*Note* I'm not saying I support the idea, just throwing out some food for thought rather than the normal rhetoric we get to see on here.. with that in mind.. what would you think of turning all nations into states, letting them elect representatives and senators to represent them in a world congress.. with a world vote for an elected official.. would this solve any problems in the world.. would it create problems??
2007-02-27 07:16:14 · 11 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think it wouldn't hold itself together. There'd be someone, somewhere, who wanted a different form of government.
How do you get the Sultan of Brunei, one of the richest people in the world, to step down?
There's so many different views on life, freedom, etc. Interesting in theory but doubtful to work in practice.
2007-02-27 07:21:25 · answer #1 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting thought. Let's put it into simulation. The United Nations as the world wide democratic seat of government and the countries as the states. Considering the problems of the world at present, would this type of government be able to govern properly without a state seceding from the democracy due to the government's failure to provide what the state wants? The U.N. is having problems now. The answer is obvious. No?
2007-02-27 15:28:24 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democracy is a system or structure of government. It doesn't solve problems. People solve problems - systems don't.
A world wide democracy is not necessay to have a peaceful world. We have the United Nations already - and it represents nations in a democratic way. We shouldn't force democracy 'down their throats' - it is counter-productive, and defeats the purpose.
2007-02-27 15:25:39 · answer #3 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it would never work. that is why we didn't win viet nam and why we won't win in iraq. it is not up to us to liberate other countries. with differences in religion, economy and government beliefs, there would never be a happy medium. some countries deal with 3rd world situations, while others may deal with slavery, religious prejudice or even communism. you can change others ideals when they come from different ethnic backgrounds.
2007-02-27 16:34:42 · answer #4 · answered by anna s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would create problems for the rich nations because the poor nations would vote for the rich nations to send money and goods to the poor nations.
Then their corrupt leaders would take most of it.
2007-02-27 15:20:00 · answer #5 · answered by Sean 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Do you honestly think that America would allow a Middle-Eastern constituency to potentially make decisions affecting American sovereignty? Or, likewise, China?
2007-02-27 15:19:09 · answer #6 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't seem that feasible. Every system has got it's own flaws, and it seems like this would be hard to keep up on such a large scale.
2007-02-27 15:19:20 · answer #7 · answered by Souris 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it will never happen...bad part is the united states has not figured it out...you "CANNOT FORCE FREEDOM"..why the us has so many problems now...they want to tell evryone how to live...but cannot fix thier own problems at home...homeless...health insurance...ect....and i am retired us army.....have a good day
2007-02-27 15:20:52 · answer #8 · answered by Michael K 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
world wide ineffectiveness, mmm no. I prefer devolution of all governments.
2007-02-27 15:20:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Never happen, there are to many people like Hilary that want what you have!
2007-02-27 15:18:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋