NationStates Jolt Archive

I am actually in favour of it, come to think of all the social benefits. Sure, some point to the antichrist and one world gov't or some sort of conspiracy, but lets really look at the idea.

In a world wide gov't:

-There would be no national borders, removing the need to invade other nations for resources, and such. Also, without the borders, goods and people will be able to move freely.
- Jobs a plenty. Since there would be no individual nations anymore, there would be none of this outsourcing of jobs for lower wages. This means everyone could get a job at the same worldwide min. wage, and wealth would be able to be more equally distributed.
-One world currency would take away all the conversions of dollars to euros or yen to shekkles. This would further help out the world economy.
-A world wide gov't would also have a large military to fight any rebel groups and outside forces.

The drawbacks:
-Funding for all of this initially would fall on the shoulders of the west, whom presumably would desire to control it, instead of letting all the world control this gov't.
-Ongoing conflicts (israel vs the arabs, checnya vs russia, etc) might be seen as civil strife and take away from the credibility of the gov't in handling such things.

ANd I am sure there are others. So would anyone here support a worldwide gov't? Why or why not?

I am actually in favour of it, come to think of all the social benefits. Sure, some point to the antichrist and one world gov't or some sort of conspiracy, but lets really look at the idea.

In a world wide gov't:

-There would be no national borders, removing the need to invade other nations for resources, and such. Also, without the borders, goods and people will be able to move freely.
- Jobs a plenty. Since there would be no individual nations anymore, there would be none of this outsourcing of jobs for lower wages. This means everyone could get a job at the same worldwide min. wage, and wealth would be able to be more equally distributed.
-One world currency would take away all the conversions of dollars to euros or yen to shekkles. This would further help out the world economy.
-A world wide gov't would also have a large military to fight any rebel groups and outside forces.

The drawbacks:
-Funding for all of this initially would fall on the shoulders of the west, whom presumably would desire to control it, instead of letting all the world control this gov't.
-Ongoing conflicts (israel vs the arabs, checnya vs russia, etc) might be seen as civil strife and take away from the credibility of the gov't in handling such things.

ANd I am sure there are others. So would anyone here support a worldwide gov't? Why or why not?

It would probably be really unwieldy. Language gaps, cultural differences, economic disparities...they're hard to get around.

-snip-
What type of electoral system would it have?

What type of electoral system would it have?


Hey, im still trying to figure it all out. I'm sure we'd make it like the EU or US or something, where there are certain regions, and each region selects delegates to go to the parliament/congress, and the people of the world would vote for the Grand Chancellor/President/Prime Minister/ Emperor Palaptine as they see fit. Of course this would take a lot of time, money and education to help the people in poorer, traditionally non democratic areas, to make wise decisions when voting for a leader.

Welcome to the federation \\//_

Live long and prosper.

No thanks...

A World Government might indeed be a desirable thing...but it only takes one power-hungry psycho in that setup to make the whole house of cards come crashing down.

I'll stick with MAD...it's safer.

It would probably be really unwieldy. Language gaps, cultural differences, economic disparities...they're hard to get around.


Well Im sure problem one, lang. gaps can be taken care with advancement in tech., ie some sort of personal translator. Cultural differences are going to occur, they occur in evey democratic nation, but those nations deal with them, so it can work. as for economic disparities, we'd have a common currency to help that, as well as a world wide min. wage, so people in say...Bangledesh and some one in finland would make the same min wage, thus people are being a bit more equal. I do realize that inequality will always be around, Im sure with an efficient world wide gov't, it would close the gap a little more.

No thanks...

A World Government might indeed be a desirable thing...but it only takes one power-hungry psycho in that setup to make the whole house of cards come crashing down.

I'll stick with MAD...it's safer.


Well to ensure the safety and intergrity of the gov't, and to ensure that it would never opress people, or that the leader wouldn't over step his/her boundaries, we would have a more detailed checks and balances system, and also possibly a committee or or something that would monitor these things, and have the authority to take out a person that does overstep their powers.

Well to ensure the safety and intergrity of the gov't, and to ensure that it would never opress people, or that the leader wouldn't over step his/her boundaries, we would have a more detailed checks and balances system, and also possibly a committee or or something that would monitor these things, and have the authority to take out a person that does overstep their powers.

What, like what the U.S. has now?

We all see how well that's been working out over the last couple of decades...

An individual with intelligence and ambition will have no problems turning a world government into a tool for his own aspirations.

I prefer the checks and balances on a leaders ambitions to include nuclear warheads and cruise missiles...you won't have that in a world government.

What, like what the U.S. has now?

We all see how well that's been working out over the last couple of decades...

An individual with intelligence and ambition will have no problems turning a world government into a tool for his own aspirations.

I prefer the checks and balances on a leaders ambitions to include nuclear warheads and cruise missiles...you won't have that in a world government.


You see, with a world wide gov't there would be no need for nukes, or cruise missles. Sure, there'd be a military, but only to stomp out rebel factions. And what I meant by what the US has, was the fact of a region/province/state system where each would elect delegates to represent them in the worl parliament. Honestly, I think if we weren't so damned lazy and bug headed, we could find a way to make this work in our life time.

You see, with a world wide gov't there would be no need for nukes, or cruise missles. Sure, there'd be a military, but only to stomp out rebel factions. And what I meant by what the US has, was the fact of a region/province/state system where each would elect delegates to represent them in the worl parliament. Honestly, I think if we weren't so damned lazy and bug headed, we could find a way to make this work in our life time.

It seems our difference in opinion lies in our viewpoints towards humanity.

You believe that if such a system of government were to be implemented, that the rules and laws would constrain the members of that government from taking advantage of their unprecedented power.

I believe that if such a system of government were to be implemented, that it would only be a matter of time before an individual or small group of individuals would subvert the entire system to further their own ambitions and desires, regardless of what they might be.

In short, I believe that World Government provides the only true opportunity for the fabled "absolute power" that corrupts absolutely...and I don't believe for one second that the politicians won't use that system in an attempt to gain that power.

It seems our difference in opinion lies in our viewpoints towards humanity.

You believe that if such a system of government were to be implemented, that the rules and laws would constrain the members of that government from taking advantage of their unprecedented power.

I believe that if such a system of government were to be implemented, that it would only be a matter of time before an individual or small group of individuals would subvert the entire system to further their own ambitions and desires, regardless of what they might be.

In short, I believe that World Government provides the only true opportunity for the fabled "absolute power" that corrupts absolutely...and I don't believe for one second that the politicians won't use that system in an attempt to gain that power.


Well then make me the leader of it, and i promise i won't have absolute power :P...Seriously, I tend to still look at people as inherently good, and that it takes something serious to screw em up, and all you have to do is just find the right person, hence the education of people in civics.

Not. A. Chance. In Hell. :mp5: *Takes down 50 Agents*

Well there is a chance, only if intelligent beings from extraterrestrial sources started presenting a threat to the survival of humankind without any prejudice (and I mean perceived ones).

I bet you if that happened, every country would accuse its worse nemesis for being a collaborator-nation.

I'm not really a fan..

I'm not really a fan..


NO!!! Without your support then how can I become the antichri.....ermm How can i tell everyone my plan of the one world gov't :p ;) :D

I just can't imagine it working.

Besides, one corrupt government isn't so bad, but if there's only one world government it becomes a big deal.

Unless I'm Dictator, then it has my support.


~ ~ ~

Personally iId rather see the world fractured into millions of little Authoritarian, National Syndicalist, Republics....but that's probably just me [literally...out of the billions of people in this world I seriously doubt anybody shares that view:p ]

I am actually in favour of it, come to think of all the social benefits. Sure, some point to the antichrist and one world gov't or some sort of conspiracy, but lets really look at the idea.

In a world wide gov't:

-There would be no national borders, removing the need to invade other nations for resources, and such. Also, without the borders, goods and people will be able to move freely.
- Jobs a plenty. Since there would be no individual nations anymore, there would be none of this outsourcing of jobs for lower wages. This means everyone could get a job at the same worldwide min. wage, and wealth would be able to be more equally distributed.
-One world currency would take away all the conversions of dollars to euros or yen to shekkles. This would further help out the world economy.
-A world wide gov't would also have a large military to fight any rebel groups and outside forces.

The drawbacks:
-Funding for all of this initially would fall on the shoulders of the west, whom presumably would desire to control it, instead of letting all the world control this gov't.
-Ongoing conflicts (israel vs the arabs, checnya vs russia, etc) might be seen as civil strife and take away from the credibility of the gov't in handling such things.

ANd I am sure there are others. So would anyone here support a worldwide gov't? Why or why not?
No.

For the longest time I was in favor of it. Why? To be honest...Star Trek. I was being idealistic. Then I watched the DS9 episodes "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" which scared the shit out of me, as they were exactly about one Starfleet admiral taking control of Earth's government. The parallels to a real life situation were we to have a world government are obvious. A world united in peace? Yes. Just one world governent? No.

Hey, im still trying to figure it all out. I'm sure we'd make it like the EU or US or something, where there are certain regions, and each region selects delegates to go to the parliament/congress, and the people of the world would vote for the Grand Chancellor/President/Prime Minister/ Emperor Palaptine as they see fit. Of course this would take a lot of time, money and education to help the people in poorer, traditionally non democratic areas, to make wise decisions when voting for a leader.
I could agree to that if you got rid of the Grand Channcellor. I don't think the world needs to be stuck in a two party state.

Besides (s)he would be useless. It's not like (s)he has foriegn delegates to meet with.

One World Gov't wouldn't really solve the problems we face, because most of the problems we face are due to human stupidity, not the kind of political structure we have.

I am actually in favour of it, come to think of all the social benefits. Sure, some point to the antichrist and one world gov't or some sort of conspiracy, but lets really look at the idea.

In a world wide gov't:

-There would be no national borders, removing the need to invade other nations for resources, and such. Also, without the borders, goods and people will be able to move freely.
- Jobs a plenty. Since there would be no individual nations anymore, there would be none of this outsourcing of jobs for lower wages. This means everyone could get a job at the same worldwide min. wage, and wealth would be able to be more equally distributed.
-One world currency would take away all the conversions of dollars to euros or yen to shekkles. This would further help out the world economy.
-A world wide gov't would also have a large military to fight any rebel groups and outside forces.

The drawbacks:
-Funding for all of this initially would fall on the shoulders of the west, whom presumably would desire to control it, instead of letting all the world control this gov't.
-Ongoing conflicts (israel vs the arabs, checnya vs russia, etc) might be seen as civil strife and take away from the credibility of the gov't in handling such things.

ANd I am sure there are others. So would anyone here support a worldwide gov't? Why or why not?

I also think its a good idea. Not sure if it will ever happen but it is a nice idea. I think having something like the EU as a world government is better because it ensures the continuation of individual cultures while having all the benefits of no boarders (so to speak). There are drawbacks sure. But there are drawbacks in everything. What would this government be called and where would its HQ be located?

One world government would never be realistic. A global legal body with its own military force and ability to enforce resolutions (unlike the U.N.), along with the preexisting national governments, might work. People will never want to surrender their self-government to a more distant international governing body.

No.

For the longest time I was in favor of it. Why? To be honest...Star Trek. I was being idealistic. Then I watched the DS9 episodes "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" which scared the shit out of me, as they were exactly about one Starfleet admiral taking control of Earth's government. The parallels to a real life situation were we to have a world government are obvious. A world united in peace? Yes. Just one world governent? No.


How viable is this without some huge level international cooperation best achieved through an organisation. It doesn't have to be a full government just a transnational one like the EU.

the title of the thred made my cringe......does that tell you anything?

big government = uber dangerous

small government = still dangerous, but on a very small scale.

Eventually, given the continuance of the growth of globalization and free trade, there will be very little need to have individuald states, and over time they will slowly cede control to international authorities, like the IMF and World Bank.

A truly free world market comprised of independent nations all competing against each other is the best situation possible. Each nation has its own interests to look after, but the world economy is liberalized enough that every nation can compete freely.

I also think its a good idea. Not sure if it will ever happen but it is a nice idea. I think having something like the EU as a world government is better because it ensures the continuation of individual cultures while having all the benefits of no boarders (so to speak). There are drawbacks sure. But there are drawbacks in everything. What would this government be called and where would its HQ be located?


For the location I would assume it would be of some plac eof great historical or politcal significance, Rome, Jerusalem, NYC, or perhaps some place like Hong Kong or Singapore. Im sure that this gov't would need several branches in various cities, so maybe all of them, and then build a new capital some where.

For the location I would assume it would be of some plac eof great historical or politcal significance, Rome, Jerusalem, NYC, or perhaps some place like Hong Kong or Singapore. Im sure that this gov't would need several branches in various cities, so maybe all of them, and then build a new capital some where.
I'd prefer a multicultural and trade center over historical signifigance. History can carry a lot of baggage.

Sounds like communism to me...

ЇЄЇ, no?

Well, if you have the whole world under one government, how can that government distract the people from their misery by indulging in foreign wars? It can't!

But I guess there could always be "rebellions" to deal with.

I'd say a historical city would be best, for example Xi'an:

Xi'an was the original trade capitol of the world (ancient Chang'an), one of the most multicultural cities in the world and the terminus of the first world trade route, the Silk Road. It's one of the progenitors of world trade and communications, so it would be an important selection.

I'd say a historical city would be best, for example Xi'an:

Xi'an was the original trade capitol of the world (ancient Chang'an), one of the most multicultural cities in the world and the terminus of the first world trade route, the Silk Road. It's one of the progenitors of world trade and communications, so it would be an important selection.
It's also landlocked, a major downside.

I like New York City, London, Singapore, Tokyo and Hong Kong as potential candidates.

Or we could be like Brazil and build an awesome, brand new city on the Northern coast of Australia, that would be kewl.

I am actually in favour of it, come to think of all the social benefits. Sure, some point to the antichrist and one world gov't or some sort of conspiracy, but lets really look at the idea.

In a world wide gov't:

-There would be no national borders, removing the need to invade other nations for resources, and such. Also, without the borders, goods and people will be able to move freely.
- Jobs a plenty. Since there would be no individual nations anymore, there would be none of this outsourcing of jobs for lower wages. This means everyone could get a job at the same worldwide min. wage, and wealth would be able to be more equally distributed.
-One world currency would take away all the conversions of dollars to euros or yen to shekkles. This would further help out the world economy.
-A world wide gov't would also have a large military to fight any rebel groups and outside forces.

The drawbacks:
-Funding for all of this initially would fall on the shoulders of the west, whom presumably would desire to control it, instead of letting all the world control this gov't.
-Ongoing conflicts (israel vs the arabs, checnya vs russia, etc) might be seen as civil strife and take away from the credibility of the gov't in handling such things.

ANd I am sure there are others. So would anyone here support a worldwide gov't? Why or why not?


Yes! Internationalists unite! As an International Socialist, I am all for a United World government. I believe that at some point in the future, all sovereign power of independent nations should be signed over to a World government. You ought to create a poll for the topic.

Sounds like a great plan. I'll nominate Ruffy to be the president of the world. Then I'd vote to make him the emperor (I want his emo children to rule humankind as well once Ruffy has died). :(

Absolute power for Ruffy and his descendants!

I think most governments are already too big and unweildy to look out for individuals they currently represent. A world government would be a hellhole as far as ignoring the little guy goes and would be an unweildy juggernaut that would neither answer to individual needs nor change course easily or quickly even if it desperately needed and wanted to.

I think most governments are already too big and unweildy to look out for individuals they currently represent. A world government would be a hellhole as far as ignoring the little guy goes and would be an unweildy juggernaut that would neither answer to individual needs nor change course easily or quickly even if it desperately needed and wanted to.

All that entirely depends on how the government is structured. For instance, the government might rely on a structure where there is a single "governor", shall we say in each country, who is elected in much the same way democracies elect their leaders today. These governors would then be answerable to the Global parliament and/or World President, but would generally govern the country with their own parliament to implement local law on certain issues. It all depends on the level of government and bureacracy.

As for where the World government should be based, I would think Geneva, Switzerland would be a better place than any other. The perfect location that embodies peaceful tidings throughout history. Switzerland also has the most democratic system of government in world history.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/sst_bot2b.gif
Want to know more? http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Mouse.jpg

Or we could be like Brazil and build an awesome, brand new city on the Northern coast of Australia
That explains the annual Darwin carnival and samba marathon!

All that entirely depends on how the government is structured. For instance, the government might rely on a structure where there is a single "governor", shall we say in each country, who is elected in much the same way democracies elect their leaders today. These governors would then be answerable to the Global parliament and/or World President, but would generally govern the country with their own parliament to implement local law on certain issues. It all depends on the level of government and bureacracy.



So it would be as bad as now except that it has at least one more level of insulation between the leader and the led.
And another level of asses to kiss for those so inclined.

I used to be pro-one world gov., but no longer think it's entirely necessary. We could certainly use some standardization in currency, labour standards, etc., but generally I despair of the idea of an 'international' force that will enforce a global government's decisions on an area that doesn't agree with them.

I find government works best when brought down to a local level, with big projects handled by a co-ordinated effort from willing parties. Some degree of confederation might be okay, if the powers of that confederation are very limited.

I used to be pro-one world gov., but no longer think it's entirely necessary. We could certainly use some standardization in currency, labour standards, etc., but generally I despair of the idea of an 'international' force that will enforce a global government's decisions on an area that doesn't agree with them.

I find government works best when brought down to a local level, with big projects handled by a co-ordinated effort from willing parties. Some degree of confederation might be okay, if the powers of that confederation are very limited.


True. Perhaps a World confederacy may be in order.

So it would be as bad as now except that it has at least one more level of insulation between the leader and the led.
And another level of asses to kiss for those so inclined.

Essentially, yes. But at least it wouldn't be any worse.

A true world government would be very difficult to implement. But I am in favor of breaking down international barriers to trade and communication. I think all nations should adopt SI, all the world's currencies should be based on a defined measure of gold (probably 30 g, it's closest to one troy ounce), all tariffs should be lifted, all nations should teach and adopt a common tongue (esperanto would be best). I also think we should adopt decimal time (10 hours in a day, 100 minutes an hour, 100 seconds per minute), and the French Republican Calendar (3 ten-day weeks per month, 12 months (which I think should be named after great scientists of the past like SI measurements are) per year plus one half-week and a leapday every four years.

As for international government, I think the UN is the best we can hope for. An assembly of all the world's recognized nations, plus a council of six of the most stable and powerful nations in the world to monitor the whole process. It's the best thing to a world government we could hope for. A bottom-heavy, multi-layered, grouping of governments in a standardized world means the best government in my mind.

One World Gov't wouldn't really solve the problems we face, because most of the problems we face are due to human stupidity, not the kind of political structure we have.What would be needed would be for a bunch of mad scientists, the kind that would completely disregards all existing norms and obsessively work towards their goals, to take over the world. Through genetic engineering, human nature could be improved. A strong enough world government could attain what would be needed to take absolute control over human reproduction; from there, every new generation could be given a set of genetic improvements, and over a few hundred years, humanity could evolve atleast partially out of its current, miserable state.

During the process though, a temporary solution would have to be used to reduce the influence of human stupidity, by enforcing rationality. Those who are incapable of making rational decisions would be forced to undergo therapy to correct their faults, if possible, or made incapable (depending on their usefulness, they could either be made into mindless slaves or executed. the latter is also a fine solution for the overpopulation problem) of decision-making.

Alternatively, as the chance of humanity being able to rid itself of its stupidity any other way is very slim, the most efficient solution would be the eradication of humanity.

One world goverment? HAHAHA :rolleyes:

have you read the age of consent by george monbiot, in the book he describes how a world parliament could work ect ect, along the lines of what you sugest here....you should read it, it is very good!

I am actually in favour of it, come to think of all the social benefits. Sure, some point to the antichrist and one world gov't or some sort of conspiracy, but lets really look at the idea.

In a world wide gov't:

-There would be no national borders, removing the need to invade other nations for resources, and such. Also, without the borders, goods and people will be able to move freely.
- Jobs a plenty. Since there would be no individual nations anymore, there would be none of this outsourcing of jobs for lower wages. This means everyone could get a job at the same worldwide min. wage, and wealth would be able to be more equally distributed.
-One world currency would take away all the conversions of dollars to euros or yen to shekkles. This would further help out the world economy.
-A world wide gov't would also have a large military to fight any rebel groups and outside forces.

The drawbacks:
-Funding for all of this initially would fall on the shoulders of the west, whom presumably would desire to control it, instead of letting all the world control this gov't.
-Ongoing conflicts (israel vs the arabs, checnya vs russia, etc) might be seen as civil strife and take away from the credibility of the gov't in handling such things.

ANd I am sure there are others. So would anyone here support a worldwide gov't? Why or why not?


....and noplace to go for asylum when said Government gets out of control, no balance of power. It would be the end of Freedom ultimately, which is exactly the goal of the UN (dont' believe it? check out the 'Charter of Human Rights' from the UN and read the whole thing...towards the end there is a clause invalidating ALL previous rights when they infringe on or endager the government).

EDIT: Oh and also the economic stagnation that would invariably come about from a closed system

What would be needed would be for a bunch of mad scientists, the kind that would completely disregards all existing norms and obsessively work towards their goals, to take over the world. Through genetic engineering, human nature could be improved. A strong enough world government could attain what would be needed to take absolute control over human reproduction; from there, every new generation could be given a set of genetic improvements, and over a few hundred years, humanity could evolve atleast partially out of its current, miserable state.

During the process though, a temporary solution would have to be used to reduce the influence of human stupidity, by enforcing rationality. Those who are incapable of making rational decisions would be forced to undergo therapy to correct their faults, if possible, or made incapable (depending on their usefulness, they could either be made into mindless slaves or executed. the latter is also a fine solution for the overpopulation problem) of decision-making.

Alternatively, as the chance of humanity being able to rid itself of its stupidity any other way is very slim, the most efficient solution would be the eradication of humanity.

Yep. That's pretty much my assessment of the situation too. Though I do hold out some hope of evolution taking care of the problem on it's own.

You would need an enormously powerful dictator, with no family history of disease and a set heir, biological or chosen. After a few hundred years, a republic could be formed.

I would honestly favor a one world government that would be able to maintain peace in the world, even if it was a bit oppressive.

We need the competition. If there wern't NaZis and imperialistic Japs, we wouldn't have thought of nuclear fission. Oh and I wouldn't have my BAADASS flecktarn trousers.