RE: one world

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

"respectfully, I don't think you have or can."

"I just used Slovakia as an example of a
nation that has grown together through
common culture/geography/environment. Is it
100% pure Slovakian in all things? Of course
not, but you know what I mean."

I thought Slovakia was split from
Czechoslovakia recently. It's far closer to what
I'm describing (a region defined by common
culture... and at only 5m people, a very small
one at that. Again, more like the type of
organization that seems to work in terms of
clumping people together.

Korea Japan Portugal Sweden Hungary Greece
Croatia

but to name a few...

North Korea or South Korea? LOL Not a good
example IMO.

Sweden works because no one is trying to create a pan-Scandinavian entity. If Norway,
Sweden, Denmark were forced to merge I'm guessing there'd be fireworks.

"Exactly. Nor do we need a global nation. No
nations would be better."

Please enlighten us on how this nationless
world would function and not just revert to
warlords and despots?

We already have warlords and despots. That's unlikely to change
unless we stop placing importance on things
like countries, national pride, etc.

And will you address what Basques,
Macedonians, etc...want?

No. Because I belong to neither group. My
guess however would be self-determination.

Who you talking to there Stump?

:)

"I thought Slovakia was split from Czechoslovakia recently."

They did in 1993 as I posted earlier. And if 5 million is too small, then when is it an acceptable size to be worthy of discussion??

"North Korea or South Korea? LOL Not a good example IMO."

South Korea *obviously*. Although I would argue the Korean people in both North and South are one of the homogeneous people on Earth and just have had the unfortunate luck of having a crazy wanker in the North. Why do you say not a good example?

"Sweden works because no one is trying to create a pan-Scandinavian entity. If Norway, Sweden, Denmark were forced to merge I'm guessing there'd be fireworks."

Either you're making my point or I'm missing something. Sweden works because they're a nation but wouldn't if they were forced to merge with others? Well....of course...what am I missing?

"We already have warlords and despots. That's unlikely to change unless we stop placing importance on things like countries, national pride, etc."

Why would not having countries matter? There were warlords and despots long before there were countries or national pride.

"No. Because I belong to neither group."

Well then don't use them as an example if you can't/won't discuss them.

"My guess however would be self-determination."

hmmmmm, self-determination...and what would that take the form of?