01 Oct 12
Originally posted by apathistIt's not so difficult:
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
[b]That you need a critical size to be relevant is the good idea bhind forming bigger entities between somehow homogenous stat ...[text shortened]... hat? Would a one-world govt start to make sense when humans populate our entire solar system?
If you consider the smallest working community, what is it?
One person? hardly, even a nearlytivial accident can kill a single person.
two? They can help each other, if you pick different sexes they can even have offspring (then they are strictly spoken more than two). But they can't have all the skills between them, which are needed for technology
10? This is already a sizeable group and there is probably a chance that they will survive.
1000 this would be a village. Here we can have already some distribution of skills, we can accept a few people who "just" care about administration planing organising and things like that. But industry as such is out of question
10000 A town. Manufacturing could already be in the size of "small industry" but cars or anything suchlike are not in reach, as is probably science.
The other case:
If you have to deal with th problems of many people you have to built an adminsitration. However evry official can only handle so many cases, so you have to put up a next level where a upper administrator administrates some lower clerks, but depending on how much things are regulated this becomes fast a high proportion of people. This is often noticed and also often critized but administrations have a tendency to keep on growing (regardless of the political colour of the government). Since if you want to axe an administration you have too first built up a new structure to take over the duties ...
02 Oct 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelMy vote is for the official language to be pig-latin.
one world govt. one official world language. keep all the other languages and cultures intact,same with borders. keep them for aesthetic and educational purposes.
anything like this has to start with the U.S. (as the world stands at the moment)
Life would be a laugh a minute listening to speeches in the new official language.
03 Oct 12
Originally posted by apathistThe point being redundancy, "been there, done that". Obviously, as separate nations did not last but about eighty some odd years before changing from "These united States" (plural) to "The United States" (singular), this would repeat if we were separate nations, and therefore the whole endeavor would be redundant, costly, and inefficient.
Okay. Did so. Your point?
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by CLL53So the USA shouldn't break apart, because re-uniting "would repeat" if our states were separate nations, which would be "redundant, costly, and inefficient."
The point being redundancy, "been there, done that". Obviously, as separate nations did not last but about eighty some odd years before changing from "These united States" (plural) to "The United States" (singular), this would repeat if we were separate nations, and therefore the whole endeavor would be redundant, costly, and inefficient.
You just advocated a one-world govt and agreed with the opening post.
06 Oct 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI've met that view before. I'd like to see a rational defense of it.
Anything even close to 'one world / one size fits all / universal control structure' scares the brown pants off my mouse and I.
😞
Does "one size fits all" really characterize the nature of America? For a trivial example, how many of our states allow consenting adults to trade money for sex (without criminal charges and jail time)?
06 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelHere you approach what bothers me. Some language would have to needed, become mainstream, turns out to be English. But when entire societies stick their butt in the air at command, there is obviously coercion. Coercian is not a good thing. Hey free people, how'd you like to be forced to worship this ideal, to be forced to behave this way, to have no choice except to resist and die?
one world govt. one official world language. keep all the other languages and cultures intact,same with borders. keep them for aesthetic and educational purposes.
anything like this has to start with the U.S. (as the world stands at the moment)
Not a pleasant death, either. (eg)
edit: spelling. I hate internet Explorer. Gonna get Firefox.
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by apathistA thing not breaking itself into parts is not the same as a thing joining itself with other things.
So the USA shouldn't break apart, because re-uniting "would repeat" if our states were separate nations, which would be "redundant, costly, and inefficient."
You just advocated a one-world govt and agreed with the opening post.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by CLL53But if a thing not breaking itself into parts is good, then things joining is not automatically bad. Looking for reasons to think the world should not have one government.
A thing not breaking itself into parts is not the same as C
That's like pulling teeth, only easier.