Is One World Government Possible?

[lukin]

Any talk of world government will get you labelled a conspiracy loon. However, there are organizations promoting it. check out this website and share your thoughts.

http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/

[M.Dancer]

loon

[eyeball]

Is One World Government Possible?

Sure, anything's possible, but you might want to wait and ask the Pangaean Ultimanians (or Ultimaniacs?) about 250 million years from now. Myself, I think they'll probably still be locked in mortal combat with the Amasians over the name of the place or who got there first or something silly like that.

[theKingofRome]

possible: eventually

practical: yes

effecient: air tight

good? No!

why could you possibly want a one world government? it would be possible with corporate-style leading, but is it really worth it?

there is sort of a fundamental rebellion found in the patterns of the human history that gives a clear message: what goes up must come down.

Edited January 22, 2009 by theKingofRome

[He Who Hesistates]

I believe that a lasting and succesful world government is fully possible.

Empires have, it is true, risen and fallen in an endless cycle over the history of the earth. However, we must ask: why did they fall? Almost without exception, they met their end because they met another equal force (Russia, Greece), they tyrranized their subjects into revolt (Britain, France), or their territory grew to exceed their technological ability to manage it (Rome).

Do any of these apply? I rather think not. A world government could not, by definition encounter an equal and opposing force. Our technology has advanced very rapidly of late, while the earth has stayed about the same size, so we should have no problem manging it. All we must do then, is give the people the rights they desire, so that they do not become the rights they demand, or the rights they wish to seize. This we should be able to do.

Simply because empires have fallen does not mean they will fall. Simply because it has repeated does not mean that it is a pattern, or that it will repeat again. And, when the factors affecting have changed to the degree that they have, there is no reason to believe that the past should set a valid precedent.

The World Government is not only possible and beneficial, but it is the inevitable product of civilization.

[theKingofRome]

All of those places would have fallen even without their opposing force. why? a simple but yet under-appreciated science: phycology. people cant stand to live in a society with too much controle over them. and even if they could, i doubt there could be a government capable of managing so many people. any problem or mistake or even death in the family would be blamed on the government. we've seen the exact same thing happen in religion too. good things are credited to the Lord and bad thing blamed on the devil. however, there is also not a government capable of replacing a God figure in the phycology of the average person. we do, on the contrary, all know that people are perfectly capable of replacing the blame directed at "the devil" in their lives to the government.

Also, i'd like to point out that most teens go through a rebellious phase. if you want to understand a man, study a child. the rebellion may be more pronounced and outspoken in teenagers, but its still there in everyone. and even if these rebellious thoughts are not acted upon, they do not go away. they get swept under the rug but they re-emerge in others. basically what i'm trying to say is that even if this government was created and managed to establish itself to controle everybody (not an easy feat), it would eventually be overthrown. as soon as there are thoughts of rebellion, the eventual rebellion is inevitable. the government couldnt possibly crush small rebellions totally. and the rebellions have pleanty of room to grow into. the rebellion can only grow, it has nowhere to go but up. the government, however, is already at the top and has nowhere to go but down.

[He Who Hesistates]

You speak of control, as if by its very nature a world government would oppress its citizens. A government should be no more than an extension of the collective will of the people. There need be no control, except where very necessary.

You also speak of the people of our world as if they were medieval peasants, who will rise up against their rulers at the slightest provocation, not seeing the larger picture. And certainly there is truth to this. People are far more apt to blame the bad in their lives on the government than the good. But will this 'rebellion' as you call it lead to the fall of the state? Not necessarily. Is rebellion, expressed verbally and peacefully not an entirely fitting part of democracy?

Take Canada, for example. We haven't had a violent insurrection in, wow, it must be forty years now. That includes the FLQ crisis, which leads me to the next point.

You say that the government cannot crush the small rebllions. During the October crisis of 1970, Pierre Trudeau called in the war measures act and, I believe, crushed that rebellion pretty effectively. The revolutionaries were all neutralized, and the sentiments behind them set back fifty years, at least.

Therefore, while you are fully correct in saying that feelings of rebellion will always be around (I agree with the 'watch a child to understand a man' comment, by the way), there is no reason that these seeds should blossom into anarchy. And, as the governments are fully capable of crushing the hotheads, a world state will prevail.

Oh, and for the record, psychology takes an s. It is a devilishly tricky one, isn't it?

Edited January 22, 2009 by He Who Hesistates

[theKingofRome]

so now your proposing a world democracy? you cant be serious.

we both know that you cant please everyone, so you have to please the majority. however, what if all the minorities just happen to be located in the same area? is that really unlikely, considering the impact that geography has on politics? next your going say something about defferent laws in different countries, but all laws coming from the same power. well that simply isnt enough. war is a necessary part of our society and in a united world, conflict would still emerge in some form as it is needed. why might it be needed you might ask?

In it's simplest form, an arguement is a communication. trying to share ideas. however, it is also the very basis of conflict, which leads to fight, to battle, to war. is a war an arguement? no. its passed the point of communicating an arguement and descended into a lack of communication. although arguements are a form of communication, they are caused by lack of communication. how do we solve this? good communication. yes surely thats the bright shining light that will save us from war! this might not be as easy as it sounds. people may live together and share their entire lives and still come up short in the communication department. people need to communicate faster then the conflict can build up. its a race. however, there are people who dont communicate. people who get ideas and stick with them, even in light of blatent facts. these people should not be overlooked because they are quite capable of causeing massive damage. a small but devoted group of people are capable of great damage. so now are you seriously telling me that it would be possible to keep communication above conflict in the entire world? you say we have the technology, but do we? phones are instant but maybe words arent fast enough anymore.

P.S. i am theKingofRome and therefore above grammar. anybody who takes cheapshots at gramatical errors is clearly a douche.

Edited January 22, 2009 by theKingofRome

[He Who Hesistates]

I would like to, first of all, question the statement: war is a necessary part of our society. How? In as much as I can tell, war is approximately the least useful thing we've ever come up with. It wastes ressources, time, and above all, lives. The only way it could be seen as useful is in the Orwellian sense: as a means of destroying wealth to oppress the proletariat, and I hardly think you'd like to quote that. You claim in your first paragraph that you will explain why war is necessary in the second, then you proceed to, flatly, not do so. Is there a reason for this?

You also say that all war is caused by a lack of communication. While this is sometimes the case, a very wise man once said that "a lack of communication is the cause and the prevention of war". Sometimes there are people that are, frankly, best kept apart. Such are your extremists, those who "blatantly refuse to accept the facts". You are very correct when you say that such people exist, and are capable of massive harm. They are. But they are few, and there success in our day has depended on misleading people into following them. Their primary instrument of deception is isolation: a man will follow any idea if he has not heard another. In a world state, all people would be connected, they would have access to the ideas and opinions of billions of people over thousands of years, and the weight of that knowledge makes it hard to raise an arm in violence.

It will take time, time and education, time and educatiuon and the element of surprise. But with the ressources that would be freed up by eliminating nationalism, such would be possible. Over time, your first- and valid- point about geographical concentration of malcontent would fade in importance, as people became more and more equal on all levels.

Which leaves us with our hotheads and extremists, a point I have already made and you haven't countered. The World State would mean a vast reduction in the global armed forces, but that small percent that remained, under control of the world state, would be very, very good. They would be absolutely able to deal with the violent extremists.

Your line "phones are instant but maybe words arent fast enough anymore" is very clever, but I think it is just not true. Through co-operation and technology, we could tame the globe.

I'm not taking 'cheap-shots' by criticizing your grammar, just trying in a friendly way to improve your comprehensibility. It's about time someone did.

[theKingofRome]

you raise many valid points and i'd love to argue with you all night, but i do have an exam tomorrow. since your going for the Quantity over Quality style of argueing, it's gonna take me a while to counter each of your points.

This saturday i'll have pleanty of time to debate this with You Who Hesitates. i'll be on at about 10:00 am, Eastern time, if you could meet me on at that time i'd be happy to coninue this debate.

until then, i would really appreciate it if people dont post in this thread because i really would like to take the next few arguements.

see you then, He Who Hesitates

[August1991]

Empires have, it is true, risen and fallen in an endless cycle over the history of the earth. However, we must ask: why did they fall? Almost without exception, they met their end because they met another equal force (Russia, Greece), they tyrranized their subjects into revolt (Britain, France), or their territory grew to exceed their technological ability to manage it (Rome).

...

Simply because empires have fallen does not mean they will fall. Simply because it has repeated does not mean that it is a pattern, or that it will repeat again. And, when the factors affecting have changed to the degree that they have, there is no reason to believe that the past should set a valid precedent.

You have such a narrow view of history, and government.

Governments, as we understand them today, did not exist in any sense 500 years ago, let alone 2000 years ago.

The governments that exist 500 years in the future will not be in any way like governments that exist now.

Before you ask questions about a "world government", I suggest that you give greater thought to what you mean by words like the "State" and "government". Here's some things to think about: already today, under certain circumstances, a Canadian citizen can reside outside of Canada yet be subject to Canadian law, vote in Canadian elections and even pay Canadian taxes.

[capricorn]

Here's some things to think about: already today, under certain circumstances, a Canadian citizen can reside outside of Canada yet be subject to Canadian law, vote in Canadian elections and even pay Canadian taxes.

Even babies born over Canadian airspace are Canadian citizens.

Canada has its first mile-high baby: Ottawa has granted citizenship to Sasha, the child born to a Ugandan woman on an international flight over Canada.

The four-pound, 13-ounce baby was delivered on a crowded Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Boston on New Year's Eve.

The mother, who was 81/2 months pregnant when she boarded, went into labour about six hours into the eight-hour flight and delivered the child as the plane crossed through Canadian airspace.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/todays-p...4611/story.html

We do evolve, don't we.

[Riverwind]

When I was young and foolish I thought that strong central governments are a good thing.

Then I realized that they are only good things if they happen to promote policies that I support and it is inevitable that a government will eventual come to power that I do not support.

Now I think devolving power to the lowest level of government that can practically deal with the power is best.

Note that the above presumes that the government can also raise the taxes required to pay for the power exercise. I am not a fan of the Canadian system where one level of government levies the taxes and another level spends the money.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[KeyStone]

Well, it's just one more level.

We could get rid of the Federal government and only have provincial governments, but that would create its own problems and disputes.

There are two reasons why we would want a one-world government

1) There are things that need international rule - the oceans, the environment, international disputes etc., flow of labour and capital etc.

2) There needs to be a concentrated effort to bring about human rights as well as some level of prosperity worldwide.

It doesn't mean that national borders get erased - just as provincial borders didn't get erased in 1867. It simply means that there is a higher authority that the nations have to listen to, and there is a recognized mechanism to resolve international disputes and determine what is fair.

There are 5 reasons why the UN will not take us down this path and coincidentally, they are all permanent members of the security council.

If we get there, it will be because of the EU. They are the ones pushing for human rights and greater economic equality among its member states.

But of course, all of this is moot, if we can't defeat the Zargon invasion in the Year 2034.

[Riverwind]

1) There are things that need international rule - the oceans, the environment, international disputes etc., flow of labour and capital etc.

These goals can be accomplished with treaties.

2) There needs to be a concentrated effort to bring about human rights as well as some level of prosperity worldwide.

And how would a world govenment accomplish this in a world full of dictators that jelously guard their right to abuse their citizens? War under the disguise of police actions?

It simply means that there is a higher authority that the nations have to listen to, and there is a recognized mechanism to resolve international disputes and determine what is fair.

A higher authority means nothing if it does not have the ability to use violance to enforce it will. There is simply no way to enforce international law nor will their be any time soon. Edited January 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[KeyStone]

These goals can be accomplished with treaties.

And how would a world govenment accomplish this in a world full of dictators that jelously guard their right to abuse their citizens? War under the disguise of police actions?

A higher authority means nothing if it does not have the ability to use violance to enforce it will. There is simply no way to enforce international law nor will their be any time soon.

The answer to all of your points is that that the one-world government needs to collect taxes so that it can raise an army and redistribute wealth.

It needs to be able to enforce its laws, just as the federal government of Canada would step in if Alberta suddenly decided that it was going to kill all its first nations people.

[M.Dancer]

The answer to all of your points is that that the one-world government needs to collect taxes so that it can raise an army and redistribute wealth.

It needs to be able to enforce its laws, just as the federal government of Canada would step in if Alberta suddenly decided that it was going to kill all its first nations people.

[Oleg Bach]

No! we all need our own private rooms to focus (our own nations) -- and our own families - and our own lives - one world government is utlitarian hell and geared for slavery...I am a free man and not a slave - they can F themselves!

[He Who Hesistates]

You have such a narrow view of history, and government.

Governments, as we understand them today, did not exist in any sense 500 years ago, let alone 2000 years ago.

The governments that exist 500 years in the future will not be in any way like governments that exist now.

Before you ask questions about a "world government", I suggest that you give greater thought to what you mean by words like the "State" and "government". Here's some things to think about: already today, under certain circumstances, a Canadian citizen can reside outside of Canada yet be subject to Canadian law, vote in Canadian elections and even pay Canadian taxes.

"Governments, as we understand them today, did not exist in any sense 500 years ago."

I understand what you're thinking, but I also think you miss the point entirely. Obviously, governments and states have changed greatly over the years that have passed. We've invented all sorts of new and exciting things that would have had Socrates spitting out his tea. However, the one essential definition has not altered a bit: a state is still a population (and often territory) under a government, and a government is still the controlling and regulating power within a state. How has this changed since the classical age? And, if we can agree that relatively stable definition, my point stands; it is only in the major and minor details that the state has evolved.

I believe you are wrong when you say that governments in 500 years will "not be in any way like" what we know and patronize today. Certainly you or I could not imagine or predict how they will appear, but as long as they are governments the one most basic criteria will be met.

"under certain circumstances, a Canadian citizen can reside outside of Canada yet be subject to Canadian law, vote in Canadian elections and even pay Canadian taxes."

Yes. Bien fait. Geographical location does not necessarily have anything to do with belonging or not belonging to a state. As long as someone adheres to the Canadian government, he is a part of the Canadian state.

Perhaps I am narrow. But then, I suppose the truth must always be narrow, because for every thing that is true, a thousand lies can be told.

[theKingofRome]

Well said. and now to respond to your previous arguements:

first of all, war is needed in society because it is a waste of resources. a population is so productive, some governments need to direct that produce into war because the citizens need to be prodictive sothat they are easier to manage and sothat they dont try different things that could potentially be destructive to the establishment. also, finding a common ennemy is a great way to unite a populace and is a great place fir everyday families to direct blame (for economic problems, etc.) i guess i was wrong to say war is necessary in a society, but it is useful and also, as i explained earlier, very difficult to avoid. the reson i got off track into my second paragraph was just because of my ADD

and a lack of communication is, essentially, the cause of all conflict. people with different opinions are simply people with access to different media, different upbringing and/or different information. i beleive that at a very fundamental level, there is no such thing as opinions, only correct and incorrect. if you want me to argue that point, just ask and i'll be happy to. and isolation is pretty much the best way for someone to deceive others into beleiveing their "opinions". there will always be some who are isolated, be it mentally, physically, phycologically or any other form. it may not be as easy as you think to keep the entire population of the world so well informed as you claimed. even if you posess the means, there are many who are unwilling to learn.

"through co-operation and technology, we could tame the globe" you say. well you will not find co-operation. people need the nationalism and the pride and the competition. even if you did manage to create a world wide government, each country would still compete and fight and rebel and expand and they would be so different, the net effect would be pretty much the same as having individual governments. we need the diversity that comes from seperated countries. we cannot afford to stamp out certain perspectives and ways of life. if human technology and knowledge is to increase, then decreasing the diversity with which to acheive it will not acheive it.

next your going to tell me that you would preserve each culture and no ideas would be stamped out. well you cant do that and keep everybody united perfectly informed at the same time. a message to some people may seem very different to others.

Hesitate over that one

Edited January 24, 2009 by theKingofRome

[Shraytus]

Ask the Tsar in the year 1910 if a Communist government is possible, my bet is the reply would be a steadfast no. Thinking about how far and fast humankind has advanced since the turn of the early 1900s however, the rapid extensions to the human potential need to be sheltered somehow. Our race cannot continue fighting each other, whether in the Gaza Strip, Somalia or tribal warfare, while the other side of human ingenuity is working on ways to battle cancer, build a 3km tall pyramid in Tokyo Bay, and make colonies on distant planets and moons.

For the foreseeable future, however, a world government is possible, but hardly practical. Until our space exploration endeavors increase in scope and magnitude, and the world must face a necessity of one ruling body, then organizations like the European Union, the Arab League, and the Commonwealth will have to suffice. Like I said, however, looking back as to how far we've advanced the last century, anything is possible.

[Bonam]

I think if humanity is to continue to survive and prosper on a long time scale, world "government" is inevitable. The issues and divisions that affect humans on Earth will eventually fade into insignificance as we spread across and settle the galaxy, and either encounter other species, or, if none are found, begin to fight each other on an interstellar scale.

But these are very long term considerations.

In the meanwhile, it's not going to happen in the near future, and I don't see any realistic way that it could happen in the near future that would not utterly destroy Western civilizations and our way of life. If a world government based on principles of equitable representation, whether it was by number of states or by population, were founded today, the voices and needs of the West would be completely drowned out. Such a government would be controlled by the ideas of third-worldism, religious fundamentalism, vengeance against Western civilizations, and redistribution of wealth from the prosperous nations to the failed states. Needless to say, this is something I would not want to see.

But in the future, as technology advances, all nations and peoples may begin to merge into a common human-machine civilization. Advances in nanotechnology will grant us the ability to produce any product with trivial ease at any location, fusion will provide limitless clean energy, biotechnology will grant us vastly extended lifespans, or even immortality, artificial intelligence will be able to simulate and solve any problem that could face us, and direct mind to mind communication will allow individuals and peoples to fully understand each other and their points of view. As these things come to pass, the notion of government may itself become outdated and irrelevant, but humanity, at least that portion of humanity within reasonable distance of each other (i.e. perhaps a few light-days I suppose), would naturally move in a similar direction and with an understanding of everyone's purpose.

[Smallc]

Nice post Bonam. I really agree with most of that. I think that in the medium term (centuries out) it may come to pass that the Western World joins together. Before the rest of the world could ever join them, they would have to advance to a stage where they were comparable and compatible. Like you, I think that in the long term a united earth is inevitable and may be a very good thing if done right. We as humanity are simply not there yet though.

[Pliny]

I think if humanity is to continue to survive and prosper on a long time scale, world "government" is inevitable.

What would be it's mandate? Deciding if you are poor and deserving or rich and undeserving?

Let's not forget what the purpose of a government is. It is to allow each individual to be safe in his person and property. Should it decide who should be safe and who should not?

You know, I was mentioning to someone today how thankful I was to Al Gore for inventing the internet. With the internet I can be an expert on any subject just by googling it and reading about it. I am no longer dependent upon the expert to tell me I need a new car because my old one is subject to that silent killer - electromagnetic floor mat shifting.

I think the internet is the biggest reason we do not need big government or World Government. We can look after ourselves like never before. Government is indeed still necessary for purposes of "justice" but that is primarily what it has always been about. Foreign affairs, justice and defence and not redistributing wealth.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What would be it's mandate? Deciding if you are poor and deserving or rich and undeserving?

Let's not forget what the purpose of a government is. It is to allow each individual to be safe in his person and property. Should it decide who should be safe and who should not?

You know, I was mentioning to someone today how thankful I was to Al Gore for inventing the internet. With the internet I can be an expert on any subject just by googling it and reading about it. I am no longer dependent upon the expert to tell me I need a new car because my old one is subject to that silent killer - electromagnetic floor mat shifting.

I think the internet is the biggest reason we do not need big government or World Government. We can look after ourselves like never before. Government is indeed still necessary for purposes of "justice" but that is primarily what it has always been about. Foreign affairs, justice and defence and not redistributing wealth.

Al Gore invented the internet?

Edited July 27, 2009 by TrueMetis