Should we have a one world order?

Question

My belief is that a one world democratic order using a single currency would help establish world peace. Can this happen and should it?

Answer 1

As long as there are no hippies, who don't like any government, we will be OK.

Answer 2

There are a few good reasons not to have a world order:
1. The larger an organization you have, the more waste you have in managing it. It is inevitable, because more levels have to exist to get all the way from the top to the bottom.
2. The larger an organization you have, the less able it is to accommodate or develop local conditions or potentials. One set of rules will not work ideally in all places.
3. The more centralized decision making is for a society, the more time it takes to get a local decision made, and the less well informed that decision is. One world order would be slow and ineffective at addressing any local crisis or change in conditions.
4. The larger a democracy gets, the less power each individual has. When your percieved personal power dwindles to zero, why bother to be an informed voter?
5. It takes an educated, informed and concerned populace to run a democracy. This does not describe much of the world. That is one reason that most 'democratic' countries are in fact republics. we elect people to know and care in our place, rather than know and care about all things ourselves. Most of the world is not even societally ready to support a republic.
6. If there is one world order, who polices the behavior of this one world order? Who can enforce proper conduct upon them?
7. If in fact there was one world order, a great portion of the world would immediately suffer economic collapse: The price of a loaf of bread in the US exceeds the 'real value' of the yearly cash income of the people in some countries.

Bigger is not better. In fact smaller is better for peace and personal empowerment. You could as well just *ruin* warmongering by keeping most taxes local. It would be devilishly difficult to build up military surplus if the central governments had to go begging for every rifle, grenade or even uniform, to people who would rather put better stuff in the local park, or better water pipes to their homes, or a decent science teacher in their high school.

Answer 3

As a not naive Brazilian guy, I would fear too much such an idea, specially because the leader of this 'perfect' world probably would be someone from one of the 7 richest countries of the world, who would be more compromised with the interests from those ones than with a global sense. Besides, the existence of one only currency in the whole world wouldn't leave the corruption out of the system at all, on the contrary it would make things easier to install it on this one, since the larger public machine from a Government is, the larger corruption will be, and History of Civilizations proves this. Human beings definitely don't own vocation for being trustable when they get a lot of power on their hands.

Answer 4

I believe you are right, and so do a lot of people, like Neale Donald Walsch for example. Of course, it depends upon how it is set up, and for what purpose, and who runs things, and what their motivation is. Enlightened and evolved societies would find it easy to set up an ideal system, and they would have trouble understanding why we do things the way we do now. Truly, such a world order would have to be run by the people and for the people, and it would have to be set up in such a way to make corruption difficult, if not impossible. An ideal, and awesome example of such a system is described in Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations with God series. And I would encourage anyone who is seriously interested in changing the world for the better, for everyone to read these books. I realize that not everyone will be able to understand or accept these concepts and ideas, but I can honestly say that the kind of world described in these books is the kind of world I want to live in.

Answer 5

World Domination League.

Answer 6

Oh, HELL no.

Next we will hear that perhaps the best person for the job of World Chief Financial Officer should be Dick Cheney or Donald Runsfeld or maybe one of the Bush family members.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY.

I like the idea of countries maintaining their own economic personalities.

Anyone too freaking lazy to figure out an exchange rate when traveling should have their passport revoked and they should be jailed for attempting to export massive amounts of stupidity.

Answer 7

Sure, it may work out, but the chances of this government being democratic is unrealistic. Do you think America would be at the forefront of this movement to unify the globe? Do be so naive. Little ideas can become big problems.

Answer 8

No, it creates the potential for political corruption on a gigantic scale and it destroys our individual cultures. Globalization might already be doing that but on a slower pace than any one world government would do it.

Answer 9

It be like the human body when something goes bad you can just cut it off. I don't think we'd all be living so lavishly and sacrifice luxury for equality good luck on that one. The ones in power will never go for it. It's like communism it works in theory. The human element just ***** it all up.

Answer 10

should it, yes, will it, no. at least not in our lifetime. Look at europe and there disputes with the euros.

One boss, elected via everyone, how long would those elections last and cost? would we need 50% or just a majority?

Answer 11

You can do it after I am dead. The stupid jerks at the UN can't run that, and you want a world government. I'll take a pass on that.