Yeah, I read Lord of the Flies for 8th grade Civics, great book, great point. Though, while eliminating diversity still creates adversaries, allowing it there creates even more conflicts, so you can remove certain conflicts by removing diversity. Sure, people will always find something to qaurell over, however without as many different cultures, religions, etc, it becomes much simpler.

Think what you want, it's your own opinion, I think it's just luck that no other country has been able to amass a large enough navy or military to challenge us, that I don't think anyone has really put their mind to it yet (with the exception of the U.S.S.R in the Cold War)

@BAGLES:

Have you read 1984 by Orwell? I think that would be the best way to accomplish what you're describing.

As for culture/differences getting in the way... give them insignificant things to worry about, and they won't have time to get distracted by the important stuff.

About the majority: 51:49 is also a failure, don't you think? Yes, I made a mistake, but you din't respond to the point which I made, you only corrected the mistake. What will happen if China and India are dissattisfied with the votings?

"Because democracy won't work perfectly" Sorry, was inattentive while editing.

@Vrael:
Though the US is diverse, most of the ethnic groups either assimilate, or live in small groups but follow the rules set by the majority. Why? Because those are people who are controlled by the laws of the state they live in. You're thinking like "if different people get along in one state (US), different states can get along the same way", but that's not true at all. If there was one global state, I assume there would be no borders (because otherwise that would be just another organization like the EU), and in such conditions, you can't expect (as the most obvious example) the Middle East to get along.

As for religion... about 76% of americans are christians (2001 survey), and only 5.5% of the adult population are non-Christian theists. Doesen't seem to be like a melting pot religion-wise (small fractions of other religions are normal in almsot any country).

Totalitarianism is the only plausible way of keeping a government so huge together that I can think of.

Like celebreties

Also, I haven't read 1984 quite yet, though I'm busy reading Stranger in a Strange Land, so it may be a bit (By that I mean maybe a day or so, this book is great >.>).


No, I don't think Totalitarianism would work. Think about it, while you have to control everyone, you also need to keep them all happy, and it'll cost serious money to launch Propaganda campaigns that large. Just look at the Roman Monarchs, people eventually catch on and try to overthrow the government. Also, see Persia, Egypt, and most other great powers of the ancient world, they couldn't adapt because of what their leader thought was right (Seeing as he/she's the only one with power), what he thought worked, and therefore ended up falling behind the times, and eventually dieing out. No one is really happy in totalitarianist governments, they don't have enough freedom and choice, it eventually gets old and sickens you like a video game without a map editor >.>

Exactly


Yeah, if you rule people with an iron fist, they'll get unhappy and revolt. If you keep them somewhat satisfied, they won't consider you the enemy and they'll find other things/people to fight.

That's what the Roman empire did, they let all the countries they conquered keep their own cultures and (somewhat) infrastructures.

PS: @Bagles re your sig: great song/album/band.

Yeah, if you don't scare them...

Well, even if you scare them, it only gets you so far, you need total power over them all, all the time, and you can only live a life of fear for so long. Keep in mind also, several African countries have civil wars over the way their government rules, scaring people helps in the short term, but in the long term, it messes you up. You need a back up (Backup plan, that is) if you want to rule by fear, so if you know of one propose it.

Due to ethnic differences, I think it would be too difficult to unify people into a single organization. The Soviets tried, and yet many of the different countries had uprisings, especially near the end. Conquering a country is one thing, but retaining control throughout the years is incredibly taxing. The larger the area under control, the greater the materials, money, and number of soldiers needed to secure it. Every stab at world domination has been doomed to failure. Hitler, Rome, the Mongol Empire... grow too large, and the empire breaks down from within and outside forces. Of course, Hitler didn't face too many problems from within due to the short life of the Third Reich, but it's doubtful that the German armies could have kept control of even Western Europe for too terribly long. The French, British, Swiss... all different ethnicities, all weak points in the German scheme of things. Considering that Germany has roughly 11% of the total population of Europe (today, 82 million compared to 731 million), I think that it would be difficult to keep a reign on everything, don't you?

It would most certainly be difficult, but the question was how you would do it, assuming it did happen. Also, you can assume how it happened whatever way you want, it doesn't necessarily have to be by a war, it could be like such a government as in Stranger in a Strange Land, or, again, Starship Troopers.

This don't have anything to do with the debate that you guys were having, but I'd have my people work there ass off all the time. The Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, one of em (I don't remember which) had there people build a great city every 20 years, keep them busy so they don't question authority pretty much. I think thats why we find all those abandoned cities. The Egyptians probably did the same thing with pyramids. Also, I'd make some one the enemy. Like Hitler did with the jews. To stay in power you create a threat or enemy, that way people will want to keep you charge to take care of the problem. I see this with clans that are in wars, you'd think they'd be weakened by the problems but there stronger than ever. It keeps the people together, otherwise people want to be there own boss. As for religions thats a toughy, today people are to smart to believe in religions (not saying people who do are stupid) but on the other hand some people "need" to believe in a higher power for safety, a clean conscious, to get through a hard time. I'd probably make it choice based.

"people are to smart to believe in religions" Lol. That implies a lot.

On a more related note, I think you have a few good points. If I may draw on Orwell's 1984 again, his fictional populace was hard working, plagued by an neverending state of war, encouraged to vent their anger at a fictional scapegoat, deprived of human pleasures like sex (except for procreation), watched 100% of the time, turned against itself, and divided into classes and districts where you can and cannot go. On top of all that, history was constantly rewritten to remove all records so that no one had any evidence to bring against the government, and the language was being modified to remove words like justice so that communications could not reflect the ideals needed to revolt. Hard working is just one of the many points necessary to ensure a totalitarian-style regime. However, I think even that system would break down eventually due to infighting on the part of the party that runs the whole thing.

/agree
We all know some politician will end up trying to make a power play, it'd be hard, but assuming he had enough power, assuming he convinced enough people, it'd be easy, people would be sick of the system anyways. Hell, even in most Democratic countries people are sick of the system, the same one that's been busily working to make everyone's lives easier. (Well, not always, but you get the point)