|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 7, 2004 23:15:26 GMT -5
DO you think the world would be better, ecconomically, politically or socially if we were able to evolve into a single unified state? What would be its advantages to our current system, and what would be its disadvantages?
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Mar 7, 2004 23:37:27 GMT -5
Interesting question.
I can't see too many advantages at the moment, but I think it's important to have seperate nations.
Having multiple nations with different leaders all considering something else to be important is how we can cover all feilds of life.
Example, we all didn't industrialize at the same time, and once a few of us started, it was mainly all just the factory machinary, but eventually, nations pretty much chose the core of what they were best at.
No one nation came up with all the advances in medical science we have today, or several other things.
Another thing is people need there religion... For some people, that's all they have to go off of. If we were to indeed have just one nation to unite us all, we would need several different leaders and keep all the religious beliefs.
(This may or may not make sense/be credible in any way, my mind state is quite altered at the moment)
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Mar 7, 2004 23:49:12 GMT -5
If we become one nation, it will be way too big - people living too far from the capital or having opposing viewpoints will separate and form their own countries, thus going back to the previous system.
Of course, this assumes one capital. What if, however, this configuration has several different capitals, interconnected to create an all-encompasing "abstract" capital?
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 8, 2004 0:02:33 GMT -5
are you saying all people in america have the same opinions? Does that mean that the republicans should split from the democrats, and create their own Eastern US? No matter what the country is, everyone always has opposing beleifs, but that is no reason to split into another country... Also it would be pointless since, in that case, you would have the rest of the world against you (literally).
Furthermore, one nation can still allow for religious freedom... Religion is separate from state and would remain that way.
Also the difference in emphasis, between different countries could still be accomplished, only it would be between different regions instead. Example: look at any country, If you go to France, you will find Bordaux specializes in wines, Brittany, in shipping and trade, the East and central areas in cheese, etc. In the US, Silicon Valley specializes in High Tech, outside it, fruits and artichokes. Washington, airplanes, and chip (computer) manufacturing, Pitsburgh, Oil... etc.
And are you saying that the nation came up with the medical and scientific achievments? Could not a single nation would still sponsor science and medecine... Its the people who create those advances anyway, not the government. (And half the time they are being payed by private businesses rather than the government, although admitedly, many of those private companies ar invested by the government.)
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 8, 2004 0:03:16 GMT -5
I am only playing Devils Advocate hear... just trying to raise more debate, by asking more questions and giving counter arguments...
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Mar 8, 2004 0:07:05 GMT -5
I am only playing Devils Advocate hear... just trying to raise more debate, by asking more questions and giving counter arguments... I'm for it! The forum could use more debate in my opinion. Well, maybe not debate, but any intersting conversation is well welcome.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Mar 8, 2004 0:11:19 GMT -5
Furthermore, one nation can still allow for religious freedom... Religion is separate from state and would remain that way. What's wrong with you? You just said "One Nation Under God!", not "One Nation Under Whatever the Hell Each Individual Feels Like Believing Hes hit's Under!". That's not religious freedom...
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 8, 2004 0:20:37 GMT -5
The subject name of this post was named in order to encourage people to read it (advertising) so it needed a catchy name.
Also I was quoting from one of the American documents... because it happened to have one nation...
The under God part came with the quote....
Maybe I should have named it this. One nation under God (Or Gods)!
|
|
|
Post by henry on Mar 8, 2004 0:21:57 GMT -5
(or under nothing at all!)
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Mar 8, 2004 0:23:57 GMT -5
Under Pavel's C-Lair Forum!!
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Mar 8, 2004 0:24:20 GMT -5
are you saying all people in america have the same opinions? Does that mean that the republicans should split from the democrats, and create their own Eastern US? No matter what the country is, everyone always has opposing beleifs, but that is no reason to split into another country... Also it would be pointless since, in that case, you would have the rest of the world against you (literally). Furthermore, one nation can still allow for religious freedom... Religion is separate from state and would remain that way. Also the difference in emphasis, between different countries could still be accomplished, only it would be between different regions instead. Example: look at any country, If you go to France, you will find Bordaux specializes in wines, Brittany, in shipping and trade, the East and central areas in cheese, etc. In the US, Silicon Valley specializes in High Tech, outside it, fruits and artichokes. Washington, airplanes, and chip (computer) manufacturing, Pitsburgh, Oil... etc. And are you saying that the nation came up with the medical and scientific achievments? Could not a single nation would still sponsor science and medecine... Its the people who create those advances anyway, not the government. (And half the time they are being payed by private businesses rather than the government, although admitedly, many of those private companies ar invested by the government.) Normally, separation because of opinion conflict does not happen. However, if the nation is big enough, the separation will have a better chance of happening (when you blow a bubble, the bigger it gets, the more likely it is to pop, right?)
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 8, 2004 0:33:41 GMT -5
however, under one nation, the easy availability of moving, will probably spread demographics so that no particular group of people live in the same space. Therefore, any revolution will most likely be a minority revolution and might have some trouble in controlling an entire state sized area, more or less continent.
Also there is more to factor in than bubbles. Before hand, feudalism existed, and any country the size of modern France could not have existed because there was no way to apply power. The means did not exist then. Now countries of that size exist. Later, Ghengis Kahn conquered an empire that crumbled because of its large size. The soviet Union was almost as large and it didnt fall because of size.
The breakthrough in communication, transportation and control of this recent century, allow us to better monitor, and better respond to any kind of disorder. This kind of technology ought to be able to maintain order and control in a World Sized nation.
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Mar 8, 2004 0:33:45 GMT -5
Your right, would be just like Russia... War would happen and they would all split again.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Mar 8, 2004 0:38:40 GMT -5
however, under one nation, the easy availability of moving, will probably spread demographics so that no particular group of people live in the same space. Therefore, any revolution will most likely be a minority revolution and might have some trouble in controlling an entire state sized area, more or less continent. Also there is more to factor in than bubbles. Before hand, feudalism existed, and any country the size of modern France could not have existed because there was no way to apply power. The means did not exist then. Now countries of that size exist. Later, Ghengis Kahn conquered an empire that crumbled because of its large size. The soviet Union was almost as large and it didnt fall because of size. The breakthrough in communication, transportation and control of this recent century, allow us to better monitor, and better respond to any kind of disorder. This kind of technology ought to be able to maintain order and control in a World Sized nation. However, as the size of the country increases, so does the needed number of policemen and/or soldiers to keep it contained. And in a nation encompassing the entire globe, it is very dubious that such a force could be gathered. Russia did not collapse because a lot of it was, and still is, unpopulated.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 8, 2004 0:40:22 GMT -5
Why not, we have enough police now dont we? What makes you think we would need more?
Also the soviet Union didnt split up because of its size It split up because it lost the war. The fact that it lost the war has nothing to do with its size.
|
|