Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

US unifies the world

joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 12:32:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Imagine that, after realizing it's pointless to compete with the United States militarily, all the countries in the world decide to annex themselves to the US, becoming American states (or multiple states in the case of the bigger countries). What would be the consequences of that?
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
el_em_en_oh
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 8:55:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 12:32:57 AM, joepbr wrote:
Imagine that, after realizing it's pointless to compete with the United States militarily, all the countries in the world decide to annex themselves to the US, becoming American states (or multiple states in the case of the bigger countries). What would be the consequences of that?

Consequence:
Obama would be the worst president the WORLD has ever seen as opposed to simply the worst president the United States has ever seen.
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:17:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The situation would never happen. At the most they would become a federation or union but not actually recognized as a state. More of membership.
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 11:08:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:17:36 AM, Kanti wrote:
The situation would never happen. At the most they would become a federation or union but not actually recognized as a state. More of membership.

I know that's virtually impossible, I just want to know what people think that would happen if the world was suddenly unified into a single state. Although I agree with you that "state" isn't the appropriate term, once, if something like that happened, the concept of state itself would crumble.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 11:39:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no natural law that states a federation or collection of entities can not survive under a unified grand umbrella.

The biggest thing hindering that is the human condition and the disparity of beliefs and the desire to hold power to control the belief system.

Let's just imagine though that each country suddenly has a eureka moment and valued US principles such as freedom of speech, individual rights, contractual and tort law, etc. They would be able to fit under the umbrella just fine.

Even with that level of similarity and assimilation there would be extreme fear in the traditional US regarding voting rights of the new members. The fear is one of becoming a minority and loosing power. As long as the principles that make us unique and free are upheld, I say more the merrier.

That is the happy path. Seeing how the values of the rest of the world are so extremely different, there is no way a united world will happen in our life time.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 11:57:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 8:55:33 AM, el_em_en_oh wrote:
At 4/2/2014 12:32:57 AM, joepbr wrote:
Imagine that, after realizing it's pointless to compete with the United States militarily, all the countries in the world decide to annex themselves to the US, becoming American states (or multiple states in the case of the bigger countries). What would be the consequences of that?

Consequence:
Obama would be the worst president the WORLD has ever seen as opposed to simply the worst president the United States has ever seen.

Amen, brother!
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 7:35:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 11:39:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
There is no natural law that states a federation or collection of entities can not survive under a unified grand umbrella.

The biggest thing hindering that is the human condition and the disparity of beliefs and the desire to hold power to control the belief system.

Let's just imagine though that each country suddenly has a eureka moment and valued US principles such as freedom of speech, individual rights, contractual and tort law, etc. They would be able to fit under the umbrella just fine.

Even with that level of similarity and assimilation there would be extreme fear in the traditional US regarding voting rights of the new members. The fear is one of becoming a minority and loosing power. As long as the principles that make us unique and free are upheld, I say more the merrier.

That is the happy path. Seeing how the values of the rest of the world are so extremely different, there is no way a united world will happen in our life time.

I think you touched an interesting point: Power.
Power doesn't mean simply having a lot of money/weapons/influence, but most importantly: having them more than someone else. So, it means that, when a country is expended to the point of encompassing the entire world, the meaning of power (in a state level sense) is completely lost.

This generates an interesting paradox: even though countries are interested in increasing their power, no country would like to acquire all the power possible, because that would also mean losing all their power.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 8:26:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 7:35:30 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 4/2/2014 11:39:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
There is no natural law that states a federation or collection of entities can not survive under a unified grand umbrella.

The biggest thing hindering that is the human condition and the disparity of beliefs and the desire to hold power to control the belief system.

Let's just imagine though that each country suddenly has a eureka moment and valued US principles such as freedom of speech, individual rights, contractual and tort law, etc. They would be able to fit under the umbrella just fine.

Even with that level of similarity and assimilation there would be extreme fear in the traditional US regarding voting rights of the new members. The fear is one of becoming a minority and loosing power. As long as the principles that make us unique and free are upheld, I say more the merrier.

That is the happy path. Seeing how the values of the rest of the world are so extremely different, there is no way a united world will happen in our life time.

I think you touched an interesting point: Power.
Power doesn't mean simply having a lot of money/weapons/influence, but most importantly: having them more than someone else. So, it means that, when a country is expended to the point of encompassing the entire world, the meaning of power (in a state level sense) is completely lost.

This generates an interesting paradox: even though countries are interested in increasing their power, no country would like to acquire all the power possible, because that would also mean losing all their power.

Or would it be? There would still be need for domestic law and arbitration in such a society. So yes, the inter- aspect of power is lost, but the intra- aspect of power becomes complete.

Nice thread and commentary btw.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:46:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 7:35:30 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 4/2/2014 11:39:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
There is no natural law that states a federation or collection of entities can not survive under a unified grand umbrella.

The biggest thing hindering that is the human condition and the disparity of beliefs and the desire to hold power to control the belief system.

Let's just imagine though that each country suddenly has a eureka moment and valued US principles such as freedom of speech, individual rights, contractual and tort law, etc. They would be able to fit under the umbrella just fine.

Even with that level of similarity and assimilation there would be extreme fear in the traditional US regarding voting rights of the new members. The fear is one of becoming a minority and loosing power. As long as the principles that make us unique and free are upheld, I say more the merrier.

That is the happy path. Seeing how the values of the rest of the world are so extremely different, there is no way a united world will happen in our life time.

I think you touched an interesting point: Power.
Power doesn't mean simply having a lot of money/weapons/influence, but most importantly: having them more than someone else. So, it means that, when a country is expended to the point of encompassing the entire world, the meaning of power (in a state level sense) is completely lost.

This generates an interesting paradox: even though countries are interested in increasing their power, no country would like to acquire all the power possible, because that would also mean losing all their power.

Well, actually, since it is individuals and not countries which acquire power your argument fails. The unification of all nations under one state would not abolish the power of those who are at the top of that state's hierarchy, because that hierarchy is still in place, and in fact those individuals will have gained power since they have governmental control over the entire planet now, and considering that they are likely power-hungry individuals, it would presumably be in their interest to expand their influence in such a way, even to the point where it becomes absolute.