Unification?

Question

Should the countries of the world unite, if so, tell me any good point i don't know, i might want this responsablity one day

Answer 1

They already have-it's called the United Nations

Answer 2

You seem to be bucking the tide. In 1957 there were 57 Countries in the world. There are that many in Europe now. Most of them can be driven across in a couple of hours.

Answer 3

Unification, meaning? Nations of the world are definitely closer today than they were before 1945 and they will continue to harmonize broad policy objectives. True,  there are still many areas of dvergence in our different national lives and values, but it is also true that through the activities of the United Nations, consensus has been forged in many other issues. We are therefore saying that it is not possible for the nearly 200 nations of the world to 'unify' like the former Germanys, but it is desirable and I think inevitable that,  through the instrumentalities of the UN, countries of the world will continue to influence each other leading to increasing harmony among them and resort by all to peaceful and negotiated resolution of whatever conflicts that will normally arise in the course of interaction among them.

Answer 4

No, they should not.

Answer 5

I oppose unification. I cannot envision how this can be accomplished and how this would benefit the people of the world.

For example, you may claim that a unified world would be one where wars do not occur. But consider why these wars occur at all. Wars are fought because peaceful diplomatic means fail. One side fails to convince the other that resolution is mutually beneficial. Or the stronger side cannot threaten the weaker into accepting their demands.

How would you go about convincing different countries that your arrangement is mutually beneficial to all? If you failed, would you use force against those who rejected your resolution?

International agreements regarding the seas, space, pollution standards, tariffs and trade are effectively examples of political cooperation between nations that work, without requiring the forfeiture of their sovereignty. You would have to  convince the world's nations that surrender of sovereignty to a world body would further benefit them.

Then consider who would decide to give your plan credibility? Would each adult human get a vote? Would they send representatives to a congress? Or would a limited group of leaders decide? Who would oppose? And so on...

I see no reason for a united world. Even if we were attacked by aliens, we could all cooperate and defeat them without surrendering national sovereignty.

.