theKingofRome

Well said. and now to respond to your previous arguements: first of all, war is needed in society because it is a waste of resources. a population is so productive, some governments need to direct that produce into war because the citizens need to be prodictive sothat they are easier to manage and sothat they dont try different things that could potentially be destructive to the establishment. also, finding a common ennemy is a great way to unite a populace and is a great place fir everyday families to direct blame (for economic problems, etc.) i guess i was wrong to say war is necessary in a society, but it is useful and also, as i explained earlier, very difficult to avoid. the reson i got off track into my second paragraph was just because of my ADD and a lack of communication is, essentially, the cause of all conflict. people with different opinions are simply people with access to different media, different upbringing and/or different information. i beleive that at a very fundamental level, there is no such thing as opinions, only correct and incorrect. if you want me to argue that point, just ask and i'll be happy to. and isolation is pretty much the best way for someone to deceive others into beleiveing their "opinions". there will always be some who are isolated, be it mentally, physically, phycologically or any other form. it may not be as easy as you think to keep the entire population of the world so well informed as you claimed. even if you posess the means, there are many who are unwilling to learn. "through co-operation and technology, we could tame the globe" you say. well you will not find co-operation. people need the nationalism and the pride and the competition. even if you did manage to create a world wide government, each country would still compete and fight and rebel and expand and they would be so different, the net effect would be pretty much the same as having individual governments. we need the diversity that comes from seperated countries. we cannot afford to stamp out certain perspectives and ways of life. if human technology and knowledge is to increase, then decreasing the diversity with which to acheive it will not acheive it. next your going to tell me that you would preserve each culture and no ideas would be stamped out. well you cant do that and keep everybody united perfectly informed at the same time. a message to some people may seem very different to others. Hesitate over that one

you raise many valid points and i'd love to argue with you all night, but i do have an exam tomorrow. since your going for the Quantity over Quality style of argueing, it's gonna take me a while to counter each of your points. This saturday i'll have pleanty of time to debate this with You Who Hesitates. i'll be on at about 10:00 am, Eastern time, if you could meet me on at that time i'd be happy to coninue this debate. until then, i would really appreciate it if people dont post in this thread because i really would like to take the next few arguements. see you then, He Who Hesitates

so now your proposing a world democracy? you cant be serious. we both know that you cant please everyone, so you have to please the majority. however, what if all the minorities just happen to be located in the same area? is that really unlikely, considering the impact that geography has on politics? next your going say something about defferent laws in different countries, but all laws coming from the same power. well that simply isnt enough. war is a necessary part of our society and in a united world, conflict would still emerge in some form as it is needed. why might it be needed you might ask? In it's simplest form, an arguement is a communication. trying to share ideas. however, it is also the very basis of conflict, which leads to fight, to battle, to war. is a war an arguement? no. its passed the point of communicating an arguement and descended into a lack of communication. although arguements are a form of communication, they are caused by lack of communication. how do we solve this? good communication. yes surely thats the bright shining light that will save us from war! this might not be as easy as it sounds. people may live together and share their entire lives and still come up short in the communication department. people need to communicate faster then the conflict can build up. its a race. however, there are people who dont communicate. people who get ideas and stick with them, even in light of blatent facts. these people should not be overlooked because they are quite capable of causeing massive damage. a small but devoted group of people are capable of great damage. so now are you seriously telling me that it would be possible to keep communication above conflict in the entire world? you say we have the technology, but do we? phones are instant but maybe words arent fast enough anymore. P.S. i am theKingofRome and therefore above grammar. anybody who takes cheapshots at gramatical errors is clearly a douche.

All of those places would have fallen even without their opposing force. why? a simple but yet under-appreciated science: phycology. people cant stand to live in a society with too much controle over them. and even if they could, i doubt there could be a government capable of managing so many people. any problem or mistake or even death in the family would be blamed on the government. we've seen the exact same thing happen in religion too. good things are credited to the Lord and bad thing blamed on the devil. however, there is also not a government capable of replacing a God figure in the phycology of the average person. we do, on the contrary, all know that people are perfectly capable of replacing the blame directed at "the devil" in their lives to the government. Also, i'd like to point out that most teens go through a rebellious phase. if you want to understand a man, study a child. the rebellion may be more pronounced and outspoken in teenagers, but its still there in everyone. and even if these rebellious thoughts are not acted upon, they do not go away. they get swept under the rug but they re-emerge in others. basically what i'm trying to say is that even if this government was created and managed to establish itself to controle everybody (not an easy feat), it would eventually be overthrown. as soon as there are thoughts of rebellion, the eventual rebellion is inevitable. the government couldnt possibly crush small rebellions totally. and the rebellions have pleanty of room to grow into. the rebellion can only grow, it has nowhere to go but up. the government, however, is already at the top and has nowhere to go but down.

possible: eventually practical: yes effecient: air tight good? No! why could you possibly want a one world government? it would be possible with corporate-style leading, but is it really worth it? there is sort of a fundamental rebellion found in the patterns of the human history that gives a clear message: what goes up must come down.