Nation State

[Willakent]

Recently, I found myself reading the Nation State article on wikipedia. Near the bottom there is a Future section. That section had only a single paragraph talking about people’s opinions on the inevitability of a single World Government.

I felt compelled to add an alternative future outlook comprised of a mutitude of local polities. It felt good to add a view providing ith an alternative to political centralization. I hadn’t edited wikipedia before but I definitely recommend it.

Unfortunately, the open source nature means someone can pee in your soup. Someone has already added a sentence to my alternate future about how politically decentralized groups of humans cannot feasibly live without going to war. I suppose some people have a pretty low view of humanity.

[Byzantine]

@Willakent

someone has already added a sentence to my alternate future about how politically decentralized groups of humans cannot feasibly live without going to war. I suppose some people have a pretty low view of humanity.

And it’s an economically ignorant statement even granting a pretty low view of humanity.

The US/UN Security Council hegemon is repeatedly going to war, btw.

[jsgolfman]

“Some are sceptic of the feasibility of this, as groups of humans with no overreaching regulation or control have historically tended to go to war on each other.”

Obviously, a thinly veiled reference to the UN and other NWO type organizations. Of course, seeing as how he spelled skeptic with a “c”, I think it’s safe to assume the author is a Brit and already ensconced in the nanny state.