Would you like to see a world united by the year 2040?

Friendly, maybe. But one world government will be too difficult to control. Just look what happened to the Romans, and they didn't even own all of Europe. I also think that other countries provide political disagreement necessary for development. Think about it. What if the world was actually taken over by the Russians 300 years ago, and then, when the Communist Revolution happened, no one was around to disagree with it. Also, the sheer organizational power necessary to keep every continent under your government and prevent coups would be overwhelmingly difficult.

Basically, one of the Founders, I think it was Madison or Jefferson, said that political factions in the US were a necessary check on the national government. That the differing of opinions was necessary to combat corruption. Think of the world as a bunch of political parties. Sure we have countries like North Korea, just like we have the American Nazi Party, but we need those countries around as an example of what not to do, and as a necessary differing opinion to combat our potential supremacy. Like, what if democracy wasn't actually the most efficient way to live, and the North Koreans were right all along? Or Iran goes through a political revolution that gives birth to a better system than democratic-republicanism? We have to leave these countries as countries.

 

No, but what is an older country, India or the US? The unified country of India actually dates back to thousands of years ago when Hinduism was the unifying force. After an upheaval, they broke into a ton of nation states, but were then unified by the Brits, and then became an independent nation in '47. But they were a country long before the US. So technically speaking, their survival rate was better overall than the US, but today they wouldn't be very good against the US.

Furthermore, as a country, I think India stands a larger chance of being perfectly unified than the US. Think about it, people are more politically unstable here than in India, and a civil war is more likely here than in India.

 

You might want to look into the caste system and the multitude of problems India has. They also have a quite large number of Muslims and a tense relation with Pakistan.
A civil war is infinitely more possible in India than the US.

 

Wait, are you saying that large numbers of Muslims could lead to political instability? I thought you were a slavish follower of Merkel's diversity project for the EU?

 

When the Irish were terrorising the Brits did you think all Catholics would create trouble for the countries they were in? Or did you recognise that it was more than religion at play?
A large number of any minority that is ill treated by the majority can create issues. Is that news to you? Add the fact that the minority has "kin" in a neighbouring country that has been in an unofficial war for half century.

What does it say about you that you are trying to equate helping refugees with regional tensions and a history of war?
The dishonest approach by you guys is disgusting.

 

So to be clear, you're saying: Muslims in India-bad news but Muslims in Europe-peace and love.

 

I am saying that you need to understand the complexities of the world. Clearly you are unable to... Not only that... You are so limited that you can't distinguish Muslims fleeing the Middle East and Muslims in India.

Anything else you want me to explain? I am sure you can make some more stupid comparisons if you really try hard.

 

^ This.

It's bad enough with our idiotic national governments and, in the case of the EU, the European Commission. Too little control by the electorate, too much central planning and dictating. World government would be completely unwieldy and, of course, as corrupt as could possibly be.

What a terribly naive notion world government is.

 

I don't think you are capable of explaining, or perhaps more accurately, refuse to do so.

All I'm asking is clarification. Do you regard Muslims as a disruptive element in India that could lead to civil war, but do not see them as a disruptive element in Europe?

 

That's actually a common misconception. If you actually poll people in other countries, the general population is going to say positive things. The leaders of other countries often dislike Americans, but we often dislike those leaders.

Also, it seems to me like we need more governments, rather than having a lesser number. Quite a few political problems could be fixed if, for instance, the US was divided between West, South, and East United States, rather than having a federal government that nobody is happy with.

 

Sure, but how do you get a country of 325 million to unite let alone all humanity?

 

As I said in the previous post. You need to understand the complexities of the world. I even gave you some clues as to what you needed to understand.
Come back to me when you have the intellectual capacity to do so.

 

I understand perfectly well that you're not going to answer, and at least as far as my amusement goes, that's the best answer of all!

So I thank you for cooperating!

 

I did answer... If you are too ignorant to understand my answer it falls on you.
Thanks for playing. I am sure you can find people stupid enough to think you're smart.

 

I wasn't looking for that. I was looking for an answer, and you were unable to give it.

 

No, a government that far from the people would become a tyranny shortly. The U.S. is probably too big as it is. A huge single 7.4 billion person country would be disastrous.

 

No. Im completely fine with my Nation, and Im not interested in destroying our way of life so some clown from jerkistan, will be happy with how we live.

Let jerkistan rule jerkistan, I dont care, Im an American and Id like it to stay that way.

 

The rebuilding of the Jerusalem Third Temple is one of those
topics that over the long term can cause a much greater level of unity
between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Over the short term... this will tend to produce conflict... but in my opinion this is
a necessary step in ushering in the Era of Moshiach / Messiah.

BIN EXCLUSIVE: Sanhedrin Asks Putin and Trump to Build Third Temple in Jerusalem
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/...d-third-temple-jerusalem/#1qKsW6fhMsTjv1CK.99

 

Good point......
but we do have to find some way of addressing the probable collapse of the
West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Every cubic meter of ocean water that is desalinated and added to the water table of
Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Tunisia or any other nation with a water shortage is good news for
residents of New Orleans, Florida, The Netherlands, Bangladesh.... and on and on and on......

 

ARTISTIC unity of all nations organized
partly through Hollywood..... has at the minimum some potential.

It would have to be organized through a group of film producers that are less
wingy dingy extreme political left than the majority of Hollywood producers though.

http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...jamin-netanyahu-lets-get-into-production.html

 

If we don't destroy ourselves first, we may achieve a completely unified planet in about another 100 years, but not before. Before we can "come together" we will probably (and unfortunately) have another series of really awful wars. It's coming to a head now -- the "have's" versus the "have-not's", AND, the workers versus the parasites. When the smoke clears, the population of the Earth will probably have decreased to about two billion instead of the current 7.4 billion.

You don't have to let your imagination wander too far to understand what is going to happen, if I'm correct. I wish I weren't, but I'm rarely wrong about things like this, frankly....

 

Yes, but it depends entirely on how good that world government would be. No, if it's a bad government. Yes, if it's a good, fully-democratic government.

November29

 

Absolutely not, of course not. Most of the world is dictators, poverty and brutality. It is close to asking would you like to be an impoverished slave by 2040?

 

Absolutely not. Unless the entire rest of the world works under our constitution, which is not likely to happen.

 

The insurmountable enigma comes when we ask ourselves, "When has there ever been a good government?"

Our only hope for the development of a "good" government begins with restricting active participation to only people of "good" quality. But, everybody has very different ideas of what "good" qualities those would be.

I keep remembering the line from "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" -- "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves...." Until we change human nature we'll never really have a "good" government. The closest we have come, in my opinion, is the representative republic described in the original Constitution of the United States, including the original first ten amendments known as The Bill of Rights. If the United States were to practice what is written, word for word, in those documents, we would be a much better country than we are today -- bordering on something like "good"....