One nation is a solution for war

[Age]

I don't think that the centralization of power will be convenient for a cruel government. Why do you think so?

Where, or into what, do you think the power is centralized, if not the government, evil or not?

Well, one nation means one government. I don't understand why it should be evil.

No one said that it should be evil.

Even the 'not' word was used to reinforce that that one was not even implying evil. Unless, of course, I have misread you "henry quirk", and if I have, then please correct.

[Age]

how many families in one nation? oh wait, there is war within families

-Imp

Do you see war within families in civilized nations?

Maybe not war where planes are flown over each other's heads and bombs are dropped on them, but surely even you have observed conflict, bickering, arguing, fighting, and/or even killing within families, which can be classed as a form of 'war', and maybe even observed this more so in the so-called and Wrongly named 'civilized nations', correct "bahman"?

Or, have you never observed nor experienced any of this at all?

Also, the forcing of people with completely opposing 'beliefs' to live, together, under the banner of 'one nation' could cause and/or create even more conflict, which might end up in more warring than before.

[Age]

Well, one nation means one government. I don't understand why it should be evil.

It may not be. That's not the point. If power is centralized in a government, evil or not, that government can do things it can't do if power is invested in a number of places or spread around. Centralized power is convenient for a government, evil or not.

There will be a conflict of interest when the power is distributed in several places!

Whenever there is 'power' over another, then conflict will exist, and prevail.

[Age]

It may not be. That's not the point. If power is centralized in a government, evil or not, that government can do things it can't do if power is invested in a number of places or spread around. Centralized power is convenient for a government, evil or not.

There will be a conflict of interest when the power is distributed in several places!

Yes. That too is not the point. But, hell, let's just go with it...

Yes, there will be conflicts of interest if power is dispersed instead of concentrated. You think there'd be no conflicts of interest if power is concentrated? As Imp sez, just above, you are dealing with humans. There's gonna be conflicts of interest no matter what.

But this is obviously not correct at all.

In a Truly Self-governed society there is absolutely no conflict of interest nor any chaos at all.

If and while, however, one believes that while human beings exist there will be conflict of interest, then that one will cause and create conflict of interest, if none is happening around it, just to prove to others, and even to "its" own 'self', that its belief is absolutely true, right, and correct.

Let me ask: what form or kind of government do you think would work best as the government in your one nation/one government solution?

Self-governing society. Which is more or less what you have been arguing, and contradictory fighting, for here in this forum. Except the difference between this society and yours is one does not put the rights of one over the rights of others, like you believe is right, and what you would actually do, even to the point of 'death' of another, for just touching a tooth pick, which you Wrongly claim 'is yours'.

[Iwannaplato]

All the war is the result of the conflict of interest between nations. One nation and the problem of conflict is resolved. So there will be peace.

or the centralization of power will be convenient for tyranny. And/or. A kind of peace, a kind of war on the citizens.

I don't think that the centralization of power will be convenient for a cruel government. Why do you think so?

Cruel governments generally want and try to consolidate power. There are problems when a government is far from the people it can control also. There would be even more layers between the center of power and the constituants. They are more abstract to the leaders.
I am not saying it must happen, but I consider it a real possibility. It also simplifies the work for powerful entities like international corporations. They can focus all their manipulation, bribery etc on one entity. You also have one entity that can declare a state of emergency - yes, it wouldn't be an inter-country war, being that those are gone, but alien invasion, nanotech breach, ai breach, pandemic all could be declared so that martial laws can be declared, with measures to appropriate media. Much harder to do when news comes from many countries, for example. One country means that there are no dissidents in exile speaking up about the problems of their government. There's no one going to the media and saying here's what's really happening in my country despite my country's now government controlled or inhibited media's version.

[Walker]

It may not be. That's not the point. If power is centralized in a government, evil or not, that government can do things it can't do if power is invested in a number of places or spread around. Centralized power is convenient for a government, evil or not.

There will be a conflict of interest when the power is distributed in several places!

Whenever there is 'power' over another, then conflict will exist, and prevail.

What will prevail?

*

Centralized power is a monopoly, and monopolies benefit the monopoliziers. This creates a conundrum. When life is on the line, where do intellectual property rights begin and end? If one creates a better mousetrap, is one entitled to monopolize that mousetrap once it becomes essential, according to the law that Invention Is The Mother of Necessity. Or, must society be entitled to that mousetrap beyond the control of the creator, on the rationale that it benefits "humanity" because it prevents Covid, and Climate Change? Or because like Obama infamously said of creators ... "You didn't make that!" Meaning, you're only standing on the shoulders of society.

Speaking of that, Mickey Mouse is now loose in the public domain.

[bahman]

how many families in one nation? oh wait, there is war within families

-Imp

Do you see war within families in civilized nations?

all the time, some are fought more directly

you are dealing with humans

-Imp

Even if there is a conflict of interest among people it never leads to mass murder of individuals as we saw in all wars.

[bahman]

It may not be. That's not the point. If power is centralized in a government, evil or not, that government can do things it can't do if power is invested in a number of places or spread around. Centralized power is convenient for a government, evil or not.

There will be a conflict of interest when the power is distributed in several places!

Yes. That too is not the point. But, hell, let's just go with it...

Yes, there will be conflicts of interest if power is dispersed instead of concentrated. You think there'd be no conflicts of interest if power is concentrated? As Imp sez, just above, you are dealing with humans. There's gonna be conflicts of interest no matter what.

Well, yes, there will be a conflict of interest but that does not lead to mass murder of individuals as we saw in all wars.

Let me ask: what form or kind of government do you think would work best as the government in your one nation/one government solution?

Social Democracy.

[bahman]

All the war is the result of the conflict of interest between nations. One nation and the problem of conflict is resolved. So there will be peace.

So, are you here suggesting that the people living together in 'one nation' will never conflict?

There might be a conflict of interest but that does not lead to mass murdering of individuals as we saw in all wars.

[bahman]

how many families in one nation? oh wait, there is war within families

-Imp

Do you see war within families in civilized nations?

Maybe not war where planes are flown over each other's heads and bombs are dropped on them, but surely even you have observed conflict, bickering, arguing, fighting, and/or even killing within families, which can be classed as a form of 'war', and maybe even observed this more so in the so-called and Wrongly named 'civilized nations', correct "bahman"?

Do you see such a conflict in civilized nations like Germany, Sweden, Norway, and the like?

Or, have you never observed nor experienced any of this at all?

Also, the forcing of people with completely opposing 'beliefs' to live, together, under the banner of 'one nation' could cause and/or create even more conflict, which might end up in more warring than before.

I am not talking about forcing. I am talking about teaching people about one nation and its profits so they naturally agree and live within one flag.

[bahman]

or the centralization of power will be convenient for tyranny. And/or. A kind of peace, a kind of war on the citizens.

I don't think that the centralization of power will be convenient for a cruel government. Why do you think so?

Cruel governments generally want and try to consolidate power. There are problems when a government is far from the people it can control also. There would be even more layers between the center of power and the constituants. They are more abstract to the leaders.
I am not saying it must happen, but I consider it a real possibility.

That wouldn't happen if people are well educated enough.

It also simplifies the work for powerful entities like international corporations. They can focus all their manipulation, bribery etc on one entity. You also have one entity that can declare a state of emergency - yes, it wouldn't be an inter-country war, being that those are gone, but alien invasion, nanotech breach, ai breach, pandemic all could be declared so that martial laws can be declared, with measures to appropriate media. Much harder to do when news comes from many countries, for example. One country means that there are no dissidents in exile speaking up about the problems of their government. There's no one going to the media and saying here's what's really happening in my country despite my country's now government controlled or inhibited media's version.

The idea is that within one nation scenario, there will be no war, and no need to spend huge amounts of money on warfare, ... People could be gathered under one flag, social Democracy government, and live and flourish. All the problems you mentioned can be resolved once people are well-educated enough.

[Iwannaplato]

That wouldn't happen if people are well educated enough.

That's a big if. It wouldn't happen if people are nice, either.

The idea is that within one nation scenario, there will be no war, and no need to spend huge amounts of money on warfare, ... People could be gathered under one flag, social Democracy government, and live and flourish. All the problems you mentioned can be resolved once people are well-educated enough.

Maybe. Who educates them? Who determines the curriculum? How do we keep the power players from not skewing things? Who makes sure the press is free? How do nations, all around the world, educate everyone well enough? Who decides that before there is one world government?

Again, I don't rule this out as possible, but I think all sorts of things have to change radically before we avoid a one world tyranny.

[Impenitent]

Do you see war within families in civilized nations?

all the time, some are fought more directly

you are dealing with humans

-Imp

Even if there is a conflict of interest among people it never leads to mass murder of individuals as we saw in all wars.

the question of scale merely depends on the weapon used... ask your local jihadist...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

Well, yes, there will be a conflict of interest but that does not lead to mass murder of individuals as we saw in all wars.

Social Democracy.

What is about social democracy and all people in one nation that precludes the mass murder of war?

[bahman]

That wouldn't happen if people are well educated enough.

That's a big if. It wouldn't happen if people are nice, either.

What we need to prevent a cruel government from taking place is proper education. If no one supports any government it would collapse.

The idea is that within one nation scenario, there will be no war, and no need to spend huge amounts of money on warfare, ... People could be gathered under one flag, Social Democracy government, and live and flourish. All the problems you mentioned can be resolved once people are well-educated enough.

Maybe. Who educates them?

The government, other people, ...

Who determines the curriculum?

The parlement.

How do we keep the power players from not skewing things?

Judiciary.

Who makes sure the press is free?

People.

How do nations, all around the world, educate everyone well enough?

That could be the duty of the UN to guide nations in giving their people proper education before unification.

Who decides that before there is one world government?

The UN.

Again, I don't rule this out as possible, but I think all sorts of things have to change radically before we avoid a one world tyranny.

No worry, many nations around the world are not tyrannical which means that people have the proper education so it is very unlikely that a tyranny will take place after the unification.