28 Sep 12
Originally posted by apathistThat you need a critical size to be relevant is the good idea bhind forming bigger entities between somehow homogenous states.
United States of America; United Countries of Earth. See the parallel?
Serious question: what reason is there that shows the former to be a good idea and the latter to be a bad idea?
Size restricts itself from being effective in states if the government is too far from the people or if the people are not homogenous enough (United States of Europe).
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by Maxwell Smartwell put.
Options:
A) Decentralized extreme- anarchy.
B) Centralized extreme- global monarch
C) Anything in between
If you prefer option A or B, then we will have to agree to disagree. If you prefer option C, then we will have to agree to disagree as to where to draw the line.
It's like a glass of good Scotch. Not enough ice and the Scotch is too warm ...[text shortened]... the Scotch is watered down. So how much ice is just right? I'm going to go do some research...
Cheers! On experimentation!
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186286
28 Sep 12
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartOban please.
Options:
A) Decentralized extreme- anarchy.
B) Centralized extreme- global monarch
C) Anything in between
If you prefer option A or B, then we will have to agree to disagree. If you prefer option C, then we will have to agree to disagree as to where to draw the line.
It's like a glass of good Scotch. Not enough ice and the Scotch is too warm ...[text shortened]... the Scotch is watered down. So how much ice is just right? I'm going to go do some research...
29 Sep 12
I heard some good points, but I'm still wrestling with this: if our world is stronger when we stay divided, why wouldn't the North American continent be stronger if it was divided as well?
Originally posted by Ponderable
That you need a critical size to be relevant is the good idea bhind forming bigger entities between somehow homogenous states.
Size restricts itself from being effective in states if the government is too far from the people or if the people are not homogenous enough (United States of Europe).
I'm not grasping that point, but it has my attention. How should we quantify something like that? Would a one-world govt start to make sense when humans populate our entire solar system?
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by mercurialu post to threads containing what u view as "drivel"? Extremely uninteresting.
Provocative.
This site should have a special forum where the people who pay to support this site and the freeloaders (not you Trev don't even start) could get together debate drivel such as this.
Maybe I will send the idea over to Site Ideas.
Back to the point, Apathist said "if" a one world government is bad. I do not believe it is a bad thing, just a complicated and difficult thing to manage.
Boil it down and America is basically a petri dish of a One Wolrd Government. All religions and view points are represented and tolerated, it is difficult but managable, and IMHO (in my honest opinion) is the future of our planet.
30 Sep 12
Originally posted by vivifySo the US should get all civil war again until it sticks, because a united x is "too much power for one man or governing body to have. Humans have proven to be easily corruptable, and shown to misuse power countless times."
OWG isn't bad, it's just that it's too much power for one man or governing body to have. Humans have proven to be easily corruptable, and shown to misuse power countless times.