Can the citizen of the world be united in one sigle country/federation etc.?
337974
Oh, I hope not!  I think we need to be able to "get away" from whatever government dominates, or it will come to dominate every facet of our lives.  Both George Orwell's "1984," (which was written in 1948, as I recall), and "Brave New World," and lots of other science fiction have made the point that a world-wide country is too much power too centralized.  It will not make way for differences that humans need to have to function.  \n\nThe big government concept is uniformity; the politics of scale.  That is a necessary part of doing things on a big scale, and why no more than absolutely necessary should be done by the federal government.  The smaller the unit of government, the bigger the opportunity to respond to real-world circumstances.  A neighborhood can get things done with only occasional assistance from a city government, which seldom needs to draw on the resources of the entire county, state, region.  Response to a major disaster takes a well-coordinated effort across state lines.  Even there, who has done the better job in Katrina response: the Red Cross and the rest of the private foundations, or the federal government?  I rest my case.
36581
We are all one nation. The Empire. Go to http://360.yahoo.com/first_emperor_of_the_world.
976633
No no no no no! Every country should be it's own, and be seperate. Countries shouldn't be mixed together. If they are, people lose their convictions that set them apart in the first place. (i.e. "nutrality". btw, nutrality is the first step towards humanism and a Godless nation)\nIf cultures are swirled together, it  leaves a mellow, confused country that is fighting itself because of citizen unrest.
801127
Yes it is possible\nWhat you need to do is build your own island, and declare it a new country. Then you can have your own laws -- even the ones that will let you eat watermelon.\n\nHowever there is always a risk that some other country will invade your island and annex it.\n\nsee:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Minerva
476718
193 countries-it depends\n\nIf you said INDEPEDENT countries...
836410
It may be possible, though the circumstances required are somewhat difficult to create. For instance in Australia there is a country within it called the Hutt River Province run by Prince Leonard and the history of how and why he created this state within Australia can be found here (http://www.huttriver.net/HRHistory.htm).\n\nAs said unusual circumstances allowed this, within the UK without any unusual circumstance it would be hard but micronations (small newly formed nations, some without geographical location, not usually recognised by the UN) are formed and run even within the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation) though mostly within UK law though there are examples of some outside the law, Sealand for instance (http://www.answers.com/topic/sealand).\n\nBest thing to do is first understand the law with regards to it, then a good search of old documents, land registers and of old title documents to find places, entitlements etc which may lead to what you want. There are even jobs offered for local Kings within the UK (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/island_monarch/)
674380
1. Countries Of The World\nEstimates of the number of countries in the world vary, depending on how a ‘country’ (‘nation’, ‘state’) is defined. At the beginning of 2004 there were 191 countries in the United Nations. A further three clearly independent countries do not have UN membership: Republic of China (Taiwan), Switzerland, Vatican City. Another seven claim independence, most having some degree of sovereignty - Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Abkhazia, Bougainville, Chechnya, Dniestria, and Sahara. Several other territories (eg Aruba, Greenland, Isle of Man) have some degree of identity, with their own flags, postage stamps, uniforms, etc, and there are many groups claiming territorial autonomy amidst conflict in various parts of the world (eg Nagorno Karabakh, Krajina, Kosovo). The situation continues to change, as fresh political realities emerge (eg in South Africa, Palestine, and former USSR and Yugoslavia).\n\nSource: Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, © Crystal Reference Systems Limited 2006\n2. Nationalism\nA political doctrine which views the nation as the principal unit of political organization. Underlying this is the assumption that human beings hold the characteristic of nationality, with which they identify culturally, economically, and politically. A primary aim of nationalists, therefore, is to secure the right to belong to an independent state based on a particular national grouping. Nationalism is thus associated with attempts by national groupings to secure independence from dominance by other nation-states and to maintain that position against threats to it. It is often associated with the struggle against colonialism. More broadly, nationalism can be seen as a general political stance which holds that the principal aim of political activity should be to serve the national interest as opposed to that of a particular class or grouping. In practice, the national interest is, except in extreme cases such as war, open to different interpretations, and nationalism is often no more than an attempt to give legitimacy to a particular political standpoint. Nationalism, with the exception of anti-colonial movements, is based around a conservative, and sometimes romantic political philosophy that emphasizes the nation's past.\nSelf-determination\nA doctrine dating back to the 18th-c that cultural communities and national groupings have the right to determine their own destiny, including political independence and the right to self-rule. The principle that each nation has the right to fashion its own state is incorporated in the United Nations Charter, and is a major plank in anti-colonialism\n\n4.no. vary....political, monarcy, communist, democration, regimist, etc\n5. money, egoisme, nationalisme, power\n6. look at United Nations (un) resource\nAn organization formed to maintain world peace and foster international co-operation, formally established on 24 October 1945 with 51 founder countries. Its permanent headquarters are in New York. The UN Charter, which was drafted during the war by the USA, UK, and USSR, remains virtually unaltered despite the growth in membership and activities. There are six ‘principal organs’. The General Assembly is the plenary body which controls much of the UN's work, supervises the subsidiary organs, sets priorities, and debates major issues of international affairs. The 15-member Security Council is dominated by the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, and USA) who each have the power of veto over any resolutions; the remaining 10 are elected for 2-year periods. The primary role of the Council is to maintain international peace and security; its decisions, unlike those of the General Assembly, are binding on all other members. It is empowered to order mandatory sanctions, call for ceasefires, and establish peacekeeping forces (these forces were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988). The use of the veto has prevented it from intervening in a number
217531
Probably not,  We would need one language, one culture and total political agreement.  There has not been peace for thousands of years, I doubt if we start anytime soon.
2551
If you are suggesting that the world simply be one giant nation, I think it's a nice idea--but one that would never work.\n\nThe world is an unbelievably complex place--and that's when no one on it is trying to destroy anyone.  Since that seems never to happen, it only complicates it further.  I think the best that we can hope for is that those nations who can have enough good sense to elect leaders who can truly think globally and fully appreciate the problems and needs of people far away.
625932
Forever. I think you probably promised something like "til death do us part", right? Marrying just for citizenship is illegal, if I'm not mistaken. As is falsifying a marriage license (it's a government document)
966292
I agree segregate a society and it remains fractured and separated. This only further separates us rather than unites us.  America is supposed to a melting pot in which are differences are celebrated rather than criticized.  As long as people continue to look at our differences rather than our similarities, how are we to be united.
63127
There's a reason that no one nation rules the whole world. Is this a serious question?
11181
Federalism is neither good nor bad in itself. It is a form of democracy entirely appropriate for our times - times which require large agglomerations of resources for some purposes but which also want a local variety, and as much local autonomy as is possible. To go it alone in a global world is hard for any small group, or indeed for any nation. Temporary alliances of mutual interest, confederations are fragile. The transaction costs involved in maintaining them often exceed their benefits, and it is not easy to ensure that some do not benefit more from the alliance than others. Federations, too, have their transaction costs, for much has to be done by negotiation and agreement rather than by central diktat. But the sense of twin citizenship can be deeply reassuring, because we know that we are locked into something bigger than ourselves while at the same time preserving our own identity.
688744
Citizens should be patriotic to their country.Not the reverse.YOU CAN BECOME PATRIOTIC ANY WHERE
609420
My guess is that some countries are administratively part of a larger unit. \n\nI'll give you the example I'm familiar with: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are all individual members of FIFA, however, they are all part of the United Kingdom and that is the body which has UN membership.\n\nI don't know which other countries this would apply to.
152138
so all the countries could come together and be more united. that equals peace
513228
Uniting religion, will not happen, too hard. Nations, no way, government, isn't that same as nations!  Peace on Earth! will not happen as long as we continue with our struggle against each others.  The least unity possible is religion, no matter how much we try, we will never see it, at lest in our life time, and these days it is getting less and less possible to be.