NationStates Jolt Archive

There are merits to both of them. In a multipolar world, I've found that it is far more competitive. Wars may be more likely, and generally, the world as a whole rarely prospers. However, there are many advantages. For one, people can eat. For another, wars are often in colonies far away from the main country, being fought either over a colony, or by proxy. Examples are 18th century Europe, and the Cold War era. It was technically multipolar, as I see it, because France and Red China weren't truely part of either side.
Then there's a unipolar world. As I've found, peace and prosperity are the norm within the country. Outside of it, and its sphere of influence, is a different story. Local conflicts seem rampant, occaisonally warranting the attention of the main power. Resentment outside of this power is also high. Examples I've found are the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, and the world today, with the US.
As for a bipolar world, I will include it, but I honestly can't say how one would turn out. There are few historical examples. One of them that I can think of is between the Roman Republic and Carthage, marked by constant strife. This was, however, due to the expansionist desires of Rome. How a new bilateral world will turn out, I cannot say.
This is my extremely brief hypothesis on the matter. I'm too tired to write anything longer.

Sorry to be ignorant, but I don't know how a world can be unipolar or multipolar. Could you please explain what you mean for me?

:confused:

Sorry to be ignorant, but I don't know how a world can be unipolar or multipolar. Could you please explain what you mean for me?

:confused:
Sure. Unipolar is a world led by one huge superpower, such as how much of the world looks to the US for political and economic leadership. Multipolar is when multiple powers take this role. Bipolar is when two take this role.

Bump. I've decided, btw, that this thread is the determant. Either I'm boring, or we can't debate around here.

A World Government (multipolarity) would be the best form for 1 very important reason.

A world government is the only way to ensure human survival.

1. "Further, the present international dispensation gives no promise of concerted action to counter the rapid deterioration of the environment now in progress. Population will multiply uncontrolled, urban sprawl will overrun arable land, domestic and industrial waste, much of it lethal, will accumulate. Forests will continue to disappear; deserts will expand; rivers, lakes, estuaries, and seas will become more and more polluted; wetlands will be lost; living species will become extinct; global warming will increase and climatic catastrophe approach at an accelerating pace; the protective ozone layer will dissipate and terrestrial life, vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation, will succumb; the food chain will disintegrate and the millions of people facing starvation will multiply. For how long the human race, or any life at all, can survive such mutually exacerbating and augmenting destructive influences is more than doubtful. If all this is to be prevented, there is no viable alternative to world federation. Although in itself i is not the solution of the major problems, if any solution at all is possible and practicable, it is the indespensable prior condition; so a vigorous and determined global campaign must be conducted without delay, as we have described it above, for the ratification of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth - a concerted campaign, in which all the appropriate organizations and societies must join - to inform and educate the peoples of the world of the enormity of the dangers and of the indispensability of the required world order." (Errol Harris, Professor of Philosophy - Northwestern University, One World Or None, 1993.)

2. "For several decades it has been evident that environmental consciousness has the capacity to generate mitigating policies and adjustments, but does not possess the leverage to induce drastic modifications in human behaviour if such turn out to be necessary to achieve sustainability. The modernist confidence in human autonomy is thus deeply challenged by environmental risks; but also the sustainability of a world order that lacks strong governance capacities and a collective will based on feelings of human solidarity is drawn into question in relation to ultimate concerns about survival." (Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 1997.)

3. "Evolution towards a decentralized world society could release new potential for coping with four of the seemingly intractable world problems confronted within the constraints of a nation-state system: aspirations for human rights, for a new international economic order, for a new international information order, and for a reduction in violence and warfare. Issues on these topics are being debated continually in a multitude of United Nations and regional international bodies. The outcomes will vitally affect all people in the world for years in the future. But most people in the world know ittle of the debates and have had no opportunity to express their views. The United States can be used as an example for illustrating how the nation-state paradigm has walled off the people from these issues and debates, preventing them from seeing how their participation in world society could help to ease these problems." (Cadwick Alger, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy - Ohio State University, CONFLICT IN WORLD SOCIETY, 1984.)

I apologize for spelling mistakes. Those were incurred from typing all of that myself in a brief amount of time.

A World Government (multipolarity) would be the best form for 1 very important reason.

A world government is the only way to ensure human survival.

1. "Further, the present international dispensation gives no promise of concerted action to counter the rapid deterioration of the environment now in progress. Population will multiply uncontrolled, urban sprawl will overrun arable land, domestic and industrial waste, much of it lethal, will accumulate. Forests will continue to disappear; deserts will expand; rivers, lakes, estuaries, and seas will become more and more polluted; wetlands will be lost; living species will become extinct; global warming will increase and climatic catastrophe approach at an accelerating pace; the protective ozone layer will dissipate and terrestrial life, vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation, will succumb; the food chain will disintegrate and the millions of people facing starvation will multiply. For how long the human race, or any life at all, can survive such mutually exacerbating and augmenting destructive influences is more than doubtful. If all this is to be prevented, there is no viable alternative to world federation. Although in itself i is not the solution of the major problems, if any solution at all is possible and practicable, it is the indespensable prior condition; so a vigorous and determined global campaign must be conducted without delay, as we have described it above, for the ratification of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth - a concerted campaign, in which all the appropriate organizations and societies must join - to inform and educate the peoples of the world of the enormity of the dangers and of the indispensability of the required world order." (Errol Harris, Professor of Philosophy - Northwestern University, One World Or None, 1993.)

2. "For several decades it has been evident that environmental consciousness has the capacity to generate mitigating policies and adjustments, but does not possess the leverage to induce drastic modifications in human behaviour if such turn out to be necessary to achieve sustainability. The modernist confidence in human autonomy is thus deeply challenged by environmental risks; but also the sustainability of a world order that lacks strong governance capacities and a collective will based on feelings of human solidarity is drawn into question in relation to ultimate concerns about survival." (Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 1997.)

3. "Evolution towards a decentralized world society could release new potential for coping with four of the seemingly intractable world problems confronted within the constraints of a nation-state system: aspirations for human rights, for a new international economic order, for a new international information order, and for a reduction in violence and warfare. Issues on these topics are being debated continually in a multitude of United Nations and regional international bodies. The outcomes will vitally affect all people in the world for years in the future. But most people in the world know ittle of the debates and have had no opportunity to express their views. The United States can be used as an example for illustrating how the nation-state paradigm has walled off the people from these issues and debates, preventing them from seeing how their participation in world society could help to ease these problems." (Cadwick Alger, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy - Ohio State University, CONFLICT IN WORLD SOCIETY, 1984.)

I apologize for spelling mistakes. Those were incurred from typing all of that myself in a brief amount of time.
I disagree with the premise, however. I think, for one, that a global federation can be unipolar. However, the problems described, I believe, can iron themselves up. Overpopulation and urbanization, for example, aren't bad things entirely. It means that more people will be concentrated in smaller areas, and thus, free more land for farming. Besides, fertilizers have staved off Thomas Malthus's dire predictions.
I'm also one of the very few people here who has doubts on Global Warming. Where I live, there have been many cold snaps in the summer, and unseasonably cold temperatures in the dead of winter. Besides, the water levels haven't rose dramaticallym despite a lot melting. I don't doubt it is happening, but I do doubt its effects.
But enough about addressing details, and let me address that a multipolar world will be sufficient to solve these problems. The US can lead by example. If we didn't have that power, half of the world woundn't have republics, and not one capitalist would exist in Asia. If the US signed Kyoto tommarrow, then most every nation would, too. I am not defending the treaty, I'm just saying that it'd have more support than it does now.

ok ive given it some thought and i decided on multipolar

its less dangerous than bipolar in that its not 2 big macho powers beating their chests at each other.
its fairer to the non power countries because they have to be courted to get them on your side

the unipolar world means that the big guy can throw his weight around without having to think about the smaller countries

Oh yay, a Malthusian. Thomas Malthus is a crackpot with crazy ideas that no other sane soul should support. If you were on the other side of the spectrum, you wouldn't think that it would be good for all the poor and undernourished to die off. Unipolar action is not the best action in the world. What if America was to all of a sudden to go into a "fortress" state? Then, we would have Russia, and Japan, and Germany rearm themselves in an aggressive state.

Yes, I know that global warming isn't proven, but it is a seriously considered theory. But claiming that you don't believe in something is not an argument. How could you doubt it's effects, but not its occurance?

You claim that US leadership could do better, which is exactly correct. The US should take action and encourage others to help form a multilateral government. I do agree that the US is a major player in the world, but a World Government has much greater impacts, making it much more important.

I have to say that I feel a unipolar world is the best. The reason being is because they are most capable of true leadership. Not just the type in a multipolar world, where bandwagonning always happens, but true leadership. The US has shown this leadership in the post 1989 world. They have taken the reins of NATO, and steered its agenda from warmaking to peace enforcers. In Asia and Latin America, they were less of idealogical warzones, and due in large part to US aid and investment, became thriving centers of economic activity. Even China, arguably, got a big boost from a unilateral US.
Of course, other unilateral powers have done this. The Mongol Empire made genuine efforts to unite the East and the West in every way possible. The Roman Empire took Spain and North Africa under its wing, and they became one of the more prosperous provinces of the empire.

I think that Unipolar is best. So many nations who don't even care about the rest of the world, the destruction of our planet, or the future. This system obviously wont work if it goes on too long much of humanity will die, if not all.

I don't see force as a viable solution to take over the world in one government because even if we had the numbers and money to maintain this it would most likely become corrupt if not done by the will and imput of all (ofcourse then we would not need the military force). Even if we had the numbers and the military I'm not sure anyone can handle the complexity of beating down all the rebellions and protests that would occur on the entire planet. The number crunching would be vast as a result of it being by force.

It will be a very long time before we can all join together. I mean, you have your more peaceful and stable places like France, Britian, Canada, USA and even Russia and Germany are starting to get their act together. China has its problems but I don't see anything to major in the future. These are to name a few. Now as I was saying, we have all these mostly stable and mostly peaceful countries but then you have to take into account the relatively new African nations who are stilling going through various wars and conflicts, the situation in Korea, the situation in the Middle East, people who don't want peace usually because they want power and independence, militia groups who hate other countries and want them dead, countries who hate other countries and want them dead...the list goes on. These countries are far from stable and far from togetherness with the world, and it may take many years before stability occurs...I mean look at how long it took the majority of Europe to stop trying to conquere one another.

I wont even get into the World Bank conspiracy theories.

I wonder...will the world survive? I don't know but I think that, even if it doesn't, even if most of us get destroyed...some of us will still live. Humanity has gotten through so much and we just keep beating the odds. But those are small odds compared to what's out there that we haven't faced, I know- but I'm optimistic. We could be that one species that just keeps on kicking while everything else is dying and evolving.

I don't remember what my original point was now lol...I got into a rant and well...

Think maybe, the world as it is, wont survive to see a great peace yet we may still have a future? What do you think?

Oh yay, a Malthusian. Thomas Malthus is a crackpot with crazy ideas that no other sane soul should support. If you were on the other side of the spectrum, you wouldn't think that it would be good for all the poor and undernourished to die off. Unipolar action is not the best action in the world. What if America was to all of a sudden to go into a "fortress" state? Then, we would have Russia, and Japan, and Germany rearm themselves in an aggressive state.

Yes, I know that global warming isn't proven, but it is a seriously considered theory. But claiming that you don't believe in something is not an argument. How could you doubt it's effects, but not its occurance?

You claim that US leadership could do better, which is exactly correct. The US should take action and encourage others to help form a multilateral government. I do agree that the US is a major player in the world, but a World Government has much greater impacts, making it much more important.
I'm not a Malthusian, and other than his population theory, I know nothing about him. And I didn't dispute global warming, but just its effects.
Anyhow, I personally don't know why the US would ever become such a fortress state. If capitalism didn't exist, it may happen. But it does, and our interests are global. The particular benefit to our brand of unilateralism is that we have two vast oceans separating us and most of our enemies. They'd need to get to our overseas interests before they get to us.
That isn't to say that I wouldn't welcome a multipolar world. I believe that if China, Russia, and perhaps the EU became superpowers, I think the world would continue to be prosperous. However, the world may be a messy place, and technology and economic progress may become stagnant.

I think that Unipolar is best. So many nations who don't even care about the rest of the world, the destruction of our planet, or the future. This system obviously wont work if it goes on too long much of humanity will die, if not all.

I don't see force as a viable solution to take over the world in one government because even if we had the numbers and money to maintain this it would most likely become corrupt if not done by the will and imput of all (ofcourse then we would not need the military force). Even if we had the numbers and the military I'm not sure anyone can handle the complexity of beating down all the rebellions and protests that would occur on the entire planet. The number crunching would be vast as a result of it being by force.

It will be a very long time before we can all join together. I mean, you have your more peaceful and stable places like France, Britian, Canada, USA and even Russia and Germany are starting to get their act together. China has its problems but I don't see anything to major in the future. These are to name a few. Now as I was saying, we have all these mostly stable and mostly peaceful countries but then you have to take into account the relatively new African nations who are stilling going through various wars and conflicts, the situation in Korea, the situation in the Middle East, people who don't want peace usually because they want power and independence, militia groups who hate other countries and want them dead, countries who hate other countries and want them dead...the list goes on. These countries are far from stable and far from togetherness with the world, and it may take many years before stability occurs...I mean look at how long it took the majority of Europe to stop trying to conquere one another.

I wont even get into the World Bank conspiracy theories.

I wonder...will the world survive? I don't know but I think that, even if it doesn't, even if most of us get destroyed...some of us will still live. Humanity has gotten through so much and we just keep beating the odds. But those are small odds compared to what's out there that we haven't faced, I know- but I'm optimistic. We could be that one species that just keeps on kicking while everything else is dying and evolving.

I don't remember what my original point was now lol...I got into a rant and well...

Think maybe, the world as it is, wont survive to see a great peace yet we may still have a future? What do you think?
Sure. I believe, in fact, that a unipolar world will best foster this. Especially nowadays. There are many institutions that ensure that a real wacko isn't elected to office, like the media (and in case you haven't figured out, I believe Bush isn't a wacko). Therefore, the world can be rest assured that, in most cases, we use our policing powers for good. I know a lot of people wish to dispute me, but draw up a list of at least five good things the US government has done in ten years. It's easy to draw up, and recently, I believe it far outweighs the bad.
And btw, most bad things done by the US government did happen in a multipolar world.

Sure. I believe, in fact, that a unipolar world will best foster this. Especially nowadays. There are many institutions that ensure that a real wacko isn't elected to office, like the media (and in case you haven't figured out, I believe Bush isn't a wacko). Therefore, the world can be rest assured that, in most cases, we use our policing powers for good. I know a lot of people wish to dispute me, but draw up a list of at least five good things the US government has done in ten years. It's easy to draw up, and recently, I believe it far outweighs the bad.
And btw, most bad things done by the US government did happen in a multipolar world.

Ah I don't know how USA got into this...I never even mentioned them except that they're a stable place lol.

Ah I don't know how USA got into this...I never even mentioned them except that they're a stable place lol.
I mention it because right now, the USA is the main country in a unipolar world. In fact, I'm tempted to say that no unipolar country since the Mongols had such a positive impact.

I'm not bothering to read paragraphs and paragraphs of whatever we're talking about. But I'd like to point out that World Wars occured thanks to a multipolar world. Germany, Japan, The U.S.S.R., and the USA...I mean...we all know how it all ended up.
Millions and millions of deaths
two nuclear attacks
poverty, famine, disease
and the start of a Cold War

I'm not bothering to read paragraphs and paragraphs of whatever we're talking about. But I'd like to point out that World Wars occured thanks to a multipolar world. Germany, Japan, The U.S.S.R., and the USA...I mean...we all know how it all ended up.
Millions and millions of deaths
two nuclear attacks
poverty, famine, disease
and the start of a Cold War
True. It's why I'm a little leery of them, though if one were to rise today, I think that economic conditions would warrant it a second chance. Basically, I hold hope that a multipolar world that we're heading to may be peaceful. Then again, history has its fair share of surprises. Hitler would've been another rambling lunatic, for example, had it not been for the Weimar Republic (which was seen as successful in most parts of the world).

I mention it because right now, the USA is the main country in a unipolar world. In fact, I'm tempted to say that no unipolar country since the Mongols had such a positive impact.


Ohhh. I see. Well, as with any country I think that the US has it's problems, but I also agree that the US also will be instrumental, with their influence, in bringing the world together. Although I still think it's very far off, even with the US.

I'd also like to mention that, like I said the US has it's problems like any other countries, but these problems are compounded when you consider the influence and status the US has combined with its position in the world.

Well I've got some important things to do so unfortunately I have to bow out of this discussion.

Bye, all!

I would say that for all intensive purposes, The Cold war was a Bipolar world; I would further argue that wildcards like France and China, if they left their respective bases (which they did), would be like individuals defecting and joining the other side or going independent, not a redefinition of the world structure. I think a bipolar wolrd is the one people react best to, because people are most nationalist (and therefore productive, policitally potent, and caring for their fellow citizens) in a "Us vs Them" Senario-- why do you think the Bush admin. is trying to portray the terrorists as "the biggest threat we've ever faced"?

Now I'm not saying that this makes up for the consequenses of a conventional or nuclear war, or that people being so reluctant to reveiw other political systems (ie, those of the enemy) is a good thing.

PS, I think this kind of Ivory Tower, Theoretical Debate is the best kind for NS, and should be encouraged over the flamebaiting "Bush", "Americans", and "Gays" Debates.

Ohhh. I see. Well, as with any country I think that the US has it's problems, but I also agree that the US also will be instrumental, with their influence, in bringing the world together. Although I still think it's very far off, even with the US.

I'd also like to mention that, like I said the US has it's problems like any other countries, but these problems are compounded when you consider the influence and status the US has combined with its position in the world.
Very true. And the US is also quite capable of good. If anyone remembers here, for a long time, US military surplus medical equipment went to the Russian Federation last decade, when it was on the verge of economic collapse. I also believe that, in the long run, the war in Iraq will be beneficial to the world, but I've spent whole threads explaining why I believe this.

I would say that for all intensive purposes, The Cold war was a Bipolar world; I would further argue that wildcards like France and China, if they left their respective bases (which they did), would be like individuals defecting and joining the other side or going independent, not a redefinition of the world structure. I think a bipolar wolrd is the one people react best to, because people are most nationalist (and therefore productive, policitally potent, and caring for their fellow citizens) in a "Us vs Them" Senario-- why do you think the Bush admin. is trying to portray the terrorists as "the biggest threat we've ever faced"?

Now I'm not saying that this makes up for the consequenses of a conventional or nuclear war, or that people being so reluctant to reveiw other political systems (ie, those of the enemy) is a good thing.
The world then was pretty multipolar. France flirted with both sides at one time or another, but it could assert itself. It had a military powerhouse at the time, and was only the third nation capable of launching a nuke from either air, land, or sea. China also had its own interests. They tried to break North Korea away from the USSR, and opposed their main ally in Southern Asia, India. Lybia was trying very hard to join the ranks of a world power, but obviously, they failed bigtime.
And btw, if you mean by Ivory Tower debate, you mean socialist, feminist debate, then don't expect it from me. If, however, you mean an intellectual debate, than I hope I can deliver.

A nice long war to thin out the heard is always welcome. Too bad we have the tendency to avoid a long war and keep it short. We’ve gone from the art of war to the modern art of war. Sweet shitty sundae do I hate modern art. Except for Jack the Dripper, he rocks.

There are merits to both of them. In a multipolar world, I've found that it is far more competitive. Wars may be more likely, and generally, the world as a whole rarely prospers. However, there are many advantages. For one, people can eat. For another, wars are often in colonies far away from the main country, being fought either over a colony, or by proxy. Examples are 18th century Europe, and the Cold War era. It was technically multipolar, as I see it, because France and Red China weren't truely part of either side.
Then there's a unipolar world. As I've found, peace and prosperity are the norm within the country. Outside of it, and its sphere of influence, is a different story. Local conflicts seem rampant, occaisonally warranting the attention of the main power. Resentment outside of this power is also high. Examples I've found are the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, and the world today, with the US.
As for a bipolar world, I will include it, but I honestly can't say how one would turn out. There are few historical examples. One of them that I can think of is between the Roman Republic and Carthage, marked by constant strife. This was, however, due to the expansionist desires of Rome. How a new bilateral world will turn out, I cannot say.
This is my extremely brief hypothesis on the matter. I'm too tired to write anything longer.


Bipolar, you forgot the US and the USSR, which resulted in a lot of strife and some indirect wars.

Ohhh. I see. Well, as with any country I think that the US has it's problems, but I also agree that the US also will be instrumental, with their influence, in bringing the world together. Although I still think it's very far off, even with the US.

I'd also like to mention that, like I said the US has it's problems like any other countries, but these problems are compounded when you consider the influence and status the US has combined with its position in the world.

I'd like to see EU-like Regional Alliances Pop up until The world is ruled by one super-alliance that has all the power it needs to prevent war, environmental decay and economic collapse without interfering in the soviernty of each individual nation, except when a civil war breaks out or a dictator comes to power. The question is , how could we trust that it doesn't become a despotism bent on world domination?

The world then was pretty multipolar. France flirted with both sides at one time or another, but it could assert itself. It had a military powerhouse at the time, and was only the third nation capable of launching a nuke from either air, land, or sea. China also had its own interests. They tried to break North Korea away from the USSR, and opposed their main ally in Southern Asia, India. Lybia was trying very hard to join the ranks of a world power, but obviously, they failed bigtime.
And btw, if you mean by Ivory Tower debate, you mean socialist, feminist debate, then don't expect it from me. If, however, you mean an intellectual debate, than I hope I can deliver.

By Ivory Tower, I'm refearing to a metaphor about intellecuals who sit at the top of tall Ivory Towers and talk about things that have nothing to do with the real world. Its usually an insult, and I meant it Ironnically

PS, If I made a ton of spelling errors, Its becuase i'm writting really fast.

Bipolar, you forgot the US and the USSR, which resulted in a lot of strife and some indirect wars.
I said I count that as multipolar, as there were some serious wildcards.

By Ivory Tower, I'm refearing to a metaphor about intellecuals who sit at the top of tall Ivory Towers and talk about things that have nothing to do with the real world. Its usually an insult, and I meant it Ironnically

PS, If I made a ton of spelling errors, Its becuase i'm writting really fast.
Of course. Well, it gives intellectuals something to do. But hey, if they are that thought out, they should join a think tank.

So, any more arguments out there?

Of course. Well, it gives intellectuals something to do. But hey, if they are that thought out, they should join a think tank.

Are think Tanks usually consevative? Its seems like I hear of "Consevative Think Tanks" on the news all the time.

I still think that the US vs the USSR is still bipolar, the fight between Capitalism and Communism. The republican party is a unstable union of two waring parts, religios and non-religious conservatives. Are we to say then that the US election process is not a two party system?

Are think Tanks usually consevative? Its seems like I hear of "Consevative Think Tanks" on the news all the time.

I still think that the US vs the USSR is still bipolar, the fight between Capitalism and Communism. The republican party is a unstable union of two waring parts, religios and non-religious conservatives. Are we to say then that the US election process is not a two party system?
There are think tanks for everything imaginable. The only reason you hear about conservative think tanks is because the cabinet members were all part of them at one time or another (except maybe Norman Mineta, the only Democrat in the cabinet).
BTW, the Cold War was still multipolar. Both France and China flirted with each nation, but each maintained significant power of its own, and used it to one extent or another. In the US election system, however, there are still two parties, simply because even if the Republican party is unstable, they agree on most everything, and have only a sliver of dissent. For fairness, btw, there's a similar split with the Democrats. Some are rich, left-leaning urbanites, and others are poor, right-leaning hicks that simply rely on the Democrats for handouts. Yet they can still agree.

There are think tanks for everything imaginable. The only reason you hear about conservative think tanks is because the cabinet members were all part of them at one time or another (except maybe Norman Mineta, the only Democrat in the cabinet).
BTW, the Cold War was still multipolar. Both France and China flirted with each nation, but each maintained significant power of its own, and used it to one extent or another. In the US election system, however, there are still two parties, simply because even if the Republican party is unstable, they agree on most everything, and have only a sliver of dissent. For fairness, btw, there's a similar split with the Democrats. Some are rich, left-leaning urbanites, and others are poor, right-leaning hicks that simply rely on the Democrats for handouts. Yet they can still agree.

Yeah, but the poor, extremely religious fundamentalist (usually southerners) would be deomcratic if the republicans didn't attact them with conservative social oppinions. The other republicans are very libertarian, but value economic liberty over social liberty, and want the southerners for votes.

Yeah, but the poor, extremely religious fundamentalist (usually southerners) would be deomcratic if the republicans didn't attact them with conservative social oppinions. The other republicans are very libertarian, but value economic liberty over social liberty, and want the southerners for votes.
While I describe myself as religious, I fall under the latter catagory of Republicans. As far as I'm concerned, however, both parties are ready to collapse. But let's not turn this into a conversation on party politics, and try to stick at the topic at hand. Okie-dokie?

While I describe myself as religious, I fall under the latter catagory of Republicans. As far as I'm concerned, however, both parties are ready to collapse. But let's not turn this into a conversation on party politics, and try to stick at the topic at hand. Okie-dokie?

Of course. Do you agree with me that a bipolar world has its pluses? And a semi-bipolar like the coldwar, with two superpowers and multiple nuclear wildcards?

Of course. Do you agree with me that a bipolar world has its pluses? And a semi-bipolar like the coldwar, with two superpowers and multiple nuclear wildcards?
That's more like it, a semi-bipolar world. Yes, it has its pluses. Even if they are at peace, for example, they still compete (although hopefully, the competition in future bipolar worlds is friendly). But it has some drawbacks. Bickering will stall progress abroad, and it may foster resentment. I think, for example, that a big reason for terrorism is because of the Cold War, and the collapse of the USSR. But yes, it does have merits. Still, I favor a unipolar world.

That's more like it, a semi-bipolar world. Yes, it has its pluses. Even if they are at peace, for example, they still compete (although hopefully, the competition in future bipolar worlds is friendly). But it has some drawbacks. Bickering will stall progress abroad, and it may foster resentment. I think, for example, that a big reason for terrorism is because of the Cold War, and the collapse of the USSR. But yes, it does have merits. Still, I favor a unipolar world.

I think a unipolar world runs the risk of the key nation falling into a despotism (some would argue that's happening right now) where in bipolar worlds (and related multi-polar systems), 'good' nations just work better and therefore are set to victor.

I love debating theory like this becuase I don't have to look for raw data. I'm too lazy, and the data is kinda boring anywhy.

I think a unipolar world runs the risk of the key nation falling into a despotism (some would argue that's happening right now) where in bipolar worlds (and related multi-polar systems), 'good' nations just work better and therefore are set to victor.

I love debating theory like this becuase I don't have to look for raw data. I'm too lazy, and the data is kinda boring anywhy.
True. It's the benefits of these political theories.
That certainly is a risk, but as far as I know, that's never happened. At least, it hasn't become a dictatorship, and I don't believe the US is becoming one right now. If that happens, however, I think that it's possible to balance the key power with a big enough alliance of the key nations. It'll end a unipolar world, but then again, it looses its luster with the key nation being psychotic.

True. It's the benefits of these political theories.
That certainly is a risk, but as far as I know, that's never happened. At least, it hasn't become a dictatorship, and I don't believe the US is becoming one right now. If that happens, however, I think that it's possible to balance the key power with a big enough alliance of the key nations. It'll end a unipolar world, but then again, it looses its luster with the key nation being psychotic.

What about the Late Roman Era?

Anyway, even if the nation is democratic in its own right, it can be very imperialistic and destructive on a world stage. Britian at its hieght was like that, and so was Rome and, again, many people outside of the US would argue its happening again.

Yes, for many people, America may be doing the right thing. But it doesn't necessarily understand how some cultures work. A unipolar world is biased, and can get away with anything, regardless of what the rest of the world says. That's why the UN is worthless right now.

But for those who say that a world government could never happen, I believe that it can and it is inevitable. The only thing I can't give is a time reference. I once again quote Richard Falk (this guy is awesome), Professor of INternational Law and Practice, Princeton University, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 1997:

"So it is with reverence, both serious and slightly mischievous, that I have chosend the dubious triumph of globalization as my theme for this lecture, contending that indeed the states system as the self-sufficient organizing framework for political life on a global level is essentially over: 'it is history' (to borrow a formulation from popular culture). Let me explain. I acknowledge that the state remains a pre-eminent political actor on the global stage; but the aggregation of states, what has been called 'a states system', is no longer in control of the global policy process. Territorial sovereignty is being diminished on a spectrum oof issues in such a serious manner as to subvert the capacity of states to control and protect the internal life of society, and non-state actors hold an increasing porportion of power and influence in the shaping of world order."

How about this scenario-

There is one, fairly dominant, country/power. I see it as the USA.
There are several other major powers, but who are more regional. I read an excellent book on geopolitics, which posed that society is falling into 'civilizational' units. The some of these major civilization-groups were Western, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Muslim, Orthodox (russian), and some areas were rift zones, like some parts of asia, Africa, and europe. The Main Power is the glue. The othe powers are coponents. That way, there is a leader, but it is a responsible one. I am no expert, on this, but nowadays, the US is not accepted as the main power. Smaller nations need to accept their fate and join up.

In other words, I want a world confederacy, led by the USA/main pole.

What about the Late Roman Era?

Anyway, even if the nation is democratic in its own right, it can be very imperialistic and destructive on a world stage. Britian at its hieght was like that, and so was Rome and, again, many people outside of the US would argue its happening again.
What happened in the Late Roman Era? The German tribes decided that enough was enough, and took over. It's natural for something like that to happen if the main power gets out of control. However, just because there is a leader that many don't like that's in the US doesn't mean we're slipping into tyranny.
As for imperialism, well I have my own ideas on that. As I see it, British imperialism led to some destruction, but mostly good. It developed the economies of India, South Africa, and a fair amount of their African possesions. The bad part was, of course, system bias. Today, information moves too fast for that to happen, and if any one of the industrialized powers decide to try an imperialistic policy again, I'm sure it'll do far more good to the world than harm.

Yes, for many people, America may be doing the right thing. But it doesn't necessarily understand how some cultures work. A unipolar world is biased, and can get away with anything, regardless of what the rest of the world says. That's why the UN is worthless right now.

But for those who say that a world government could never happen, I believe that it can and it is inevitable. The only thing I can't give is a time reference. I once again quote Richard Falk (this guy is awesome), Professor of INternational Law and Practice, Princeton University, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 1997:

"So it is with reverence, both serious and slightly mischievous, that I have chosend the dubious triumph of globalization as my theme for this lecture, contending that indeed the states system as the self-sufficient organizing framework for political life on a global level is essentially over: 'it is history' (to borrow a formulation from popular culture). Let me explain. I acknowledge that the state remains a pre-eminent political actor on the global stage; but the aggregation of states, what has been called 'a states system', is no longer in control of the global policy process. Territorial sovereignty is being diminished on a spectrum oof issues in such a serious manner as to subvert the capacity of states to control and protect the internal life of society, and non-state actors hold an increasing porportion of power and influence in the shaping of world order."
What he is describing seems to be more of the foundations of anarchy, rather than a world government. If a world government were to be formed in this way, the world may descend into chaos. It'll lead to John Locke's state of nature, where a government is naturally formed by the people. A world government based on private control and fiat would bring us back to square one, in that sense.

bump

What do I have to say to make people come back on? Frenchmen are rapping American baby girls?

*In the tune of a child's taunt*
Frenchies are stupid dinosaurs
Frenchies are stupid dinosaurs

Please? I love debating this, and I want someone new to go against me.

Please? I love debating this, and I want someone new to go against me.
Okay...so I don't have to read 3 pages of posts...how did you vote and why?

Okay...so I don't have to read 3 pages of posts...how did you vote and why?
Because I believe that unipolar worlds are the best at providing leadership. It was true during the Roman Empire, which strengthened the economy, and created a common civilization for the entire Meditteranean and most of Europe. It was true for the Mongols, which connected the East and the West for the first time. When these powers went berserk, or became ineffective, they were destroyed by alliances and such. But in the meantime, these political entities have made earth shattering contributions to the world.

A unipolar world, as you have said, does have some advantages, I concede that point. To a certain extent, I agree with you. (I guess I'm just bitter that it's not the UK.) However, for the sake of a good argument, I'm going to disagree, and state my belief that a semi-bipolar, like the example established, is the best way to go about this, and here is my reasoning for it. In a semi-bipolar world, we are going half way between unipolar and multipolar, extracting many benefits from both systems. For example, in a unipolar world, we are expecting most people to conform to the poles opinion, or base ideology, which is wishful thinking. Let's look at the current situation, where, outside the west, the pole, being the USA, is running out of friends. This is a situation that is unlikely to change, simply because in the middle-east to far east, ideological circumstance is so different, switching from a primarily capitalist view point to a primarily religious viewpoint, with the obvious clashes.
However, in a semi-bipolar world, we have two powers. The likelihood is that these poles will be at the opposite to each other. We now have two ideologies, that both extremes can flock to, unifying the world, whilst still keeping it seperate. This also prevents a single pole domination of the world. However, this can have its own share of disadvantages, particularly if these two ideologies breed resentment towards one another. At this point, we see violence, especially in the areas which would (could) be called fence sitting nations. That is, those which are neither in league with one ideology or the other. Since the probable reason that these nations are on the fence is because there is a balance in the support for one ideology to the other, it may become tense, especially where mixing is prominent. To gain the edge over the other, it would be likely that one pole would attempt to swing things to their favour internally. We see this in the cold war, with both nations assisting the fence sitters, in an attempt to steal the nations allegiance away from the other. Under this circumstance, the world can be very dangerous, except in the heartlands of ideologies. In the no mans land, however, violence could be common. This would seem to be the most likely result of a semi-bipolar world. However, assume for a second that basic human rivalry does not interfere, what do we have? Most likely, we have a system where everyones needs are primarily cared for, in both extremes. Under this circumstance, rivalry would exist at a healthy scale, and violence would decrease. If the two extremes can co-exist, why should the neutrals fight?

I really hope that made sense.

A unipolar world, as you have said, does have some advantages, I concede that point. To a certain extent, I agree with you. (I guess I'm just bitter that it's not the UK.) However, for the sake of a good argument, I'm going to disagree, and state my belief that a semi-bipolar, like the example established, is the best way to go about this, and here is my reasoning for it. In a semi-bipolar world, we are going half way between unipolar and multipolar, extracting many benefits from both systems. For example, in a unipolar world, we are expecting most people to conform to the poles opinion, or base ideology, which is wishful thinking. Let's look at the current situation, where, outside the west, the pole, being the USA, is running out of friends. This is a situation that is unlikely to change, simply because in the middle-east to far east, ideological circumstance is so different, switching from a primarily capitalist view point to a primarily religious viewpoint, with the obvious clashes.
However, in a semi-bipolar world, we have two powers. The likelihood is that these poles will be at the opposite to each other. We now have two ideologies, that both extremes can flock to, unifying the world, whilst still keeping it seperate. This also prevents a single pole domination of the world. However, this can have its own share of disadvantages, particularly if these two ideologies breed resentment towards one another. At this point, we see violence, especially in the areas which would (could) be called fence sitting nations. That is, those which are neither in league with one ideology or the other. Since the probable reason that these nations are on the fence is because there is a balance in the support for one ideology to the other, it may become tense, especially where mixing is prominent. To gain the edge over the other, it would be likely that one pole would attempt to swing things to their favour internally. We see this in the cold war, with both nations assisting the fence sitters, in an attempt to steal the nations allegiance away from the other. Under this circumstance, the world can be very dangerous, except in the heartlands of ideologies. In the no mans land, however, violence could be common. This would seem to be the most likely result of a semi-bipolar world. However, assume for a second that basic human rivalry does not interfere, what do we have? Most likely, we have a system where everyones needs are primarily cared for, in both extremes. Under this circumstance, rivalry would exist at a healthy scale, and violence would decrease. If the two extremes can co-exist, why should the neutrals fight?

I really hope that made sense.
It sort of did. I see your point in this, but I don't like the extreme violence that exists in the nations that are on the fence. In unipolar nations, the violence can never be extreme, because the certain power can crush it. Now of course, this is on the grounds that they are benevolent, but as history shows, they usually are.
The US, to many, is fading from benevolence, but I think that our current actions are quite benevolent. As I've explained in many posts, twenty years from now, the world will thank us for what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think the world will be safer, too.
BTW, I see that it is possible, though not likely, for Britain to make a comeback. Arguably, it's the best and most powerful nation in Europe. If you guys all had the will, the UK would be back on top again. But in the mean time, the best chance for a revival of British power is to work closer with the EU. I have my doubts they'll suceed as a counterweight to the US, however.

I agree with you, the violence in a semi-bipolar world would be somewhat more extreme, assuming that the two poles were opposites. However, it would also be probable that the violence would be in one burst, as either ideology took predominant hold of the nation. However, in a unipolar world, where there is only one dominant ideology, it is unlikely to sway any opposition. There is no alternative except themselves. When the single pole attempts to exert authority, it resists. Whilst the violence may not be extreme, it is likely to last a long time. It is also likely that it will turn to terrorism. We see this in the present day, where opposition to the "American ideology", if we can call it that, though I suppose capitalism is acceptable, it is one facet of an overwhelming way of life, that the terrorists do not share. If there was a powerful alternative, it is likely, that instead of attacking, harrassing, and terrorising the single pole, that they would join the other, and the problem would go away. It may not, but it is, to me, the likely result.

I agree with you, the violence in a semi-bipolar world would be somewhat more extreme, assuming that the two poles were opposites. However, it would also be probable that the violence would be in one burst, as either ideology took predominant hold of the nation. However, in a unipolar world, where there is only one dominant ideology, it is unlikely to sway any opposition. There is no alternative except themselves. When the single pole attempts to exert authority, it resists. Whilst the violence may not be extreme, it is likely to last a long time. It is also likely that it will turn to terrorism. We see this in the present day, where opposition to the "American ideology", if we can call it that, though I suppose capitalism is acceptable, it is one facet of an overwhelming way of life, that the terrorists do not share. If there was a powerful alternative, it is likely, that instead of attacking, harrassing, and terrorising the single pole, that they would join the other, and the problem would go away. It may not, but it is, to me, the likely result.
I myself see no real precedent to how unipolar powers have caused terrorism. If anything, terrorism is leftover from US and USSR actions during the Cold War. Unipolar powers may be a convinient outlet for quite a bit of the hate in the world, but as I see it, it doesn't exactly breed it.
Bipolar violence, on the other hand, doesn't seem to quit. Neither the Soviet Union nor the US wanted to give any of Central America to eachother, and it was a heated battleground. Intellectuals decry US actions there, but from a geopolitical perspective, did we have a choice? Did the Soviets have a choice but to back the Viet Cong? Or even earlier back in time, did the Carthagians have a choice in not supporting Macedonians revolt against Rome? Bipolar worlds have the unique quality of not just inciting violence, but actually spreading it.

That's certainly true, and I hadn't considered it. (You also had to bear in mind that I'm semi playing devils advocate here. I too prefer a unipolar world, but it wouldn't be a good debate if we both agreed. But, I really can't see to continue my argument, at least from this angle. I might try to try again from another, you seem to have me, for now.)

That's certainly true, and I hadn't considered it. (You also had to bear in mind that I'm semi playing devils advocate here. I too prefer a unipolar world, but it wouldn't be a good debate if we both agreed. But, I really can't see to continue my argument, at least from this angle. I might try to try again from another, you seem to have me, for now.)
Really? I like devil's advocate, too. I can argue for even an apolar world if I wish, but I feel like expressing my opinion tonight. Thank you Good Lord for debate club.

In a unipolar world, most everyone outside the pole is vengeful against it, and the farther one strays from the pole the more upset one becomes. Therefore violence against the pole is amplified and the country's mistakes are never forgiven. I think we should provide choice insofar as possible by making a multipolar world, since in a unipolar world people feel they are being controled without their consent.

In a multipolar world, the only thing that can cause violence is a dictatorship (In which something I call "the right of transit" is not upheld) and fanatical devotion to a political cuase, an problem that I think can and should be destroyed.

In a unipolar world, most everyone outside the pole is vengeful against it, and the farther one strays from the pole the more upset one becomes. Therefore violence against the pole is amplified and the country's mistakes are never forgiven. I think we should provide choice insofar as possible by making a multipolar world, since in a unipolar world people feel they are being controled without their consent.

In a multipolar world, the only thing that can cause violence is a dictatorship (In which something I call "the right of transit" is not upheld) and fanatical devotion to a political cuase, an problem that I think can and should be destroyed.
Once the Mongols settled down, however, there wasn't widespread resentment outside of their empire. In fact, the Pope was interested in a dialouge with Kublai Khan, who wasn't even nearby.

Bump