Political Crossfire Forums

~SIRIUS~ · Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 18

British patriot wrote: i simply cannot except that the world shall not eventualy unite under the same goverment. what point is there in trying to create the E.U if there is no way we can unite.

I think you are wrong people always doubt the human race and the what we can achive. i am certain that we can unite it wont be easy but it will happen.

as the aurthor of this topic pointed out the only people who have united this world only did so by force and for a short time.
If we could have a leader emerge who was strong intelligent and courasgous then he might stand a chance of uniting everyone. My friend says that it will only be possibly when you get ried of nationalism. If this leader was able to do this then it would not be hard to create the eutopia on earth

"Eutopia" is a really strong word, one which I do not agree with. While I do think that the world will unite eventually, a "Utopia" simply is not possible. Every time a group of people, or a scientist try an experiment or something like that to create a utopia, they always fail through one way or another.

Theft, rape, murder, these crimes are fundamentals in our countries. Though they are immoral, evil, and only psychopaths do these crimes, in a "utopia", these criminals would have to be stopped by some type of "Judge Dredd" characters. Our society would be to perfect to exist for long.

I agree that the world needs a leader to unite us, but not in the form of one person, a group of individuals, a council, with the leader being the Hegemon. It would simply be, for example, the Supreme Court ruling the United States of America, with the President being the leader of the Court.

It is interesting to note that Anubis mentions the Ender quartet by Orson Scott Card. While those are interesting books, they are science fiction, they are fake, not real, what I am talking about is actually plausible, and quite possible.

Red Flag · Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:08 pm Post subject:

I feel that a worldwide council would be sufficient.

#S7EVIN · Joined: 28 Mar 2006 Posts: 1 Location: in your head

World peace? What a wonderful thought, I shall hope that it will come to pass.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8924

Is a world government possible?

I would say that it is definitely possible, but certain events must happen in order for it to succeed. Before we (meaning humanity) can become politically unified, we must first become economically unified. There is no doubt that an economic event in one nation has economic repercussions that echo around the globe. Even though the original post argued against it, we must create a global market, with a global currency.

The author's post made very good points, but I believe the order of events was backward. Economics must be unified before politics. The very first thing that must happen, is free and open trade with every nation and every peoples. Far too often governments use trade as a "bargaining chip" in the diplomacy tables, thus impending the progress of humanity by threatening not to exchange goods and money. Free trade across the globe will then lead to the creation of a global marketplace, with no barriers for nations to exchange everything from information to goods.

Once a global market is established, then we can make the big leap to a global currency. I believe that if we are successful in creating a global market, then the currency issue will naturally happen. When nations are trading openly, different currency values will only create unnecessary complications through conversions. Out of a desire to eliminate that, the governments of the world will collectively come to a common consensus on the value of one global unit of currency.

Once the nation is economically unified, then the drive for political unification can come to fruition. With the entire human race active on a global market with global currencies, political boarders will begin to fall just as economic ones did. Corporations will still exist and trade between each other along with small businesses, but governments will no longer act as the middleman and try to regulate their regional economies. When the people are already united, the only thing that would stop the national governments from unifying the human species is their own greed and lust for power.

But that fear of losing power would not be reasonable. When the world finally does unify into an Earth Government, I believe that it will take the form of the current United Nations, but with one main switch. Instead of appointing ambassadors to the serve as representatives, the former nations would send their respective head's of government to represent them in the new "Earth Federation". The other big switch from the current United Nations is that it would no longer be a confederacy of nations, with power to do only what the nations of the world allow it to do. Instead, it would act as a completely autonomous body, like the current governments of the world, and the power would change from the regional governments to the global one.

Now comes the tricky part. When the people are united both economically and politically, both economics and politics become obsolete. When you have free trade between one person and another, there is no need for money, because there is no competition between governments. The elimination of competition is something that many fear, but I embrace; at least on a global level. When there is no longer any competition for resources, there is no longer any need for the money to pay for those resources. So how would trade occur? One of two things would happen: one, the individual would offer something in exchange for the resource directly with the resource's owner; or two, it wouldn't, because the individual would no longer need it. With no money, there is no economy, and with no economy, there is no money. With no money, there is no longer any drive to acquire it, and so the concept of a "job" is obsolete as well. So how would anything get done? Well, people would still work as a way of exchange for the goods they desire, or to be self-sufficient. Some may say "Sounds like slavery to me..." but it is far from it. Slavery implies that there is no choice on the part of the slave. This would be an agreed contract between two parties, with the choice to engaging in it on both sides.

And once the concept of money is made obsolete, so will the concept of government. Without the economic competition between regions, there is no reason to attempt to regulate the economy, because you cannot regulate what does not exist. On top of that, since there is no money, the individual is fully responsible for their own actions, and no longer needs a government to protect it. Humanity will finally rip off its chains and be free from government or money. This would not be a violent overthrow, but rather a natural one. If a government is made obsolete, then there is not need to have one in the first place. A government would/does do nothing but restrict the freedoms of the people in exchange for security. But there would be nothing to protect the people from. Having said that, the global government would render itself useless to the people, and naturally dissolve its own power.

So is a world government possible? Yes. Is it the destiny of humanity to be free? I would say so. But the only way to achieve that is through global advances, not national ones. When you section off the world through political boundaries, you section off the human race; and the sooner we realize that the sooner we can become a better peoples.

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

Hopefully I'll be living on Mars before there's a global government. And I really, really don't want to live on Mars.

Misanthropy · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 35

A global government is an interesting idea. Of coarse I think it could never happen. People are too hopped up over their differences and pride. World peace is equally impossible as global government for the same reasons. If we can reach world peace, then we will already have global government.

The only way, in my personal opinion, for their to be a global government is a threatening outside power. By that I mean another intelligent species for another planet than our own. Yes, it is pretty dumb to think this, but for the world to unify under one government the entire race of humans must be threatened. Only once we see that our setting aside of all differences is essential to our survival as humans will we be able to accomplish a global government....and possibly global peace.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

considering how often the topic comes up around here, its nice to see it come up in a more thoughful context.

one major problem, though, why is it assumed we will be united by something external we "construct" - such as a "government" or an "economy"? those things would be the signs of a group ALREADY united.....

that said, i think the globe or humanity or whatever you wish to call it has always been united, we just do not seem to able to fully realize it or remember that as of yet...

Misanthropy · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 35

humanity united? I disagree. There has never been a time where we were truely united. Sure were united in the sense that we all want global peace one way or another, but we have always been fighting.
I believe we humans are too narrow minded and proud to ever come together. There has never been, and will never be a time when the entire population of the earth will agree enought to live with eachother without bickering.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

Misanthropy wrote: humanity united? I disagree. There has never been a time where we were truely united. Sure were united in the sense that we all want global peace one way or another, but we have always been fighting.
I believe we humans are too narrow minded and proud to ever come together. There has never been, and will never be a time when the entire population of the earth will agree enought to live with eachother without bickering.

why does being united mean we would no longer disagree? "bickering" is only a part of communication....

i'd say thinking we are not already united is the narrow thinking.... but that's just my utopian side coming out. the very fact that we know we are all human is a sign that we already know the essential truth of the matter, imho.

Misanthropy · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 35

if you say jsut because we know we are human is a sign of unity then why do we constantly kill eachother to change eachothers minds? You don't see cows eating eachother but obviously they know they are all cows. How else would they produce offspring?

Sure you can say we are united, but I will not believe it until the day every war stops. We do not work together. Large portions of the world work together, but never the whole world. If a Jew walked into Palestine right now and started talking about building a Jewish temple there, he would not get too many workers there ready to help him. In my eyes, we are not even close to being united as a world.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

Misanthropy wrote: if you say jsut because we know we are human is a sign of unity then why do we constantly kill eachother to change eachothers minds? You don't see cows eating eachother but obviously they know they are all cows. How else would they produce offspring?

Sure you can say we are united, but I will not believe it until the day every war stops. We do not work together. Large portions of the world work together, but never the whole world. If a Jew walked into Palestine right now and started talking about building a Jewish temple there, he would not get too many workers there ready to help him. In my eyes, we are not even close to being united as a world.

what does that say of the United States of America's Civil War?

i think the problem is that most people think of being "united" as some utopian fairy tale where we all get along and there are no wars. i say, as long as we aren't shooting first and asking questions later, i'd say we are doing pretty good, all things considered. i don't think its in our nature to ever be at perfect peace in the way you seem to imply it.

but maybe i just have low expectations... :lol:

or maybe, what i am saying is so should some of you. i call it political realism.

:-D

Misanthropy · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 35

I say during America's Civil War the country was divided, not unified at all. After the end of the war the people learned to get along and work together as they had before the event. Now I believe the people are somewhat united in America but not completely, and they should be.

I believe being united is being able to work together, live together, and die together on the same side of a conflict. Absolute unity is the fairy tale world, and that is what we will never have.

I say that if we can build the world up, without breaking a single part of it down, we will be united. But I think people conflict too much. There will always be corruption and there will always be tyranny. That is exactly why the entire earth can never work together, as I believe. I like what you said about shooting first and asking questions later. I believe there will always be a power-hungry leader who will shoot first just to get the upper hand.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

i understand what you are getting at, but i just wanted to point this out and have a little fun with you...

Misanthropy wrote: I believe being united is being able to work together, live together, and die together on the same side of a conflict.

yes, we all will be united in conflict! ;)

i guess i see conflict as a part of being united, so you and i will never agree. if bickering or confict is in our nature, and i agree that it is, we should then consider a natural part of "being united."

just some food for thought...

social · Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:33 am Post subject:

A.D wrote: Cultural diversity is not an argument against world government. I mean, who ever said that to share a nation one must share values? The gay activists in San Francisco could scarcely be said to share the same values as the hard working redneck from Texas, but they operate perfectly well within the same unit of governance

Bingo

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

Question:

Once we have a worldwide government, what will happen to the smug "Love it or Leave it" argument?

Phædrus · Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 131 Location: Northern Europe

I'm not a big fan any kind of government ...

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

Phædrus wrote: I'm not a big fan any kind of government ...

High five!

Phædrus · Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 131 Location: Northern Europe

Anyis · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 64

The Earth will never be unified because there a re too many ethnic groups. Unless someone could somehow commit mass genecide and create an uninteligent society who would gladly follow any government.

John Wilkes Booth · Joined: 01 Apr 2006 Posts: 394

Anyis wrote: The Earth will never be unified because there a re too many ethnic groups. Unless someone could somehow commit mass genecide and create an uninteligent society who would gladly follow any government.

Or races keep interbreeding.