NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a hopeless optimist, so of course I don't want to think a world government is unavoidable, but what do you think?

I don't want to write a long OP, but arguments for and against could look something like this:

Centralization makes government easier to handle for transnationals and introduces global standards on everything. Both are massive economical advantages, ergo world government is inevitable.

The never-ending quest for greater social liberty and greater local autonomy has never been successfully repressed for very long, and cannot be. Ergo world government will never be acceptable to the governed.

So.. Your thoughts? Well reasoned arguments? Pictures of fucking ugly cats with hats? Anything?

The never-ending quest for greater social liberty and greater local autonomy has never been successfully repressed for very long, and cannot be. Ergo world government will never be acceptable to the governed.

EDIT: If you are going to address this post, please attach a few lines I can neatly cut and paste in reply. Thanks.

Global government won't work because of the vast differences in societies and cultures. Pakistan and India don't want to go back together, Israel and Palestine don't want to go back together, Iraq wants to split up. If we're having these things with just one and two nations, imagine how things will be like with a whole world under one government.

When this world has one world government, the end of the world will be at hand.

Humanity has the potential to survive nearly infinitely. That is to say, it has more potential to do so than any other form of life we are familiar with. For this to come about we would have to unite in some form or another, whether world government would be the beginning, final result or temporary conclusion of this unity I can not say, though any move towards global fraternity would certainly include it.
The altogether more likely outcome of humanity's journey through time, however, is that we will continue to feud until an inevitable world-wide calamity (possibly of our own doing) destroys us utterly or weakens us to the point that we will either go extinct or be in a position where sentience no longer serves us and over millions of years become something, for lack of an appropriate term, less.

It's more likely that governments and national boundaries will cease to exist in their same form. They will be regulated to a much more passive role as individuals form their own communities linked by technology and common interests or ideals that transcend national boundaries in favor of pursuing their own goals as a community.

Technological acceleration will both reduce the influence of the top-down corporation in the economy as well as enable alternative social models, such as workers' self-management and cooperatives, to have a much larger role in the economy and in social innovation than previously available.

EDIT: If you are going to address this post, please attach a few lines I can neatly cut and paste in reply. Thanks.----------------
----------------
----------------

Satisfied? :P I wanted to hear your opinions. I already know my own.Global government won't work because of the vast differences in societies and cultures. Pakistan and India don't want to go back together, Israel and Palestine don't want to go back together, Iraq wants to split up. If we're having these things with just one and two nations, imagine how things will be like with a whole world under one government.Wouldn't things like the US and EU contradict that? It seems to me that when opposed parties have money to make and don't surrender sovereignty directly to the other, they'll eventually go for it.Humanity has the potential to survive nearly infinitely. That is to say, it has more potential to do so than any other form of life we are familiar with. For this to come about we would have to unite in some form or another, whether world government would be the beginning, final result or temporary conclusion of this unity I can not say, though any move towards global fraternity would certainly include it.
The altogether more likely outcome of humanity's journey through time, however, is that we will continue to feud until an inevitable world-wide calamity (possibly of our own doing) destroys us utterly or weakens us to the point that we will either go extinct or be in a position where sentience no longer serves us and over millions of years become something, for lack of an appropriate term, less.I must admit I was thinking in terms of a few centuries at most. I did intend for this to be speculative, but not quite that speculative.It's more likely that governments and national boundaries will cease to exist in their same form. They will be regulated to a much more passive role as individuals form their own communities linked by technology and common interests or ideals that transcend national boundaries in favor of pursuing their own goals as a community.

Technological acceleration will both reduce the influence of the top-down corporation in the economy as well as enable alternative social models, such as workers' self-management and cooperatives, to have a much larger role in the economy and in social innovation than previously available.This topic was spawned out of a discussion I had today, and I argued exactly what you've just argued. The counter argument was that exactly because of this, there'll be a massive economic incentive to establish a world government in the traditional sense, because it is the only way to prevent new social models from popping up all over the place, and preventing that ensures economic interests won't have to continually reinvent market models and whatnot. Basically it was argued that while trade is a unifying force, it is also a force for centralization and authoritarianism - because it's path of least resistance for profiting.

Of course, I suck ass at playing the Devil's Advocate, so please forgive my incoherence.

Centralization makes government easier to handle for transnationals and introduces global standards on everything. Both are massive economical advantages, ergo world government is inevitable.
Anything?


I agree with all this, although, I also believe it is centuries beyond our reach.

The only way a global central government would work is:

1. As a true republic giving each individual nation freedoms, similar to those provided to the individual U.S. States.

2. If said central government had the power to enforce legal standards across the globe.

3. This will mostlikely upset alot of people, but it only makes sense, is setup to function much like that of the Republic government of the United States.

In my opinion, world government is impossible without some sort of significant, unifying, OUTSIDE threat, something that either wiped out or damaged beyond repair a large number of national governments.
That pretty much limits it to either invasion by a vastly technologically superior alien race or a space-debry strike.
The reason I say OUTSIDE threat is that it has to be something that people cant assign blame to somebody for. If its a nuclear war, nationalism is gonna pretty much wipe out any chance for a world government that lasts more than a few months.
Just my thoughts, though. I'm not a politics major :p

Pictures of fucking ugly cats with hats?

This is why language can be so confusing. That sentence could mean at least a couple of things.

Humanity has the potential to survive nearly infinitely. That is to say, it has more potential to do so than any other form of life we are familiar with. For this to come about we would have to unite in some form or another, whether world government would be the beginning, final result or temporary conclusion of this unity I can not say, though any move towards global fraternity would certainly include it.
The altogether more likely outcome of humanity's journey through time, however, is that we will continue to feud until an inevitable world-wide calamity (possibly of our own doing) destroys us utterly or weakens us to the point that we will either go extinct or be in a position where sentience no longer serves us and over millions of years become something, for lack of an appropriate term, less.
I dunno, cockroaches have alot of potential...

i dont think that one world government is a good idea. it would allow another avenue for the rich to oppress the poor. it would force everyone to accept the same kind of government no matter what their preferences are. it would be so massive that local (currently national) interests of the smaller areas could easily be lost in the bureaucracy.

No, not at all, in fact I doubt that it'll happen ever, yet alone any time soon. Really depends on if there's a third world war with nukes and all that.

No. Resource depletion will force us all to live much more locally and globalization will reverse.

I don't think it's inevitable, but desirable. I wouldn't want it to result in an authoritarian system, or one that widens (or preserves) the gap between rich and poor, but would prefer a devolved system of power to the most local applicable level, so that at least the individual in politics wouldn't be overshadowed too much by everyone else.

To me it doesn't seem feasible in the present day, being as the conflicts and schisms round the world would prevent certain peoples from wanting to unite. If in the future we have more stability, I could see it happening.

Of course it's inevitable. I'll succeed in conquering the world one of these days.

Wouldn't things like the US and EU contradict that? It seems to me that when opposed parties have money to make and don't surrender sovereignty directly to the other, they'll eventually go for it.
Not at all. The EU hardly dissolves borders and armies and sovereignty like world government would.

Not at all. The EU hardly dissolves borders and armies and sovereignty like world government would.
Wait... I thought it was supposed to dissolve borders... in many levels, no less. Free movement of goods, capital and workforce, right?

Well, the United States is (in my paranist opinion) headed towards a police state (I also think that the thought police are about to bust down my door any minute now) anywho, there are still sane places in the world that won't go along with this (e.g. most of Europe). In conclusion, there might be a large regional government, but so long as people are hot-headed and argumentative, there won't be a whole world government.

Global government won't work because of the vast differences in societies and cultures. Pakistan and India don't want to go back together, Israel and Palestine don't want to go back together, Iraq wants to split up. If we're having these things with just one and two nations, imagine how things will be like with a whole world under one government.

That isn't a valid point. The thread isn't about now, it is about the future. And as a global mono-culture emerges differences will shrink and eventually disappear.

That isn't a valid point. The thread isn't about now, it is about the future. And as a global mono-culture emerges differences will shrink and eventually disappear.

So it'd take something like Ringworlds instant-teleportation dealy to establish a world government? Basically by killing off every other culture simply because people can go anywhere they want, any time they want?

Inevitable? Hardly.

I think it would be quite a stretch to call it "even remotely likely"

That isn't a valid point. The thread isn't about now, it is about the future. And as a global mono-culture emerges differences will shrink and eventually disappear.
Good point. That makes me dislike world government any more. I love traveling the world and seeing different peoples and cultures. It's part of what makes Humanity so great - we're different from each other.

Good point. That makes me dislike world government any more. I love traveling the world and seeing different peoples and cultures. It's part of what makes Humanity so great - we're different from each other.

It is also what causes millions of deaths every year, but I agree to an extent. It will be a long, long time if ever that geographic and cultural differences like architecture and food disappears, and when it does it will be a shame because it will make travelling overseas less exciting. But by this point we are going to be a pretty homogeneous bunch which, while not world peace, will be extremely helpful in alleviating suffering, and I'm not going to say that I'd rather visit India for some old-school temple visits and spicy dishes rather than not have to worry about them and Pakistan nuking each other.

So it'd take something like Ringworlds instant-teleportation dealy to establish a world government? Basically by killing off every other culture simply because people can go anywhere they want, any time they want?

Umm... What?

Thanks.----------------
----------------
----------------


But truth be told, it's the diversity in this world i love. I'm afraid World Government might take that away from me and everyone. WG is here already. It's just no democratic shit, it's business. And it is governing you HARD!

When this world has one world government, the end of the world will be at hand.

I giggled.

End times christians believe that a one world gov't based on peace is a bad thing.

You should quit reading left behind and read the words of christ, such as "Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called sons and daughters of God."

This is why language can be so confusing. That sentence could mean at least a couple of things.

LOL so true :D

I giggled.

End times christians believe that a one world gov't based on peace is a bad thing.

You should quit reading left behind and read the words of christ, such as "Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called sons and daughters of God."

The World Government will be anything but peaceful. You are right about the bible quote however, I am not going to turn this into a religious debate as my comment had nothing to do with religion.

The World Government will be anything but peaceful. You are right about the bible quote however, I am not going to turn this into a religious debate as my comment had nothing to do with religion.

Sorry, just assumed so.

Why then, would the world end if there is one world gov't?

Sorry, just assumed so.

Why then, would the world end if there is one world gov't?

Because not everyone is going to support it and violence will break out all over the planet. Who knows, nukes might even be involved. One never knows.

Hopefully, it will happen soon.

Because not everyone is going to support it and violence will break out all over the planet. Who knows, nukes might even be involved. One never knows.

People don't agree with up to three levels of government already. But I think before we can even make assumptions about reaction to a world government we first have to define its size, scope and authority.

It is also what causes millions of deaths every year, but I agree to an extent. It will be a long, long time if ever that geographic and cultural differences like architecture and food disappears, and when it does it will be a shame because it will make travelling overseas less exciting. But by this point we are going to be a pretty homogeneous bunch which, while not world peace, will be extremely helpful in alleviating suffering, and I'm not going to say that I'd rather visit India for some old-school temple visits and spicy dishes rather than not have to worry about them and Pakistan nuking each other.

Does the fact that the 50 United States are under one government stop people from seeing the different cultures or even get rid of the different cultures in it?

One world government is inevitable as English takes over as the primary language in the next 500 years. This may not seem possible because people are all nationalistic and whatnot, but local languages are already dying in favor of regional languages. It won't be long until English does this to the others. Cultures will not all be wiped out. They will be blended and regionalized, but will never disappear.

People don't agree with up to three levels of government already. But I think before we can even make assumptions about reaction to a world government we first have to define its size, scope and authority.

Indeed. However, people will still revolt against a world government.

This is our land, Oceania!

Does the fact that the 50 United States are under one government stop people from seeing the different cultures or even get rid of the different cultures in it?

I think you've got me backwards. I'm not saying the culture is homogenised because it is under one government, I'm saying a world government will be easier to implement after there is a single global culture.

They will be blended and regionalized, but will never disappear.

Never? I doubt it. I can't even imagine the technology of 100 or even 50 years time, but I assume that it will surpass our wildest dreams and eradicate (most) poverty and make information and culture exchange a million times easier than it is now even with the internet. It may take centuries, but eventually world culture will become one giant amalgamation of current cultures.

Not at all. The EU hardly dissolves borders and armies and sovereignty like world government would.

Why 'would' it? It might be an option, but not the only one.

Because not everyone is going to support it and violence will break out all over the planet. Who knows, nukes might even be involved. One never knows.

So... if we had ane World Government it would what... nuke itself?

Some people in the US already oppose 'federal' government (pissing and whining about stupid stuff like the loss of 'state rights'... whilst apparently blissfully unaware that submission of 'state' to 'nation' is the only reason individual states haven't been annexed by other nations...) and yet there's been no big violence... no nukes.

World government might be the one thing that opposes the trend towards violence and nukes.

The only reason I see the EU existing these days is just to start an economic pissing contest with the US.

I'm a hopeless optimist, so of course I don't want to think a world government is unavoidable...

Also an optimist, but I do think that it is unavoidable, and not an absolute evil.
Utilizing all of the planet's resources for the entireity of its population makes more sense then having ultra rich vs. ultra poor countries.
And once the concept of a "State" or a "Nation" is dissipitated, then basically the only reason left for groups of people to fight is football.

The reason why humanity is constantly eating shit is our idiotic tenaciousness in clinging to a piece of land and some vague, ethereal concept known as "religion".

And after fighting for my country in one of the most stupid, idiotic and prolonged conflicts I can honestly say that I'd like to see all countries fading away.

ok... Rant will stop now. I'm drunk and tired

So it'd take something like Ringworlds instant-teleportation dealy to establish a world government? Basically by killing off every other culture simply because people can go anywhere they want, any time they want?It is already happening. A Lithuanian mate of mine met an American chick at a camp in Norway a few years ago. Now they're happily married. A German friend of a friend hooked up with a Canadian girl online about two years ago. Now they're happily married (last I heard anyway). I met my Turkish wife at a conference in Brussels. Now we're happily married.
Shortly before I created my first NSG account, I was hanging out with a RASH (Skinhead) crew in Thailand. Last time I was in Istanbul, I was at one of the most fucked up punk shows I've ever been at. I've custom build computers per mailorder to people in 5 different countries all around the globe, not because it's ever been my livelihood (it was a hobby), but because people communicate across all borders and part of that communication is shit like trendy gadgets and fashion in general.

This is just anecdotes, but you have to have your head buried very deep in the sand indeed, if you for a second doubt there's a massive amalgamation of cultures taking place.

I'd say more, but I'm ever so slightly shitfaced so I fear I might not make a lot of sense.

In my opinion, world government is impossible without some sort of significant, unifying, OUTSIDE threat, something that either wiped out or damaged beyond repair a large number of national governments.
That pretty much limits it to either invasion by a vastly technologically superior alien race or a space-debry strike.
The reason I say OUTSIDE threat is that it has to be something that people cant assign blame to somebody for. If its a nuclear war, nationalism is gonna pretty much wipe out any chance for a world government that lasts more than a few months.
Just my thoughts, though. I'm not a politics major :p

I swear, I've heard of that before: http://www.impawards.com/1996/posters/independence_day_ver3.jpg

I think more than one 'supernation' is more likely than a world government (kind of like in 1984). I just can't see everyone agreeing about how a world government be run, it's language, and all manner of other issues, so instead alliances will form and eventually amalgamate. I don't think a world government will ever be created, except by force. I think a country trying to force its creation isn't so unlikely (as long as they get to be 'in charge' in the end).

1) It's got to happen because of the global economy. Note the lead paint in children's toys from China recently, the Chinese discovering growth hormones in animal products they imported from the US recently, Japan refusing beef because of fear of mad cow disease from the US and Canada awhile back, and so forth. It doesn't work well for competitiveness to have different requirements for taxation and benefits to workers/citizens. Some companies can get their labor in places where the government pays healthcare, retirement, and disability, requirements are such that they live in very poor (cheap) housing (sometimes government subsidized). They can use such things as child labor which is very cheap. Then, said company takes the products out of that country, sells them in a different country for less than products where the manufacturers in that country have to pay for all of these benefits and pay higher wages for various reasons, including the law. Then, be organized as a corporation and pay corporate taxes in some third country "tax haven" like the Cayman Islands.

2) It can't happen because of different needs, different cultures, different environmental realities, etc. It can't happen because "they" are inferior because "they" (look different, believe different, dress different, live different, eat different food....)

Ultimately though, if the current system falls apart due to (pick a reason) war, economic fiasco/collapse, environmental collapse, government will become very local.

I'm a hopeless optimist, so of course I don't want to think a world government is unavoidable, but what do you think?

I don't want to write a long OP, but arguments for and against could look something like this:

Centralization makes government easier to handle for transnationals and introduces global standards on everything. Both are massive economical advantages, ergo world government is inevitable.

The never-ending quest for greater social liberty and greater local autonomy has never been successfully repressed for very long, and cannot be. Ergo world government will never be acceptable to the governed.

So.. Your thoughts? Well reasoned arguments? Pictures of fucking ugly cats with hats? Anything?

Populations are just too fragmented and too diverse to have any sort of world government. Look how horribly, the European Union constitution failed. People want sovereignty.

Ugh. We're up to september of a "cats in hats" calendar. I love cats (I have two, Anastasia and Polgar), but if we wind up with another calendar like that, it may have an *ahem* sudden accident.

I'm a hopeless optimist, so of course I don't want to think a world government is unavoidable, but what do you think?

I used to think that regional bloc (like EU) are inevitable across the world...but it seems like even that is still a long way to go. ASEAN is coming up good. SAARC is in the pits. So is African Union. I suppose so is the South American one (if they have one). World govt is probably the next stage after regional blocs and so it has to wait until regional blocs become mature.

Fools who want one world government are under the mistaken impression that it would be one that they like...

Populations are just too fragmented and too diverse to have any sort of world government. Look how horribly, the European Union constitution failed. People want sovereignty.20 years ago, something like an EU constitution was taboo. Today, most EU citizens don't think it's a question of whether we'll get one, but when and what it'll say.

Globally speaking, I don't think the current kind of diversity matters. It's on the decline and has been ever since our technological level reached a point where even comparatively poor people can engage in social interaction across all borders.I used to think that regional bloc (like EU) are inevitable across the world...but it seems like even that is still a long way to go. ASEAN is coming up good. SAARC is in the pits. So is African Union. I suppose so is the South American one (if they have one). World govt is probably the next stage after regional blocs and so it has to wait until regional blocs become mature.60 years ago, voluntary creation of such blocs were unthinkable. Now it's slow economic suicide not to do it for most countries, and beneficial for all countries. It's worth keeping in mind that all these projects are in their infancy, and all the problems in realizing them are problems none of us have ever dealt with before. Because considering that, I'm of the opinion that the speed at which we're unifying is much greater than one could reasonably have anticipated. That's actually what started the discussion I had which lead to this thread :)Fools who want one world government are under the mistaken impression that it would be one that they like...I agree. In fact, I consider it a truism that such a government cannot possibly be one that a majority can like.

Nope, not at all.

Everyone seems to be thinking in the short term. Sure, the EU is having trouble with one government, but eventually they will unite if they intend to keep any power they have left.

Eventually, the entire world will become one. Be it in 50 years or 500.

Everyone seems to be thinking in the short term. Sure, the EU is having trouble with one government, but eventually they will unite if they intend to keep any power they have left.

Eventually, the entire world will become one. Be it in 50 years or 500.

I agree.

We're nowhere near even thinking about a world government right now. I think it'll happen though. Maybe a thousand years down the road.

To combat corruption and conflicts, and democratic oppression (think about it, Thomas Jefferson said that in democracy, 51% of the population oppresses the other 49%). Either the early American system (more secular and successful than today's gov.), or some sort of Anarcho-syndicalist/Corporate feudalist/Communist government would govern.

Hopefully the Communists would be REAL Communists and establish individual, self-ruling, self-sustaining Communes (Basically what anarcho-syndicalism is, since in Communism, the people don't depend on a state, which leads to the withering away of the state.)

Anarcho-Syndicalim means Public protection of the individual's rights, and public self-sustainment of all public things.

Think about it, the idea of property breeds want for more, which leads to greed.

"Property" gives incentive to lead people to greed, since they gain. In Communism or Anarcho-syndicalism, there is no gain in greed.

This might not happen for like 700-2500 years, god willing.

And by the way, that basically is Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, We could have some sort of Labor Union Representation, with states being replaced by unions of jobs, but its kinda similar to Corporate Hierarchy.

All men are created Equal.
All men should work Equally
Those (willfully )Failing to sustain themselves will be kicked out of the commune.

All I got.

Btw, I believe in Either Libertarianism, American Socialism, Or Luxembourgianism (Basically a liberal social Democracy)

What do you all envisage a world government as being, exactly? By the sounds of it a lot of people seem to imagine it as being intent on some Orwellian authoritarianism. I imagine it as being a more powerful amalgamation of the UN, World Bank, IMF etc, with elected members to represent each nation.

3. This will mostlikely upset alot of people, but it only makes sense, is setup to function much like that of the Republic government of the United States.

More likely like the Swiss confederacy, I would think.

I actually think world anarchy is inevitable. As the capitalist world becomes more and more globalised, governments will find themselves facing two trends. Firstly they will find the objective competitive benefit in smaller more efficient governance, creating a trend of privatisation and outsourcing. Secondly, and finally they will see a progressive lack of demand for their goods and services as the market saturates the lives of all humanity. At this point there will probably be a few knee-jerk kickbacks into totalitarian statist regimes (in order to preserve the position of the state), though eventually these will starve themselves. The ones that do not kneejerk will either transform into private companies restricted to one industry sector with voluntary patronage (losing all distinction from those they once governed), or live on as a vestige serving one specific and limited purpose.

So yes and no. World government will occur i nsome ways, in that the globalised world will be united under a decentralised form of individual-based governance that is inherent in capitalism, but no- there will be no centralised world government.

A single world government is inevitable, but unlikely in our lifetime.