One World government

[immortalmack]

End of war or end of the world?For what reasons?

[Jasz]

what's the next thread: immortalmack rules the universe? ;)

[immortalmack]

what's the next thread: immortalmack rules the universe? ;)

Yea I'm giving time to get used to it.:devil:

Some of these threads last well into the night so it would interesting to see how a majority of the responses will be. Also these topics are somewhat related.

[Ellis]

One government, ruling the entire world? That would require a lot of competency to maintain. And you'd have to have sub-rulers on at least a continental basis to keep affairs in order, anyways.

Unless you're talking communism. In which case, it only works with a suitably small population, an agrarian society, a large enough stretch of land, and dependence only on renewable resources. In other words, it'd never work in today's world.

[immortalmack]

From a protestant christian point of view I've been taught to mistrust a one world guv'ment because it automatically implies one world religion and that goes into the book of Rev. However from an economic, political point of view it would seem to cure many of the worlds ills that if we put the worlds resources at them: hunger, diseases, most wars, space exploration etc., it looks appealing.

[ApeTheDog]

Might happen, once we discover other planets and civilizations. Then we'll have a reason to unite - ie - a common opposition.

[FranG]

The world will never end and war and peace are a cyclical. War is followed by peace is followed by war, etc. We're currently at a point in time where we are ascending towards more war. The tide will reverse (temporarily of course) but the question is when.

edit//

I misread the post. One World Government is definitely bad. It allows for an elite few to rule the masses. Cause absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Jasz]

a bureaucracy of that size would need at least an entire other planet to exploit in order to make up for the efficiency loss (span of control limitations require extensive number of bureaucratic layers that can only be kept in from disintegrating through prosperity, during times of financial strain, the order will succumb to internal rivalries)

[ApeTheDog]

The world will end. No scientist questions this.

[Jasz]

The world will end. No scientist questions this.

no, it will just be dark and cold - just how we like it!

[FranG]

The world will end. No scientist questions this.

This scientist does.

[immortalmack]

a bureaucracy of that size would need at least an entire other planet to exploit in order to make up for the efficiency loss (span of control limitations require extensive number of bureaucratic layers that can only be kept in from disintegrating through prosperity, during times of financial strain, the order will succumb to internal rivalries)

Jasz I think this is accurate as hell.This sounds like the way it would go down unless someone else could describe something differently.

[tinribz]

I'd guess that many of the reasons already raised for why a world Gov could not happen were said against most of the existing governments at sometime. It is a path the worlds has been slowly moving towards for generations. Look at China, it's easy for us to lump them all as Chinese but they were very separate for a long time. Same for UK and even US.

Its hard to imagine East and West under one Gov now but the EU parliament would have been unthinkable 60 years ago. It’s only really prejudicial mindsets that separate people.

[ApeTheDog]

Right, the earth might survive, true - it's our sun that is going to die. And supernova. And then possibly suck shit into itself when it turns into a black hole, i'm not sure about that.

But our world is limited, in that it can't support us indefinately. That was my meaning - and it still disproves that which was said by FranG.

[FranG]

I'd guess that many of the reasons already raised for why a world Gov could not happen were said against most of the existing governments at sometime. It is a path the worlds has been slowly moving towards for generations. Look at China, it's easy for us to lump them all as Chinese but they were very separate for a long time. Same for UK and even US.

Its hard to imagine East and West under one Gov now but the EU parliament would have been unthinkable 60 years ago. It?s only really prejudicial mindsets that separate people.

Very true. The world gets more beaurocratic over time. And it's good that you mention the U.S. The diversity of the country can hardly be seen anymore. The states are pretty homogenous now in the way they operate and the government has far more power than it did even 50 years ago.


Right, the earth might survive, true - it's our sun that is going to die. And supernova. And then possibly suck shit into itself when it turns into a black hole, i'm not sure about that.

But our world is limited, in that it can't support us indefinately. That was my meaning - and it still disproves that which was said by FranG.

It doesn't disprove it. As Kant would say, to truly know something is to experience it. You have never experienced a day when the sun was not in the sky have you? Or a day where the earth was not beneath your feet right? For my reality, those are facts an anything else would be theoretical until it happened. Not to get too philosophical but experience is the base for reality.

[FranG]

That sounds good in theory. But power is a drug that feeds itself and big government perpetuates this. You'll always have de facto people calling the shots. I like diversity, not consolidation. In the war example, I envision a situation where the UN may actually be assisting the Austies in their assault against the Indonesians (in secret of course).

See this is basically what happens with the UN. If One World Government gets set up, you will have a one world militia. It would be no other force to provide a deterrent from the UN kicking are asses or implementing their will on us. The bigger threat is not your fellow bonded nation, but the entity (UN) which have both of you under bondage. Just picture a situation where the U.S. was in charge of the world officially with Bush and crew at the helm? Wouldn't that be scary?

[Jasz]

I'd guess that many of the reasons already raised for why a world Gov could not happen were said against most of the existing governments at sometime. It is a path the worlds has been slowly moving towards for generations. Look at China, it's easy for us to lump them all as Chinese but they were very separate for a long time. Same for UK and even US.

Its hard to imagine East and West under one Gov now but the EU parliament would have been unthinkable 60 years ago. It?s only really prejudicial mindsets that separate people.

kate winslet should rule the world, what an avatar tintibz!

[Ferrus]

I'd guess that many of the reasons already raised for why a world Gov could not happen were said against most of the existing governments at sometime. It is a path the worlds has been slowly moving towards for generations. Look at China, it's easy for us to lump them all as Chinese but they were very separate for a long time. Same for UK and even US.

Its hard to imagine East and West under one Gov now but the EU parliament would have been unthinkable 60 years ago. It?s only really prejudicial mindsets that separate people.
Not really, the world is being fragmented into every smaller nationstates in a way it never was under the old empires.

[booyalab]

Might happen, once we discover other planets and civilizations. Then we'll have a reason to unite - ie - a common opposition.

that's what I think will happen, but it doesn't have to come from outer space. The opposition will be to religion.

[Lee]

Government is a necessary evil, though a plularity of governments can protect us when any particular government goes wrong, as they offer us a place to seek asylum, a choice. If there was only a single world government, where could we go?

[Purple-Silver Fox]

On this planet there is only one ecology (except for a few underground caves), only one economy (except for a few tribes in the rain forest), and if the energy surplus allows it there will be one government/state like the ones we are used to, sooner or later.

There already is a planetwide political system. The power structures that claim to represent the world are not yet developed, but over time they will use the shred of legitimacy that they have to obtain more power.

And may I ask Lee: where do we seek asylum if we want to live in another economy?

[Intension]

Government is a necessary evil, though a plularity of governments can protect us when any particular government goes wrong, as they offer us a place to seek asylum, a choice.

Assuming, of course, that you haven't already been killed or jailed by your home government.


If there was only a single world government, where could we go?

Is voting with your feet that realistic an option on the scale of most major national governments? It's one thing to move to the next town over; moving to another state often (though not always) entails dealing with major economic, cultural, and language barriers. A world government would clearly make things much worse in this respect (much harder to move off-planet), but existing governments already make it hard for people to effectively vote with their feet.

[Lee]

And may I ask Lee: where do we seek asylum if we want to live in another economy?Cuba.

[Lee]

Assuming, of course, that you haven't already been killed or jailed by your home government.No at all, you can also be dead or incarcerated and seek asylum in another country :rolleyes2:


Is voting with your feet that realistic an optionYes. No, it isn't a perfect option, it is costly and could potentially go wrong. But so what? All options are imperfect, costly and risky, still better than no choice at all.

[rainfall]

The world will never end.

The sun will cool down. A supernova perhaps. Meteorite. Oh, it will end. Yes. YES!!!

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Cuba.
There is an exchange of goods and services between Cuba and the rest of the world, making it part of the economy. Other suggestions?

[formerly known as]

Look at China, it's easy for us to lump them all as Chinese but they were very separate for a long time.

Are you kidding? China is the worst example - they have been together, more or less, longer than any other nation in existance. It is the Chinese themselves who are willing to lump themselves together, despite their differences. In contrast to the British Isles where regional groups prefer to remember their heritage - the Welsh, English, Scottish, Irish, Manx etc


Is voting with your feet that realistic an option on the scale of most major national governments? It's one thing to move to the next town over; moving to another state often (though not always) entails dealing with major economic, cultural, and language barriers. A world government would clearly make things much worse in this respect (much harder to move off-planet), but existing governments already make it hard for people to effectively vote with their feet.

It could be. Firstly, remember that states can occur on all scales - so in reality we will never have one world government, but a series of governments, similar to the federalist system we have now. As Purple-Silver Fox said we already have a worldwide political system - for better or for worse.....

I see globalism as the necessary force to change the impact and scale of government. Many issues will become more efficient with a smaller scale of government (devolution), but other issues (such as global warming, a more effective force of resolving international disputes etc) necessitates a world government. But this will only be efficient if the system attempts to maximize political freedom of the individual.

[Intension]

Are you kidding? China is the worst example - they have been together, more or less, longer than any other nation in existance. It is the Chinese themselves who are willing to lump themselves together, despite their differences. In contrast to the British Isles where regional groups prefer to remember their heritage - the Welsh, English, Scottish, Irish, Manx etc


[QUOTE]
It could be. Firstly, remember that states can occur on all scales - so in reality we will never have one world government, but a series of governments, similar to the federalist system we have now. As Purple-Silver Fox said we already have a worldwide political system - for better or for worse.....


In a federal system the provincial governments are still subordinate to the central government, although perhaps less so than other types of government. So even if existing nations maintained some autonomy, they would still have to submit to policies chosen by the central government. That differs from the existing system where national governments are sovereign, and the United Nations depends on the support of member nations.


I see globalism as the necessary force to change the impact and scale of government. Many issues will become more efficient with a smaller scale of government (devolution), but other issues (such as global warming, a more effective force of resolving international disputes etc) necessitates a world government. But this will only be efficient if the system attempts to maximize political freedom of the individual.

The issues do not go away once you have a world government; it is just that they are decided by the internal mechanisms of the government which will be controlled by the most dominant factions. The idea that officials of a world government would care about maximizing political freedom is somewhat laughable.

[Ellis]

Might happen, once we discover other planets and civilizations. Then we'll have a reason to unite - ie - a common opposition.

Like in Ender's Game? :P

[ApeTheDog]

Like in Ender's Game? :P

I have no idea. I didn't get this idea from science fiction books - it came to me when I thought about how cells are basically a colony of bacteria, and how it has taken millions of years for them to get their stuff together before these cells could be used to form multi-cellular organisms. I see the current period in which we are all busy trying to form governments that work as the same kind of step.

[FuelShopTech]

End of war or end of the world?For what reasons?

If we had one world government, would we also have one world Department of Motor Vehicles? That'd suck.

[Biff_Loman]

I have no idea. I didn't get this idea from science fiction books - it came to me when I thought about how cells are basically a colony of bacteria, and how it has taken millions of years for them to get their stuff together before these cells could be used to form multi-cellular organisms. I see the current period in which we are all busy trying to form governments that work as the same kind of step.

That is an excellent way of conceptualizing it.

[formerly known as]

would we also have one world Department of Motor Vehicles?

LOL.

Fortunately that will never happen.

[Dark Razor]

I believe there is a need for a world government, because the economy is already globalised and beyond the control of national governments. If the globalised economy is allowed to remain without proper oversight, it itself will become the worlds ruling body, creating a system of global corporate fascism. One might also argue that this is already happening.

[Edmond Zedo]

You fools!


http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=1749&highlight=world+nation