Poll: How to please everyone and stop wars. It may work.
- Thread starter Federalist92
- Start date
Your scheme won't work for a number of reasons:
You havn't factored in national animosity, racism and religion.
6 options? Really? The world is MUCH more diverse than that.
People won't relocate without fuss.
There's some more, but I'm to tired from work to be bother...
Oh, yeah! I almost forgot to ask, why should England/Skandinavia be the monarchy? Being from one of these countries, I just happen to know that social democracy is predominant in that area of the world.
You havn't factored in national animosity, racism and religion.
6 options? Really? The world is MUCH more diverse than that.
People won't relocate without fuss.
There's some more, but I'm to tired from work to be bother...
Oh, yeah! I almost forgot to ask, why should England/Skandinavia be the monarchy? Being from one of these countries, I just happen to know that social democracy is predominant in that area of the world.
This is the most stupid idea. Reason being, most wars are because one side wants everyone else to live their lives under the same principles as them.Federalist92 said:
Didn't you sit through WWII in history class? Hitler wasn't satisfied with just his country under his ideology, he wanted to FORCE every other country under it as well.
If we did go ahead with your philosophy, it'd be the binary opposite. You'd have immense conflict.
...why buy what you can take by completely overwhelming force?Federalist92 said:
That is the question that would inevitably be asked.
As others have said, this is good in theory.
But I believe you are overestimating humanity's will to get along with each other all the time.
There will always be conflict, as long as there is more than one point of view.
Now, who wants to be a lieutenant in my new world order?
This will not work. The whole reason the UK does not have an absolute monarchy nowadays was because we fought a civil war over it 400 years ago. Monarchy was becoming increasingly despotic, and as a result those who were capable rose up and fought against it. The result? We kept the king, but their power rapidly declined until they were little more than a figurehead.Federalist92 said:
See the French Revolution for more reasons why people dont like kings.
My point being, the people of these countries would not accept a monarch. They would realise how much they hate having their entire lives dictated by one person, and they would put an end to it. And it's not like the army would side with the king either. A good half of the army fought against the king in our Civil War.
Those areas have different resources and technology. With no border control what so ever everyone will flock to countries like America, regardless of their political beliefs. And why should some one move to a less developed area due to political views. Also the monarchy in England is really just a tourist attraction; more of a socialist democracy
People go to war over resources, religion and whether appreveations count in scrabble (they don't) merely by grouping all the political views together won't prevent wars. Also all capitalists don't have identical views. Just look at America you have both democrats and republicans and they all (mainly) subscribe to a capitalist view point but their ideas differ within that and on other issues e.g gun laws
Also group all the capitalists together with no opposition, few generations down the line they'll believe they're right and inevitably try to force that on someone else
People go to war over resources, religion and whether appreveations count in scrabble (they don't) merely by grouping all the political views together won't prevent wars. Also all capitalists don't have identical views. Just look at America you have both democrats and republicans and they all (mainly) subscribe to a capitalist view point but their ideas differ within that and on other issues e.g gun laws
Also group all the capitalists together with no opposition, few generations down the line they'll believe they're right and inevitably try to force that on someone else
This would never work. To try and make all this happen...no. Because people are contrary. We're not just a bunch of robots.
It will never work for the following reason.
What about the Capitalists that live in Asia or Australia? What if they don't feel like moving to North America? Say they already have a wonderful prosperous business set up where they currently live? You are just going to make them move half way around the world?
Honestly this would cause a lot more problems then it would solve.
What about the Capitalists that live in Asia or Australia? What if they don't feel like moving to North America? Say they already have a wonderful prosperous business set up where they currently live? You are just going to make them move half way around the world?
Honestly this would cause a lot more problems then it would solve.
I wouldn't want to move from Britain to go to a place with extreme weather conditions, it's good here but not too good.( I don't know what monachy is if it has something to do with a king and queen then well they are just tourist attractions:|)
How is having everyone with different types of government going to stop leaders from invading other nations on some bullshit pretext? In fact history has shown it to be MORE likely when governments are of opposing types, nevermind the amount of unrest you'd have to silence in order to force all governments to become a certain type. Finally on the base level, in every nation you can have people who will desire a certain type of government without having to leave the land they love (if you like Theocracy but don't want to live in a desert).
Noble intentions, but if world peace were really that simple we'd have done it by now. I used to think the best solution would be increasing UN backbone and power of judiciary by giving them the power to cut off all aid being sent to any nation that was being aggressive, since no nation can survive alone in a globalized economy. Problem with that is, that leaders still exist who won't care if their people have no running water and are eating their own dead to survive, just so long as they get to blow shit up and make the adults mad.
Noble intentions, but if world peace were really that simple we'd have done it by now. I used to think the best solution would be increasing UN backbone and power of judiciary by giving them the power to cut off all aid being sent to any nation that was being aggressive, since no nation can survive alone in a globalized economy. Problem with that is, that leaders still exist who won't care if their people have no running water and are eating their own dead to survive, just so long as they get to blow shit up and make the adults mad.
If you think that Us the Finns who live in this Litle God-forsaken country with Dark Winters Rainy summers and generally shitty weather start obeying one person to tell us what do and not being eable to have eny use for our voices... Dude we fought a war to be eable to vote and rule ourselfs, and we are proud of it.
Sorry but your idea would get repelled out of this country faster than you can say,
Epäjärjestelmättömyydellänsähäkin, (And thats a real word)
Sorry but your idea would get repelled out of this country faster than you can say,
Epäjärjestelmättömyydellänsähäkin, (And thats a real word)