Uninationalism

I accept there is probably another word for this, but whatever it is, I can't find it, so I shall henceforth make up a word. Uninationalism. Believing the world should be united under one nation.

As far as I'm concerned, the world needs to start heading towards this. Ever since the internet was made accessible by, well, just about everybody, the world has been getting smaller, in a sense. I can talk to people from almost anywhere in the world with a few clicks of my mouse. The people of the world are united and able to communicate instantly. Isn't it time for the governments of the world to follow suit?

The truth is, the way the world is functioning simply isn't working. Things such as child pornography, illegal software and spam are allowed to run rampant because people can simply set up websites in countries where those things aren't illegal. The "can spam" acts being set up by governments around the world are, well, useless. They have absolutely no jurisdiction over the countries where the spam actually comes from.
On a more serious note, I was reading an article in the local newspaper. A suspect in a murder case in New Zealand had been granted name suppression, as is standard in New Zealand. Someone posted information about him on a New Zealand website. When the courts found out, it was ordered removed. The information then appeared on an overseas website, where the New Zealand courts had no power to remove it, removing the suspect's right to privacy.

A move to uninationalism naturally won't be easy. Arguments over who would get the ultimate rule would result in, well, nastiness. But the old system of nations is far too outdated and, as far as I'm concerned, no longer has a place in today's modern world. We need to be united under one rule. One world, one dream, was the motto of this year's Olympics. It's time for that one world to come together.

you do know your motherfucking crazy right?
i mean shiit.
Do you know how fast someone would get fucking killed after they got elected world leader.

^
Where did he say dictator of the world?

Why don't you try a world government of some sort? (like a UN with a wider range of powers)

But I have a feeling it won't work. People in the Americas and sections of Asia and Africa declared and won independence from Europe because they did not like being ruled by a foreign country across the seas. Besides, the different people of this world are too dissimilar to make one country out of. (compare Europe with Africa)

Never mind a dictator, I don't think a democratic government would work for the entire world. Is Iraq proof of that? I dunno but at least Saddam held power, while all the US got out of it is this civil war pumpernickel.

The above opinion is free to challenges.

Well, first of all... The Olympics motto came from China, if you get my point, and I'm not gonna bash Chinese ppl.

Second, just take yourself back to Roman Empire, Alexander Empire, Egypt Empire, Eastern Roman Empire, European 2nd Empire rave and you'll change your mind. I mean, that didn't ever work, and supranational organizations are misleaded and lacking gravity inside governments.

There's no near future for this kind of ''United Nation''. We should try first to rearrange things inside our frontiers and just then sit every country leader to talk about what to do. Btw, politics engine nowadays is far from being quick and practical.

So... ._.

I wish I could speak in spanish so as to explain myself better.

^
Where did he say dictator of the world?

Why don't you try a world government of some sort? (like a UN with a wider range of powers)

But I have a feeling it won't work. People in the Americas and sections of Asia and Africa declared and won independence from Europe because they did not like being ruled by a foreign country across the seas. Besides, the different people of this world are too dissimilar to make one country out of. (compare Europe with Africa)

Never mind a dictator, I don't think a democratic government would work for the entire world. Is Iraq proof of that? I dunno but at least Saddam held power, while all the US got out of it is this civil war pumpernickel.

The above opinion is free to challenges.

Yeah, the UN really does nothing. What was it in Team America? "Stop building nuclear weapons or we'll write you an angry letter!" We need something with more power.

And the idea of being ruled by an overseas country was bound to fail 400-500 years ago, but what about now? You can get from one half of the world in a day with ease, whereas it used to be months. Information can be sent nearly instantly, whereas it also used to be months. It's a different time now, the means for it to happen are in place.


The main obstacle I can see though, is what you said at the end. The people of the world are not going to be able to agree on who should be able to rule, and there won't be agreements on rules and such. In which case, I see no reason why there can't be individual mini-governments to rule over each current country, but have those mini-governments still having to answer to the overall power.

US is already TRYING to play the role of world police. it doesnt work out that way.
we have our believes and other nations have their own. its as simple as that

So you are supporting a giant hegemony that will oppress 99% of the worlds cultures by forcing them into submission of one style of government?
...
I'd say creating a universal Internet Code(Law thing) would be better.
And then BROWBEAT all whom opposed.

So you are supporting a giant hegemony that will oppress 99% of the worlds cultures by forcing them into submission of one style of government?
...
I'd say creating a universal Internet Code(Law thing) would be better.
And then BROWBEAT all whom opposed.

There are already international laws

Uniting the world under one country would be impossible. Switzerland would deny and would be left out as a little dot. And McCain wouldn't be happy, he can't attack his own country!

But the first sentence is from my point of view true. People wouldn't agree on how to rule the world, what rules that should be set or not, how the taxes would be dealt out (look: In Norway, we have high taxes, but if we get sick/need to go to the hospital, we doesn't have to pay anything, Norway pays it for us. In America, you guys either have to pay or have an insurance, as far as I know), where the borders should go, and so forth.

I personally don't see this happening until it's forced to happen.

By that, I basically mean until humanity as a whole expands its horizons - viable space travel and colonization, particularly outside of our own galaxy. At that point, Earth becomes a small enough entity that it's logical and almost necessary to have a single ruling body.

We need to meet some aliens. In all seriousness, that would likely greatly speed up the process of consolidating all the countries and would likely do wonders to tame the rampant intra-species racism/religionism we currently put up with today.

Sorry.. I apparently play too much Mass Effect

In some ways, this is already happening. As you mentioned, the internet is drawing people from other countries together. There's less xenophobia about foreigners these days than in the past. There are lots of international and supranational government-groups forming (The EU, for example. It's just an example, I don't need a bunch of europeans to come running in and berate the idea.) We already have a de facto common language and common currencies are forming. Heck, if you think about it in a purely technological sense then we already have a common currency, because money that's essentially stored digitally merely needs to undergo conversion, which is automatic, and it can be accessed from all over the world already. The world economy is already so interdependent that it wouldn't have much of an effect on that.

In some ways, this is already happening. As you mentioned, the internet is drawing people from other countries together. There's less xenophobia about foreigners these days than in the past. There are lots of international and supranational government-groups forming (The EU, for example. It's just an example, I don't need a bunch of europeans to come running in and berate the idea.) We already have a de facto common language and common currencies are forming. Heck, if you think about it in a purely technological sense then we already have a common currency, because money that's essentially stored digitally merely needs to undergo conversion, which is automatic, and it can be accessed from all over the world already. The world economy is already so interdependent that it wouldn't have much of an effect on that.

Well, that's more Globalization alike than another thing, but Uninationalism, as Wani proposes, it's way more complicated than Globalized capitalism.

With the current world population, I don't think it's possible. Even if something happens to halve the world population, it would take centuries to form.

Organisations like UN and it's former counterpart - league of nations failed to function like the purpose of their formation. Japan practically walked over the league of nations by withdrawing from the organisation so they can avoid sanction. In the modern countries like China and USA are dominating the UN, who completely has UN at their feet and vito everything that comes along that does not benifit their country. I think in order for organisations like UN to work properly, the super powers should be stripped of power to vito the proposals raised, allowing more countries to join the UN, and basically give equal power of vote for all countries. Wether or not the sanctions would work in that condition is unknown, because it just don't work that way right now.

Globalisation, yes, good thing. But I don't think uninationalism would work, in so many ways. Imagine civil wars everyday.

What you are proposing is basically impossible. People are divided from each other on cultural and political lines. The closest thing to what you're talking about is the European Union, and even there no German wants to be ruled over by Frenchmen or vice versa. There is a sense of national identity that 1. causes the great achievements in history and 2. simultaneously causes all the conflicts. This is the "soul" of a nation, and virtually all countries would rather eat crow than give theirs up. Beethoven was German and Tolstoy was Russian. Their cultural upbringing caused them to work in the way they did, and if you compare German music to Russian, or Russian literature to German, you will see critical differences. You cannot keep those differences, the beautiful things about each nation, if you combine all nations into one.

The enforcement of international laws and standards is actually NOT contingent on every nation uniting under one flag. International law is, in fact, a law of its own, and you can get legal recourse through it. It's used for a ton of things right now. The problem with it is that it is young, undeveloped and extremely political. For example, China disregards international copyright standards, and the Palestinian/Israeli stuff in international law is so biased that you can't really expect either side to take international law seriously. The answer is not to liquidate nations, it's to focus on international law, building it up to the point where some semblance of fairness is enforced, and all nations are made to take it seriously.

Isn't it called inter-nationalism? As for me, I'd stay out of this union, even if it meant moving to another planet. As I don't like some large international (or national) bureaucracy commanding me around, paying taxes for things that will never help or benefit people I know that I want to help (like the people I'd donate to). We don't need government to tell us humans what to do, we're smarter than dumb ass politicians and political "thinkers" believe we are. Humans as a whole (without weapons and with good will) could form the perfect society. Take only as you need and give all you can... A million perfect societies is better than one huge morass.

Edit 0:
A-nationalism would be necessary for this to succeed and I'm quite sure most people would be uncomfortable not being able to claim their identity. Not to mention they would blame the global government for interfering too much in their affairs. This would lead to many small councils, similar to tribal government (its not bad, America was originally very similar), with each area only pledged to be eternally a vassal to the overlord (this seems to be getting more feudalistic). Not to mention religion must either be destroyed or standardized (haha), as it would possibly lead to moral differences (ie: what to do to criminals). If you distribute power to the local governments all you have is created another layer over the wars, and thus made all wars civil wars. This would give reason to any 'nation' on Earth to join in and 'cide some far off "rebels". Once again it ends in feudalism, the same differences that separated Europe into principalities for so long will separate the earth for another (at least) 1,000 years. [size="0"]Or perhaps some unknown Messiah will come and liberate the Earth by then. Interesting proposition, but I fear none take it seriously now days.[/size]

Edit 1:
Nationalities are not fundamentally different. Germans traditionally are known for their methodical ways of engineering and daily life (not always true, but stereotypically). Americans are known for being gluttonous, imperialist, greedy, oil-loving, warmongers (...sad isn't it?). Although ~16%(or higher, I forget) of Americans identify as being of "German" ancestry they generally show little to no signs of "German" national "traits". Which proves they can be "assimilated". But I also know that until World War II it was common for people (around where I live) to read the newspaper in German (and speak it at home). It took them over 100 years to assimilate, which many cultures that are larger and NOT immigrants (China) would take MUCH longer to assimilate to the new world culture/society. Government would be ineffective if it had to use every language, appeal to every ethnic group, and encourage "uni"-nationalism.

Edit 2:
A world-wide economy, bank system, and diplomatic headquarters (United Nations divided by 100), would be effective and could actually encourage future development towards a world-wide "nation". Or at least, Earth-wide pride, not just nationalism. The UN is a overly bloated bureaucracy, annihilate please.

As for the US vetoing its due to the fact that more than 50% of the world's defence budget comes from US pockets (Check fas.org). Not to mention the top 5 arms exporters are: China, UK, France, US and Russia are also the 5 permanent members of the defence counsel, ironic. Purveyors of war will die by their own hand, and most have. Only two remain and those are the two you see vetoing anything that hurts their power...

Summary: It wouldn't be a bad thing... but Earth is more divided than ever. The European Union will face its sad demise (probably at the hands of Russia, either via entering it or via war).
[/rant]

First, we need Gundams.

i don't really have any comment.

but the motto for the china olympics were stolen from the cheetah girls.. ): ):

From the few books I have read(there are likely to be many more with similar concepts), I can already name an example where this system/idea has been addressed, in the Bean quartet by Orson Scott Card, specifically the last novel. In the book, Peter, as the Hegemon, establishes the Free People of Earth, which is essentially the idea you're addressing. This worked relatively well (you can read it yourself or read a summary). However, it was achieved through war and military prowess to subdue the government and let the people join, which if applied in today's world, might lead to everyone bombing each other if anyone tries it. To keep peace after the FPE was established, they consolidated the armies of the nations of the world and reduced the power of a nation to "what state means in America. An administrative unit, but little more." This eventually fails, due to the corruption and selfishness that plague humans. About the alien thing: in the same series, the immediate threat of an alien species united Earth, but as soon as it was gone, the nations went right back to fighting each other.

Summary: Almost just like communism, this idea is great on paper, but fails because we are who we are. Maybe we can accomplish this temporarily with a great leader, but it won't last.

On the subject of books: H.G. Wells - "The Shape of Things to Come", although published in 1933 is oddly prophetic. Dictatorship (albeit benevolent)... unlikely, but sometimes people will do foolish things.

About what you said about people no longer being able to claim their identity, just because the world would be united under one government doesn't mean that people wouldn't still be able to claim their own identity. Look at, say, the United States. Each state has its own identity and you get people being proud of being from New York or Texas or whatever. Hell, we have the same thing here in Kiwi-land. I'm proud of being from Otago, and let's face it, Otago > Canterbury. Gogo interprovincial rivalries!