What's actually wrong with the concept of one world order?

Question

Wouldn't it be better for all of us on this godforsaken planet if everyone just got along, and didn't care about silly, trivial issues like nationality? A world without passports, artificial lines in the sand that exist only in the minds of people, and the constant bickering (i. e. wars) that flare up because one group of religious zealots believes that their god is better than yours, or you have something in your territory that he wants (like oil or gold).

We have only one planet, therefore it makes perfect sense we have only one government, one currency, one language and one "nation". It's time for the human race to finally grow up and ditch all these ridiculous tribes.

Hanrej · Accepted Answer

Ehm.. no! And here is why.

Conflict will always exist. The idea that it's sprung out of nationality is ludicruse. It exists between nations, between groups of people as well as between individuals. Coming from a multicultural country myself I can say with certainty that our levels of conflict, armed crime, hate crime and racially motivated fights on the streets only increased since our government forced this idea on us that people could and would become one people if you simply erased the borders that separate us.

Nationality doesn't work, sure, but it's the better solution. Divide the people on earth into smaller groups who at least to some degree agree on certain rules, laws and social interactions as the alternative is to bring conflict closer. The idea is to create a safe space for your people. What's happening now is that politicians is working towards an ideology that mixes people of different backgrounds, views, values and with very different ideas for the future together in the hope that our differences should somehow be a strength rather than reasons for conflict. Having seen the results myself I can't help but think our leaders are either naive idiots or knowingly pushes us in this direction BECAUSE they wants us to fight with eachother. Conflict after all breaks unity and a divided population is easier to rule as they're too busy fighting eachother while those in power rob us all.

Anonymous · Answer

"Wouldn't it be better for all of us on this godforsaken planet if everyone just got along, and didn't care about silly, trivial issues like nationality?" 1) The planet is not forsaken by God. 2) It is extremely, extremely naive to think that a simple exhortation from you or anyone else will make everyone else stop feeling nationalistic pride.

"A world without passports," so that Iranian and Hamas terrorists are free to travel wherever they want without any hindrances. Great!

"the constant bickering (i. e. wars) that flare up because one group of religious zealots believes that their god is better than yours," so you want to essentially ignore human nature.

"or you have something in your territory that he wants (like oil or gold)." Greed is also a part of human nature. You can ignore it but human nature won't simply disappear because it's inconvenient for your idea of utopia.

"We have only one planet, therefore it makes perfect sense we have only one government, one currency, one language and one nation." Why does that make sense? What is best for Ugandans is best decided by Ugandans, not Peruvians.

"It's time for the human race to finally grow up and ditch all these ridiculous tribes." So now you want to call everyone who disagrees with you names like immature. That is not a compelling argument, but it is a hallmark of virtue signallers.

normalice · Answer

Rich people don't want the world powers answering to the not-rich people so they have mass marketed the idea of a "one world order" as a bad thing. Personally, I think the idea of an international criminal court that would be allowed to simply arrest a guy like Putin or organizations like Hamas, would be a great idea.

Effably · Answer

We could get into a longwinded conversation about the value of sovereignity. But it all boils down to someone losing power and influence they would rather keep.

As for all getting along, its a winners vs losers scenario where the current winners have the choice and lack reasons to agree. While it would be a net positive, to the people able to make the choice it is often a negative. Very wealthy nations that are currently benefitting by exploiting poorer ones have no real reason to agree, the poorer one has no real weight to make the choice.

But yes. A united world would solve a lot of things because concepts and ideas have power in themselves. But its a little like not allowing billionaire level inheritances. Would it be good for nearly everyone? Absolutely. It would fix major flaws in our system. But it isn't good for everyone. And the people who would need to agree are the people who would lose out on it. (On a sidenote, inheritance really should have a max limit).

Kevsker · Answer

You're describing a utopia, which obviously would be the best solution. However, don't forget that humans are still opportunistic animals. In my opinion it's healthy for the human race to have different countries with different governments. Not everyone thinks the same way as we do, so they can live in their country with a government that represents their beliefs. The only thing all nations need to agree upon is to not attack another nation. Before the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, we were as close as we will ever get to world peace, I think. Unfortunately there are still many people out there who believe they are better and deserve more in this world...

JacobJordan · Answer

of course it would be great if we all got alone. but you have to understand human nature. humans by nature do not get along in groups larger than a couple hundred. humans by nature are only ever able to set aside the squabbling when a greater threat emerges. look at world war 2... peoples that hated each other set aside there differences and banded together to stop the nazi's. as soon as it was done they went back to squabbling. humans have never been good at working together for the greater good. and even those that have been able to do so are often the target of hate, vitriol, assassination attempts, defamation etc.

Lionman95 · Answer

The problem is that it's an utopian idea, because it won't solve problems but create new ones. First what's the language to speak and who gets to decide. Look at the UN for starters it's the try to bring the nations together and how does it work let's say not so well.
The reason there are nations is a question of identity. Its similar like property both give people identity. It's not a trivial question, it might seem so as long as you're not affected by it.

docster · Answer

In World War II we had the free countries stop the evil dictators from trying to take over the world. Even if you had a very good group of people run the world, what would you do when evil ones worm their way into power? The ones that are currently trying to start this "One World" thing are already incredibly evil. Not just evil, E-VILLL.

BoopBoopBeep · Answer

We aren't one people. We don't have a common desired end state. We don't like each other. Erasing borders wouldn't change that.

blueonblack22 · Answer

This would require a ruling elitist class that could never exist on democracy alone. It would have to use force, oppression and coercion to accomplish its “one party goals” which is how communism works and has failed spectacularly.

Hispanic-Cool-Guy · Answer

Because its demonic. God is a divider and Satan a uniter.

Everytime in the Bible people united as one it was for an evil cause hence why there are many different languages as God was the one to bring about that so that people can be separate.

And another thing it isn't human nature to be agreeable, people will always fight, argue and disagree about politics and religion and culture on how to live life so what you are proposing will never actually work.

strateguy632 · Answer

a world without passports? that is VERY so naive why do you think we started using them... kuz we needed them.

also consider brexit unity ends up misused so britain left.

yugoslavia, didn't work. broken and long forgotten.

Billlewis · Answer

Other than all of humanity, besides the most wealthy, powerful people being treated like cattle, not much;)

Dargil · Answer

Freedom of choice and Liberty. Nationalism is believing your nation is the best FOR YOU. Nationalists don't care about anyone else's dirt except friend's.

Andres77 · Answer

That’s the direction we’re going. I don’t like it but I might as well try to stop the wind. We’re going to lose a lot of rights.

Anonymous · Answer

Having one set of rules.

For example. Do you think people in China it North Korea might think "man, I'm not a fan of my government. I'd really like to move somewhere else where the rules of the land are more akin to what I think the rules should be"?

And if so, where would someone move infer a one-world-order?

This is just one example, too.

NathanDavis · Answer

it's highly idealistic... not a real thing

gorydetails · Answer

Lol, fuck that. Why would I let shitheads like al Queda have a say in how I'm governed.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

What's wrong with it: it won't be MY own order. So... fuck that :)

exitseven · Answer

If the dirt in the US wasn't better than everyone elses then how come everyone wants to live here?

HouseMoat · Answer

I mean, that would defeat the purpose of individualism. Why should I have to be like the person next to me?

love_conquers_lust · Answer

Not all dirt is compositionally equal, that’s why.

TheGuyYouCrave · Answer

That would not happen. All things are eternally in conflict. E. g. life/death. Birth/decay

Jennz6 · Answer

Ok, but what religion would we choose?

Anonymous · Answer

Disgusting, fascistic, globalist pig.

YAsQuen · Answer

spoken like the average women

What's actually wrong with the concept of one world order?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

What's actually wrong with the concept of one world order?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.