World Government

They way things are going these days and the way technology is breaking down barriers, is world government an inevitability or a disaster waiting to happen?

 

Depends on if you are in th ruling class.

For evetyone else, disaster.

 

Interesting. I figured that a democratic world government could be a good thing since that governmnet would have access to all of the world's resources with which to deal with problems like world hunger and poverty.

 

Well I don't think that a world government would happen for a very very long time if ever. I think it may even be more likely that we completely destroy ourselves before we create a world government.

 

I figured that a democratic world government could be a good thing since that governmnet would have access to all of the world's resources with which to deal with problems like world hunger and poverty.

In my opinion, democracy only works in the midst of competition. With out competing economies and ideas, complacency will set in. It's human nature.

A single world economy will eventually fail as people quit working hard "to beat the other guy." As poverty increases, the rich will be stripped of their assets to feed the poor.

Then you will be left with the ruling class and the peasants.

 

I don't think World Government will happen for at least another 100 years, but I think that people 100 years from now will look back on the 20th Century and recognize organizations like the League of Nations, The UN and the EU as the first attempts to bring this about.

 

recognize organizations like the League of Nations, The UN and the EU as the first attempts to bring this about.

This has been the fears of the American conservative (like myself) from the beginning.

 

I'm not sure if it's entirely possible.

I think one day after World War 3 there will probably be an organization similar to the United Nations but with far more control that keeps nations in check through military force.

 

keeps nations in check through military force.

HA!!! As a wise leader once said..."Bring 'em on!"

 

HA!!! As a wise leader once said..."Bring 'em on!"

Well first of all, the chance of the U.S. being nearly as powerful as we are now by the time this would happen is slim. Secondly, where do you think this organization would get their troops from? I would imagine it'd be an organization similar to NATO but with a ruling body that follows set criteria for military action.

But it's all hypothetical anyway, but I see that as being the next step up from the United Nations.

 

But it's all hypothetical anyway, but I see that as being the next step up from the United Nations.

Our Constitution doesn't allow for our own troops to be used against the American population.

And, IMO, as long as we have the 2nd ammendment we will always be as strong as we are now.

 

And, IMO, as long as we have the 2nd ammendment we will always be as strong as we are now.

So all that time before World War 2 when we weren't the most powerful nation in the world means nothing? The 2nd amendment does nothing for our world economy or military.

 

The 2nd amendment does nothing for our world economy or military.

It does nothing for our economy, that's true.

But, Constitutionally, as able bodied males we are responsible for our domestic security.

Do you think you could ever land an invasion force in Miami or LA? I don't think it would work very well...

 

Do you have any bazookas that could pierce tanks or some missles that could shoot down some jets? Because I don't.

I don't think our rifles could take on any force that would be strong enough to even attempt to attack us even if we're at a tenth of the military strength we're at now. Essentially it'd be a situation like Iraq, where we'd be the Iraqis.

 

Essentially it'd be a situation like Iraq, where we'd be the Iraqis.

Maybe, maybe not. But an armed population of 300,000,000 is a formitable force in any instance.

 

The basic assumption here is that technology fosters union.

I'm wondering exactly what the evidence for that is.

Seriously? Wracking my brain I can only think off one nation which has been formed out of a collection of smalelr nations other then by war of conquest, Germany under Bismark. Even then you could make a pretty good arguement it was via an invented external threat.

The only, only!, instance I can see trying to justify this view is the EU and the presumption of a single nation Europe down the road.

And frankly? The differences overcome there, which have taken literally decades to get to this point, are no where near the chasms between Canada, Cameroon, and Cambodia.

100 years? Be serious.

 

We've ruined this thread...

But I do agree, even though no where near the whole U.S. population would even pick up a gun to fight, just given the size of our country I would think it'd be almost impossible for an occupying force to control for a long period of time.

So I agreed with you, let's not destroy this thread further.

 

Sorry, I do that alot...

 

The basic assumption here is that technology fosters union.

I'm wondering exactly what the evidence for that is.


I agree.

Whilst you're right that in a sense Europe could provide a template of sorts, the headaches surrounding the adoption of the Euro, magnified to a global scale (without even factoring in economies of scale and PPP) stops a world government dead in it's conceptual tracks.

I think in probability, the EU will serve as a model for future economic cooperatives, as regional bodies amalgamate based along similar lines (and outwardly, we Aussies may appear isolated by I reckon give us an economic cooperative with South Korea and Japan, and we'll pwnz0rz j00 Transhuman Space style) or economic and social similarities.

Uh, yeah!

E_S

 

Well, I think the EU will be a model from which future planners take a page from, but it will be one of the appendices that is entitled "What Not To Do". At least I hope so.
I'm told by Europeans I know that the restrictions and production quotas the EU has put on smaller countries are often unreasonable, and when ever France or Germany can't meet a quota they write themselves an exemption for that year. The more I learn about the EU the more I think it is just a way for France and Germany to control a larger 'empire'.

I personally hope we someday can have a world government, but I also hope it is not until the human society is ready for it, otherwise it will be an unmitigated disaster. Improved communication helps bridge a lot of gaps, but those gaps have to close before society could unite like that. Also people and industries have to have a reason to motivate themselves. In the middle ages more progress was made in times of peace than war, we would have to return to that model.

To say that the UN could be a way to make a world government is misleading and dangerous. It always was a place to be a 'meeting of minds' and nothing more. Americans always complain that the UN doesn't do enough. I think this is why. Better "king log" than "king stork". If the UN could move quickly it would be much easier to grow into a world government. The Security Council will never allow it. If anything the UN prevents world government from happening. The UN is just a tool for diplomacy. Everyone sits down at the table and talks about their conflicts before coming to blows? What a fantastic concept! Conjuring fears about the UN only weakens that tool.

 

I feel anybody who has read "The Shape of Things to Come" by H.G Wells may be a touched alarmed at the idea of a World Government (ironic considering he was try to convince you otherwise!).

 

I think all democratic nations should cooperate, but all nations should retain their sovereignty. I abhor the idea of one world government, it's too Orwellian New World Order for me. Who would rule this government? Who would set the standards of law and freedom? The U.S. Constitution is sacred to me, and I would hate to imagine some foreign power dictating what parts are acceptable to the world government and what parts need to be sacrificed for the "the common good". This is the ultimate goal of socialism.

 

Democratic nations cooperating is fine, but what happens when two nations have differing foreign policy goals. I think a World Government would be advantageous in certain respects because it would be able to deal with world problems in a manner that is actually effective. As for how this government would be elected, it would most likely be initially formed from the nations of Europe and North America which are all democratic, therefore it is more than likely that this government would highly democratic in nature and that any other nations that joined this global union would have to accept a democratic system. I don't think there is any reason to fear the formation of the kind of Orwellian superstate that you suggest silverstar, since this global union, if it ever comes about will like base its constitution on the American Constitution as the United States is one of the oldest and by far the most successful modern democracy.

BTW I never suggested that the UN is one way of forming a world government. I merely suggested that it will eventually be recognized as a STEP on the road to world government.

 

I think you're describing a model similar to Star Wars' Old Republic. Would it be ultimately under control of a supreme chancellor? I'm still not keen on a government body having control over many nations, democratic or not. I prefer the institution the UN was originally conceived to be, a forum for nations to promote peace and cooperation, but each nation retains it's sovereignty and handles its own internal affairs. If eliminating poverty and hunger means helping Third World nations to be self sufficient, I support that. If it means wealth redistribution, that's socialism, and I would never support such a measure.

 

I think you're describing a model similar to Star Wars' Old Republic. Would it be ultimately under control of a supreme chancellor? I'm still not keen on a government body having control over many nations, democratic or not. I prefer the institution the UN was originally conceived to be, a forum for nations to promote peace and cooperation, but each nation retains it's sovereignty and handles its own internal affairs. If eliminating poverty and hunger means helping Third World nations to be self sufficient, I support that. If it means wealth redistribution, that's socialism, and I would never support such a measure.

I think you misinterpreted my last post a little. I am not suggesting a republican system applied on a global scale. I only meant that the nations that are politically and economically dominant in the world today are ALL democracies, therefore it stands to reason that if a single world government were formed, those nations would have the most say in how that government will operate and what form it will take. As for who would controll this government, I think placing such a huge amount of in the hands of single person is extremely dangerous. If I were the architect of this new political system it would probably be run by a council of an odd number of people so that it would be impossible to have a political deadlock. As for redistrubution of wealth, again I think you misunderstand. One of the most important early tasks of a world government would be to to secure its power in potentially unstable areas like Africa and the Middle East. To do that it would have develope the logistics in those areas so that sufficient food and could be sent to where they are need. This means developing roads, rail roads, airports and seaports. Development of secure transport links ensures that not only will food and medicine be easily sent to where they are need, initially, but will also eventually attract trade and this will allow people to get jobs which means that they will be able to support themselves and will no longer need government assisitance. This in turn means that people will support the government since government has not just supported the citizens, but by developing transportation links and attracting trade to depressed areas, has improved overall standard of living.