That would mean one currency. All conflicts would be resolved internally. Wouldn't that be great? What are the pros and cons?
2007-02-22 11:24:18 · 26 answers · asked by ZephaniahSingh 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This is a great Star Trek Moment. Lets all feel good about one world. AH aint it a nice place, no war, no poverty. Ah I can almost see it.
Yeah right. We can't even get our local government to get a bridge painted where I live how in the world do you all think that some one from North America, Africa, and Europe to pass a law that some guy in Iran is going to listen to. What would we all be Muslim? Because that is the only way that Iranian guy is going to listen to the ONE WORLD GOVERMENT!!!!
Would we use the Dollar? Mark? Oh I bet that my taxes would be higher in the North America because I have to pay for some village in Mexico who could not pull their own weight. Would the rest of the Empire be brought up to the standard of living that we have in America, or would I have to stand in line for five hours to get some milk. Like many places in the world.
Oh I bet all the terrorist would put down their bombs a take up painting land scapes when the Empire comes. Would the evangelicals and the Jewish people be allowed in the new tollerant world. Or would the good graces of the Emipre only extend to those who went along with the endorsed religion? Would we be a capitalist or socialist Empire?
Sorry I will keep my local guys who can't paint the bridge.
2007-02-22 13:05:11 · answer #1 · answered by The Mad Cow 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Im just wondering who will take all te decitions. i could... I will listen to as many people as i could. not any people that care about the money. but about the world, the nature and the global warming.. . Maybe i will get manupilated or enjoy the power TO much. i hope not..As long as we find the right person im sure...very sure that it will work out. but...yeay.. i actually think it sound like a good ide, not that i will take over but that ONE big country would be a good thing. We would share.. share the Oil in middle east, the wheather in Oz where all the teenagers wanna go. The snow in sweden. But there wil still be maffia and peadofiles abnd **** like that. It will probably be hard to know where to put the money....extremly hard!!! maybe if we shared,if al the countries where shring. Without the thought of money. but...thats a dream.. Did you know that England re butting BILLIONS of £ on (sorry the spelling) newclear veapons. Why not put it on something good. like porr people.
2007-02-22 11:42:48 · answer #2 · answered by currentlybluegreen 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to diversify your investment. If there is only one national government in the world and that government screws up then the entire human race suffers for it. A single world government brings all the problems that any other monoploy does. I think 5 countries would be optimal. If there were 5 countries in the world then they wouldn't go to war with each other because the stakes would be too high.
2007-02-22 11:55:42 · answer #3 · answered by Duffman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cons: Exhibit A- The United Nations. Exhibit B- The league of Nations.
QED
2007-02-22 12:18:27 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
conflicts are started by men with power, or at least those who think they have power which covers all men in general. conflict wouldn't be resolved because no one in this world has the ability to agree on almost anything. everyone would have to conform to one country one identity. it takes away cultures, art, music, language, and everything that makes this world beautiful. why be forced to become 1 when we can be 6,446,131,400 more from different places, with difference customs.
2007-02-22 11:37:22 · answer #5 · answered by ranaway628 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By looking back in history at the Roman Empire you can see that something like that wouldn't work. Of course the Roman Empire wasn't the entire world but it was a huge empire that covered a large portion of Europe. Because the empire was so large uprisings and rebellions were common. Eventually the empire crumbled.
2007-02-22 11:55:15 · answer #6 · answered by Kate 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way! Conflicts will never be resolved, that is just life. Peace and happiness are found within ones heart, not through world peace. There will never be full agreement by any country to another, or by person, to person. God made us all different with our own minds to choose between right and wrong, not have us be clones. I will never agree with France that they are the best chef's, or that they don't fix their annual International contest's to make sure team France always wins, for example. I will never follow the belief's of African nation's, like Somalia, that it is okay to slaughter innocent villager's to gain power of the government. I will never think it is okay for Iran, who wants to slaughter Israel, and all the Jews, to own Nukes. ETC. If you want peace, look inside your own heart, and family. It will never be found from other's, especially NOT through money!
2007-02-22 11:35:13 · answer #7 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, that wouldn't be great. Conflicts resolved internally = civil war.
2007-02-22 11:34:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
you have a great dream. A dream which is greater than Martin Luther King. You deserve a nomination for the Noble peace award.Let us all pray the almighty to make it real.
2007-02-22 12:00:29 · answer #9 · answered by GOPALA KRISHNA M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you really believe that just because we are all under one flag that all conflict would be resolved. That is a dreaming. Who would run this one world government? We we here in the USA still have our Constitution to protect our God given rights?
2007-02-22 11:28:17 · answer #10 · answered by Ethan M 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋