5 ms·
> Historically, realms that have been patched together from previously autonomous bodies have not done too well (I would appreciate counter examples). I'm writ
by tlocke 11y ago
> Historically, realms that have been patched together from previously autonomous bodies have not done too well (I would appreciate counter examples).
I'm writing from Bath in the UK where Edgar, the first king of England, was crowned in 973. This united the ancient kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia etc.
Thankfully we've become more democratic since then, but until the EU was founded in 1993, Europe was an anarchy of nations. The countries themselves were democratic, but the group of nations was an anarchy. Europe suffered the problems of anarchy (the rule of the strong rather than the rule of law) and had been at war in some form or other for a large part of its history. Now that we've got the EU, which is a democracy of nations, the threat of war has receded somewhat. In the future I hope that we'll see a democracy of the entire world, a world government.
- prodmerc 11y agoYou may be surprised, but most people fear a world government. New World Order and all that bullshit. Of course, they ignore the ongoing massive globalization and how it has improved their lives...
- verbin217 11y agoI know exactly what you're talking about. I'm very pro-globalization. It's an engineering problem and that's the right solution. But I do fear this world order.
- infimum 11y ago> Of course, they ignore the ongoing massive globalization and how it has improved their lives... I'm not quite sure it improved the life of the 13 year old indian sweatshop worker though...
- prodmerc 11y agoWho would've otherwise been a 13 year old beggar? Or 6 year old corpse? Their own country's market sure doesn't look too good for job creation...
- fsloth 11y agoYou do realize your spiel could be used to market any of the conquests of the past centuries - unite under MY banner, and we shall have piece... Britain is pretty swell, after a thousand years of dominating cultural hegemony. Although some scots may disagree. And some Irish perhaps. Not too many people speak the old tongues. A typical dynamic in a large polity such as a nation or a corporation is that there will be a single culturally distinguishable leading elite class, and a) this elite will favor it's own (not maliciously, but because they are human and favor familiarity) and b) the people who do not actively recent the ruling elite will try to emulate them. So, in time, if the dominion can remain civil, it will develop an understanding and a common cultural framework. Talking of civility - historically, britain has been unable to hold to lands that it could not hold under the force of violence. American colonies. India. South Africa. People love their sovereignty (or, people yearn for political power and use sovereignty as their rallying cry). Anyhow - if the cultural hegemony cannot overwhelm a territory there will be a constant pressure to cede. I think this understanding of history is what drove many of the genocides of the past century - political will to rule, at any cost. With this view of history uniting the earth under a single government would require either a single monoculture, or a dictatorial rule forcing a cultural homogenization over generations until the dissenting voices have diminished to insignificance. Perhaps our beloved internet will function as a vehicle of such homogenization - it's not completely impossible. Note: There was no large war in europe between the napoleonic wars and the first world war. Historically, europe has been quite pieceful in the past without a huge bureaucracy attempting to to formulate everything under it's legalistic framework. I believe in western concept of human rights, and I do not believe in cultural relativism - oppression is oppression. But, a world government is a concept that is very problematic in our current state in history. I have no idea if this will change.