One nation is a solution for war

[Age]

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

1. Yes I see conflict in those named nations/countries/parcels of land on earth.

2. What you might call 'civilized' in the days when this is being written is certainly not considered 'civilized', to others.

They are the best at the current stage.

you forgot to mention and write, 'in your view'.

And, let us not forget how quickly things can change. Take, for example, did you see/saw 'conflict' in "germany" say only a few decades ago, or just one hundred or so years ago, from when this is being written?

So, how things appear to be 'civilized' 'currently' can very quickly change, for the better, or for the worse.

I am not talking about forcing.

Well how else to get people to live under the banner of 'one nation'?

By convincing them.

So, you have to 'convince' one of some thing, which they would not have just agreed with, accepted, and/or followed with, voluntarily. Which is a great sign of what one thinks or believes others need to be 'convinced' of may well not be good and right, at all.

I am talking about teaching people about one nation and its profits so they naturally agree and live within one flag.

Of course when greed and selfishness has been extinguished from adult human beings, and they are again living without these things and have learned how to live in peace and harmony with one another, then, and only then, all of humankind can start living together, as One, in a Truly voluntarily agreed upon and accepted 'Self-governing society', or a 'One nation earth'. Until then informing of, or teaching about, 'profits' will only lead adults to, individually, want a share, or a piece, of 'those profits'. Which is and was, obviously, a huge part of the reason why you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, grew up and are 'now' causing and creating such a Truly conflicted, war-torn, pollution-riddled, and very stressful 'world' and existence.

By the way what do you consider is the best 'one flag' to live within?

Do you mean the type of government?

It was you who first used the 'one flag' words here, to which I asked the clarifying question to. So, when you used the 'one flag' words were you meaning a 'type of government', or something else, exactly?

And, how many other people will actually 'naturally agree with' and 'want to live' within 'that one flag'?

Hopefully more as time passes.

But how come you do not 'naturally agree with' and do not 'want to live' within a 'one flag', 'type of government', nor 'one nation'?

[Age]

So, let's recap...

You feel a world united under one government, one State (preferably a socialist democratic one), will stop mass killing (war). In such a united world, all men would be properly educated (en-virtued) by the State. Dissent would be allowed, but the truly unruly (anyone who takes a dim view of the State as educator and oversight and end-all, be-all) would be sequestered away on reservations (for everyone's safety and the State's peace of mind).

Is this a decent summary of your view?

Yes, pretty much.

Then I'll pass on your utopia.

Here is a great example of how and why "bahman's", and "henry quirk's", individually perceived 'right worlds' will never come to fruition.

In fact, as we can clearly see here both these people what to dictate what is 'right' and 'good' in 'their own made up worlds', and not follow another one and 'their world'.

[henry quirk]

"henry quirk's" ''right world'

Please, describe what you think my 'right world' is.

[Age]

"henry quirk's" ''right world'

Please, describe what you think my 'right world' is.

From what i recall, which is very, very fallible, one where every one belongs to 'themself' alone, and, one where 'one' cannot touch or take the life, liberty, nor property of 'another'.

Again, "henry quirk", if absolutely any thing is Wrong or not Correct it here, then please explain why, and Correct it.

[henry quirk]

From what i recall, which is very, very fallible, one where every one belongs to 'themself' alone, and, one where 'one' cannot touch or take the life, liberty, nor property of 'another'.

Nope. Wrong.

My right world is the real world, the one we're in, where you and I are free wills, each with a natural, moral claim to our own, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. There's no cannot in the world; there are ought nots, however.

Joe ought not murder Stan becuz Stan's life is his own. Joe however can certainly try to murder Stan. He may succeed, he may fail, but he can try.

[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.

Awfully naive.

Which "nation" do we all get to be? American? British? Chinese? Brazilian? Is there just one "nation" in any of these? And what do we do with the indigenous cultures, which may not be so keen on becoming Russian or whatever?

Are you talking about the type of government?

And it means that all the world's "nations" have to surrender all their sovereignty, values, culture, language, traditions and interests so the rest of us can have the world our way...

No, it does not mean that people should surrender their culture, language, and the like.

Nice solution: its called "tyrannical totalitarianism." And yes, it would produce "peace" if it succeeds in crushing the life out of all the other "nations" of the world.

I haven't heard of this one. Could you please provide a link?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Awfully naive.

Which "nation" do we all get to be? American? British? Chinese? Brazilian? Is there just one "nation" in any of these? And what do we do with the indigenous cultures, which may not be so keen on becoming Russian or whatever?

Are you talking about the type of government?

Not only that, but the whole polity. For example, will your "one nation" allow sutee, and female circumcision, and slavery, and child brides, and blood sacrifice, and cannabalism, and theft by taxation, and revenge rape, and spiritism and ancestor worship...all these things are practiced by various cultures around the world; so which "nation" do we end up being?

And it means that all the world's "nations" have to surrender all their sovereignty, values, culture, language, traditions and interests so the rest of us can have the world our way...

No, it does not mean that people should surrender their culture, language, and the like.

Yes, it inevitably has to mean that.

Nice solution: its called "tyrannical totalitarianism." And yes, it would produce "peace" if it succeeds in crushing the life out of all the other "nations" of the world.

I haven't heard of this one. Could you please provide a link?

You haven't heard of "tyranny" or "totalitarianism"? Look those words up.

[bahman]

1. Yes I see conflict in those named nations/countries/parcels of land on earth.

2. What you might call 'civilized' in the days when this is being written is certainly not considered 'civilized', to others.

They are the best at the current stage.

you forgot to mention and write, 'in your view'.

And, let us not forget how quickly things can change. Take, for example, did you see/saw 'conflict' in "germany" say only a few decades ago, or just one hundred or so years ago, from when this is being written?

So, how things appear to be 'civilized' 'currently' can very quickly change, for the better, or for the worse.

Yes, in my view, Social Democracy is the best type of government. Do you have a better example?

Well how else to get people to live under the banner of 'one nation'?

By convincing them.

So, you have to 'convince' one of some thing, which they would not have just agreed with, accepted, and/or followed with, voluntarily. Which is a great sign of what one thinks or believes others need to be 'convinced' of may well not be good and right, at all.

Here, I am just providing my opinion. People have the right to disagree.

Of course when greed and selfishness has been extinguished from adult human beings, and they are again living without these things and have learned how to live in peace and harmony with one another, then, and only then, all of humankind can start living together, as One, in a Truly voluntarily agreed upon and accepted 'Self-governing society', or a 'One nation earth'. Until then informing of, or teaching about, 'profits' will only lead adults to, individually, want a share, or a piece, of 'those profits'. Which is and was, obviously, a huge part of the reason why you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, grew up and are 'now' causing and creating such a Truly conflicted, war-torn, pollution-riddled, and very stressful 'world' and existence.

By the way what do you consider is the best 'one flag' to live within?

Do you mean the type of government?

It was you who first used the 'one flag' words here, to which I asked the clarifying question to. So, when you used the 'one flag' words were you meaning a 'type of government', or something else, exactly?

I meant a type of government, Social Democracy.

And, how many other people will actually 'naturally agree with' and 'want to live' within 'that one flag'?

Hopefully more as time passes.

But how come you do not 'naturally agree with' and do not 'want to live' within a 'one flag', 'type of government', nor 'one nation'?

I want to live within one nation.

[bahman]

Awfully naive.

Which "nation" do we all get to be? American? British? Chinese? Brazilian? Is there just one "nation" in any of these? And what do we do with the indigenous cultures, which may not be so keen on becoming Russian or whatever?

Are you talking about the type of government?

Not only that, but the whole polity. For example, will your "one nation" allow sutee, and female circumcision, and slavery, and child brides, and blood sacrifice, and cannabalism, and theft by taxation, and revenge rape, and spiritism and ancestor worship...all these things are practiced by various cultures around the world; so which "nation" do we end up being?

In my opinion, they are not allowed. Most of what you mentioned are crimes to me, such as suttee, female circumcision, and the like.

And it means that all the world's "nations" have to surrender all their sovereignty, values, culture, language, traditions and interests so the rest of us can have the world our way...

No, it does not mean that people should surrender their culture, language, and the like.

Yes, it inevitably has to mean that.

There are already many nations in the world that are multicultural, multilanguage,...

Nice solution: its called "tyrannical totalitarianism." And yes, it would produce "peace" if it succeeds in crushing the life out of all the other "nations" of the world.

I haven't heard of this one. Could you please provide a link?

You haven't heard of "tyranny" or "totalitarianism"? Look those words up.

Ok, I will.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you talking about the type of government?

Not only that, but the whole polity. For example, will your "one nation" allow sutee, and female circumcision, and slavery, and child brides, and blood sacrifice, and cannabalism, and theft by taxation, and revenge rape, and spiritism and ancestor worship...all these things are practiced by various cultures around the world; so which "nation" do we end up being?

In my opinion, they are not allowed. Most of what you mentioned are crimes to me, such as suttee, female circumcision, and the like.

Well, here's the problem: you may feel that way, but millions of people feel different ways about those things. If you're going to make us all "one nation," as you say, how do you justify shutting down and preventing all the things you don't like?

Which "nation," with which language, culture, laws, traditions, economic structures, and so on, do you want to force us all to become?

No, it does not mean that people should surrender their culture, language, and the like.

Yes, it inevitably has to mean that.

There are already many nations in the world that are multicultural, multilanguage,...

They don't function well. They break down along those lines. I know: I live in one of the most allegedly "multicultural" nations in the world. It's an unbelievable mess, because people need to be able to understand each other and work on common values, projects and structures if the nation is going to succeed. And we don't. So we're constantly on the verge of disaster because of our internal divisions.

[bahman]

Not only that, but the whole polity. For example, will your "one nation" allow sutee, and female circumcision, and slavery, and child brides, and blood sacrifice, and cannabalism, and theft by taxation, and revenge rape, and spiritism and ancestor worship...all these things are practiced by various cultures around the world; so which "nation" do we end up being?

In my opinion, they are not allowed. Most of what you mentioned are crimes to me, such as suttee, female circumcision, and the like.

Well, here's the problem: you may feel that way, but millions of people feel different ways about those things. If you're going to make us all "one nation," as you say, how do you justify shutting down and preventing all the things you don't like?

Those are barbaric! Do you agree with them? And yes, we have to shut them down!

Which "nation," with which language, culture, laws, traditions, economic structures, and so on, do you want to force us all to become?

We could have a main language such as English and other languages as well. We could have a multicultural system. One law. The type of government could be Social Democracy.

Yes, it inevitably has to mean that.

There are already many nations in the world that are multicultural, multilanguage,...

They don't function well. They break down along those lines. I know: I live in one of the most allegedly "multicultural" nations in the world. It's an unbelievable mess, because people need to be able to understand each other and work on common values, projects and structures if the nation is going to succeed. And we don't. So we're constantly on the verge of disaster because of our internal divisions.

They would function well if people were open-minded.

[Immanuel Can]

In my opinion, they are not allowed. Most of what you mentioned are crimes to me, such as suttee, female circumcision, and the like.

Well, here's the problem: you may feel that way, but millions of people feel different ways about those things. If you're going to make us all "one nation," as you say, how do you justify shutting down and preventing all the things you don't like?

Those are barbaric! Do you agree with them? And yes, we have to shut them down!

I named them BECAUSE I personally find them barbaric. But that doesn't answer my question: how do you justify forcing these people from other cultures to do what you want, instead of what they want?

Which "nation," with which language, culture, laws, traditions, economic structures, and so on, do you want to force us all to become?

We could have a main language such as English and other languages as well. We could have a multicultural system. One law. The type of government could be Social Democracy.

So English becomes the working language, the one in which people have all the primary power, economically, socially, in the media, in government, in education, and so on...and the other languages become...what? Curiosities?

There are already many nations in the world that are multicultural, multilanguage,...

They don't function well. They break down along those lines. I know: I live in one of the most allegedly "multicultural" nations in the world. It's an unbelievable mess, because people need to be able to understand each other and work on common values, projects and structures if the nation is going to succeed. And we don't. So we're constantly on the verge of disaster because of our internal divisions.

They would function well if people were open-minded.

They don't, and they aren't. So now what? Are you going to try to force everybody to accept your language, laws, culture, opinions, social practices and so on, and just expect them to come around to liking it one day?

[bahman]

Well, here's the problem: you may feel that way, but millions of people feel different ways about those things. If you're going to make us all "one nation," as you say, how do you justify shutting down and preventing all the things you don't like?

Those are barbaric! Do you agree with them? And yes, we have to shut them down!

I named them BECAUSE I personally find them barbaric. But that doesn't answer my question: how do you justify forcing these people from other cultures to do what you want, instead of what they want?

We should not force them. We should educate them.

Which "nation," with which language, culture, laws, traditions, economic structures, and so on, do you want to force us all to become?

We could have a main language such as English and other languages as well. We could have a multicultural system. One law. The type of government could be Social Democracy.

So English becomes the working language, the one in which people have all the primary power, economically, socially, in the media, in government, in education, and so on...and the other languages become...what? Curiosities?

Other languages are important as well. There is a huge amount of literature on each language. People could still use the second language for poetry for example.

They don't function well. They break down along those lines. I know: I live in one of the most allegedly "multicultural" nations in the world. It's an unbelievable mess, because people need to be able to understand each other and work on common values, projects and structures if the nation is going to succeed. And we don't. So we're constantly on the verge of disaster because of our internal divisions.

They would function well if people were open-minded.

They don't, and they aren't. So now what? Are you going to try to force everybody to accept your language, laws, culture, opinions, social practices and so on, and just expect them to come around to liking it one day?

Education is what is needed.

[Immanuel Can]

Those are barbaric! Do you agree with them? And yes, we have to shut them down!

I named them BECAUSE I personally find them barbaric. But that doesn't answer my question: how do you justify forcing these people from other cultures to do what you want, instead of what they want?

We should not force them. We should educate them.

They're already educated. China, India, Brazil, Yemen...these are not nations of fools. It's not ignorance that's the cause of their values, but rather the having of a very different view from you. What do you do about that?

We could have a main language such as English and other languages as well. We could have a multicultural system. One law. The type of government could be Social Democracy.

So English becomes the working language, the one in which people have all the primary power, economically, socially, in the media, in government, in education, and so on...and the other languages become...what? Curiosities?

Other languages are important as well. There is a huge amount of literature on each language. People could still use the second language for poetry for example.

Oh. So they get their poetry, and we get to control all the business. They get their literature, and we get control of science. They get local get-togethers, and we get control of public education. They get their quaint festivals, and we get control of all the politics.

I see how this works: you give them the little things, and we take all the controlling concerns away from their language.

Education is what is needed.

So your theory is that they are...what? Stupid? Ignorant? Uneducated? Uniformed? Unscientific? Illogical? Immoral? Naive? And if you can just "educate" them in what you want them to believe, they'll come around to it?

[bahman]

I named them BECAUSE I personally find them barbaric. But that doesn't answer my question: how do you justify forcing these people from other cultures to do what you want, instead of what they want?

We should not force them. We should educate them.

They're already educated. China, India, Brazil, Yemen...these are not nations of fools. It's not ignorance that's the cause of their values, but rather the having of a very different view from you. What do you do about that?

They would accept the concept of one nation if they are educated enough.

So English becomes the working language, the one in which people have all the primary power, economically, socially, in the media, in government, in education, and so on...and the other languages become...what? Curiosities?

Other languages are important as well. There is a huge amount of literature on each language. People could still use the second language for poetry for example.

Oh. So they get their poetry, and we get to control all the business. They get their literature, and we get control of science. They get local get-togethers, and we get control of public education. They get their quaint festivals, and we get control of all the politics.

I see how this works: you give them the little things, and we take all the controlling concerns away from their language.

Yes, something like that.

Education is what is needed.

So your theory is that they are...what? Stupid? Ignorant? Uneducated? Uniformed? Unscientific? Illogical? Immoral? Naive? And if you can just "educate" them in what you want them to believe, they'll come around to it?

They are ignorant to the idea of one nation.