NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not talking the US. I'm talking about states known colloquially as nations or countries (though many of them aren't). The size of government. Big vs Small. It's a fairly simple thing, which would you prefer?

One World Government?

or

Thousands of city-states, local communities, etc?

Please don't give me the cop-out answer, and it won't be on the poll, of "somewhere in between. Just like now!" You have to make a stand, which direction you prefer. And explain why!

One World Government, naturally. The world is connected in so many ways, we need a single governing entity to handle the complex problems. It won't happen in my lifetime, but I hope it will someday.

no states at all

The are no Big States or Little States, only the united states...erm...i know...stupid and off topic :p



Anyways One worl gov't , so I can finally rule the world :)

If we could have a one world government that worked on a democratic system, with each region allowed their own representation, customs, and basic ways of life, and with adequate checks and balances and protection of civil and human rights, then I'd be all for it.

The problem with having a one world government is that eventually it would very likely turn into a huge bloated bureaucracy that would attempt to micromanage all of the world's affairs.

Thousands of Tiny states. I have a great fondness for tiny countries like Liechenstein, Andorra, San Marino, etc. The language barriers in a world government would be difficult as that EU parliament demonstrates.

Basically, at this point, the One World Government would work best as a confederation of states dominated by superstates that practice democracy. Federations of peoples would create the superstates, and the world would have, as its main power players, states such as the European Union, Japan, India, the United States, and the Cook Islands. Of course, some reforms would need to take place; China would have to institute democratic reforms in order to take part, and Russia would have to be less corrupt. The United States would have to take a class in diplomacy. If any Muslim states turned into a semi-functioning democracy, they would be included; Turkey stands the best chance, and if Iran ever shakes off the Ayatollah, they might turn into a reasonably functional democracy.

It's a long way away, but it's a far cry better for the worls to be run by democratic superstates that multinational corporations. Sure, corporations are all right, but I wouldn't put them in as a substitute for governments. Even worse, I wouldn't want to see governments begin to run as corporations. Could you imagine? "And in other news, the international market took a small hit as the United States (USA) closed at $49.01 a share, down from a year-long high of $51.04. The shareholders began to put pressure on the Board of Directors' home office in Washington, D.C. and called for the Board to consider action against America CEO George W. Bush for the company's continued quarterly losses." Governments being traded on the stock market...either I'm losing it or Max Barry has an idea for the next Jennifer Government...

Basically, at this point, the One World Government would work best as a confederation of states dominated by superstates that practice democracy. Federations of peoples would create the superstates, and the world would have, as its main power players, states such as the European Union, Japan, India, the United States, and the Cook Islands. Of course, some reforms would need to take place; China would have to institute democratic reforms in order to take part, and Russia would have to be less corrupt. The United States would have to take a class in diplomacy. If any Muslim states turned into a semi-functioning democracy, they would be included; Turkey stands the best chance, and if Iran ever shakes off the Ayatollah, they might turn into a reasonably functional democracy.

It's a long way away, but it's a far cry better for the worls to be run by democratic superstates that multinational corporations. Sure, corporations are all right, but I wouldn't put them in as a substitute for governments. Even worse, I wouldn't want to see governments begin to run as corporations. Could you imagine? "And in other news, the international market took a small hit as the United States (USA) closed at $49.01 a share, down from a year-long high of $51.04. The shareholders began to put pressure on the Board of Directors' home office in Washington, D.C. and called for the Board to consider action against America CEO George W. Bush for the company's continued quarterly losses." Governments being traded on the stock market...either I'm losing it or Max Barry has an idea for the next Jennifer Government...

"And in a related story, the United States announced that it was looking for a buyer for its smallest subsidiaries, Rhoade Island and Delaware. 'They just haven't been pulling their weight,' US President and CEO George Bush declared."

"And in a related story, the United States announced that it was looking for a buyer for its smallest subsidiaries, Rhoade Island and Delaware. 'They just haven't been pulling their weight,' US President and CEO George Bush declared."

But hey, at least it might put an end to corporate welfare, as the USA might not want to continue to subsidize competitors.

"Continuing with financial news, the United States has continued an ongoing trend, as it outsourced a large part of its answering service to India (BHT) in an effort to save money. India's largest contract is now the U.S., followed closely by Dell computers (DELL). At the same time, the Board of Directors voted to repeal the minimum wage, as its competitors from such companies as Wal-mart (WMT) weren't really following it anyway. The move was decried by long-time allies such as the United Kingdom (UK) and Spain (ESP) but, before they could announce a formal grievance, the U.S. offered them a combined buyout of $2.5 trillion, which will mark the largest merger in the world. Officials at the World Trade Organization were quick to denounce the merger, but America CEO George W. Bush replied with a quick statement."

George W. Bush: "My fellow Americans, I believe I speak for the entire Board of Directors and for all the shareholders of the American government when I give this statement to the World Trade Organization: No one gives a fuck what you pansy-ass wimps have to say. We're bigger than you, and if we want to merge with Britain and Spain, we will do so. After we restructure all three governments into one larger government, we hope to make an offer to bring the Saudis in on this as well. So to the WTO, go fuck yourselves."

"Officials from Saudi Arabia (SUUD) were unavailable for comment at press time. Back to you, Tom."

reigonal superpowers might work

but first Iran has to go on an annexing spree, like taking Iraq and the Stans or something...

I'm beginning to move towards support of world government, which is also what Einstein believed in. I still would want most individual cultures to remain, but it would be better for humanity to unite. Then we could live in peace, plenty and discover the universe.

It will eventually happen, within a few hundred years.

Nationalism gone berserk is what you get with hundreds of seperate states.

Global federalism.

I want an organized framework for basic global standards; things like human rights, international trade, relief aid, collective security and basic cooperation. But I want to leave the more micro, more specific policies up to the smaller states.

you cant have a world government because it pre-supposes a set of shared values between all people. That style of democracy would inevitably lead to a "tyranny of the majority". The basic rights many state would need to be supported would be ultimately eroded as the poor and uneducated continue to breed.

Please don't give me the cop-out answer

Does "it depends on the state(s)" count as a cop out? Either way could be good or bad depending on who's in charge of the state or states in question.

One World Government, naturally. The world is connected in so many ways, we need a single governing entity to handle the complex problems. It won't happen in my lifetime, but I hope it will someday.

Most governments can't keep roads in good condition or balance a budget. You honestly expect a one world government to do better?

And, on the other hand, thousands of tiny states leads to thousands of tiny conflicts. (Which have the unfortunate tendancy to grow)

One World Government. Such a limited vision of the full human potential.

Instead of seeing it as a 'Government flying the banner of all different and individual groups' we should try to accomplish something greater. It's called the 'human race'.

I propose this name: Humanity.

I like the idea of one, united people. I also like the idea of self determination; I therefore have considerable difficulty in answering this question.

I suppose a Federal World Government, with independent retaining a large degree of autonomy, is the most 'ideal' situation. Self determination and freedom, but without war and conflict.

I like the idea of one, united people. I also like the idea of self determination; I therefore have considerable difficulty in answering this question.

I suppose a Federal World Government, with independent retaining a large degree of autonomy, is the most 'ideal' situation. Self determination and freedom, but without war and conflict.

I don't see that working just yet. See, self-determination and freedom always lead to conflict, because at some point, someone is bound to do something another person won't like. Like shoving him/her into a giant puddle of mud. To prevent such excesses from occuring, there will have to be set certain rules, and rules lead to a dimishing of freedom.

So you've really got kind of a paradox there.

minarchy!

So you've really got kind of a paradox there.

I know. That's why I called it an 'ideal.' ;)

We're bigger than you, and if we want to merge with Britain and Spain, we will do so."

Over my f***ing dead body will britain merge with anyone

I know. That's why I called it an 'ideal.' ;)

If you change that to 'utopia' I will agree with you :p

"And in a related story, the United States announced that it was looking for a buyer for its smallest subsidiaries, Rhoade Island and Delaware. 'They just haven't been pulling their weight,' US President and CEO George Bush declared."


That is not true is it?
:mp5:

City states. This allows for less corruption.

That is not true is it?
:mp5:

Yes it is :rolleyes:

City states. This allows for less corruption.

I do not understand. Elaborate.

i say thousands of small countries is the lesser of the two evils.

Unified world government is an idea that wouldn't work in the sense we see government now. All existing governments were dealing with external issues as well as internal. Something to work exclusively with internal issues would need to be very different.

So I'd prefer a large number of city-states, but connected, and with as small amount of power in the hands of their governments as possible, with free movement between them.

Single government is bureaucracy, no government is corporate dictatorship, but this way governments would be balanced against companies. Also it's noteworthy that more states can suit more people's tastes. They may have different laws, at least, different take on religion, and so on. A unified system will inevitably split into groups inside itself.

In theory, either could work; in reality? It would screw us over massively.

Over my f***ing dead body will britain merge with anyone

Um, given that Britain IS a merger, that's an exceedingly silly thing to say.

Over my f***ing dead body will britain merge with anyone

Buy stock in your government while you can and vote "no" on the merger. The U.S. might have to merge with Poland instead.

City states. This allows for less corruption.
It still allows for enough corruption to fuck things up, though.

I'd prefer to see city states, because I think once you get past a certain population level, it's not possible to govern it effectively.

Buy stock in your government while you can and vote "no" on the merger. The U.S. might have to merge with Poland instead.

Given that 9% of all Americans have Polish ancestry, that's no so far fetched.

Thousands of tiny states.

We don't all agree on what sort of government we like, so the only way we can all get what we want is if there are many from which to choose.

Unless I'm in charge, in which case it's one world government and everyone will just have to live with it.

One World Government, naturally. The world is connected in so many ways, we need a single governing entity to handle the complex problems. It won't happen in my lifetime, but I hope it will someday.

And that doesn't bother you? Because you're picturing a perfect government that CAN handle the 'complex' (understament) problems of the entire world. Why that, when the federal government of the US can't truly handle the complex problems facing individual states, communities, or just individuals?

I suppose a one-world government with meritocratic suffrage a decentralized, independent judiciary, and its role limited entirely to serving as a guard against force and fraud would work quite fantastically.

many small ones, because that is the only way to ensure rights of all the various cultures are properly guaranteed. Issues specific to local economies need to be governed by local law. Even in the US, federal law oversees too many local problems due to their right to govern interstate commerce BS. It would happen the same way in one world government. The local area economies would suffer to help out economies literally on the other side of the world. Sorry if I'm guilty of being greedy about the well-being of those that immediately surround me rather than people I only share the bond of humanity with.

Thousands of small ones. It is nicer to say I am from City-State-Province-134.294-394/4524 than to say I am from.. oh..wait.. same place you are from, the World.

Plus, if we were one large "nation" and the world ruler is anything like certain U.S presidents, I would no longer be able to retreat to Canada to escape certain insanity.

Eh?

Maybe....

City states. This allows for less corruption.

exactly. city states ftw!

see, when I look at the big ole US government, I think "what could it possibly do worse?" and I think "gosh, I want this corrupt, beaurocratic nightmare to be as tiny as humanly possible".

I read once that in ancient societies where agricultural irrigation was done on a family-by-family scale, instead of as massive public works - there was no centralized power, and we can't detect *any* class stratification in these societies. the less centralised governemnt, the more egalitarian the state.

The local area economies would suffer to help out economies literally on the other side of the world. Sorry if I'm guilty of being greedy about the well-being of those that immediately surround me rather than people I only share the bond of humanity with.
The problem is not that rich economies would suffer - less segregation pays off with better total output. The problem is that they would be unable to get predictable benefit from better managing themselves, and therefore would be unable to determine how to work more efficiently.

And that's even with very good WorldGovernment, unless it is perfect one, in which case it won't interfere at all.

I read once that in ancient societies where agricultural irrigation was done on a family-by-family scale, instead of as massive public works - there was no centralized power, and we can't detect *any* class stratification in these societies. the less centralised governemnt, the more egalitarian the state.

Really? How queer. Small-scale agriculture (family homesteading/extended family systems, etc) can still have a high degree of social stratification. It would seem you're only looking at one part of the population. Farmers are usually at the lower end of the scale, no matter what the system, unless it's a cash crop--and even then, the term "farm" is exchanged for "plantation," the "farmer" moves up on the social ladder, and hirers laborers to do the work for him. I suppose the two best examples I can give are classical era Indian states (castes exist to this day), which were primarily agricultural, and the Antebellum American South, which consisted primarily of small-time farmers with relatively little influence, and the plantation owners who had considerable social influence.

Onto your second point, you're describing primitive democracy (in practice, usually allowing all adult males to vote on a matter). Primitive democracy only works in isolation, or on a local goverment scale, where sovereignty is in the hands of a larger entity capable of managing defense. Otherwise, it's bound for failure when threatened by a larger, more centralised entity.