Political Crossfire Forums

[Vilkacis]

To begin with, I’d like to inform everyone that this is not a topic I usually like to discuss, but one which I want to see how it might or might not happen. I am going to try and show that a Unified Earth isn’t plausible at all.

The topic of a Pangaea, or World United is one that many people all over the world have tried again and again to have. But as history shows, it has almost never lasted for very long. Take for example the empires of ancient times, each in their own little way trying to take control and rule the entire world. Babylon succeeded for a time, but only for a time. In 539 B.C.E., Babylon was conquered by Cyrus the Great, who released the then captive Jews, earning the name “Messiah” from them.

Rome, ah the grandeur of Rome. In its prime, from 96 C.E., on to 180 C.E. with the five “good” emperors, Rome had succeeded in controlling most of the known world. The people of Rome had succeeded in establishing a Unified World, figuratively speaking of course since the known world was very small at the time. Alexander, bringing in the Macedonian Age became the leader of nearly every country at the time, one way or another the young man succeeded in unifying the Earth, and under his banner all men bowed their heads.

But, each of these empires who gained success in uniting a world full of different people, each in turn fell. The possibility of having a “One World Government” is absurd. Human beings with so many different things such as race, language, habits, government and political systems, will never be able to fully agree upon one man or women, or even one government ruling them. Christians believe that an “Anti-Christ” will some day come and rule everyone with an iron fist, and his mark shall be upon them. But I think that this won’t happen because no matter what, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists…etc will never agree upon one person as being “god” as the Bible states they will. Now though I say that, I have nothing against Christianity or any other religion like that, I just don’t believe it.

Consider this. If there does come a time where someone will unify the entire Earth, he or she (I will refer to this person as he just because it is easier)…he will have to unite everyone, even though all of the problems of the world are still here. The Israelis and the Palestinians will, as I believe never agree on peace until they stop killing each other, and no person will be able to do that for a long time. An agreement of borders needs to be made, or else they will kill each other out of existence. England and Ireland, next door neighbors, and yet they have been squabbling with each other since the times of William Wallace over the petty small differences in their religions. Africa, the land is riddle with the contagious disease AIDS. The people are suffering the plague of our time. No black death, no smallpox for us, our generation suffers through AIDS, and this epidemic keeps spreading at an ever increasing rate. That is just to name a few.

These problems and more would face whoever seeks to unify our lands, and in my mind, that would be some accomplishment. A “common tongue” would need to be established, seeing as how the Mandarin speakers and the English speakers can not understand one another, it would be complicated indeed. So complicated I’d be surprised if the EU could even decide about a common language at all, the UN either. Grammar differs greatly in many countries, with vowels, nouns, verbs and such having different sentence placements. Words sound alike but have completely different meanings. If you asked an English speaker if he wanted some “poison”, he would flatly refuse, ask a German and he would thank you greatly. “Poison” means a “substance that can kill” in English, but in German it means “Gift”. Languages are extremely confusing to most people in the world, to learn 1 or 2 is hard enough, but to combine many parts of languages into one would be a difficult task, especially trying to get everyone to learn it.

In order to have a central government, there must be a need to use that government’s currency. A central currency would have to be established, but not just established, there needs to be a demand for it. As seen with the EU, switching to a central money format takes many years and is extremely hard to succeed in. Many people still in fact refer to the euro still by each countries original currency name, for instance, England, pounds, France, francs…etc. A money system should still remain in paper form, not in electronically or anything new. No matter what the convenience of it is, I always prefer to feel a bulging wallet instead of a single credit card, or some other form of money. Binary money can be erased, lost, or hacked and stolen, and a banks computers could crash, erasing all records of your money.

This currency switch would be monumental, how would it be possible for every single dollar, euro, yin and so on to be switched would be practically impossible. Values of things would be reversed, someone who was making $125,000 a year, could then only be making $70,000 a year. Countries stock markets would be a mass of mayhem, companies all over the world would be on the verge of crisis due to the confusion. Switching currencies world wide to a single currency would increase inflation, incite pandemonium, and many years would be needed for the World’s economy to stabilize itself.

What type of government system would be implied to this “New World Order”? Would a monarchy be established? Would a democracy such as America’s be implied? Or would each country be represented in a world wide senate? What would happen if a new country, or I should call state, since the countries could not formally be called countries because of the divides it would increase in this senate, desired admittance to this WWS? If no one recognized this country for being an actual country, or would it be turned away as has happened so many times with the UN.

-Vilkacis

[LockeAdvisor]

I feel that a world wide senate would be the best option. It would be run like the 13 colonies, there would be one overall senate, but each seperate contry would govern itself, the senate would be for keeping peace, and controlling things that effect the entire world.

Locke

[~SIRIUS~]

I have just now finished reading your post and I can imagine that that took you a long time to complete. I liked it, I think that you have many of your points correct, but I believe that to build a Unified World is possible, and most likely the most possible answer to all of humanities problems. So, I am going to try to retaliate to your post.

You brought up that the Isrealies and the Palestinians are waging an unnamed war against each other, and I concur. I think though, that they are well on their way to solving their differences and living in a peaceful enviroment between the two countries. President George W. Bush has proposed his “Road map to peace”, and I’m a firm believer that with a little bit of effort and compromize on both sides, the two could for a friendship together and live coexisting together. Though, the situation with England and Ireland, I have to say, is a bit tedious to say the least. The two countries should come together and discuss each others policies, religious, political, and borders. I believe though that the situation is not hopeless, and that the two countries will eventually sort out all their problems. England as a whole needs get rid of the monarchy that still exists today. Modern countries in the world should never have a monarchy.

The continent of Africa, I agree, is in dire need of help. The situation is becoming more and more desperate with each passing year. That is why so many people all over the world are donating money to agencies in order for them to find new cures like for AIDS. Within the next ten years I predict that AIDS will be as wiped out as smallpox and the measles are. But who knows, no one can accurately predict the future, especially me.

The possibility of a World Wide Government is in fact possible, though a Hegemony would need to be established. A Hegemony would mean that a single country would rule over a presiding group of delegates from each and every other country around the world. A senate of some sorts would need to be established in a centrally located country, such as Switzerland, not for centralization, but just because Switzerland is a very neutral country. This Senate would consist of the Hegemon, the Vice-Hegemon, Minister of the World, and other people with duties and titles. Broken down, this would be a system not quite like the United States, but not quite different either. Countries could be referred to as States of the World, with each state being able to follow its own religion, own laws, and other things. The World Senate would in fact have more power than the Hegemon figurehead, but his vote would be the deciding one.

In this way, wars would boil down to just words, such as the cold war, no bloodshed or anything of that sort. The world’s economy could be stabilized and third world countries could be offered many new technological, and scientific advancements to bring them forward to our modern era. The World as a whole could come together to send human beings into outer space, building a base on the moon, and exploring mars. Science would advance incredibly fast since everyone would share each other’s discoveries, thus not one country would advance beyond a tolerable pace so they could loom over their neighbors. This isn’t communism, no, it’s the idea of the United States of America, but just the United States of the World.

your fellow man,
~SIRIUS~

[WolfoftheBees]

I'm afraid Vilkacis that I'm going to have to take Sirius's side on this one. You're right; the world has greatly diverse peoples, and a strong central government would be very difficult to establish and maintain. However, as per your example of Rome, the central government need not be that strong; Rome allowed it's colonies and their religions to proceed almost unmolested, though it did impose some of its own sense of order on them. The same could occur in the world today; not a Messiah to convert all other nations, but hegemon, for lack of a better word, that allows for differences in member states.

Sirius has already spoken of his confidence in various peace processes worldwide, and I would second that; if not in the ability of various nations to solve their own conflicts, through efforts of a more worldwide body, as a unified earth, it would certainly be easier to establish penalties and work with nations to reduce such hatreds. Such solutions would certainly be time consuming and challenging, but they are possible.

As to a common tongue, I would wonder at the necessity of such a thing. Though exchange between nations requires a common language, such a thing already occurs; exchange between China and the US occurs often, simply because English has become a sort of international language, much like Latin in the Middle Ages.

As to the idea of a monarchy, as I stated above, I think a loose collection of states, perhaps organized as Sirius has suggested in a hegemony, is the only practical solution. Though that does leave the possiblity for individual dissent, as you brought up in your analogy to the early UN, this is common in most governments; the American government certainly has its share of protests against its decisions, but to maintain a majority mandate, tends to please as many people as possible; this is part of democracy. A world government might not please all states all the time, but neither does any current government; democracies simply attempt to appeal to the most members or people possible. In the case of world government, it is to the advantage of members to remain and debate; ironically, they have nowhere else to go.

[ieatfood]

The U.S. is the world's government--or at least the closest we're gonna get to one.

[Vilkacis]

~SIRIUS~, I’m glad to see that you are well informed on these subjects, and that you seem to have a fairly good grasp upon this topic. Your reply was very interesting, I enjoyed reading the feed back. But, I would like to point out some fallacies within your post.

President George W. Bush announced his “Road map to peace” on June 24, 2002, he outlined the plan with three different phases. Phase one consisted of the Palestinians ending their violence, followed by a Palestine Political Reform, and for Israel to withdraw the settlers on the Gaza strip. Phase two which was to follow brought into the equation the creation of an independent Palestinian state, with international monitoring to over see this move. Phase three mapped out for a second international conference, and a permanent status agreement for the end of this conflict. Jerusalem, and the refugees where to be decided then, and the Arab states where supposed to agree on peace conferences with Israel. This “Road Map” was to take place from 2002-2005. So far only a Palestinian political reform has happened, and Israel has just completed withdrawing the settlers from the Gaza strip. The “Road map to peace” was a doomed plan from the beginning.

The Israelis and the Palestinians have fought each other for thousands of years, just under a different names, the Jews and the Arabs, Christians and Muslims. The Crusades, which where ordered by the Papacy in the 11th century. Of the total of Nine Crusades, the most import figures were Saladin, the Muslim leader, Richard the Lionheart, Frederick I of the Holy Roman Empire, and Louis IX. These men all fought for the remote piece of ground called Israel, which is no bigger than Rhode Island. But throughout the centuries it has remained a constant place of struggle throughout the World, a “thorn in our side” I should say. More recent other wars include the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which was fought over Israel’s independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the Yom Kippur War. Peace is something that I believe will only come to Israel if both the Jews and the Palestinians give up both of their religions and agree on peaceful terms. A situation that is highly unlikely even in the most favorable circumstances.

The diplomatic solution to England and Ireland is, as you stated for England to remove its monarchy and become a democracy, monarchies are a sign of weakness. Democracy is the modern way to go about governing a nation. Out of this democracy, England needs to remove all Protestant Englishmen and women from Northern Ireland and hand the land back over to the Republic of Ireland. From 1966-2005, a massive total of over 3,750 people have been ruthlessly murdered, and over 36,000 others have been injured from the crossfire. It is not a question of which side is right or wrong now, the question is how many people have to die before these two governments wake up?

The IRA (Irish Republican Army) is barely a step above other terrorist groups around the world. They are ruthless, violent, and the lust for blood is rampant. The IRA terrorist units need to be stopped, but not by force, peaceful meetings with diplomats from both sides that would listen to each other’s demands. If the British people could realize that they’re time ruling over Ireland is over, and except them as a separate country with a separate religion, their problems would disappear.

The Good Friday Agreement was the most successful peace proposition since the 1920s. This proposition includes a 108-member assembly with 14-member executive body. In both of these assemblies, the Catholics and the Protestants represent parts of their fractured country. As Prime Minister Tony Blair said in his 1999 speech for the House of the Commons "I accept that this is often and has to be an imperfect process and an imperfect peace, but it is better than no process and no peace at all." Most IRA groups though have not agreed to the cease-fire, and more and more killings keep occurring.

Everyone knows that when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded on July 1st 1991 that the influence of the Eastern Bloc countries that used to belong to the Warsaw Pact, was in fact useless. No longer could they make demands as a group, but only as single, small countries without a world super powers to back them up, namely, the USSR. Of the countries that had formerly been in the Warsaw Pact, 10 countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia) join NATO, effectively making NATO the biggest alliance between nations from around the world ever, besides the UN. But after the effects of the Cold War wore off, NATO had become for a time an Alliance without purpose, meaning that there was no longer a major threat to the NATO Alliance. Now, NATO is in the middle of a series of meetings in which to decide they’re future for the next 10-15 years, meaning that they are soon to be disbanded also. This example would be precisely the thing that would eventually happen to this "hegemony".

A Hegemony is exactly the thing the world does NOT need. Think of it this way, the world is already full to the brim with alliances and such, NATO, the EU, the UN. The Hegemony would do nothing more but create another alliance between countries who do not really mean any of what they say. Look at the UN, they are well and good at peace keeping and protecting refugees, but in the in the UN Peace Keeping Forces could not stop a full fledged war from starting. With this “Hegemony”, how will this person stop international wars from happening? What will happen when WWIII comes around, can this Hegemon prevent it? I seriously doubt that this figure will have enough resources and power to stop this event from proceeding. Would you agree to allowing an outsider, not someone from your country to rule over you and your family, making laws that may or may not effect you, but prohibit you from things such as the freedom of speech, freedom of writes, and so forth? If this person was from a country where monarchy was a common practice, and his or her personality leaned toward that style of government, who is to say they wouldn’t turn the world back into the feudal ages. The common man might not be aloud to do things like advancing his education, the world wide draft would be initiated, conscripting individuals to join an army full of former enemies. The possibilities and risk of the “hegemony” leave to much at stake and in the wind for myself.

[Laughing Man]

Consider something for a moment, and sorry If this has been brought up allready.

Ahem... What is mankind? A collection of small and large nations that are present almost everywhere humans live. So How is a world government possible? When all nations have independant governing power. When every nation is governed, is not the world governed?

I think a confederacy of states is better than a federation, or hegemony. This means the nations desire union with others and are not coerced or forced. I can't see global organization working any other way. The U.N. isn't working.

[ieatfood]

Laughing Man wrote: Consider something for a moment, and sorry If this has been brought up allready.

Ahem... What is mankind? A collection of small and large nations that are present almost everywhere humans live. So How is a world government possible? When all nations have independant governing power. When every nation is governed, is not the world governed?

I think a confederacy of states is better than a federation, or hegemony. This means the nations desire union with others and are not coerced or forced. I can't see global organization working any other way. The U.N. isn't working.

I don't think you understand how the world works. Every nation is selfish for its own needs. THat is widely recognized. Each nation will operate only to further its own political, economic, or military interests. ThaT's why attempts at unification such as the UN or international law have been largely viewed as jokes. To think that you can create some sort of "confederacy" that will somehow mend these competing interests is pure nonsense. THe US will only want to further their own interests just as Japan only seeks to further theirs. The fact that we are allies is only becuase our interests happen to coincide--nothing more.

[Laughing Man]

And it is exactly only those premises that a confederacy should be formed. An alliance between nations where the nations are still independant, not subserviant like the U.N.. It isn't like internationalism crushes nationalism. Far from it, history teaches us that whenever there have been international alliances there have been increased patriotism. Many nations joining the young U.N. did so out of national pride.

And anyway, it isn't realy neccessary to have a confederation if you want a world government. Just ask yourself, are all the nations governed? If they are then you have a world government.

[Gus]

If all citizens in the world were economically free from government, globalization would occur by default as countries specialize.

[Kindred]

Cultural diversity is not an argument against world government. I mean, who ever said that to share a nation one must share values? The gay activists in San Francisco could scarcely be said to share the same values as the hard working redneck from Texas, but they operate perfectly well within the same unit of governance

[ieatfood]

Laughing Man wrote: And it is exactly only those premises that a confederacy should be formed. An alliance between nations where the nations are still independant, not subserviant like the U.N.. It isn't like internationalism crushes nationalism. Far from it, history teaches us that whenever there have been international alliances there have been increased patriotism. Many nations joining the young U.N. did so out of national pride.

And anyway, it isn't realy neccessary to have a confederation if you want a world government. Just ask yourself, are all the nations governed? If they are then you have a world government.

Yes, but the point is that alliances have already been formed. We already have defense guarantees for Europe and eastern asia. Forming an alliance based on coincidental mutual interest is one thing. Forming a unified world government where each country will have to do things that it doesnt want to do is another. THe first already exists. The second could never ever happen.

[Laughing Man]

It has allready happened. It happens when there are no large global alliances, such as the days of the ballance of power. Alliances should only be formed to do certain things. That is only when they work if you ask me.

[anselfir]

what will such a government be concerned about? no doubt the welfare state on the global level.

[MJBaboon]

I think that the only thing that would truly unite the Earth is some catastrophic event that would threaten us all, like a meteor or natural disaster. Because then EVERYONE would have the same interests: save the human race. But until that happens I think the closest thing we can have to a world government is a sort of republic, or senate like it was stated earlier. A hegemony would never work, because the smaller states would all resent the rule of the larger state.

What would need to happen is that a small state would have to be created for the sole purpose of unifying the world, with only the best interests of the world in mind. It would have to be small and not attract TOO much attention at first. If a country like the US tried something like this, it wouldn't work because everyone would see it as a US attempt to assert their power. Then this one country could offer membership in its little Unified Earth to countries who are in need of protection or just want to join. The only requirements would be that the joining country would have to send delegates/senators/representatives to wherever the capitol was to represent their country in the Senate, obey all of the laws/sanctions/reforms passed by this body, as well as surrender their military to be controlled by the Senate. If the country does not comply, they will be denied membership. The country would still govern itself and be allowed to maintain a small peacekeeping force to deal with internal affairs. However, it would still be under the authority of the Senate which, of course, it would be represented in. It would function somewhat like the US today. And, of course, military force could NEVER be used to make someone join, as it would only cause the conquered country to be angry and uncooperative.

Once enough states had joined, including states that contribute significantly to the world economy, the United Earth could start offering economic incentives to join. Eventually, it would be in everyone's economic and political interests to join up. As long as every state was fairly represented in the Senate, the elected officials of the United Earth were fair and unbiased, and all of the countries stayed cooperative, there is a good chance such a system might work.

[Laughing Man]

Quote:
what will such a government be concerned about? no doubt the welfare state on the global level.

Okay you've butcherd my opinion. All I've been saying is that as long as every nation has a government the world is governed. The nations don't have to agree or form an alliance for that to be true. I mentioned alliances and international unions because I believe that they should be built of independant states, not subserviant states. You can't call it the United Nations if it isn't actualy a bunch of independant nations that are united.

[~SIRIUS~]

That was a worthy challenge of a post, to which I shall try to retaliate.

In short of what you were saying, President Bush proposed the wrong plan at the wrong time am I correct? Well, if I am, then I have a question for you, when would this “right time” be? The world is a place full of civilized and rational human beings, anyone in their right minds can see that the situation in Israel and Jerusalem is desperate and an international effort was needed. President George W. Bush saw this need and delivered with his “Road Map for Peace”, behind him, he had the support of EU, the UN, Russia, and many others. If this plan was a curse instead of a blessing then smite me now because I still am a firm believer in peace.

How can you accuse our leader, a great man by no small amount, to have set up a “doomed plan from the beginning”? I can understand where your coming from with your short history lesson there about the crusades and such, but we live in a time where peace is a possibility in the midst of turmoil. If these two countries can’t sort out their differences with each other, sanctions and trade embargoes would need to be placed to force them into union. We can not have two small nations warring with each other and stealing the spotlight when there are bigger problems to deal with. Their religious, and racial difference need to be settled sometime withing the near future, which I hope will happen. As you stated above Israeli forces have moved the Israelis out of the Gaza strip, and as little progress as this is it is much better than no progress at all.

English people are some of the most stubborn people in the world, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Look at Winston Churchill, without him and his stubbornness, England and perhaps the rest of the world would be speaking German. But they will not give up their monarchy within any time soon. The royal family is way to powerful to give up all their authority in an instant. It would take many years and perhaps a few incentives to get them to agree to something of that magnitude. The country of England is still one of todays super powers, they have been a super power for hundreds of years, all from the monarchy. Which I have to say is one of their most powerful assets since the people can not say “No we aren’t going to war.” With the monarchy, they can demand it of the people and they are required by law to follow suit. But, if England wants to move out of the feudal age and into reality, they need to wake up and become a democracy like civilized human beings.

As to the IRA and their little battle, I’m sure that when the 13 Colonies decided to break away from England and using terrorist tactics, fought off the English soldiers, and started a new country, they were looked down upon just as the Irish are today. The same problem existed back then as it does today, religion. Religion as a whole is the most conflicting ideal ever created by the human mind. Hundreds of thousands of battles have been fought throughout history because someone didn’t agree with another person’s “god”. Whether his name is Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Zeus, or whoever, these characters inspired some of the greatest wars ever. The battle between England and America was basically over the same thing. The Pilgrims originally left because they where persecuted for their beliefs in their countries. They where like rebellious teenagers running away, not to say though that what they did was not courageous or anything, but that it was a leap into the dark. Look at what they created, the United States of America. If so great a country can come from one tiny ship without a lantern in the dark, who is to say what the entire world could do if they took a leap of faith in humanity, and the greater good’s names?

An alliance is formed on a common interest, just like with your NATO example, without a common cause, why is the union still needed? This “Hegemony” would not be one nation over all others, it would be a new Government on a piece of land that supersedes all laws and nationalism around the world. The “Hegemon” would come from the global senate, voted in by the representatives of each country. This person would be chosen, not selected from a ballot box, but he or she would be from a very prestige group of individuals who have shown to put the affairs of the world above every other concern, including their own lives. They would have a “term” of power for a limited number of years, and once the term was over, the Hegemon could be re-chosen depending on what he did during his term. This Hegemon would not be q great world leader, Ivy-league graduate, master of all known languages or anything like that, he would be the greatest servant among the world. To serve is to lead by example.

Real power is not always in wars or who has the biggest army or weapons, real power is over money. Money, by definition, is the “root of all evil”, but money is also a double edged sword, it can be used for both good or evil. If a country does not want to join in this World Senate, then sanctions and trade embargoes can be placed upon it so that no other nation in the World Senate will buy, sell, or trade with this country. No military action would be needed unless it is to defend members of the World Senate. In the long run, yes, wars can never be stopped, WWIII can not be stopped when it comes. But perhaps the Hegemony will be able to use its influence to shape the war so that the least amount of people can be killed, and peace can be reestablished. That should be the ultimate goal for the Hegemon, a world united with peace.

[lumkins]

I do believe a world government will happen, but not in todays state. One way would be a common enemy, for example (not saying this will happen just a situation) if aliens were to invade earth. I know it is not a plausible story but it would take a common enemy such as that to bring the world together. More likely it is going to be that as time goes on more wars will happen and certain races will become extinct. One nation will have a hegemony over the rest of the world etc. One nation will have to force the rest under its control because right now there are just to many differences in humanity. Religion, type of government etc. These are all things that would have to be overcome for world government to work. I believe it will happen some day but not likely in any of our lifetimes.

[anselfir]

Laughing Man wrote: Quote:
what will such a government be concerned about? no doubt the welfare state on the global level.

Okay you've butcherd my opinion. All I've been saying is that as long as every nation has a government the world is governed. The nations don't have to agree or form an alliance for that to be true. I mentioned alliances and international unions because I believe that they should be built of independant states, not subserviant states. You can't call it the United Nations if it isn't actualy a bunch of independant nations that are united. well then that's but a semantical definition. here we are concerned with a mor eunified international body. still, the discussion is totally devoid of any mention of forces and such.

[Vilkacis]

I agree with you ~SIRIUS~ that if ever a “Hegemony” ever came into power, his ultimate goal would be peace. But I disagree that you could do it without shedding blood. Sanctions and such are useful only when dealing with small countries who really heavily on the profit of their economy to manufacture weapons. Lets say that only half of the world’s countries joined your Hegemony, what could the union do against the other half of the world? By your definition, we should starve nations into the Hegemony, which I might add, would be considered an act of war that most countries would retaliate to with military force. Thus defeating the entire purpose of your peace proposition.

It is, I believe, the duty of human kind to retain our individuality and race by not becoming or joing a “Hegemony”. Rather we should aligning ourselves with other countries whose beliefs and convictions coincide with ours, thus forming a partnership. Throughout history as I have previously explained, attempts to unite the world are, and quite often become a waste of time for the people. In our modern world of maneuvering and devious politicians, who stretch the truth and hide behind cover-ups, there is no chance for anything close to a World United coming into being. There is not one country who would be willing to “take a leap of faith” and try to unite the world in the name of peace, that would risk relations with other countries, and political status.

The only way to unite a people is if a common threat attacks us all, such as MJBaboon posted. Humanity is a selfish religion, one that we all belong to whether we like to or not, we look out for ourselves, trying to keep ourselves alive at all costs. That is why countries would never go for a plan of world peace that constricts their national gain in the world and keeps them from acquiring new land or things like that. If limits to trade and population laws were established, how would the world react? I can tell you now that most countries would writhe beneath the control of what many would see as a “foreign dictatorship”. I, along with many people would not stand to be at the bottom of the food chain and watch the Hegemony devour up my tax money to pay for some bureaucrats vacation in Switzerland.

What I propose is not a Hegemony, it is for leagues of power to be established within our world. Such as the “Arab League”, all Arabic countries that wanted to be apart of world changing events could throw their lot together in a central form of government. A league like that would give them plenty of chances to spread their religion, therefore, they would want to join. An “Asian Alliance” which would cover countries like China, Tibet, Myanmar, Thailand and so on. This Alliance would provide better learning, trade, and other benefits to the countries involved. The EU would continue in its existence, but countries such as Turkey and possibly Israel should be added. The countries of South America need to form some sort of league of their own, the tactical advantages would be immense, and the same with North America. These alliances could defend their own, provide greater trade and economic advancements, and so forth.

Alliances have been evident throughout history, and they are much needed, even today. We can not live in a society where everyone is each other’s enemies, nor can we live in one where everyone is friends. Eventually, in the later example, someone would try to disrupt the peace and end up destroying all the good that could come out of a Hegemony, if any at all. What about if the Hegemon turned out to be a horrible person, a careerist, and other types of things? Would he be impeached, or would impeachments be even possible after the elections are over? If it is to be established like America, what about all the fallacies that are inflicted on our country? To begin with, the Hegemonies constitution would be considered a “living document”, therefore laws and new documents could be added into it that would further limit people. Religion, if a Hegemon didn’t like a particular religion he could outlaw it, what type of tolerance is that?

As I’ve previously stated, there is simply to much at stake for my mind to be satisfied with in joining a Hegemony. This is my concluding post on the subject.