Would you give up your sovereignty for world peace?

Post by **Cool Blue** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:56 pm

If someone tabled the idea of abolishing 'Countries' the world over in favor a single 'Earth' would you support it?

If the United Nations had the ability to create a global constitution ensuring free trade and human rights, would you toss the patriatism aside to try something new, or would you vote to keep things the way they are?

The inspiration this thread was quite obviously John Lennon.

Post by **Cool Blue** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:56 pm

Oh..

I would. In a heart beat.

Post by **Postal** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:58 pm

Of course, the US would nuke everyone if this happened.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:00 pm

interesting question.

I think world peace would emerge along with a unification of nations.

I don't think you can just traumatically dissolve nations into one and expect world peace to follow.

Post by **Cool Blue** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:interesting question.
I don't think you can just traumatically dissolve nations into one and expect world peace to follow.

Well duh.

We would have to assume it would be an ongoing process, each country individually brought into the system to ensure stability during the transition. Something a bit like the EU.

Establish a unified dollar. Human rights charter, etc. then as countries meet these criteria or get close, the UN would begin to assist in the transformation.

Although it's not without it's hiccups, I'm overwhelmed with joy at what the EU has accomlished with eastern european nations over the last few years. And all without the use of force or sanctions. Just the simple prospect of a better life, with help from friends should a nation decide to change.

Post by **Canis** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:11 pm

I think there would be just as many problems, but only a different set of them. I'm not sure what exactly, but you cant expect everyone to get along just because they're under the same political umbrella.

Post by **DooMer** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:15 pm

NO! THATS THEIR GOAL. ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, AND BANK CONTROLLED BY THE WEALTHY WITH A SINGLE WORLD POLICE. THEY WILL CUT DOWN THE WORLDS POPULATION BY 2/3 TO HELP PREVENT UPRISINGS. WE WILL BECOME SLAVES, AND THOSE WHO RESIST WILL BE CONSIDERED UN PATRIOTIC AND HUNTED DOWN LIKE DOGS.

Post by **Canis** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:15 pm

Cool Blue wrote:
[xeno]Julios wrote:interesting question.
I don't think you can just traumatically dissolve nations into one and expect world peace to follow.
Well duh.

We would have to assume it would be an ongoing process, each country individually brought into the system to ensure stability during the transition. Something a bit like the EU.

Establish a unified dollar. Human rights charter, etc. then as countries meet these criteria or get close, the UN would begin to assist in the transformation.

Although it's not without it's hiccups, I'm overwhelmed with joy at what the EU has accomlished with eastern european nations over the last few years. And all without the use of force or sanctions. Just the simple prospect of a better life, with help from friends should a nation decide to change.

There's something a bit too idealized about this thought that doesnt agree with me. It sounds great and all, but first you'd have to get all the countries to agree on it, of which most would not because people are greedy for power (among other natural drawbacks). As well, I believe people (not individuals) are inherently nationalistic, and for the most part will fight like hell for their country. As such I see a bunch of conflicts occuring with the notion of a unified world-nation.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:18 pm

think long term, Canis, like maybe a couple thousand years into the future.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:21 pm

A better question would be would you let a country like the US invade and forcefully take over the world in the name of world unification?

Post by **Cool Blue** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:31 pm

Kracus wrote:A better question would be would you let a country like the US invade and forcefully take over the world in the name of world unification?

That is not a better question.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:35 pm

Well the thing is, to abandon your sovereignty is basicly the same as accepting defeat from another country and that country's rule over your own. Whether it's through the UN or through a country which the US basicly runs the UN anyway it'd be the same difference except my question is more blunt and to the point making an awnser more truthful and less wishful thinking.

Post by **redfella** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:43 pm

Nationalism bears its mark on every people group on Earth. It is a natural, intrinsic, human quality that has existed for centuries... To challenge that fact by asking if we could deny our nationalistic beliefs is naive.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:46 pm

lol, nationalism isn't intrinsic, any more than nations are intrinsic.

Post by **redfella** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:55 pm

nationalism is intrinsic.

Post by **Canis** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:57 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:think long term, Canis, like maybe a couple thousand years into the future.

Whew....that's a stretch. I'll be long dead.

Still, i'm not saying it's impossible. Anything can happen in 1000+ years. Look at us today in comparison to the social systems of 1000ad. A lot has changed, however what it changed to was practically impossible to have predicted, even in retrospect.

Post by **Dr_Watson** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:06 am

Canis wrote:
[xeno]Julios wrote:think long term, Canis, like maybe a couple thousand years into the future.
Whew....that's a stretch. I'll be long dead. Still, i'm not saying it's impossible. Anything can happen in 1000+ years. Look at us today in comparison to the social systems of 1000ad. A lot has changed, however what it changed to was practically impossible to have predicted, even in retrospect.

then look at the system the romans had in 1ad... not too terribly different. (a currupt republic that serves itself better than its people)
religion ruined progress for > 1000 years. And religious crazies are trying to thrust us into another dark age all over again.
world peace would be easier to achieve when people finally give up religion.

Post by **Canis** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:07 am

R00k wrote:lol, nationalism isn't intrinsic, any more than nations are intrinsic.

There is a notion of nationalism in the majority of people out there. However, similar to the chicken or the egg scenario, where this comes from is up in the air. On one hand it could be seen as an innate sense of community expressed through the recognition of a "nation" as a community of people that hold similar values of importance. On the other hand it could the initial formation of a nation (through greed, political influence, etc) that has defined what "community" is to most folks, upon which they then instill much importance.

Basically is it "community" or "nationalism" that people value more, and also, does it matter which comes first?

Post by **Dr_Watson** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:08 am

redfella wrote:Nationalism bears its mark on every people group on Earth. It is a natural, intrinsic, human quality that has existed for centuries... To challenge that fact by asking if we could deny our nationalistic beliefs is naive.

that makes about as much sense as people having some sort of patriotism for what county they live in.

you can't be patriotic if you're waving the "Earth Flag"?

Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:44 am

Absolutely not. It would only put more power in the hands of fewer people. There is no way that there can be any sort of global peace with the way humans are at the moment.
It would be funny to see all the jesus freaks losing their minds about it being the end of the world, though.

Post by **-Replicant-** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:50 am

On the nationalism debate- nationalism can exist without having a state (nation-state) or a body of political leadership and policies. nationalism emerges from a shared experience, a shared goal for the future, common language and cultural characteristics etc. Palestine, for example, is a nation made up of Palestinian nationalism. It has no state, but yet it remains probably the ultimate source of authority for people who associate themselves with that identity. Nationalism is still a VERY strong force in the world, as it always has been. Even in the EU, people are simply adapting to a "European" identity, rather than an "Irish" or an "English" identity as existed in the past. Regardless, those Irish and English identities still survive in the people- it has been argued by many of the smartest men and women in International Studies today that nationalism is closely linked to man's innate need/yearning for connection and involvement in group dynamics. Thus, it can be argued that nationalism has ALWAYS existed as an innate part of human nature

Post by **Maiden** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:51 am

would it cause my taxes to go up?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:51 am

I think we might have to evolve beyond religion to be able to work as a world community.

Post by **losCHUNK** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:57 am

probaly a much better chance of us making a faction with the same idea... lets say GDI

and china, korea middleeast n all that making another... lets say NOD

and then we'll fuck up the world

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:58 am

lol what game was that again? C&C?