Should earth unify or remain divided?

[Senkaku]

Well, they'll get them for free anyways, and I bet they'll like them once they try them.

Do you not see how arrogant you are to assume your tastes are superior to everyone else's and that everyone will agree with you as soon as they try things your way?
To me that attitude is frankly horrifying.

Hey, you're the one who put forward the premise that freedom is a universal human value that transcends culture and history. I'm just agreeing with you and taking that to its logical conclusion.

I assume whoever ended up winning the majority of votes in the elections for the democratic world government we're postulating, though I have to assume at such a large scale there'd be a need for significant federal devolution of some things to local authorities.

And what about all the people that do not want a democracy?

That sucks for them, but autocracy doesn't seem very compatible with freedom, which again, we've agreed is a universal human value. Since I'd like the world state to provide the best environment for human flourishing, the autocrats are just gonna have to suck it up and play democratic ball.

Or all the people that are not in the majority?

These are all arguments against democracy at national and subnational levels too. They're not better just because we've scaled them up.

Sure, you can federalize but unless your federation literally allows for different systems of government, economy and everything in its constituent units you will be oppressing people. All you are doing is forcing a square peg into a round hole.

There are plenty of states around the world that offer minority populations significant leeway to run culturally significant institutions and preserve their heritage. You're being hysterical.

Again, hard to characterize autocracies as representing popular will. Your view that the people of North Korea's lack of successful revolution proves they want to continue being impoverished by a repressive kleptocratic dictatorship is one of the most tortured and amoral contortions of logic I've seen on this forum.

Even a cursory look at human history will demonstrate that no government ever survives long without the consent of its people. Revolutions happen. And even if they don't succeed they demonstrate to the world that the people are unhappy. It is thus indicative that North Korea newer had even an attempt at one.

"North Korea" has existed for like sixty years. Your idea of "long" seems a little warped, given the true temporal scale of our civilization and even just the Korean nation. Revolution takes time to work up to, especially in a repressive state where the government has significant ability to interfere with revolutionary coordination and agitation. You are once again taking an ass-backwards approach of extrapolating moral value judgements from unrelated historical information.

No, there's only 300M of us, and I've never been a proponent of forced resettlement.

And yet if your rules come to cover the entire world everyone in my country will be able to freely get a gun.

That definitely isn't what I said.

That is NOT a system I want to live in. Guns are evil instruments of murder and I do not want them in my society. Having open borders across which any american can walk in with a backpack full of them and start handing them out to criminals in my country is a nightmare scenario.

Okay, cool. Well, since that isn't what I said anyways, shall we carry on?

If you can win a big enough majority, then probably, though I imagine you might also have to get candidates supporting that to win local elections in the former United States.

No I don't. All I'd have to do is point at the fact that your federal government would presumably have free travel across its borders and that thus having guns freely available in one province means criminals from other provinces can buy them there and move them freely to my home. Than my local politicians can push for a world ban to prevent that eventuality.

I believe the good people of Chicago have tried this several times to try and stem the flow of weapons from Indiana into their city. You should ask them how it went.

See how oppression goes around even from the nicest of intentions?

How would you successfully coordinating an electoral coalition, winning fair and free elections, and then implementing legislation to ban a commodity constitute "oppression"?

Terran, I assume. Or Earther? Solar? What demonym sounds best to you?

And what law is that? Do we stone homosexuals or not? Do we allow guns or not? What economic system do we have? What currency do we use? Whose cultural practices, beliefs and rights do we enforce?

I assume we would settle such things democratically, with significant federal devolution to allow for local cultural traditions to be preserved.

Do we have a democracy or are run by the CCP?

Well, the premise of the thread is that we have a democracy, I believe. Feel free to check.

There is no unified human culture and thus there can be no unified human law. Not unless you deliberately want to oppress people.

This makes about as much sense as saying me and my sister don't have the same favorite restaurant, therefore there can be no agreement on where to get takeout from tomorrow, unless one of us wants to deliberately oppress the other.

You seem to have been taken in by some odd delusion that people of different cultures cannot co-exist inside a polity, or that a world state would necessitate the creation of a hivemind-like unity of purpose between all mankind. I don't accept either of these premises.

History proves that they can't and don't. When ever there are multiple cultures that are incompatible stuck within the same polity they always chafe and struggle with one another because of their incompatibility. This is why empires always fall. And it is why they are evil.

Well, it would seem we've arrived back at the ahistorical nonsense and wild generalizations portion of the evening.

Now that we've settled that, why are you so against solidarity, a stable climate, and world peace? Why should imaginary lines on maps define what portion of our fellow humans' dignity and worth we are willing to respect? Why do you want war, perhaps the greatest evil civilization has ever produced, to continue to plague our species?

No, I want a system where war, sanctions and all other international meddling is forbidden. A system where every nation is free to do as they please within their own borders without having an evil international cabal hanging over their heads ready to destroy them at a moments notice for the crime of being free.

War can only be eradicated when non intervention is enforced.

I mean, this might be nice in a world where every country is a peaceful liberal democracy that just wants to be left alone and respect the rights of its citizens, but unfortunately that isn't the case. Nations doing as they please is not the same as people
doing as they please. I'm surprised you don't understand this yet, but you will someday.

[Senkaku]

And the one thing that characterized them all is that the subject peoples were oppressed, angry and wanted their freedom. A culturally defined state, or approximate equivalent, is really the only way to avoid this.

Hey, "freedom"... why, it sounds to me like you've just defined a principle that transcends history and culture! Could there be other such principles? Could these principles perhaps provide the foundation of a universal state that recognizes our common humanity? Who knows!

Freedom to live their lives as they see fit. Even if this means holding slaves or sacrificing their fellow man to a sun god. And not "freedom" in the absolute sense that modern western civilization talks about.

I dunno, sure still sounds like a universal moral principle to me! If you want to tell yourself it's totally unrelated to the modern Western ideas of what freedom is, go ahead, but it sure sounds close.

The people of South America fought, died and lost in a war to defend their freedom to murder their fellow man, rip their hearts out and throw their corpses off a pyramid.

...no, they did not. I know what you're getting at, but again, the ahistorical nonsense is just too much.

That is the freedom I would give them and the freedom I am talking about. And not the "freedom" to abandon their ways and adopt some universal rule set. That is not freedom, it is oppression.

Freedom for some people to murder is condemnation for others to be murdered. You go into hysterics about me being some sort of wannabe genocidaire, but as long as it all happens within some imaginary lines and is only done by certain people, you're totally blase about any kind of atrocity.

Your argument against a world state is that it would create oppression, but your argument for nation-states involves accepting totally unrestrained oppression and all manner of crimes so long as they take place within national boundaries. What exactly is better about this framework? Why should I be convinced that your model is superior? You don't have any answer.

Nation-states are a very modern phenomenon, I don't think any ancient polities really fit the bill. Athens and Sparta, or Thebes and Miletos, had very different cultures even if they shared some things in common as Greek. They had lots of people from other cultures coming and going, their political hierarchies were ill-defined and far less complex than those of modern states. This isn't a controversial take, you're pretty far out of step with all of history and political science if you equate Ancient Greece to industrial Germany.

Again, I am not talking about a "greek" nation or culture. I am talking about each of the individual city states of the period. Each of them individually fit all the required parameters to be considered a nation.
They all had internally the same language and general culture, held territory and had a government. The fact their governments were different from what we know today is hardly a disqualifying factor. There is no specific form of government that is a must for nations. Neither is having a culture very similar and connected to your neighbors. See Germany and Austria. And yes, they had people from foreign lands coming and going but again, so do modern nations. Does this invalidate modern nations? What matters is that in that diversity they still shared a common identity and cultural practices. A common desired and expected way of life.


Again, we are not talking about ethic but cultural identy here. Ethnic identity is a modernish invention that is frankly worthless.

This is a very long and foolish-looking way to concede that I'm right and you don't know what you're nattering on about but I'll take it

...read that back to yourself.

Your evidence is just that it kept happening, not that it is inherently better in some way. Do you have any actual metrics beyond "those people thought it was good enough"? Social outcomes, economic outcomes? Anything?

What more do you need? If the entirety of human civilization for the entirety of human history solves the same problem with the same solution AND they also explicitly define your ideal world as the PROBLEM that needs solving how is that not evidence enough? How else am I supposed to prove that people don't like being stuck in multi cultural empires than by pointing out historical examples of people that didn't like being stuck in them? What standard of evidence would you accept other than observation? There literally is nothing else when it comes to history and human nature. Even the best of our science into the human mind is still fundamentally just observation and theories based there on.

You've conflated the statements "this is" and "this is best." If you believe nation-states are a superior form of organization to global governance or any other form of rule, you should have a substantive argument based on outcomes and principles (based in history, not simply appealing to the vague notion of it).

[Purpelia]

Hey, you're the one who put forward the premise that freedom is a universal human value that transcends culture and history. I'm just agreeing with you and taking that to its logical conclusion.

No, you are twisting it to support your narrative that is built on denying people freedom.

That sucks for them, but autocracy doesn't seem very compatible with freedom, which again, we've agreed is a universal human value. Since I'd like the world state to provide the best environment for human flourishing, the autocrats are just gonna have to suck it up and play democratic ball.

We are clearly NOT in agreement if your answer to the question of other peoples rights to live as they please is "sucks for them". You are a supporter of oppression and evil.

A mans rights and liberties should be defined by his wishes and the wishes of the culture he lives in and not some universal code made up by a single culture on the other side of the planet.

These are all arguments against democracy at national and subnational levels too. They're not better just because we've scaled them up.

Democracy works for the peoples that want democracy. It does not work for those that do not want it. Democracy is not a magical cure all perfect form of government. It is just a form of government among many.
And history demonstrated repeatedly and with a lot of fire and blood that people always get their preferred form of government

There are plenty of states around the world that offer minority populations significant leeway to run culturally significant institutions and preserve their heritage. You're being hysterical.

What use is being allowed to perform a castrated version of your culture when you are not allowed to live by its rules?

"North Korea" has existed for like sixty years. Your idea of "long" seems a little warped, given the true temporal scale of our civilization and even just the Korean nation. Revolution takes time to work up to, especially in a repressive state where the government has significant ability to interfere with revolutionary coordination and agitation. You are once again taking an ass-backwards approach of extrapolating moral value judgements from unrelated historical information.

Realistically hunger and misery tends to topple governments within one generation worth unless the people are really willing to make it work.

That definitely isn't what I said.

Okay, cool. Well, since that isn't what I said anyways, shall we carry on?

It is however what a world government would mean. Unless of course you instate different regional laws and internal borders with customs checkpoints to make sure guns can't get through to where I live.
See how this is moving away from one government and toward multiple countries pretending to be a single polity? Which is my point. Borders, different laws, different forms of government and governments exist for a reason.

I believe the good people of Chicago have tried this several times to try and stem the flow of weapons from Indiana into their city. You should ask them how it went.

If it didn't succeed in america than it's because most americans didn't want it to succeed. But most of the people of the world do not want guns. Starting with the 2 or so billion Chinese that don't have a gun culture. So you get outvoted. What than? Is america going to revolt? Start an armed revolution against the world government?

How would you successfully coordinating an electoral coalition, winning fair and free elections, and then implementing legislation to ban a commodity constitute "oppression"?

How would removing rights from a group of people simply because another group does not want them to have these rights NOT constitute oppression? That is literally a textbook definition of the term.

I assume we would settle such things democratically, with significant federal devolution to allow for local cultural traditions to be preserved.

If you devolve so much that you accommodate all the different cultures across the world you inevitably have to allow them to form different government types and create policed borders around their communities to protect their interests. And at that point you have nation states in all but name.

Well, the premise of the thread is that we have a democracy, I believe. Feel free to check.

And what happens when the 2 or so billion Chinese people outvote all of us and VOTE to get the CCP into power and remove democracy? That is the will of the people. You and I will both vote for our local democratic parties but the biggest block wins. And this is not being hyperbolical. In a democracy cultural homogeneity is as important as in any other system because the majority can force its rules on the minority groups all the same.

This makes about as much sense as saying me and my sister don't have the same favorite restaurant, therefore there can be no agreement on where to get takeout from tomorrow, unless one of us wants to deliberately oppress the other.

Small differences like that are irrelevant. But imagine if your partner wanted to live by strict Islamic law and you wanted to live by strict Jewish law. Could you two coexist in the same household? Which of you two would have to give up their preferred way of life for the other? And whilst in that case love might prevail it is utterly unfair to ask total strangers to make such a sacrifice.

Well, it would seem we've arrived back at the ahistorical nonsense and wild generalizations portion of the evening.

You are literally ignoring all of human history and the evils of imperialism because they do not suit your narrative.

I mean, this might be nice in a world where every country is a peaceful liberal democracy that just wants to be left alone and respect the rights of its citizens, but unfortunately that isn't the case. Nations doing as they please is not the same as people
doing as they please. I'm surprised you don't understand this yet, but you will someday.

Nations ARE PEOPLE. The sooner you realize that the nation is just an expression of popular will that lives and dies by their violence or lack there off the better.

But this is pointless. It is clear at this point that you just will not accept anything that does not confirm your ideas. And you are willing to dismiss and ignore all of human history in doing so. I might as well be talking to a wall.

[Senkaku]

Hey, you're the one who put forward the premise that freedom is a universal human value that transcends culture and history. I'm just agreeing with you and taking that to its logical conclusion.

No, you are twisting it to support your narrative that is built on denying people freedom.

Well, I dunno what to tell ya. Don't make your arguments so easy to twist? You're talking about a universal value that holds humans should be able to chart their own paths through life, it still seems pretty similar in many ways.

That sucks for them, but autocracy doesn't seem very compatible with freedom, which again, we've agreed is a universal human value. Since I'd like the world state to provide the best environment for human flourishing, the autocrats are just gonna have to suck it up and play democratic ball.

We are clearly NOT in agreement if your answer to the question of other peoples rights to live as they please is "sucks for them". You are a supporter of oppression and evil.

A mans rights and liberties should be defined by his wishes and the wishes of the culture he lives in and not some universal code made up by a single culture on the other side of the planet.

The logical contortion required to claim that a proponent of democracy wants people to be oppressed is pretty impressive.

These are all arguments against democracy at national and subnational levels too. They're not better just because we've scaled them up.

Democracy works for the peoples that want democracy. It does not work for those that do not want it. Democracy is not a magical cure all perfect form of government. It is just a form of government among many.
And history demonstrated repeatedly and with a lot of fire and blood that people always get their preferred form of government

Back at it again with the silly conflations, eh? "This government exists" is not the same as "a majority of the citizens want this government." Best way is to just let them pick it democratically so we can know for sure, rather than just assuming apropos of nothing that autocracies command popular majorities.

I mean, you are basically acknowledging here that sovereignty rises up from the people and that they should have a right to self-determination. That necessarily entails democratic government of some form, even if you elect leaders for lifetime terms or something like some weird brand of Bonapartist.

There are plenty of states around the world that offer minority populations significant leeway to run culturally significant institutions and preserve their heritage. You're being hysterical.

What use is being allowed to perform a castrated version of your culture when you are not allowed to live by its rules?

I'm really unclear on what you think culture even consists of at this point or what about culture matters to people. It seems to just be a buzzword you appeal to a lot at this point.

"North Korea" has existed for like sixty years. Your idea of "long" seems a little warped, given the true temporal scale of our civilization and even just the Korean nation. Revolution takes time to work up to, especially in a repressive state where the government has significant ability to interfere with revolutionary coordination and agitation. You are once again taking an ass-backwards approach of extrapolating moral value judgements from unrelated historical information.

Realistically hunger and misery tends to topple governments within one generation worth unless the people are really willing to make it work.

Most of your arguments seem to be hysterical fantasies just conjured from thin air and totally divorced from history or reality at this point.

That definitely isn't what I said.

Okay, cool. Well, since that isn't what I said anyways, shall we carry on?

It is however what a world government would mean. Unless of course you instate different regional laws and internal borders with customs checkpoints to make sure guns can't get through to where I live.
See how this is moving away from one government and toward multiple countries pretending to be a single polity? Which is my point. Borders, different laws, different forms of government and governments exist for a reason.

A state is just an entity with a monopoly on violence inside a given area. There's not actually any reason the world government would HAVE to allow total free movement, unless the electorate decided they wanted that and voted for it. But either way... it's still not what I said, so I'm not sure why you're trying to cling onto it.

I believe the good people of Chicago have tried this several times to try and stem the flow of weapons from Indiana into their city. You should ask them how it went.

If it didn't succeed in america than it's because most americans didn't want it to succeed.

Polls would suggest this is not the case. You have this weird magical thinking around politics-- "it happened, therefore people wanted it, because they would have mysteriously found some way to stop it if they didn't." No actual explanations offered, just a fact-free post hoc "I guess that's just how it is."

But most of the people of the world do not want guns. Starting with the 2 or so billion Chinese that don't have a gun culture. So you get outvoted. What than? Is america going to revolt? Start an armed revolution against the world government?

Well, I sure hope not, but we'd have to see.

Why are we talking about these random speculative fiction events in the future history of the imaginary world state, exactly?

How would you successfully coordinating an electoral coalition, winning fair and free elections, and then implementing legislation to ban a commodity constitute "oppression"?

How would removing rights from a group of people simply because another group does not want them to have these rights NOT constitute oppression? That is literally a textbook definition of the term.

The state has always had the authority to regulate commodities and weapons. You seem quite fussed about this gun thing for some reason, perhaps you should do whatever emotional processing is going on here in the gun control thread before we do a full threadjack.

I assume we would settle such things democratically, with significant federal devolution to allow for local cultural traditions to be preserved.

If you devolve so much that you accommodate all the different cultures across the world you inevitably have to allow them to form different government types and create policed borders around their communities to protect their interests.

I disagree.

And at that point you have nation states in all but name.

I hate to break it to you, but controlling internal movement between provinces or running different legal systems in different regions have been features of human states, not bugs. At this point I'm starting to think you don't really have a clear grasp on what a nation or a state is!

Well, the premise of the thread is that we have a democracy, I believe. Feel free to check.

And what happens when the 2 or so billion Chinese people outvote all of us and VOTE to get the CCP into power and remove democracy?

Most democracies have safeguards around the whole "removing democracy" bit, but the fact you think of China as just "2 or so" billion zombies who will do whatever the CCP wants offers me insight into your views on the world.

That is the will of the people. You and I will both vote for our local democratic parties but the biggest block wins. And this is not being hyperbolical. In a democracy cultural homogeneity is as important as in any other system because the majority can force its rules on the minority groups all the same.

Now I'm starting to think you don't have a clear understanding of democracy either, or at least that you have a proceduralist view that borders on myopia.

This makes about as much sense as saying me and my sister don't have the same favorite restaurant, therefore there can be no agreement on where to get takeout from tomorrow, unless one of us wants to deliberately oppress the other.

Small differences like that are irrelevant.

Oh? At what point do they become relevant, since you're now the arbiter of that?

But imagine if your partner wanted to live by strict Islamic law and you wanted to live by strict Jewish law. Could you two coexist in the same household?

Well, at least we'd be able to work together on the no pork thing, though I imagine both of us wanting to have gay sex with each other would be a problem.

Which of you two would have to give up their preferred way of life for the other? And whilst in that case love might prevail it is utterly unfair to ask total strangers to make such a sacrifice.

Why is it unfair to ask strangers living in a democratic society to make the sacrifice of tolerating one another's existence?

Well, it would seem we've arrived back at the ahistorical nonsense and wild generalizations portion of the evening.

You are literally ignoring all of human history and the evils of imperialism because they do not suit your narrative.

No, just growing increasingly confused about what the positive case is for anything you've said.

I mean, this might be nice in a world where every country is a peaceful liberal democracy that just wants to be left alone and respect the rights of its citizens, but unfortunately that isn't the case. Nations doing as they please is not the same as people
doing as they please. I'm surprised you don't understand this yet, but you will someday.

Nations ARE PEOPLE. The sooner you realize that the nation is just an expression of popular will that lives and dies by their violence or lack there off the better.

Yeah, but we're talking about nation-states, are we not? Not just undistinguished mobs of similar people running around, but states with complex internal dynamics, factions, different classes? The idea that every country's government is a direct manifestation of popular will is just bananas. Are you literally unfamiliar with autocratic rule as a concept in political thought?

But this is pointless. It is clear at this point that you just will not accept anything that does not confirm your ideas. And you are willing to dismiss and ignore all of human history in doing so. I might as well be talking to a wall.

Well, at least you know when you're beaten, though you could take some tips on conceding gracefully.

[Chemgota]

Honestly i don't see the concept of a unified Earth, it'll only collapse under internal pressure, complex administration and internal demands to reform and solve its problem, which would never be solved by one unified centralized government. I prefer Earth under one cooperative alliance, not as one political entity.

[Kyrgzjikistan]

It should be a global confederacy

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Let's come together, right now, oh yeah, in sweet harmony.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It should be a global confederacy

What do you mean by "confederacy"?

[Purpelia]

Well, at least you know when you're beaten, though you could take some tips on conceding gracefully.

No, I am not beaten. You just mindlessly reject every single historical example of human behavior because it does not fit your narrative. And there is no discussing things with someone as fantastically dogmatic as you are.
You remind me of that religious guy I had a discussion a few months back where there was just no talking to him because for him his religion was absolute truth and anything contradicting his view was false. You are the same.

Only you are worse because your goal is to enforce your worldview and idea of morality on the entire world crushing their cultures and ways of life under your heel to do so until you have committed genocide on the entire diversity of the human race.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Well, at least you know when you're beaten, though you could take some tips on conceding gracefully.

No, I am not beaten.

So you're a sore loser?

When arguing with someone is futile, just stop. There's no issue of "who won" or "who lost" and anything more you add is just taken as a childish attempt to have the last word. Having the last word after an unsatisfactory exchange, is not winning.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Let's come together, right now, oh yeah, in sweet harmony.

There's a hundred and twenty brown people at your front door. They'd like to use the pool, please!

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

It should be a global confederacy

What do you mean by "confederacy"?

Possibly they mean this.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

What do you mean by "confederacy"?

Possibly they mean this.

All countries remain sovereign and any has the right to secede. I can't see that working well, both because of the number of nations required, and the vast disparity of population/economy/military strength.

[Disgraces]

Turn every country federal

[Punished UMN]

it's very telling that the OP says "assuming this were possible, would you want it" and everyone in the replies sidesteps it by just saying "I don't think it's possible" as if that by itself were a philosophical argument against it, and without clarifying what about it is so impossible.

in any case, going off the premise of a democratic world government offered in the OP, yes, I'd be very much in favor. Giving every person on Earth the political representation and civil rights they deserve, giving us a mechanism to confront global problems like climate change or space colonization and coordinate development efforts in poorer regions, and oh by the way ending war are all pretty fucking compelling, and I don't think any human being is seriously against such things, even if they say they are for internet points or whatever.

unfortunately, like capitalism, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the nation-state. I think most of the people who aren't really answering the question and are just sidestepping with "it's impossible" are really just saying that they can't imagine the path we'd take to get there, not that it wouldn't actually be a desirable outcome if we found a way to do it

The reasons it's not possible are the same philosophical reasons to be against it, namely, that the larger a political entity is, the less say any constituent part has in its politics, so a unified government necessarily minimizes the political influence any one person can have, which, while perhaps collectively good, is bad for each individual separately.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Let's come together, right now, oh yeah, in sweet harmony.

There's a hundred and twenty brown people at your front door. They'd like to use the pool, please!

I like the song's sentiment, maybe climate change is something that can't be solved by a divided earth.

Is it right or wrong
Try to find a place
We can all belong?
Be as one
Try to get on by
If we unify
We should really try
All this time
Spinning round and round
Made the same mistakes
That we've always found
Surely now
We could move along
Make a better world
No, it can't be wrong
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
Time is running out
Let there be no doubt
We should sort things out
If we care
Like we say we do
Not just empty words
For a week or two
Make the world
Your priority
Try to live your life
Ecologically
Play a part
In a greater scheme
Try to live the dream
On a wider scene
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Oh yeah
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Let's come together
Right now, oh yeah
In sweet harmony
Oh yeah

[Chestaan]

Under the current neoliberal system a unified world government would be terrifying

[FutureAmerica]

If the world want to truly fight Climate Change then it has to be very unified, otherwise pollution violators like China will destroy the world's environment within a decade.