NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, so lets begin by assuming that any one world government we discuss is NOT uber-fascist or uber-communist. As communication and travel barriers quickly become a thing of the past, it seems to me that borders will most likely disappear. Think about it. I can get on here daily and communicate with people currently living in great britain, austrailia, germany, france, japan, in fact just about anyone I share a language with. Within the century, travelling to europe and back will likely be a quick, cheap, and almost routine matter. Furthermore, a person will be able to easily converse with their neighbor, whether their neighbor be three hundred feet or thirty thousand miles away. Slowly "Us" begins to become much larger than "Them" until only "Us" remains. A one-world government would likely be adopted out of efficiency, more than anything else.

Many would argue that a nation's culture would be lost if it were absorbed into this planetary governmental body. I personally don't think that would be necessary. I doubt the Eifel tower will be replaced with a starbucks anytime soon.

I think a one world government would work something like how the united states works now (Disregarding entirely the politics, and concentrating on the system) The nations of the world would get together and come to an agreement on certain rights of the citizens of the world. Things like the right to freedom of speech, of the press, of sexuality, of property, of religion. And other things like the right to due process of the law. Once these fundamental things were layed out, each nation would choose representatives to vote in the "world congress", while still maintaining a great deal of say over local affairs. Given enough "States rights" to steal the term, the people in France would not have to worry too much about the people in Australia telling them how to cook their eggs.

and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be president.

</jk>

So can anyone come up with a good reason why this is a bad Idea? I'm not advocating for it now, you should understand, but I see it as inevitable in the next century or two.

My opinion? Man is inherently selfish. Never will the whole world agree on something unless by force, which shouldn't ever be used in politics.

So...a one world government will only happen once about 90 million people disappear.

I don't see it as a bad idea, I just don't see it happening.

Like Lochiel alluded, humans have a side to them that sort of prevents this from being the best world.


I think there are two things which cause all the evil in this world; greed and ignorance. You can throw insanity in there as well, if you like.


I think the greed and ignorance will prevent this world unification from happening as soon as this. It may happen, I just think it will take a much longer time.

Human cant agree on one thing

people have different views and if we just have 1 government,people will rebell

Governments of any type are based on certain basic ideas about the world and human beings. Whatever ideas are the most common are those that will be reflected in the government in that area. For example, we in the West criticize China for its human rights abuses. They in turn criticize us for our human responsiblity, or lack there of. Which ever one you agree with, the ideas are pretty much irreconcilible.

The point is that we won't be able to have a one-world government until everyone has roughly the same ideas about rights, the role of government, etc. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Well, in a one world goverment most of us here would be a lot poorer, seeing as it is only people in rich countries that have wide acess to PCs. Any such goverment would have a responsibility to ensure the well being of all it's citizens, which would require a major readjustment of the way wealth in the world is spread out. So you would have to be willing to accept that, which you should if you are a nice guy. The reason we are so rich is because are countries expoit the positions of poorer nations, and that would have to end.
I personally don't see the point in such a state, because in order to run such a huge state you would need to create a series of smaller district goverments, so it would be like it is now except with all the countries much more closely regulated. I'd be against it, because if someone with bad intent ever got into power it would be game over for world freedom. Right now if a country goes bad, like Nazi Germany did, we can stop them. Even the mighty super power of America could be easily pounded into oblivion if the EU and Russia had a mind to, so we have a deffence if any one country becomes currupt.

A one-world, benign, democratic government could never exist...for the above mentioned reasons.

That leaves a totalitarian government in the form of dictatorship/theocracy/oligarchy/etc. I don't think ANYone would go for that... except for dictators/theocrats/oligarchs.

I won't rule it out, but certainly not within our lifetimes. In fact, not within the next several lifetimes.

A one-world, benign, democratic government could never exist...for the above mentioned reasons.

That leaves a totalitarian government in the form of dictatorship/theocracy/oligarchy/etc. I don't think ANYone would go for that... except for dictators/theocrats/oligarchs.

Lets imagine the world outside of the USA is suddently erased. That would leave the US federal goverment to be the only goverment around, therefore the "world goverment".

How would it turn tyranical?

Lets imagine the world outside of the USA is suddently erased. That would leave the US federal goverment to be the only goverment around, therefore the "world goverment".

How would it turn tyranical?
It won't have to go very far. We're almost there already. Just wait until the liberals figure out some way to lock down their hold on the Judiciary.

Tyrannical Juristocracy, anyone?

Lets imagine the world outside of the USA is suddently erased. That would leave the US federal goverment to be the only goverment around, therefore the "world goverment".

How would it turn tyranical?

To be fair, if the outside world suddenly were erased the US would be unable to sustain itself as is. There'd be a huge economic collapse at the least and I'd place my bets on the non-tyrannical aspects of the government going out the window rather quickly.

It won't have to go very far. We're almost there already. Just wait until the liberals figure out some way to lock down their hold on the Judiciary.

Tyrannical Juristocracy, anyone?
A liberal tyranny is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? I mean, you might disagree with everything we say, and think that we're wholly immoral, but "Oh my God, men can marry men now! Tyranny has descended upon us!" Just ain't gonna fly.

I think within a century or two, given the rapid change of the world poltical body within the last century... yeah, I could see it happening if just to provide for more rapid and cheaper transportation/communication. The more people who 'hop' reguarly between countries, the more people will demand that such hopping is done with a bare minimum of fuss and time. So eventually yes, it would.

Of course I'm also sure the entire way there the radical right will be screaming about it.

A benign. one world government could exist but it will only happen when and if another non-human enemy becomes apparent. We need enemies and competition to improve and unite. If the evil Blarg aliens show up and threaten to enslave and eat us watch how fast our differences dissappear and we unite. Death to the Blarg!! Humans unite and overthrow our Blarg oppressors!!

A benign. one world government could exist but it will only happen when and if another non-human enemy becomes apparent. We need enemies and competition to improve and unite. If the evil Blarg aliens show up and threaten to enslave and eat us watch how fast our differences dissappear and we unite. Death to the Blarg!! Humans unite and overthrow our Blarg oppressors!!
Is having an enemy really that important to the human condition? Could this enemy be something other than a nation, something like rival sports teams?

I'd start quoting Kant, but I don't feel all that good right now, and I'm kind of tired, so you can just figure it out yourself.

What I would elaborate on: I don't believe that a one world government is a good idea. I have various philosophical issues with the concept. Fun.

A benign. one world government could exist but it will only happen when and if another non-human enemy becomes apparent. We need enemies and competition to improve and unite. If the evil Blarg aliens show up and threaten to enslave and eat us watch how fast our differences dissappear and we unite. Death to the Blarg!! Humans unite and overthrow our Blarg oppressors!!

That makes the most sense to me. The only way that humans will forget about all our differences and unite is if we are presented with a new enemy who is threatening us and is more different from us than other humans.

Some sf writer (Iain Banks, maybe, or Bruce Sterling or... no, I think it was Neal Stephenson) spoke in an interview sometime last year about one of the most fascinating one-world government models ever.

It looks like a two-world government model, externally, with a kind of Cold-War on. Except that the Cold War isn't a war of bombs and guns and fighting, but a competitive war of research and advancement. You're on one side or the other, and you can change sides at will though, of course, your cred gets a little iffy if you do it too often. Being on the side that is winning at any given time offers you benefits (I supposed distributed by some kind of computer-managed economic mapping of cred and affiliation, as well of course as access to the advances of your own side), which gives you incentive to work hard for your side.

This was suggested as retaining all the scientific/cultural benefits of the Cold War -- competition driving members of each society to develop all kinds of things and work hard for their group -- while not involving full-scale wars.

The interesting thing was that these two "states" were not to be centralized, or isolated from one another. Apples and Oranges, for example (let's name the competing groups this way) would be able to live among one another, go for a beer even, and of course seduce and steal secrets from one another as well. There could be a whole spy-mystique, a very fun part of it all. But the point was it would be an artificially constructed Cold-War-styled competition system for a single society.

It seems to me that this could undo some of the more odious parts of a single-state world government. I imagine one side would become more conservative over time, the other more liberal (socially speaking). One would be free to act as one liked between the two groups -- double agents getting away with it is part of the system, but so is their being caught and put into detention, etc. Murderers and other criminals whose crimes have nothing to do with the system, or violate its rules, would be "removed from play" (incarcerated, exiled, whatever), and that would be that.

It was an interesting idea, though far more interesting to me would be the point when it either collapsed, or morphed into a real Cold War.

Only problem with that would be that by the time any such thing would be adopted, there would be so many people that any one person's contribution would seem insignificant.

Actually, it seems to me that America could use the massive division it has now to institute a version of this. Why not officialize red and blue states, and then let people choose to live in one or the other, and have the red states compete with the blue ones?

Oh yeah, I know why. Because with the exception of a few wealthy red states, the Republican regions would be dreadfully backwards, with no science or tech, no real development, and meanwhile they'd devolve into theocratic fiefdoms that would, eventually, set their sights on theocratic takeover of the whole "nation", and resort to terrorist tactics to achieve it. And the Blue states, being all techy and insulated and relatively luxurious and free its drugs and entertainment, would be shocked beyond belief and also resort to replying in kind with (possibly? probably? highly technologized) violence.

Hmmm. Sad thought.

For any who care (though noone seems to as I've posted about them twice so far without response), my idea on a one-government model can be found here

http://www.mysanthropicasylum.net/?l=room&rid=17

and here

http://www.mysanthropicasylum.net/?l=room&rid=103

Here is one paragraph that you might find interesting on this topic. Also, it apparent that the poor and misplaced of the world no longer recognise the borders of individual countries. Their hunger, need for safety and their need for relief from repressise governments forces them across any national border that stands in their way. The fact that we live on one world is clear to those who must leave their homelands. What is in question is the kind of government we will built. Certianly, one change that will have to happen is the sovergein right to make war to settle diffrences.

"How pathetic indeed are the efforts of those leaders of human institutions who, in utter disregard of the spirit of the age, are striving to adjust national processes, suited to the ancient days of self-contained nations, to an age which must either achieve the unity of the world, as adumbrated by Bahá'u'lláh, or perish. At so critical an hour in the history of civilization it behooves the leaders of all the nations of the world, great and small, whether in the East or in the West, whether victors or vanquished, to give heed to the clarion call of Bahá'u'lláh and, thoroughly imbued with a sense of world solidarity, the sine qua non of loyalty to His Cause, arise manfully to carry out in its entirety the one remedial scheme He, the Divine Physician, has prescribed for an ailing humanity. Let them discard, once for all, every preconceived idea, every national prejudice, and give heed to the sublime counsel of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the authorized Expounder of His teachings. You can best serve your country, was 'Abdu'l-Bahá's rejoinder to a high official in the service of the federal government of the United States of America, who had questioned Him as to the best manner in which he could promote the interests of his government and people, if you strive, in your capacity as a citizen of the world, to assist in the eventual application of the principle of federalism underlying the government of your own country to the relationships now existing between the peoples and nations of the world."

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 36)

One day, I will make it happen. Under the Iron Rule of my fist, the Slaves of Earth will produce Luxury Goods for Me, the All-Mighty SkyNet.