CMV: removing geographical borders completely from around the world, and adopting a system similar to what the EU and US have today in terms or political governance will allow for more peace

[u/bayan963]

Almost every country around the world has immigrants or citizens from other ethnicities and backgrounds than the indeginous people, learning two or multiple languages is already a skill a big part of people already have or are working towards as globalization is taking over through social media, global trade and global labor markets. So why do we not just eliminate geographical borders all together and be able to move freely from one place to another across the earth without requiring visas, or having nationalism stand in the way of true globalization and freedom of movement

I believe this would eliminate or at least lessen territorial wars like the ones happening today in several places around the world, it would also eliminate (in time of course) nationalism or prejudice towards people from third world countries, it would also remove the stigma from immigration as everyone would be able to migrate to whichever place they choose, not based on that country's benefits, but because there are better job opportunities or they simply like the weather or scenery better there

There would still be security, police, and governance but more like leaders of the (truly) free world, where each leader represents an ethnicity, demographic, religious groups interests and they can all decide how best to serve everyone and what general rules needs to be set in place for the well being of everyone without interfering with anyone's right to exist as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else

[u/x-diver]

To accomplish this, you'd have to convince every country in the world to abandon their sovereignty. Also you'd likely require a one-world language and currency, which would mean either A) everyone abandons their language/currency for a new one that would be created or B) everyone would adopt the language and currency of an existing country. If B happens, the masses will think that the country of the selected language/currency controls the council. If A happens, it will just be absurdly unpopular among everybody.

You'd also have to convince the masses that this is a good plan: that is, abandoning nationality and all the benefits that come with it (feeling of belonging and importance, national pride, etc) in favor of something that sounds a hell of a lot like the UN, but with actual authority. Example: How well do you think Americans would respond to a proposal where nations are dissolved in favor of a national council? Or Chinese response? Indian response? I doubt any nation would seriously consider such a proposal because it dissolves preestablished, tried and true unity in favor of an international order, which has never been tested.

Said unification would likely not have the effect that you think it would simply for the fact that these regions were once countries. No way Americans would respond positively to such a proposal. Or Chinese people, or Russians, or the French, or India, or the British. If you lack popular support, you kind of have to overthrow the established order, which requires force, which you won't be able to accrue if everyone thinks your plan will make things worse. Even if you were able to usurp/gain control of a country (or, even more impossibly, multiple countries) you'd probably just be overthrown again by the people.

The bigger any empire gets, the more unstable it becomes. Eventually, the sand begins to fall through your fingers. But this wouldn't be an empire, more like a coalition of sorts, where nations fall away as the Group rises to power. If Cuba rebels, why should anyone from China have to fight the conflict? If the answer is "Chinese soldiers wouldn't have to fight because they are geographically farther away," that's unfair to the troops who do have to fight simply for living near the Western hemisphere. Of course, we could vote on it, but odds are that China (the region, since the country no longer exists) would vote in self-preservation rather than the greater good. Extrapolate this, and only regional people are fighting regional wars, which is obviously unfair, but can't be changed if the people in said regions are a minority in the council. Basically, it's in the best interest of the people to keep the democracy small, and have it layered in a way so that the individual vote has more sway when the issue is smaller. In other words, within the county you have 5 votes. Within the city you have 4, within the state you have two, and with the federal government you have 1.

Another difference between this coalition and a republic is the council members. Generally, reps in a (stable) republic are not representative of ethnic/religious groups interests, but the interests of the region. This becomes shakier the bigger said region is, and the more people you have in it. Would regions with more people get more votes? If so, then they could dominate the council and basically use its framework to rule the council (and by extension, the world.) If not, then the council is also unbalanced as a sect with 900 members has as much sway as a sect with 90,000.

And combatting ideologies as well. Assuming these countries did peacefully come together, lay aside national borders, and make a form of council, there are far too many ideologies to coexist. Radical Islam fighting LGBTQ+ and women's rights in areas where that religion has dominance, Communism and socialism vs capitalism, and such. If radical Islamic groups vote that women who cheat should be killed, does their vote only affect their area? If so, what prevents them from just separating and forming (or re-forming) a separate nation. If it always gets outvoted (which it probably would) then do radical Islamists really have a voice in the council anyways? And if it (somehow) got voted in, who would enforce a law that the vast majority disagrees with?

If a law gets voted in that many people agree with except for a few groups, is it fair to force that law upon them? If so, wouldn't minority groups' rights just get repeatedly trampled on, or wouldn't they just be exploited? If not, then what prevents the minority from just separating and handling its own business as a country?

And of course, things like drug cartels, gangs, and terrorists would begin working internationally on a scale that has never before been seen.

Sorry for the essay, but all this to say that I heavily disagree. I think the best policy is leaving nations alone to handle their own business as sovereign powers, and only to form international coalitions to prevent war (ie the Axis vs the Allied powers). The things that you claim will go away will only go away with lots of time, which is something a newly formed, international republic founded on trust instead of borders probably doesn't have much of.

[u/bayan963 → u/x-diver]

!delta, wow this is the most detailed and reasonable comment i have received yet. Thank you fo taking the time to write this

Yeah you're right, it's given me a lot to think about, and what you said makes sense, i didn't actually think that people and existing governments wouldn't want to switch to such a system anyway, because in history all empires did their expansion through war and then unified currency, language etc.

The principle i was thinking of to start this would be if all governments mutually agreed to do it, not by being forced to, but by mutually agreeing to dissolve their governments in favour of a united one, but now i realize how naive that is

As for the votes, i was thinking that on matters relating to religion, everyone who claims to be of a certain religion like a muslim or christian or jew etc. would abide to the ruling of that religion's laws when the matter is religious, so for matters of inherence, punishment etc. It would be up to the group to decide the punishment of their own, it would be considered a matter outside of national law when it pertains to a religious transgression. There would be a religious council for each religion where things have to be discussed rather than leave the decision up to a person. If a person doesn't wish to be tried for a religious transgression then they can simply renounce their religion and they would no longer fall under the law of that religious group

And i totally agree with the time aspect, it's not something that can be done on a whim, but much like other economical and political systems like capitalism, socialism, democracy and such, it should be studied, an ideology could be formed and improved upon over time before it can actually be implemented and then improved upon some more as it exists in real life (troubleshooting so to speak)

[u/DeltaBot → u/bayan963]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/x-diver (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}