PDA

View Full Version : World Government---is it THAT bad?



LiquidNazgul
16 Jan 08,, 00:44
All right. Let me begin by saying this---I know a WG is still within the confines of science fiction and all that, but still, IMO, it will happen eventually---but the thing is, just what is the definition of a World Government?

Some of the time, and mostly on Youtube, a World Government is typically depicted as a corrupt, vile organization that controls the entire planet---it erases all national identities and is lead by an "anti-Christ". Its supposed to force all to worship the devil, and a single, unified secret police force enforces the law.

Let me say THIS---first of all---religion has been with mankind for a incredibly long time. It will never permanently be erased or unified into a single religion---if it did, this unified religion, I'm sure, would collapse.
The depiction of the above WG is---well, unrealistic. I am in no way questioning anyone's religion---I do, however, question the idea of this kind of corrupt government.

In my opinion, my honest view on a more...realistic world government would be that

-it would be entirely democratic;
-no national identities would be erased---that means, people could either join the new WG as a citizen of it, or could have every right to stay as a citizen of India, or the United States, or Canada, or something like that---this also means that, not all nations' borders are necessarily forced to be open to everyone---again, its the nation's laws, not the WG's laws, to open borders;

-I'm pretty sure that, because of the anti-WG paranoia today, even a weak WG wouldn't be formed until at least the 2100s;

-the capital of the WG would shift every year at first, and then gradually settle into a permanent seating---preferably in less metropolitan cities like Iceland, or Greenland---maybe Bern;

-because Earth is so big, and over 190 nations exist, the nations would, again, retain their national identities---but they would have a sort of "higher" power above them, if you will---there is no way a central government could administrate all the nations on Earth---at least, not initially;

-and finally, the only thing the nations would be encouraged to do would be to economically cooperate more closely with all the nations of Earth.

Here's what I think the benefits of this new WG would be.
For one thing, there would no longer be one single nation that would be Earth's sole police force---again, yes, they would still be recognized as sovereign countries, but---well---closer cooperation between nations would be recommended.
Another thing would be that---again, this is still in science fiction---no single country can afford to even partially colonize a planet out there. And I'm sure you all are smart enough to realize that we can't stay bottled up in the Solar System forever. We do that, and eventually Earth's conditions would deteriorate---not to mention extreme amounts of overpopulation.

I know that some, if not most, of you guys snort and turn away at my idea of a WG---national pride, that's what it is. Cooperation between nations may not be your thing. I understand that close cooperation between Iran/Arabs/Muslims and the West, and Africa being heavily industrialized, might not suit you. But personally, I think it would be our best interests as a species to at least be partially economically united.

troung
16 Jan 08,, 01:49
If people around the world don't like the people they share a nation state with - who the **** wants to be a citizen of the world? The world is wracked by civil wars where people inside the same borders don't get along.

Much less immigration - people from the worst nations would flood the others.

Then governments as much of the world is not ruled by democratic regimes.

Dumbest idea since the national consumption tax....

LiquidNazgul
16 Jan 08,, 02:32
True, but note, I don't expect any kind of unifying force beyond the United Nations at least until the 22nd century. Yes, right now, the world is in a bad state, which is why I agree with you somewhat---the idea of a World Government at this point in human history will be, at best, pathetic.

But we have no idea what the world will be like in the later 21st century-early 22nd century. Earth could be a nuclear wasteland---or, Africa could be the richest continent on the world. Highly unlikely from one's point of view now, but---you never know.

Feanor
16 Jan 08,, 02:42
True, but note, I don't expect any kind of unifying force beyond the United Nations at least until the 22nd century. Yes, right now, the world is in a bad state, which is why I agree with you somewhat---the idea of a World Government at this point in human history will be, at best, pathetic.

But we have no idea what the world will be like in the later 21st century-early 22nd century. Earth could be a nuclear wasteland---or, Africa could be the richest continent on the world. Highly unlikely from one's point of view now, but---you never know.

Pure speculation. This would be another time, another history, and another human race.

astralis
16 Jan 08,, 03:17
liquidnazgul,

answer to your question is that humanity evolved in a tribal fashion. the creation of nationalism took a lot of work- education, gov't services, and all that- for people to start feeling that their countrymen were part of their "tribe".

and it is very easy to destroy that feeling. look at how governments in places such as spain, belgium, pakistan, china, etc etc all have very significant minorities whom feel that they're not bound to the central government or nation.

a world government would be infinitely harder to hold up.

Repatriated Canuck
16 Jan 08,, 03:37
What we need is an alien invasion, it will work then but only as long as that alien is a threat to us all. Unified hate of something else will band most of us together other than the French who will embrace them as brothers and rat on anyone opposing the occupiers.

Messed up questions get messed up answers.

gunnut
16 Jan 08,, 04:01
All right. Let me begin by saying this---I know a WG is still within the confines of science fiction and all that, but still, IMO, it will happen eventually---but the thing is, just what is the definition of a World Government?

Some of the time, and mostly on Youtube, a World Government is typically depicted as a corrupt, vile organization that controls the entire planet---it erases all national identities and is lead by an "anti-Christ". Its supposed to force all to worship the devil, and a single, unified secret police force enforces the law.

Let me say THIS---first of all---religion has been with mankind for a incredibly long time. It will never permanently be erased or unified into a single religion---if it did, this unified religion, I'm sure, would collapse.
The depiction of the above WG is---well, unrealistic. I am in no way questioning anyone's religion---I do, however, question the idea of this kind of corrupt government.

If a unified religion would collapse, what makes you think a unified government would not?




In my opinion, my honest view on a more...realistic world government would be that

-it would be entirely democratic;
-no national identities would be erased---that means, people could either join the new WG as a citizen of it, or could have every right to stay as a citizen of India, or the United States, or Canada, or something like that---this also means that, not all nations' borders are necessarily forced to be open to everyone---again, its the nation's laws, not the WG's laws, to open borders;


What's the point of a world government if half the world is not in it?



-I'm pretty sure that, because of the anti-WG paranoia today, even a weak WG wouldn't be formed until at least the 2100s;

You're wrong. WG has been around since the end of WW1. First the League of Nations, followed by the United Nations.



-the capital of the WG would shift every year at first, and then gradually settle into a permanent seating---preferably in less metropolitan cities like Iceland, or Greenland---maybe Bern;

What's the upside of a shifting capital?



-because Earth is so big, and over 190 nations exist, the nations would, again, retain their national identities---but they would have a sort of "higher" power above them, if you will---there is no way a central government could administrate all the nations on Earth---at least, not initially;

This "higher" power, what will it do to me (a nation) if I decide that I don't give a flying rat's ass about its authority?



-and finally, the only thing the nations would be encouraged to do would be to economically cooperate more closely with all the nations of Earth.

WTO



Here's what I think the benefits of this new WG would be.
For one thing, there would no longer be one single nation that would be Earth's sole police force---again, yes, they would still be recognized as sovereign countries, but---well---closer cooperation between nations would be recommended.

Yes, the UN peace keeping force, made up of numerous member nation's forces and utterly lacks the mandate to do anything meaningful.



Another thing would be that---again, this is still in science fiction---no single country can afford to even partially colonize a planet out there. And I'm sure you all are smart enough to realize that we can't stay bottled up in the Solar System forever. We do that, and eventually Earth's conditions would deteriorate---not to mention extreme amounts of overpopulation.

What's the problem with overpopulation? Nature will stop it one way or another.



I know that some, if not most, of you guys snort and turn away at my idea of a WG---national pride, that's what it is. Cooperation between nations may not be your thing. I understand that close cooperation between Iran/Arabs/Muslims and the West, and Africa being heavily industrialized, might not suit you. But personally, I think it would be our best interests as a species to at least be partially economically united.

No. It's not national pride that makes me snort at your idea. It's the total inpracticality that did it.

I don't mean to sound harsh. But have you ever looked at a government? Any government? Government is inherently slow, corrupt, and inefficient. The bigger the government, the slower, more corrupt, and more inefficient it is. Look at your city government. It's probably not too bad. Look at your county. It's worse than the city. Look at your state government. It's bad. Look at our federal government. It's yelling poor with an annual budget of $2.5 trillion. What do you think another layer of super bureaucracy will do to that?

LiquidNazgul
16 Jan 08,, 04:09
My question was thus answered then---a WG is highly frowned upon.

You all make valid points, and exploited things I really have not seen before. I know my point of view may sound odd, and I know that none of you will need to worry about it since it most likely wont happen in any of our lifetimes---but exactly how will our species continue to survive? A planet torn apart by the wealthy and the industrialized and the poor and the destroyed. Staying on planet Earth and not expanding beyond Pluto is just poor planning, if you ask me.
And again, I highly doubt there's not one nation that can afford to even partially colonize other planets. Yet again, I know this won't happen in my lifetime or your lifetime---but I still worry about our survival as the human race. If what you all say is true, I wouldn't be surprised if the next 50 years something terrible might be bestowed on us.
If not a world government, then at least closer cooperation between countries on Earth---but when I say that I know I speak of the near-impossible.

gunnut
16 Jan 08,, 04:35
It will take something extraordinary, like an alien invasion as Expat Canuck said, to bring all the people together. Right now there are just too many divisions among people. I can give you some examples.

The former Yugoslavia split up to become 4 or 5 smaller nations. The former Soviet Union split up to become a dozen nations. The British Empire dissolved and is now 3 dozen or so nations.

The divisions between people, even those who look alike, is only getting deeper and deeper.

To us, all the people in Spain look alike and talk alike. But there's a faction there who wants to be independent.

You figure the division between people should be smaller over the last 2 centuries. But in fact it's getting worse.

troung
16 Jan 08,, 05:09
Staying on planet Earth and not expanding beyond Pluto is just poor planning, if you ask me. And again, I highly doubt there's not one nation that can afford to even partially colonize other planets. Yet again, I know this won't happen in my lifetime or your lifetime---but I still worry about our survival as the human race. If what you all say is true, I wouldn't be surprised if the next 50 years something terrible might be bestowed on us.

:rolleyes:

LiquidNazgul
16 Jan 08,, 05:26
What, too wordy?:confused:

Ironduke
16 Jan 08,, 06:21
What's the upside of a shifting capital?
Reminds me of the rotating EU presidency... they're chucking it out. Another thing to consider is the billions it costs the EU when they move between Strasbourg and Brussels -- yes, billions.

tankie
16 Jan 08,, 07:49
What we need is an alien invasion, it will work then but only as long as that alien is a threat to us all.

Ahh yes , a Ronald Reagan quote , but would we be unified Expat ? :)

And how do we know we have not been subversively invaded :rolleyes:

And anyway , my vote would go to ( if i was an American ) to , B,mans missis , just to keep him in check so to speak , but no doubt he will tell her where to get off as well :biggrin:

Desdemona
16 Jan 08,, 21:14
What we need is an alien invasion, it will work then but only as long as that alien is a threat to us all. Unified hate of something else will band most of us together other than the French who will embrace them as brothers and rat on anyone opposing the occupiers.

Messed up questions get messed up answers.


The Aliens are already here. They were in Texas, USA last weekend and coming to a city near you soon.....;)
MND: News and Commentary Since 2001 UFO sightings reported in Texas town (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/15/ufo-sightings-reported-in-texas-town/)

dalem
17 Jan 08,, 02:38
Most of the world isn't good enough to join any government I'd pay attention to.

Now, an alliance of like-minded liberal democracies advised by a Council of Science and Ethics that go arm-in-arm kicking petty dictators in the mouth with elite groups of powered-armor-wearing infantry?

I'm all over that one. ;)

-dale

Army5339
17 Jan 08,, 04:42
I think there is an upper population limit for any sort of democratic style government. That also goes for Republics. At a certain point, representation gets so watered down that it can no longer be considered representation in any meaningful definition. If it did, there would be so many representatives that any sort of governing body would have many thousands of participants, thus negating any usefulness.

Any large government needs to be more authoritarian as it grows in population.

I think that this is going to be one of the more serious domestic political struggles for the US as our population booms: how to keep representation at a truly representative scale. Could we have a House with 2000 members? Would it be effective?

Polybius
17 Jan 08,, 05:36
the United Nations , is a living proof of the failure of world 'goverment ' initiatives,
Because the United Nations is full of system with so disparity of political , economical system, the lack of uniformation and standards make it irrelevant and chaotic

People seems to embrace the relativistic view, oh well all system are the same? people are people and wants the same every where, to live in peace to work etc?
Yes, they seem to forget that cultures , politics shaped people mind

Lets put for example Sudan, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Philipines, Ireland, etc

does culture and politics matter yes,

Is all culture are the same and people wants an universal peace and go into their business

then why the majority of the Sudaneses Arab Muslim support to slave the black Sudanese , why the majority of the Chinese support the ethnic cleasing of the Tibetan, why the Muslim in Philipines are trying to exterminate the Non Muslim majority, why in Ireland Catholic and Protestant had conducted a fracticided war
And please, lets not forget that all those people are Believer,


too.

without an uniform world wide political , cultural , economical system , they will never be global peace
that it a reality

Why there are different standards of human rights, of rights of humans and minorities in for example Muslim than in Western societies

In Communist than Democratic ones and so on

A world goverment make up of diverse political cultural system and lets not forgot than cultural is shaped by politics provides a self destructive and
disfunctional organism like the United Nations, a nest of viper and oppresors

against Human rights

So yes in order to have a world goverment , we need one political system and cultural system to rule world wide

IN this moment democracies and Western model are in retreat due to self inflicted doubts and self destructive ways and lack of confidence

Those who prefer to live in the ivory Tower, remind the intellectual elite, the business men, the wealthy merchants,
the monks who ignored reality discussing fine theological points while the Turks had breached the walls of Constantinople and they were marching into the city in the horrible years of 1453.
it happened before many times , but we choose ,

Relativism had taken so much hold and our culture so bland, internal divide and lack of the Superiority and Confidence and lack of Ideological Substance and Strength than we are in accelarated steps following the footsteps of Chin Tang , Han , Merogivians, and the former sick man of Europe the Ottoman Empire ,


Neither education , neither technology, neither sophistication , neither considering oneself faithful to so so religion make the person safe from selfdenial of the politcal cultural reality unfolding around us and in which we contribute either in a active or passive way

gunnut
17 Jan 08,, 06:07
I think there is an upper population limit for any sort of democratic style government. That also goes for Republics. At a certain point, representation gets so watered down that it can no longer be considered representation in any meaningful definition. If it did, there would be so many representatives that any sort of governing body would have many thousands of participants, thus negating any usefulness.

Any large government needs to be more authoritarian as it grows in population.

I think that this is going to be one of the more serious domestic political struggles for the US as our population booms: how to keep representation at a truly representative scale. Could we have a House with 2000 members? Would it be effective?

Hence our founding fathers went with a federal system. The true representation and most of the power that affect our daily lives rest with the states. Then the states get together to talk about more important things that are not directly related to our daily lives, like war, trade with foreign nations, and negotiate state relations.

Our government had gone astray when the first power to levy income tax was granted by a constitution amendment. Government got its hands on a lot of money and saw a reason, a need, to grow, in order to justify such a seizure of private properties.

"The bureaucracy is expanding, to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy." -- unknown

Tt all starts with money. And people think corporations are greedy...:rolleyes:

Trooth
17 Jan 08,, 12:25
The closest the world has come to an actual World Government was probably the British Empire. We had another thread were i happily volunteered my country to rule everyone elses :)

As a general rule the tribal feeling gets bigger not smaller. As we travel more, so we embrace other peoples as being "like us" or at least "not that dissimlar from us". Equally as the rich travel to the poor the poor adapt, modiy, apsire, suck up to, the rich and we get a homogolation effect. All airports looks the same, for example.

Occasionally we get splits, but the splits tend to happen were the tribe only exists by force and when that grip is weakened, the people either have a long standing rivalry that they have not beaten out of each other, or they are effective nations within a nation. The Balkans, Iraq etc are obvious examples.

However it comes down to representation. The UN struggles with the overbearing power of the stronger states, but all members are dependant on the stronger states for enforcement of member resolutions.

A world government is likely to be the last thing that happens, before that there is likely to be a world currency (possibly called "plastic" since the de-facto implementation of world currency for many years has been the credit card).

Also prior to an offical WG would be treatment of borders. The EU model is probably how a world government "dropping of borders might work". If you enter at a border were non-"WG" members can affect first entry to a WG member state, you have to show your passport. internal land borders are largely unpoliced.

But i think to do the job probably would require aliens. Because if you look at the duplication or waste in the world, it really is obvious (standing armies, disconnected "national" power grids etc). However without someone to fight, the lone standing army of the WG would become a tool of tyranny (even if it was un-intentional) unless the representation of the people was far more sophisticated that any current nation state has managed.