Stuart Mackey wrote:
Which were the summation of some 800 or more years of conflict. To assume that the planet will always be like this is to assume that current political, economic an social pressures will always be as they are.
The way things are going, I don't think they're going to be getting better anytime soon.
No, definatly not soon, probably not in our lifetimes. But there is a certain trend that you can see from history to indicate that things as they are now will move towards some form of world governance.
Mind you, America acting as it has over Iraq does not help matters.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
Stuart Mackey wrote:
I dissagree that the worl will always be like this. Europe was once fudal but that changed and if Europe can change then so can the rest of the planet.
You're confusing large-scale social change with the inherent structure of geopolitical interaction.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
Stuart Mackey wrote:
I dissagree that the worl will always be like this. Europe was once fudal but that changed and if Europe can change then so can the rest of the planet.
You're confusing large-scale social change with the inherent structure of geopolitical interaction.
And you think the planet is not a social structure like a nation with its regions? that the world is as it is, does not preclude change into a different format.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
Stuart Mackey wrote:
And you think the planet is not a social structure like a nation with its regions? that the world is as it is, does not preclude change into a different format.
Nations behave towards each other in the same way with very little shift regardless of their organization, and the shift is often just as likely to be regressive as progressive. There's no steady progressive advance in geopolitical interaction like there is in the internal structures of States (which leads one to perhaps comprehend that the State is a basic and permanent organization, and its behaviour largely constant because of that).
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
Stuart Mackey wrote:
And you think the planet is not a social structure like a nation with its regions? that the world is as it is, does not preclude change into a different format.
Nations behave towards each other in the same way with very little shift regardless of their organization, and the shift is often just as likely to be regressive as progressive. There's no steady progressive advance in geopolitical interaction like there is in the internal structures of States (which leads one to perhaps comprehend that the State is a basic and permanent organization, and its behaviour largely constant because of that).
So please explain Europe. That the relationships between states has been competitive does not change the fact that this need be so for all time. As to state interaction as it relates to a nations internal affairs, well give it time, we have not had decent communications for that long once again look at Europe.
That it has not happned does not preclude it, it is a not logical to say it will always be as it is.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
once again look at Europe.