Then there would be the problem of who would "oversee" the entire world??? As great as one world sounds, and I really agree with you on this, there aren't enough world leaders that want to give up their personal power as a world leader for the greater good. At least not in this current generation. ♥
2007-12-03 23:03:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Enchantress38 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
We are living together as a whole world! "The United Countries Of The World!" Think of the countries as different states!!!
2007-12-03 22:53:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is easy, because people can never agree on one thing, each person has a different perception of life and beliefs.
Lets say the world did unite under one big banner..no countries what so ever...
Eventually they will break up into two parts since its not possible they everyone will agree to the decisions made .
Thus u will have 2 different parties in the government .which eventually want their own independent state for their own reasons.
Just like this the whole world will break up once again into many countries... its the same thing.
Its not possible to have the world unite under one banner.
2007-12-03 22:59:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by unclear.devotion 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
For logistical and economic reasons! Imagine one person having complete control over 7 billion people.
Most countries have a national govt, state govt, and local govt, because managing an entire country is too much for a small group of people to handle. Imagine the same thing for the whole world. Plus there would be massive economic repurcussions.
It's a brilliant idea, but I just don't think it's possible. Not yet anyway.
2007-12-03 22:54:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because human nature still sucks and if all control was centralized, it'd be abused. ie Hitler, as mentioned. There are underground groups that want everyone combined for that purpose. Heard of the North American Union yet?
I'd love to live in a peaceful centralized world, but the planet is just not ready. That's why America's power is cut up into so many pieces - but not for long :(
2007-12-03 22:52:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Persona 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
united states of america ought to take over any united states of america as long as they didn;t best pal jointly. The greater sturdy area may be controlling those countries. As considered in Afghanistan, even the poorest united states of america can positioned be a soreness. so a techniques as your different lawsuits, your talking from a stickly socialist innovations. Many interior the united statesargue that school should not be loose. yet we do have community colleges, that grant financhial help. this permits maximum to arise with the money for college. Healthcare is rarely loose, you pay for it on your taxes. I agree we want progression in that section and have made some with Obama Care. We do get credit for severe college training. you merely might desire to persist with your self. you apart from might might desire to persist with your self to get an A in England. we are a federal government that divides capacity ino smaller interior sight governments. this permits anybody to have a say in government on a sort of stages. that's what makes us the land of the loose regardless of the undeniable fact that. i anticipate you reside in England because of the fact of your previous comments and your nationwide government controls interior sight ones. we've greater beneficial financial freedom, the liberty to very own weapons (which i think of is stupid) and we had a democracy once you nevertheless had a king. You needless to say don't understand social risk-free practices so i'm unlikely to remark in this. united states of america like various different united states of america has a multiple financial gadget that has wealthy and unfavourable alike. yet we do have the utmost GDP and the main millionaires by using a techniques. additionally in case you looks at ratio's no longer $ quantities all Europeon countries are in lots worse shape. by using the way we owe trillions of greenbacks, yet maximum of that's to our very own government (social risk-free practices). We killed Bin weighted down and final time I checked you have been helping us look. the only situation you have been ideal approximately replaced into immigration. we ought to continuously have some thank you to enable human beings in. yet so a techniques as you being an asshole and insulting united states of america, If we are lazy why did you want our help in WWI, WWII, the chilly conflict and the trillions we've loaned you over the final century. Its sort of pathetic that your the two an cyber web troll or an extremely, relatively stressful person who's stupid sufficient to invite an extremely offensive question on the internet. Your an asshole or a fool, your determination.
2016-10-19 02:48:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by leckie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good idea but there is always the issue of the States , but I suppose when the space station is built we could make that the new States and we could all live happily
2007-12-03 22:50:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Humans will not come together as a single race until our existence is threatened and we must work together to survive . . . as stupid and cliche as that sounds.
2007-12-03 22:57:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by jameperl 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We'd rather kill each other over petty, pointless, nonsense.
Mankind= Unkind
2007-12-03 22:50:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Colin M 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
wow. . .
interesting. . . idea. . .
we should have no boundries. . . . just one world. . . anyone could go anywhere. . .
What a world that would be. . .
I am for it. . .
2007-12-03 22:51:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Narendra 2
·
0⤊
0⤋