no?

Are you being intentionally thick? Do you honestly believe that the people in North Korea would rather be ruled by an egotistical dictator who cares nothing about their freedom and starve to death rather than be free and elect their representatives democratically?

And if you disagree, MTAE, think of it this way: if you could press a button that would place all nations, including the United States, under the authority of a single, neutral, benevolent and democratic authority, would you do it?

Yes. I would also do it if the single, neutral, benevolent, democratic authority was the US, Japan, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Germany, etc.

Guns for all?

Hahahahahaha no.

Ok, wether guns are legall or illegal theres always going to be shit loads of them everywhere all the time, and you'll always be able to get your hands on one. No matter what you enforce. Its much like the Drug war.

The majority of the world's countries are far less socially free than the US.
Doesn't mean that you couldn't do a lot better, to be honest.
In certain places, you can be executed if you convert to the "wrong" religion, if you don't cover your face, etc.
Very true - will this magically not happen when the US gets in control?
Count your blessings; the US is incredibly free socially. In any case, these issues would be decided democratically -- the majority opinion of all the world's people would prevail.
Then just be aware that a great deal of people would vote for things which the US government would never support...
We provide welfare to our citizens. Before you critique the US economic system, look at how life is in certain African countries, in North Korea, etc.
Those countries you put sanctions on and refuse to trade with, then?
In Lagos, for example, there are millions of poor people who are literally starving in the street.
Same's true of the US.
That's because of the violence; I assumed a peaceful transition.
There'd be an enormous civil war and things'd remain how they were.

The US isn't particularly socially free. Your age for consent is too high, your age to allow people to drink alcohol far, far too high (think about, say, five years too high) and gay marriage isn't endorsed by the state.


lol, yeah those minor social policies are terrible compared to say, any country not in the west :rolleyes: The fact is the USA is one of the most free nations socially, with the exception of Abortion, Gay Marriage and possibly drinking age.


Economic freedom in the US is thus - if you have money, you can do what you like with it. If you don't, you're going to get fucked over by the rich until you die.


As opposed to communism, where everyone gets fucked? Even still, Americas econmic freedom is 9^99999999999999999 better then the third world countries and many other countries as well.


Plus since they're a minarchist, it's the world being under the control of a huge government that will worry them the most.


Doesn't outweigh the positives.


Yes, I'm sure most Iraqis would agree that their quality of life has gone up massively since the fall of Saddam Hussein :rolleyes:

As far as I am aware, it's the Iraqi government that still controls iraq, not the American.

It just doesnt work in places like Iraq or such becuase the concept is completly obsurd to them.

The concept is by no means absurd to them; I, myself, lived in a non-democratic country where you were implicitly forced to vote for the dictator. We all wanted democracy, but we couldn't rebel against the Soviet Union to attain it; we were helpless. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the quality of life drastically increased and we were all ecstatic. The same is true of all oppressed people living under the yoke of authoritarian rule. They want democracy, but they just can't get it unless someone helps them.

Yes. I would also do it if the single, neutral, benevolent, democratic authority was the US, Japan, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Germany, etc.

No, the US would be UNDER the rule of this government.

worst idea ever.

We also acknowledge that the US, while some may not think it the best country in the world, excels at social and economic policy. It is the most affluent country in the world (both absolutely and per capita) and it has a splendidly high quality of life

It is outshone by several nations in social equality, and quality of life. In addition, the US has a higher proportion of citizens below the poverty line than several nations, and has problems with racial and ethnic integration, its education system, and its political system.

As for affluence, in terms of GDP per capita is it also not the highest.

I think Norway, for one, beats the US in every meaningful standard for a country; quality of life, social equality, education system, GDP per capita....let's extend the Norwegian government's control over the world.

Although it will never happen:

In the long run it will be positive, as it will unify the Earth and create peace as well as greatly improve the quality of life.

What about the resources consumed if the whole world was like the U.S?

We can't sustain it as it is.

If the whole world lived like that, we'd be completely screwed by 2010.

It is outshone by several nations in social equality, and quality of life. In addition, the US has a higher proportion of citizens below the poverty line than several nations, and has problems with racial and ethnic integration, its education system, and its political system.

As for affluence, in terms of GDP per capita is it also not the highest.

I think Norway, for one, beats the US in every meaningful standard for a country; quality of life, social equality, education system, GDP per capita....let's extend the Norwegian government's control over the world.

nowegian world domination? being a norwegian, i could get used to that.

let's extend the Norwegian government's control over the world.

Sure. You would be in favor of extending Norway's government to the world? So am I. But do you honestly think that doing so will increase the quality of life in the world while extending the US's government to the world will not?

What about the resources consumed if the whole world was like the U.S?

We can't sustain it as it is.

If the whole world lived like that, we'd be completely screwed by 2010.

Interesting. I never really thought about that, but I don't think things like that are included in this hypothetical situation.

As far as I am aware, it's the Iraqi government that still controls iraq, not the American.

No, the Shieks* and the Clerics are in control. They have the real power. When a Shiek in a certain area declares something, its followed to the absolute letter, regardless of what the Iraqi Gov, US, or Insurgents say. Its the power of the real religion of Islam. If a Shiek declares his district will have no more car-bombings because to many people have died. BAM, car bombings stop, people stop fighting, Insurgents/security dissapere and there is peace, the minuet it is spoken. If anyone challenges the power of these Clerics they are never heard from again. It could be the top US commander in Iraq himself, it doesnt matter.

Leaving aside the fact that different societies, with different histories and cultures, have widely divergent needs in terms of what political model is best adapted to them, there are many countries that are far more examplary than the US in terms of civil, political and social rights.

To give a short answer, therefore: HELL, no. I wouldn't move to the US even if someone paid me to do it. I'm sure that US society is what suits many Americans best, and it's their country to shape as they please, but when I compare France and the US I can't help but feel glad I live in the former.


It is the most affluent country in the world (both absolutely and per capita)


Not per capita it isn't.


and it has a splendidly high quality of life

Lower than quite a number of other countries, though. Which raises the question, would you like the US to instantly become like, say, Sweden (or Iceland, the Netherlands, Canada...)?

What about the resources consumed if the whole world was like the U.S?

The basic economic standards set by the free market would preclude such a possibility; we would consume less if there was an additional influx of consumers in an economy.

Lower than quite a number of other countries, though. Which raises the question, would you like the US to instantly become like, say, Sweden (or Iceland, the Netherlands, Canada...)?

I would gladly support a global government led by any of those countries you mentioned.

No, the Shieks* and the Clerics are in control. They have the real power. When a Shiek in a certain area declares something, its followed to the absolute letter, regardless of what the Iraqi Gov, US, or Insurgents say. Its the power of the real religion of Islam. If a Shiek declares his district will have no more car-bombings because to many people have died. BAM, car bombings stop, people stop fighting, Insurgents/security dissapere and there is peace, the minuet it is spoken. If anyone challenges the power of these Clerics they are never heard from again. It could be the top US commander in Iraq himself, it doesnt matter.

Whatever, the point is, it's not the US in control.

As opposed to communism, where everyone gets fucked?
No, that's "everyone is equal"... a difference right there.
Even still, Americas econmic freedom is 9^99999999999999999 better then the third world countries and many other countries as well.
Many 3rd world nations are capitalist (and proper capitalist, with no fallbacks for unemployment or whatever) - the economic level of freedom is the same, and the money made (albeit less than the US makes) still goes to those at the top, generally the top 1%.
Doesn't outweigh the positives.
Not my own viewpoint ;)
As far as I am aware, it's the Iraqi government that still controls iraq, not the American.
Look who's actually got the boots on the ground... my arse are the Iraqis in control of their country.

I would gladly support a global government led by any of those countries you mentioned.

Interesting. Thanks for an honest answer.

Would this include supporting the imposition of a Swedish socio-economic model on the United States, though?

Whatever, the point is, it's not the US in control.

Indeed :)

Sure. You would be in favor of extending Norway's government to the world? So am I. But do you honestly think that doing so will increase the quality of life in the world while extending the US's government to the world will not?

If we're going purely on the basis of the extant nation's statistics, then it would achieve the aim of increasing the quality of life in the world to a further degree than the US.

No, that's "everyone is equal"... a difference right there.


That position is adopted by many forms of government, not just communism. Communism is more like, everyone gets fucked equally.


Many 3rd world nations are capitalist (and proper capitalist, with no fallbacks for unemployment or whatever) - the economic level of freedom is the same, and the money made (albeit less than the US makes) still goes to those at the top, generally the top 1%.


Not many, and weather they are capitalist or not. They have extremely shitty corrupt governments who couldn't run a chess club if they tried.


Not my own viewpoint ;)


Meh


Look who's actually got the boots on the ground... my arse are the Iraqis in control of their country.

*refers you to Barbaric Tribes post*

That position is adopted by many forms of government, not just communism. Communism is more like, everyone gets fucked equally.
*sighs* I think we can just put this one down to a difference in personal views to be honest.

Would this include supporting the imposition of a Swedish socio-economic model on the United States, though?

I wouldn't support that, but it would be the best of two choices. While I don't particularly like the Swedish socio-economic model in comparison to that of the US, it would have a positive effect on the world if Sweden was in control, although it may have a somewhat detrimental effect on the US.

There are two major problems with this idea:

1. The US socioeconomic model works well for the USA, but would cause all sorts of problems if grafted onto other cultures. Just looking at civil law, you can see all sorts of potential headaches: now, Louisiana follows the Napoleonic code, right? But most of the USA uses another civil code based on the english system, IIRC. So which of these are you going to use? Or will you use local civil law? What if it doesn't work with US style capitalism? The list of potential disparities is so large that if you did manage to address them all, the model you would end up with would no longer be the US model.

2. The US economy depends on cheap labour in and from other countries, cheap materials from other countries, and friendly governments in other countries. How would you like to pay a third world copper miner $100 US an hour when yesterday he was making less than a dollar a day? The cost of those shell casings is going to skyrocket.

*refers you to Barbaric Tribes post*

Its in the middle of page 3 for everyone who wants to understand the Iraq war just a little bit better! :cool:

Not many, and weather they are capitalist or not. They have extremely shitty corrupt governments who couldn't run a chess club if they tried.
Not interested. Economic freedom is the same. The people at the top are still in charge.
*refers you to Barbaric Tribes post*
Of the governments which are officially involved, it's the US in charge. Although yes, the Sheikhs and often local clerics are really in control.

But how long would that take?

By the time something like that might be implemented into reality effectively, resources might be consumed to the point where a recovery would be impossible.

And what about the oil reserves?

what about the oil reserves?
They'd go in about 9 weeks or something. Which might be for the best, all in all.

The concept is by no means absurd to them; I, myself, lived in a non-democratic country where you were implicitly forced to vote for the dictator. We all wanted democracy, but we couldn't rebel against the Soviet Union to attain it; we were helpless. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the quality of life drastically increased and we were all ecstatic. The same is true of all oppressed people living under the yoke of authoritarian rule. They want democracy, but they just can't get it unless someone helps them.


If you really lived in Soviet Russia at that time I think you'd see that the Russian people really aren't much better off then they've been since the days of the Tsars. They've always been impovershed and poor unfortunetly. Through the 90's till now the nation has been on a great decline, well except maybe for now, Putin seems to have been puting things back into working order somewhat.

No, having the rest of the world integrated in the United States simply won't do. The rest of the world, particularly South America, is the Neverland of the United States where those with most go to let off steam by engaging in various covert/overt acts of oppression and debauchery. Operating a society that still guarantees people the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a stressful business.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the quality of life drastically increased and we were all ecstatic. The same is true of all oppressed people living under the yoke of authoritarian rule. They want democracy, but they just can't get it unless someone helps them.


This is my first post. Be gentle.

I believe this idea is wrong, mainly because democratic progress does not always ( in fact quite the opposite) bring economic benefits for third world countries. I am tempted to start ennumerating the huge economic faults of democratic governments since 1983 here at home, despite the fact that i would choose them above the juntas any time, but i'll choose another country. Zimbabwe came under black majority rule after Ian Smith pulled back in 1980. Faith in Robert Mugabe was enormous, he prevented civil war between ZANU and ZAPU and came as a the triumph of the logical outcome in a vastly African populated country. He won the elections democratically. Stevie Wonder liked him. Today Zimbabwe has one of the highest AIDS rates in the world and a brutal dictator, accompanied by economic decline.

I think democracy should be installed everywhere, but not by a central government, and patricularly not by one so questioned while "extending democracy".

What in particular scares you? The fact that the dis-advantaged will have access to a better standard of living through both social and economic freedom? Does the increased quality of life which goes hand-in-hand with democracy disgust you?

You make the assumption that everyones quality of life could be raised ... doubtful as per the usual the rich make it there by standing on the back of the poor even in large scale economics

Remove the poor you will not have the same level of height

If you really lived in Soviet Russia

I didn't say that I lived in Russia. I lived in a country which was under communist control.

You make the assumption that everyones quality of life could be raised ... doubtful as per the usual the rich make it there by standing on the back of the poor even in large scale economics

Yet the poor are still entitled to a very good standard of living because of large-scale economic growth and expansion which is intrinsic in a capitalist system. Yes, the poor are fundamental human resources which are exploited by the rich in a mutually beneficial relationship, but so what? The quality of life in the US is excellent, and well above any and all communist countries in which the rich do not "exploit" the poor (with their consent, I might add).

If you are asking whether I like the idea of an effective global government - then the answer is : Yes

If you are asking whether I think all governments should run like the US - then the answer is : No

If you are asking whether I think an effective global government is achievable ( in the near future) - then the answer is : No

The problem is that people tend to need something to unite Against. People rarely unite For something. It happens but is certainly not a common driving force. You would need something like an alien invasion in order to unite the whole world. How else do you maintain the Us and Them attitude that has bound people together over our entire history as a species.

Yet the poor are still entitled to a very good standard of living because of large-scale economic growth and expansion which is intrinsic in a capitalist system. Yes, the poor are fundamental human resources which are exploited by the rich in a mutually beneficial relationship, but so what? The quality of life in the US is excellent, and well above any and all communist countries in which the rich do not "exploit" the poor (with their consent, I might add).

But the poor in the US have a good standard of living because they (not personally) exploit the poor in other countries. If you unite the world then you have all those poor people under your care, rather than there to be properly exploited. With such huge wealth disparities all under one government you are bound to be heading towards instability...

The European Union is already bad enough as it is with all the languages inside of its members' borders.

It took us 300 years to develop our little part of the world into the "global police force" that some would call it today. It's gonna' take a lot more than that to turn the worlds trash dump third world nations into infrastructure giants like Western Europe, US & Canada, and East Asia.

Massive changes would need to take place in order to accomodate that many citizens. Social security reforms, HoR district formations, tax reforms, etc.

If this crazy as hell idea were to actually succeed, it's not anywhere near our millennium.

Quite frankly, if such an event came to pass magically I would propably start voting from the rooftops. I pretty much despise my country's current government, however I would not at any point rather take the US as my government regardless of that. Its not because I hate America, or your way of life, but I could not see myself under such governance.

they oppress their people, squash any attempts at democracy, subject their citizenry to horrible conditions, implement flawed economic systems, etc.

You've just described the Bush administration.

We also acknowledge that the US, while some may not think it the best country in the world, excels at social and economic policy.

I'm laughing too hard at this to reply properly, except to point out that, globally, the US has an appalling quality of life (thus social policy is crap).

It is the most affluent country in the world (both absolutely and per capita)

Money is not the be-all and end-all.

it is evident that the US is much better off than a very large majority of countries.

You're better than most of Africa, the Middle East and New Zealand. I'll give you that much.

Let's assume that you could press a button. The effect of such an action would be this: the US government would be extended to control all the world's countries, without a shot being fired; it would be a completely peaceful transition.

I'd rather press the button that blows up the Western Hemisphere and eliminates the problem of arrogant, meglomanic governments outright.

The corrupt governments of certain states would be replaced by democracy and controlled by the US, ensuring access to freedom for all of their civilians.

You contradicted yourself there:
1. The US has a corrupt Government.
2. It's not democracy if you're controlled by someone else.
3. The US can't even ensure the freedom of the people currently within their borders.

Do you think such an action would have a positive or negative overall effect on the world? Poll coming.

Great idea. But for it to work, we have to assume that the US is fair and just (they aren't) and that the US is capable of managing what they all ready have (they can't).

There are many third world countries that would benefit from a more powerful and efficient government and a democratic system. What they would not benefit from is having to accept the constitution of America, some points of which they may well object too, such as gun control laws.

There are many first world countries with efficient and democratic political systems capable of backing up their words. Just about the only change to everyday life here in Darkest Upper Soviet Britisherstan would be people lugging guns everywhere, which I, for one, object too.

Also, subordinating every country to one democracy is a whole differant cake from making every country democratic, a truly noble venture. A lot of people don't want to be American. I'm one of them, and I'm not even old enough to grow an official terroristing beard. It may be because I'm a Communist Muslim Slave Drone of the Socialist Overlords of Darkest Upper Britisherstan, though.

A lot of the third world would benefit, but a lot of the first world would not. In most of Europe, for example, the legal age for buying alcohol is around 18, in America, 21. And the countries with legalised prostitution would have a big increase in unemployment. There's be a lot of unhappy people in Holland too.

The US can hardley take care of itself. the whole world? No

Every nationality should have its right of self-determination. Sometimes I think that times were better at the time of cold war, at least there were other superpower to stop USA's conquest in world, but with price of dozens of totalitarian states.