Poll: What do you think of this idea for the world?

Question

Please star if you find interesting!

Oh, and Just read it and answer, it doesn't take that long!

You people who said "too long" or something like that are LAZY!

Democracy would still be in all countries by the way! This includes world polls and elections for all politicians! Also, the culture would be preserved, they would just have to agree to specific ideas set throughout the entire world. All forms of religion would be allowed to be practiced (as long as it doesn't disobey the World laws) and the morality lessons from religion would be emphasized.

New holidays would also be created as well for religion which would be a "day of rememberance" for the prophets. During these holidays, at a certain time, there would be a "moment of silence" for the prophets and the messages they preached.

Picture this, a World Government, World language (universal language that everyone speaks), World currency, World court system, World recognized working conditions, World recognized human rights such as some of the freedoms mentioned in the constitution and the bill of rights, a United Nations that is very effective and deals with all problems around the world through diplomacy and (very rare) war through a World army set to create peace. All nations would recognize a single global authority although each nation would be able to keep their own army for when they are needed. Also, the internet would be easy to use and would be able to be accessed by everyone who had a computer for free. All government officials would have an 4 year term limit for every politician who would then be up for reelection again. A politician can only serve 2 terms each which would be one of the World laws. Solar power would be used as the main source of energy and used in all ways it can be. Also, there would be a pure form of Capitalism in the market which would be backed by some type of Communism for some of the people who end up not succeeding.

So, what do you think of these thoughts?

btw: I am not calling this idea "good" or "bad", I am just sharing ideas with you.

To everyone who saw it more than once: Sorry, but I will be asking the question many times to get different opinions from different people. I am sorry you saw this question twice or more than twice.

Thanks for all the answers!

Answer 1

A world government would only work if everyone or most were athiest since religion is one of the main reasons for war and conflict in the world today. Other than it is a totally amazing idea, almost utopia in fact.

Answer 2

Bad idea.

"and the morality lessons from religion would be emphasized."

The most popular religion in the world doesn't teach very good morals, nor do most.

"New holidays would also be created as well for religion which would be a "day of rememberance" for the prophets. During these holidays, at a certain time, there would be a "moment of silence" for the prophets and the messages they preached."

So you want a holiday for every deluded idiot who lived and stood on a soapbox?

As for the unity thing, it would be fine, if people were willing to unite. Of course, no one would want to relinquish power, and it would end up as all the powerful nations recruiting smaller ones and then everyone blowing each other up in the name of peace.

Answer 3

Human nature is not perfect and soon someone would try to get more power and wealth

Answer 4

Like the lady above me said, your basically throwing a ton of **** into a pot and cooking up disaster.  But I give you points for actually trying to fix our mess of a gov.

Anarchism is much more pure, and works out better than this.

Answer 5

well it's a nice idea, but it seems like you just threw a bunch of things into one grand, illogical theory of how you think the world should be. if everyone had the same language, currency, government, rules, etc. then nothing cultural would be preserved at all... the world exists today because it has been built up from the many ideas of our ancestors. there will never be a time when we all agree on the same way of life. people will always disagree but that is how we keep each other in line. we teach one another how to make the world a better place. it will never be perfect. you must know this because you mentioned the fact that there would be an army available when needed. just because they preach world peace doesn't mean they can VERY RARELY have a war. that's hypocritical and no one... NO ONE!... would go along with it.

i could go on and on, but i'll tell you this. it's wrong to try and make everything the same. where would the diversity be? the beautiful languages, the different ideas, the perfection found within the imperfections? who are you to say that one man's ideas are what is RIGHT and JUST in this world. there will always be something better, but you'll never realize that without some defiance to put you back on track.

nice try.

Answer 6

This isn't really an actual practical plan that can be implemented, it's just a description of an ideal world.

Answer 7

The solar power concept is the one workable idea that you presented.

It all reads very nicely but in application how do you think it will work, when most of the wars seem to be over religions.

Are you saying that there would be a global God?

If so, trying to make believers out of non-believers, in itself would touch off a war to end all wars.

A good sequel for back to the future.

You do present some interesting concepts!

Answer 8

A first blush this idea (which has been offered many times and in many forms) seems so rights, but it isn’t, people just don’t work that way.  

Consider . . . .

Today there is (in the West) a system which has evolved for more than three thousand years which has increasingly focused on rights and sovereignty as originating within the individual.  Even so, within those cultures inclusive within this sphere there are many different variants of how a government should be constructed.  In other words, the people within each of these individual cultures evolved differing versions of what you might refer to as democracy.  

It is also significant to define just what is meant by the term ‘democracy.’  In its most basic form it is merely rule by majority.  If not, then how do you alter it?  And to what degree?

Outside of that sphere there are many additional perspectives as to the origin of rights and sovereignty and this has resulted in many other approaches to governmental structure.  Here, it is not uncommon for all people to ‘not’ have the same equal rights.  It has been offered by many that there people would jump to a democratic based culture if given the opportunity.  I don’t believe that to be true.  A couple of stories (true ones) that I believe make my point.

During the sixties (when the USSR was at its zenith) a group of Russian farmers came to Iowa (USA) and lived with Iowa farming families.  One of these was at a pig farm and the Iowa farmer took the Russian farmer to the local coop to get him some farming clothes (including boots) so that they could walk around the farm.  When leaving the coop the Russian farmer was shaking his head and the Iowa farmer asked him what was wrong.  The Russian farmer said we just bought the clothes and boots.  The Iowan said yes and you are wearing them so what is the problem.  The Russian said that the sales person ‘wanted’ to sell them to us right then at home they only talk about selling them and then keep them on the shelf.  You would think that the Russian would be pleased at this situation, but he wasn’t and in fact it bothered him so much he wanted to leave.

Another situation was one where a Russian had immigrated to America and found it very much to his liking.  After years of work he was able to get his parents to come to America and everyone was happy, he thought.  After they being here about six months they came to him and said they wanted to return home.  After much give and take he got them to try and explain why.  One example was when they went to the drug store to get some tooth paste.  They said that there were many different brands and they all looked different and they didn’t know which one to buy so they asked the clerk to help them.  They said he told them about each one but he wouldn’t say which one they ‘should’ buy.  They simply were not at ease with that much freedom.

My point is that not everyone will want what you define as democracy and to get what you want you will have to use force.

People just don’t function the way you think they do.

NOTE:  This is the History Category and not the one for taking polls.