Political Crossfire Forums

[Locke14]

I have heard many views on the topic of : Would The World Be Better Under One Government? : and I just want to see what everyone thinks.

[timmtc]

No, not at all. The needs, wants, lifestyles and demands from ALL the people from every region is so diverse that one government would not be able to represent them. As it is, most governments in modern countries cannot cater to the needs of the various diverse people in their own countries. It would never ever ever ever ever work.

[cap'n queasy]

NO!

[Eonve]

Locke14 wrote: I have heard many views on the topic of : Would The World Be Better Under One Government? : and I just want to see what everyone thinks.

definitely yes. the World government may well be the only answer to humanity's problems. there has to be some structure in place to bridge the differences of the people and bring them all together. the establishment of the world government would bring the new age of unprecendented prosperity and peace if organized in the right way and on the basis of the right principles.

[thundertaker]

I'm not sure this would be a good idea at all. Imagine if the world government collapsed into despotism, and you wanted to flee and seek asylum somewhere else, bu there was nowhere to go........

[Nico]

It couldn't be done now, but once the world is one dull shopping mall with all the same outlets, it'll be a snap.

[Secondary Oak]

Locke14 wrote: I have heard many views on the topic of : Would The World Be Better Under One Government? : and I just want to see what everyone thinks.
Yes, and I think it's inevitable. Globalization brings us closer together every day. Struggles about resources will diminish once the technology reaches the point of supplying all the world's basic needs for little or no cost.

The expanding EU is just the beginning, in my honest opinion. Such a treaty, based on common interests (unlike the power-enforced USSR) can develop into a federal-like government, like the US. Different cultures of course, but common law. I think that once a region reaches a certain level of peace there's nothing stopping the countries within from banding together for common goals.

There's always a chance of those unions dismantling, but I think the more time people live in those mixed countries the less likely it is to happen - for example, if your family is scattered around many states you will usually strongly reject the mere concept of separation.

Sadly, I doubt this will happen in my lifetime. Just think about turning even 50% of the military budget to scientific research instead. Just thinking about this makes me drool.

[thundertaker]

I think that unity and nations are forged by common enemies, and the need to unite against the threat. Thus, England united to fight the vikings, Russia the Tartars, America the British, etc.

So unless we come into prolonged contact with hostile aliens from another planet, I don't think we will ever see world unity. The nations will be far more concerned fighting their petty squabbles with other 'tribes'......

[Secondary Oak]

thundertaker wrote: I think that unity and nations are forged by common enemies
That is indeed a strong incentive.

Quote: So unless we come into prolonged contact with hostile aliens from another planet
And that would indeed unite us :)

Quote: I don't think we will ever see world unity. The nations will be far more concerned fighting their petty squabbles with other 'tribes'......
But such unities don't happen only when there's a common enemy - common interests are enough.
It's the old game question - do you play the game to earn as much points as possible, or do you play it to get more points than the other players?
In this case the former is true.

[eynon]

thundertaker wrote: I think that unity and nations are forged by common enemies, and the need to unite against the threat. Thus, England united to fight the vikings, Russia the Tartars, America the British, etc.

So unless we come into prolonged contact with hostile aliens from another planet, I don't think we will ever see world unity. The nations will be far more concerned fighting their petty squabbles with other 'tribes'......

Outstanding point thundar :-D also the only reason the modern nation-state came into existance was so groups of people could fight large scale conventional wars. Seems the whole idea of the nation state seems to be fading as the chances of another conventional world war fade.
Anyway I think in the end there will be no need for a 1 world goverment.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: the establishment of the world government would bring the new age of unprecendented prosperity and peace .
The funny thing is that this is exactly what the Bible prophecizes will happen with the "Beast", "Harlot", and "Anti-Christ".
And it seems that is exactly where we are heading!.
Very bizarre.

[Demothenes]

How would the uni-government control it's economy on a large scale? How would currency ensure it's value? I don't think fiat money would be reasonable, because it's too large a scale with no standard. The same goes for representative money. There is no one resource, that isn't vital to life, that is so well disbtributed as to control poverty. It's not possible. Not now, anyway.

[Secondary Oak]

Demothenese wrote: How would the uni-government control it's economy on a large scale? How would currency ensure it's value?
The world already has a global economy, which seems to be doing more or less fine. It would only benefit from having centeralized laws, making things more stable.

[cap'n queasy]

Secondary Oak wrote: Demothenese wrote: How would the uni-government control it's economy on a large scale? How would currency ensure it's value?
The world already has a global economy, which seems to be doing more or less fine. It would only benefit from having centeralized laws, making things more stable.
Look at this:
http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm
Centralization leads to tyranny not freedom as is commonly supposed.
You really should read F.A. Hayeks "The Road to Serfdom" it's a work of true genius IMHO.

[d_the_sandman]

cap'n queasy wrote: You really should read F.A. Hayeks "The Road to Serfdom" it's a work of true genius IMHO.

I've seen this book and was going to buy it. I think its about the Holocaust and how state-run production leads to tyranny. Is that about right?

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

In one world goverment the president will always be some Chinese guy.

[Secondary Oak]

cap'n queasy wrote: Look at this:
http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm
Centralization leads to tyranny not freedom as is commonly supposed.
You really should read F.A. Hayeks "The Road to Serfdom" it's a work of true genius IMHO.
d_the_sandman wrote: I've seen this book and was going to buy it. I think its about the Holocaust and how state-run production leads to tyranny. Is that about right?

There's a big difference between state-run production (like communism or war-time economics) and state-regulated economy (like in almost every single country in the world).

Economy works inside huge markets like the USA and the EU. It also works in huge economical regions like east asia, and it also works in a truly global scale. A united government will only ensure further stability; when you have a single regulating power with authority you can prevent and/or remedy localized catastrophes (like local stock-market collapses).

I have to stop here and admit my knowledge on economy is fairly limited, but as far as I can see unified economy will not make anything any worse, and will most likely perform better than the current system.

[Eonve]

Eynon81 wrote: thundertaker wrote: I think that unity and nations are forged by common enemies, and the need to unite against the threat. Thus, England united to fight the vikings, Russia the Tartars, America the British, etc.

So unless we come into prolonged contact with hostile aliens from another planet, I don't think we will ever see world unity. The nations will be far more concerned fighting their petty squabbles with other 'tribes'......

Outstanding point thundar :-D also the only reason the modern nation-state came into existance was so groups of people could fight large scale conventional wars. Seems the whole idea of the nation state seems to be fading as the chances of another conventional world war fade.
Anyway I think in the end there will be no need for a 1 world goverment.

people unite not only in the face of the common enemy. if we assume that common threat is the only reason for unity we thereby also assume that people are like animals - they act according to their instincts, of which self-preservation is the strongest one. i think that humans are something more than that - they are capable of make more or less rational choices.

anyway, there is a good article that talks about the world state - it's called "Why a world state is inevitable" and it is written by Alex Wendt. he is one of the most prominent international scholars at the present moment. i think that he presents a rather interesting analysis of the general trends. it is kinda lengthy, but it is well worth it. the article was published in the European Journal of International Relations. but he himself is a professor of political science in the University of Chicago. here is the link to the article:

http://political-science.uchicago.edu/faculty/wendt/wendt.pdf

i hope that those of you who can comprehend it will also enjoy it as much as i did.

Quote: The funny thing is that this is exactly what the Bible prophecizes will happen with the "Beast", "Harlot", and "Anti-Christ".
And it seems that is exactly where we are heading!.
Very bizarre.

some more Bible bullshi* from cap'n queasy. i am so tired of people twisting religious texts to fir their political agenda and expecting that anyone is gonna consider it a valid argument. we do not need your moronic prophesies. it is a serious discussion. please don't post any junk like that.

Quote: How would the uni-government control it's economy on a large scale? How would currency ensure it's value? I don't think fiat money would be reasonable, because it's too large a scale with no standard. The same goes for representative money. There is no one resource, that isn't vital to life, that is so well disbtributed as to control poverty. It's not possible. Not now, anyway.

the world government would not have a lot of trouble managing the economy. as it was pointed out, the global economy already exists. there are many rules according to which it functions. the world government would only have to improve some of them and change their status. now they are embodied in international regimes and institutions, they would have to assume the form of legislation and be applied to anyone and everyone. i don't see a lot of trouble with that.

Quote: Centralization leads to tyranny not freedom as is commonly supposed.


centralization leads to power, strength and advancement. the more decentralized the government is, the weaker it is and hence it is easier for a potential tyrant to acquire control of it. then he can start gaining control over the rest of the country. only centralized government with strong organization and long standing institutional traditions can resist such a takeover.

[Locke14]

The single government idea would surely not work, the obvious problems would arise, like the economy one. A more reasonable government would be a group of representatives, one from each nation. Many nations would be merged into one until there were 10 (or so) large nations with many territories. Then the representatives would vote on and make decisions for the world as a whole. These representatives would not be devoted to their country but more used for their opinions and ideas.

[wieno]

If there were a world government, it would probably start out as a decentralized one, much like good old Canadia here, with "provinces" haveing duristiction over some things.