[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17834159]Human nature isn't necessarily right?
Unless that's not what you're arguing.[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to talk realistically is all.
Its like trying to unite the world to be one happy family, it wouldn't work.
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;17833963]United States of Europe? Very original
/sarcasm[/QUOTE]
Yes as describing the states being united in Europe it would suit best.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17834199]I'm trying to talk realistically is all.
Its like trying to unite the world to be one happy family, it wouldn't work.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't work NOW, what we need is an external goal. Be it space exploration or alien invasion. Either one would need to be an objective everybody comes together about, though the exploration part would probably be the most likely one.
We can't continue to hate each other, or else we will all die out in the end.
I don't like EU because it feels to me like going from empire to independence to yet another empire (EU), not that there was a problem with empires but I really don't understand how this will affect the UK and Gordon Brown is doing a shit job at explaining it, either that or I need to tune into the politics channel for once.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17834199]I'm trying to talk realistically is all.
Its like trying to unite the world to be one happy family, it wouldn't work.[/QUOTE]
Vasili, I like how you argue against a megastate because people are too different, but you do not see that it applies just as well to the countries already in existence. A megastate would be worse, I agree, but wouldn't the supposed "good consequences" that justify forcing people together under states in the first place be equally as large? And if you think the bad consequences would outdo the good ones in such a magnitude, I would like to see your argument for that, along with the justification for why it is up to [i]you[/i] (as part of the "majority") to decide what size fits people best, because, as you know, states aren't voluntary by definition.
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;17834970]but wouldn't the supposed "good consequences" that justify forcing people together under states in the first place be equally as large? And if you think the bad consequences would outdo the good ones in such a magnitude, I would like to see your argument for that, along with the justification for why it is up to [i]you[/i] (as part of the "majority") to decide what size fits people best, because, as you know, states aren't voluntary by definition.[/QUOTE]
Okay so you're basically saying [i]would this mega state be any worse than the current exsting smaller states. And if yes, would the positives of having such a mega state outweight the negatives[/i]. You're not being really direct with your question here.
[QUOTE=richard9311;17829653]This sounds a lot like the Articles of Confederation, but not close to any united states[/QUOTE]
More like the Articles of Confederation with a legislative and executive branch.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;17835859]More like the Articles of Confederation with a legislative and executive branch.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like the United States of Europe.
If this happens, the U.S. is in big trouble. :chef::gibs:
[QUOTE=TEH_TPMASTER;17835906]If this happens, the U.S. is in big trouble. :chef::gibs:[/QUOTE]
why would we be in trouble?
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;17835897]Sounds like the United States of Europe.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, true.
Uniting all of the world under one government would be really cool, but extremely far away. By my extremely unprofessional estimations, it would take around 2 centuries before we go down that road.
Feel free to say I'm wrong, I probably am. :v:
[QUOTE=-Trase;17810021]There was Africa, some people from Africa gone to Europe, then some people from Europe gone to America, killed the true Americans, and bitch about Europe is fags.[/QUOTE]
a guy speaks undeniable truth and you bash him?
I would kill to see the day the earth is united and all of our efforts are focused together. I'm guessing that such a government would not have a president/leader but instead a council of people from each state/commonwealth/nation/whateveryouwanttocallit which would work much like the U.S. Congress.
Yeah, you do that. We'll sue your ass for copyright infringement. We [i]did[/i] copyright our nation's name, right?
[QUOTE=Beafman;17825076]yeah, but a European Federation would be stronger then the US, so we would be number 1, while they would come second.[/QUOTE]
Uh no, maybe if you got ALL of Europe to join, if not, than no.
[QUOTE=tankkiller;17836950]Uh no, maybe if you got ALL of Europe to join, if not, than no.[/QUOTE]
Economically, he [i]is[/i] right
[IMG]http://i33.tinypic.com/33lo96f.png[/IMG]
You realize the EU will never go to war with us, right?
[QUOTE=janky;17837052]Economically, he [i]is[/i] right
[IMG]http://i33.tinypic.com/33lo96f.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Russia's the largest country in the world, Is Russia better than the US/EU? Hell no.
[QUOTE=tankkiller;17837087]Russia's the largest country in the world, Is Russia better than the US/EU? Hell no.[/QUOTE]
I fail to see your point, unless you think the statistics have something to do with land size or something. In that case, let me give you the source:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29[/url]
[QUOTE=janky;17837156]I fail to see your point, unless you think the statistics have something to do with land size or something. In that case, let me give you the source:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh, I thought you were talking about how much land they have.
Also that guy I quoted was talking about strength not economy.
The UK would be the Georgia of the states.
Pffft, and all of you people say the U.S. has problems with politics.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;17837865]Pffft, and all of you people say the U.S. has problems with politics.[/QUOTE]
What's your point?
I don't get the whole 'EU' vs 'USA' thing going on.
The US should realise we're their most advanced allies, and people from the EU should realise that if it wasn't for the US the EU would never have been formed, our economies probably wouldn't have recovered after WW2, and we might have still been fighting a third world war.
Now, i believe global political alliance is possible, but requires strict criteria. Kantian perpetual peace theory touches on some good points for and against a global state, and decided that a none-binding union of democracies is best.
The theory about culture being prohibitive someone said before is nonsense, even within modern states there are varying cultural norms and identities. Also, if following the lead of the USA, each state would have individual differences in law.
I really hope that the views of Facepunch on this issue don't represent the general public's views.
[QUOTE=CivilProtection;17838562]I really hope that the views of Facepunch on this issue don't represent the general public's views.[/QUOTE]
They don't, don't worry.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;17837820]The UK would be the Georgia of the states.[/QUOTE]
Whats that suppose to mean?
[QUOTE=CivilProtection;17838562]I really hope that the views of Facepunch on this issue don't represent the general public's views.[/QUOTE]
Which views in particular? Some of the views expressed were pretty crazy.
Also i'm assuming the Georgia reference is about it being reluctant to be part of the USA. Think the UK in the EU or Scotland in the UK.
[QUOTE=Athelus;17841452]Which views in particular? Some of the views expressed were pretty crazy.
Also i'm assuming the Georgia reference is about it being reluctant to be part of the USA. Think the UK in the EU or Scotland in the UK.[/QUOTE]
The tolerance and even encouragement of a European superstate. I can't believe people have so little respect for culture that they'd just tear down the borders of all countries in Europe. Europe is not devoid enough of culture to warrant being a single country in itself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.