05 Jul 06
Is it a good idea? Do we really need to divide into groups like that? I mean, every nation (not a single one is above this) has internal problems with people not really wanting to be part of their nation; not feeling properly represented by their nation.
Is a society only based on the fragile ideal that the majority of it's citisens desire in life? How can even two people agree to agree in every respect? We all disagree, if not completely, in parts. How can we be expected to uphold and protect a society that we may not even feel like we're a part of?
I think the concept of national borders and cultural differences are as dim as muddy water. Because, within every country there are differences, and there are always people who feel injustly treated (for a reason or not) working against the system. So, if we erase national borders completely and acknowledge one big world of people with various differences in opinions, we will have removed one big obstacle when fighting for peace in this world. The national pride and patriotic stupidity.
Debate me!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by stockenwell practicaly you face the problem that there are a large number of people with national pride who will be very upsett if you dissolve their country they have so much pride in. other issuse, who do you turn to if you have a problem if you don't have a national government? a world goventment is going to be overwhelmed by the number of requests/demands placed on it, so you will have regional governence to deal with local issuses, with general policies coming from central world government, of course some people are going to disagree with these policies, local or global, the problem now is that there is nowhere they can go to escape the global government. it's well global. you land up with exactly the same problems as now except now you call it civill war instead of just war.
Is it a good idea? Do we really need to divide into groups like that? I mean, every nation (not a single one is above this) has internal problems with people not really wanting to be part of their nation; not feeling properly represented by their nation.
Is a society only based on the fragile ideal that the majority of it's citisens desire in life? How ca ...[text shortened]... en fighting for peace in this world. The national pride and patriotic stupidity.
Debate me!
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by stockenIt's hopelessly outdated. The concept of a people still holds true, but a nation is a line on a map, and everybody knows that maps cause trouble. At the same time, a nation is a virtual construct--a concept that has to be bought into, with vested interests at stake. A risky enterprise, but profitable. Who dares wins. Again, though--who needs a nation when you have a corporation? Tighter, leaner, keener--
Is it a good idea?
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by stockenIs it just me that feels it is fitting that a Swedish blonde would be the first to openly call for being mass debated, but apart from that dreadfull aside my post in "Should Israel" talks of the need of the demise of national armies and the creation of a UN armed to the teetth that can enforce a universal law.
Is it a good idea? Do we really need to divide into groups like that? I mean, every nation (not a single one is above this) has internal problems with people not really wanting to be part of their nation; not feeling properly represented by their nation.
Is a society only based on the fragile ideal that the majority of it's citisens desire in life? How ca ...[text shortened]... en fighting for peace in this world. The national pride and patriotic stupidity.
Debate me!
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by kmax87I had hoped that somebody else would make the dreadful pun that nevertheless had to be made.
Is it just me that feels it is fitting that a Swedish blonde would be the ...[text shortened]... national armies and the creation of a UN armed to the teetth that can enforce a universal law.
The drawbacks of a UN army are obvious. Instead what about private citizens armed to the teeth? Corporate security with more bite? The middle ages had their appeal after all. Perhaps a new serf class, less freedom, more protection, could arise? At least people would know where they stood (on the pavement, as far away from the tanks as possible).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by kmax87The point is that there are a sizeable number of people that don't agree with those laws and don't want them 'enforced' on them (horrible use of English but anyway). Imposing laws on people who don't want them by use of force leads to resistance, and in this day and age what we call terrorism. Fine if it's a club you can opt into (and out of) but if it is something imposed on an unwilling population then what you have is imperialism.
Is it just me that feels it is fitting that a Swedish blonde would be the ...[text shortened]... national armies and the creation of a UN armed to the teetth that can enforce a universal law.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI am sorry have you ever been to the places where people all walk around armed? the problem with giving people weapons is that they might be tempeted (and often are) to use them. giving everyone a gun doesn't stop people shooting each other, it makes them shot at each other more often. and the day someone drives a tank down my street is the day i blow it up.
I had hoped that somebody else would make the dreadful pun that nevertheless had to be made.
The drawbacks of a UN army are obvious. Instead what about private citizens armed to the teeth? Corporate security with more bite? The middle ages had their appeal after all. Perhaps a new serf class, less freedom, more protection, could arise? At least people would know where they stood (on the pavement, as far away from the tanks as possible).
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't know how it works in your specific country, but here we have like little governments handling local affairs. It would be like one nation, only a large one. Patriots aside, what's the problem?
well practicaly you face the problem that there are a large number of people with national pride who will be very upsett if you dissolve their country they have so much pride in. other issuse, who do you turn to if you have a problem if you don't have a national government? a world goventment is going to be overwhelmed by the number of requests/demands p ...[text shortened]... p with exactly the same problems as now except now you call it civill war instead of just war.
I like Bosse's point of view on this one. There would still be cultural groupings. I'd like to add that they would live under the same democratic laws as any other group. And be free to choose to leave or be part of a specific group. Other than that, of course we would still be able to consider ourselves part of a larger subculture if we have a lot in common with the people of that group. We can also stand alone if we wish, under the protection of the democratically elected government who's job it would be to see to it that everyone has a chance to get heard and live free in the great nation of United People of Earth (UPE).
Uhm 😕 Perhaps not the most appealing acronym. What do you think we should call this one great nation? What about UCU (United Cultures of the Universe)? Who knows, we may run into aliens at some point in time and we wouldn't want to act all discriminating and stuff. 🙂
05 Jul 06
Originally posted by kmax87Debate (for, against or partially) with me? 😳
Is it just me that feels it is fitting that a Swedish blonde would be the ...[text shortened]... national armies and the creation of a UN armed to the teetth that can enforce a universal law.
I don't think armed forces is the way to go. People must want to unite under one democracy on their own. Only talking can lead to that (if ever).
Blonde swede. Hmmmpffff... 🙁 I know what that means. 😠