Is a one world global community a good idea?

No

1 of 3

by Krissi Lyn Mazon

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

With no disrespect to either side of the debate, most ideas that go "global" while very well-intentioned, often fall flat. Companies that have reached the peak branch known as global status are not an anomaly, however, but their success is due to a completely different equation. Doing business on this level in the form of free capitalism has indeed been successful in most cases, but we are strictly talking individual business, not a business run by a group of people whose needs are too diverse to function in a common interest. That, in short, is the problem with the global notation.

Diversity can be a great thing and shouldn't ever be discouraged, but too much of a good thing can be counter-productive. When left to their own devices, diverse groups of people will form in a common interest and take on a task or tasks. If forced to abide by common laws that stretch from one country to the next, we are asking for more tension and hostility than we already endure in the world as it is today.

This is all without heavily factoring in human nature. People do not fit easily into groups, despite the governments of the world trying to convince us that we do. It isn't a perfect world, and while we should always strive to become a better human race, trying to unite by force has historically ended up producing the exact opposite.

Global community means global contracts of law; laws that will supersede individual country's constitutions and best interest. While it would be great to experience world peace, finding even a minority of other countries that will share our common interests is not likely, let alone a majority of the countries. Small things can be compromised, but certain small things can pave the way to bigger things, thus leaving several countries open to attack or failure.

No country should ever abandon its democratic laws in favor of global ones unless the people truly support relinquishing their rights. Even if this occurs, great care should still be taken to ensure the country's individual best interest.

There are already many global initiatives that attempt to provide for a common defense and common meeting table. These programs or groups historically fall short of their goals on a consistent basis. It's not that they are not trying, it is that they are fighting the natural order of human interaction. There are grisly consequences to human interaction, such as war.

A global approach will fail to prevent war, and most likely, will actually serve to increase frequency and intensity. If there is going to be warfare, it's only logical to prefer the lower incidence of such. There are wonderful things that happen during the human experience as well, and these things can also be adversely affected by global policy.

Through forcing people to "get along" short- term, they can very well be robbed of the ability to form a true bond. Again, it is only logical to prefer to know the truth about where one stands with someone.

Banding together has resulted in much needed change in society as a whole. There is no denying that there is a certain strength in numbers. However, global policy would take place of the free will individuals exercise to form these bonds, making the human experience all that much more commercial and automatized. Global actions have their time and place and should remain flexible.

We can come together as needed to serve a common goal and we can embrace our individuality when it is in our best interest. Allowing each country and individual this flexibility will ensure that there is a better tomorrow, even if it will never be our idea of perfect.

Learn more about this author, Krissi Lyn Mazon.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.