Would the world be more peaceful as one giant superstate?

Question

I believe that if there was only one country in the world there would be no more wars. Some people seem to think that this is wrong and that globalization is bad, but I think the world needs to unify in order to survive. A single world government is the only way foward. The United Nations and the European Union are the first steps in seeing a single unified country.

What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

I disagree.  When there are conflicts, they can be resolved.  I don't want my country joining with any other.  There is no benefit in it.

Answer 2

Lets all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'.

Answer 3

of course not. Who would rule this one state? Would it be a Muslim? If not do you really think we would have peace? When that one government goes bad where do the people go to escape it.

Answer 4

I am guessing you are a Mason..

Answer 5

Ummm.. ever hear of New World Order or The Illuminati or The Brotherhood??? Wiki it... some scary stuff--- one world gov't is the worst that can happen my friend...

Answer 6

As a truly democratic one, yes it would be.

There would still be criminals, and there would still be terrorists, but they would not have as much 'moral' excuse as they do now.

Answer 7

either you are a very sick puppy or you are from one of the 3rd world country's, anyone who would Even think of having a one world gov, and is American should be shot and not wait until sun rise, if you think a one world gov would work , have you noticed what is happening in the Philippines , Indo China, and so many other parts of the world where some group mostly Muslims are always fighting to make this or that a Muslim state or country or some other reason , any fool should know there will never be Peace on earth, as long as there are 2 people on it, the Bible tells us that and it has proven out day by day.

Answer 8

Obviously, yes.

The world is acually much more peaceful now than at anyime in cenuries.

There are ZERO wars being fought between Major powers.

The chance of World War (say that between memebers of he UN Security Council) is practically nil.

All that is holding back lasting international peace is the persistent belief in and following of religious leaders.

When everyone is only motivaed by economics, then everything can be negotiated.

Religion means no compromise, when the whole world is secularly run, we will have a chance, but not certainty for peace.

Answer 9

Nationalism exists independently of governments. Nations exist independently of governments. Governments are merely a reflection of the state of affairs in that nation. If you try to unify before the world is in fact, unified, you wont see any results.

Also, the question is silly. It presumes first that war is a bad thing. War is not the most terrible thing that can happen to humanity. On the contrary, it is only when humanity finds itself in such a lulled over state of apathy that it has no convictions left to fight for that it will be in its worst state. Without conviction there can be no artistry, and without artistry there can be no life.

Answer 10

in era of globlisation mutual--dependance is taking place.its a foundation for world peace. due to diversities world under one govt. is impossible.....manohar gulab das vaishnaw.

Answer 11

bottom line....it would create more wars, more death and destruction, more hate, more power struggles, more taxes, more poverty, and more hate. This world is too diverse for just one ruling body. Utopia is in your mind, it will never physically occur on this planet, or any planet for that matter.

Answer 12

There would still be wars. Wars are not fought over state vs. state. they are fought over ideas/morals/ideals/attitudes/beliefs vs. ideas/morals/ideals/attitudes/beliefs. Regardless if we are 1 nation on Earth or 500 Nations, there are still differences and those are what people will fight over.

Answer 13

That's where Globalization is taking us.  The only problem is who's form of government will be used?  Democracy or Dictatorship

Answer 14

I don't see it happening, the Muslims won't have it, the republicans won't have it unless they are the dictators.

What is the problem with having a different kind of world where everyone just learns to accept each other for the way they are, & no one tries to convert anyone to anything else?

That is the question, I like the US, I don't want to have to follow rules I didn't grow up with, anymore than a cave dweller from the desert doesn't want to live like I do!

Well they do, but maybe that is a front to take over this country.

Answer 15

The idea that different cultures and nationalities will suddenly abandon what sets them apart for a chance to join the "modern" world according to someone else's belief-structure is one of the major causes of war and violence in the world today.

In short, you would have to kill a lot of people before the surviving populations accepted this willingly.

Answer 16

One world is a good concept but very hard to establish.

Answer 17

I think, given the numerous differences between countries, regions, nations within countries, languages, religions, and the like, that world government at this stage in human development doesn't seem wise or feasible.

*Edit: Government should be small in size and limited scope. Why? Because it's easier to throw off the chains of oppression when your government is small and weak. An international government would be easy to overturn and wouldn't represent the diverse interests of the world's population. Also, can you imagine electing representatives? And the burden of poor countries to send delegates to a world legislature? Come on, it's not practical and it's not good.

Answer 18

My thoughts?

It's coming... And when it does, you will regret it.

Always remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Tick-tock. Tick-tock.

Answer 19

The anti-Christ sent you.