NationStates Jolt Archive

We have entered a global age, with global communications systems, and an obviously interconnected global economy. Humanity could be said to have entered a new stage of development.

Yet with this global age there is a refusal of most populations of the most developed nations to acknowledge their economic imperialism, while the very apocalyptic visions of those (especially in the United States) almost forbids a world government to being the domain of some Antichrist or at the very least some evil plot. (Despite Biblically this being a very stretched interpretation). This endangers world peace, and human development I feel.

While there are obviously some working toward world government for perhaps less noble causes, is it not true that in this human stage of development we require a world commonwealth?

We have reached a stage where what is done often by individual nations has global effects. From the environment, to technology such as nuclear technology, we see that we have created an infrastructure that is global and that now we are probably unable to go back to isolation with any healthiness.

I say we need a global federation of nations.

Obvious NWO propaganda is obvious.

No, the amount of crap countries is still too overwhelming and would likely dominate the government with stupid ideas.

Obvious NWO propaganda is obvious.

My question is though why is ANY idea of global governance an EVIL idea? I agree it should not be ran by some dangerous imperialists (as it could possibly be now), but what about the general idea?

The world has been a global market since the 1500s, the eastern hemisphere an interconnected market since 4000 BCE. The notion that we are just now enter a global market is laughable. That aside, a world government, while nice in theory, would never work in the real world application due to the human condition of greed, see the failure of most "communist" powers.

My question is though why is ANY idea of global governance an EVIL idea? I agree it should not be ran by some dangerous imperialists (as it could possibly be now), but what about the general idea?You're just trying to look innocent and cute by implying that a world government not ran by the NWO is possible.

But I look straight through your deceptions, villainous fiend.

Global governance = EVIL is a notion put forward by conspiracy nutters who watch too many James Bond movies. The notion that there is some sort of all-powerful shadowy cabal striving for WORLD DOMINATION is patently absurd and has never been remotely grounded in reality at any point in history.

I'd say it's still probably not a very good thing at this point mostly due to what Barringtonia and ESF have said.

Poll is bad. A United Nations-like structure stopping short of an actual world government is ideal, but the UN in its current situation really needs some major overhauls.

Raise your hands, how many people opposed the Iraq invasion?

and...

How many of you didn't think giving billions to failed bankers, who then give themselves raises and bonuses, is a good idea?

Uh...huh.

How many of you find the idea of "Unilateralism" to be...unsettling? Or find yourselves nervous at the idea of someone from outside your culture imposing their values on you with the force of law, and men with guns?

How many of you are aware of the aphorism that Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely?

How many of you feel you would have opposed Hitler's vision for Europe (and the rest of the world)?

How many of you have ever had a bad experience dealing with a department of licensing, or other government office?

How many of you are suspicious of too much power being concentrated in hands that are, effectively, answerable to no-one?



How in the Hell could you support A Global Government, then?
Look, to govern globally, requires massive force. There is zero, I repeat this, ZERO proof that a Global Government is not going to either begin, or descend to, the lowest common denominator in terms of Corruption, in terms of Abuses, in terms of Arrogance, destructive tendencies, or in terms of oppressive tyranny.

History tends to show that governments, as they grow, do not become more tolerant of variations, whether of lifestyle, religion, or economic choice-they become increasingly more interested in controlling increasing amounts of the day-to-day lives of their victims.

The larger a government is, the less answerable it also becomes-a "World President" is not answerable for what he or she does, regardless of what the law may, in fact, say-so long as he or she holds the levers of power, and retains key supporters in the mechanisms of governance, there is NO Check on them. NONE.

If you didn't like Bush, you'll HATE Global Government.

Global governance = EVIL is a notion put forward by conspiracy nutters who watch too many James Bond movies. The notion that there is some sort of all-powerful shadowy cabal striving for WORLD DOMINATION is patently absurd and has never been remotely grounded in reality at any point in history.Power thrieves on the ignorance of the people.

What is ironic to me is that these conspiracy theories exist MOSTLY in Western nations that are often economically wealthy and even some might say imperialistic, while a global federation would give voice to smaller nations.

What is ironic to me is that these conspiracy theories exist MOSTLY in Western nations that are often economically wealthy and even some might say imperialistic, while a global federation would give voice to smaller nations.They already have a voice. Nobody has to listen to it, though. I fail to see why this would change.

True power lies in money. The money wouldn't change hands. Don't pretend to be ignorant of this basic fact, we know better.

Global government means, eventually, global despotism. Not, probably, in our lives, or those of our children, but eventually. Just as no man is good enough or just enough to be trusted with ultimate power, so can no single body ever be trusted not to misuse and abuse such ability.

I think a united world government has the same inherent risks as any other government.

The problem of corruption and despotism is not an exclusive global-government-problem, nor is it necessarily more prominent in a global government than in a small nation's government. We would just have to make sure that no single person (or small group of persons) gets too much power (democracy, separation of powers, etc). That is an organisational matter, and I'm sure we are clever enough to make it work.

It seems quite clear to me that a united world is the lesser of two evils. A straightforward analogy can be made by comparing an ordinary national government to a state of anarchy: a government does many things wrong, but it can solve problems which in an anarchic situation would be out of reach. Therefore, it is in general best to actually have a government (most people will agree with that, I hope). The same goes for a global government.


Aside from that, I don't think the people would accept a world government, mainly because of widespread feelings of nationalism and xenophobia. We'll have to wait until they grow out of those.

Global government means, eventually, global despotism. Not, probably, in our lives, or those of our children, but eventually. Just as no man is good enough or just enough to be trusted with ultimate power, so can no single body ever be trusted not to misuse and abuse such ability.

Why would a global commonwealth or federation turn into despotism? That is like saying the Swiss Federation could become despotic, it could, but in such a structure unlikely.

It is inevitable that we will either globalise or tribalise, which one is going to be best ummmm?

It is inevitable that we will either globalise or tribalise,Why?

Why?

Just because it is.

We can see that since the end of WWII the world has been heading down the globalisation route. Now with the current financial problems, it seems that we do need global agreement and policies.

However there will always be those who do not want to go down this route. Ultimatly I belive we willhave some for of world goverment, or we will fracture into many tribal like states.

Open boarder policy will come in either scenerio, and will help tribalisation more than globalisation, as people will be free to move to the tribe that best suits their own mindset.

The key problem, as always, will be understanding between opposing tribes, and agreement to let people move freely without punishment.

I guess by that you can infer what my ideal is.:D

I feel that it is still preferable to have a world body than just tribes as some tribalist anarchist theorists propose. We need to work toward an effective global governance institution, that is much more likely to happen as is.-

I feel that it is still preferable to have a world body than just tribes as some tribalist anarchist theorists propose. We need to work toward an effective global governance institution, that is much more likely to happen as is.-

I think ultimatly we'll get a mix of both.

I feel that it is still preferable to have a world body than just tribes as some tribalist anarchist theorists propose. We need to work toward an effective global governance institution, that is much more likely to happen as is.-An effective global governance institution implies effective - which is to say, uncontrolled - movement of money.

Money is power.

Those who have money, have power.

Uncontrolled movement of money equals uncontrolled power.

I think there is a good argument for countries to work towards aligning there legal systems; a global currency; global risk/disaster recovery planning etc.. What I don't see is anyway you end up with a world government that doesn't involve imposing it with force.

I think there is a good argument for countries to work towards aligning there legal systems; a global currency; global risk/disaster recovery planning etc.. What I don't see is anyway you end up with a world government that doesn't involve imposing it with force.

By government I suppose I should have titled "federation", though a federation is a government. A loose federation, perhaps no more than what the EU is except with a stronger Peacekeeping force than the UN has to stop things like genocide from happening.

What I don't see is anyway you end up with a world government that doesn't involve imposing it with force.


Umm if enough people vote for it?

By government I suppose I should have titled "federation", though a federation is a government. A loose federation, perhaps no more than what the EU is except with a stronger Peacekeeping force than the UN has to stop things like genocide from happening.Some people think that the EU goes too far as it is...

Some people think that the EU goes too far as it is...

Yeah but then some people are crazy!:D

Yeah but then some people are crazy!:DCrazy to dislike a system whose leaders respond to defeat in referendums by telling the countries concerned that they'll have to keep on voting until they get it 'right'?
Crazy to dislike a set-up that tries to get around the limits on its legal authority by squeezing its proposed laws into categories over which it has more power, no matter how inaccurate that re-classification is?
Crazy to dislike a set-up whose parliament's rules on committee membership are innately biased against parties that are opposed to further integration?
Crazy to dislike a set-up where having the annual accounts rejected by independent auditors for thirteen years in a row doesn't result in widespread dismissals and a major shake-up of proccesses?

So, fine, I'm proud to be "crazy".

Crazy to dislike a system whose leaders respond to defeat in referendums by telling the countries concerned that they'll have to keep on voting until they get it 'right'?
Crazy to dislike a set-up that tries to get around the limits on its legal authority by squeezing its proposed laws into categories over which it has more power, no matter how inaccurate that re-classification is?
Crazy to dislike a set-up whose parliament's rules on committee membership are innately biased against parties that are opposed to further integration?
Crazy to dislike a set-up where having the annual accounts rejected by independent auditors for thirteen years in a row doesn't result in widespread dismissals and a major shake-up of proccesses?

So, fine, I'm proud to be "crazy".

Meh! So a body of people can get things wrong as well as right. I reapeat Meh!

Umm if enough people vote for it?

I can't really see that happening. People whine on enough about sovereignty and the queens head on the coins as it.

Crazy to dislike a system whose leaders respond to defeat in referendums by telling the countries concerned that they'll have to keep on voting until they get it 'right'?
Crazy to dislike a set-up that tries to get around the limits on its legal authority by squeezing its proposed laws into categories over which it has more power, no matter how inaccurate that re-classification is?
Crazy to dislike a set-up whose parliament's rules on committee membership are innately biased against parties that are opposed to further integration?
Crazy to dislike a set-up where having the annual accounts rejected by independent auditors for thirteen years in a row doesn't result in widespread dismissals and a major shake-up of proccesses?

So, fine, I'm proud to be "crazy".

It seems that you are trying to prove that the EU is just like any other government: it tries to do what it should, makes some mistakes along the way, and has some corrupt people in it.

I suppose your own government is not like that, on the contrary, it is quite flawless.

What is ironic to me is that these conspiracy theories exist MOSTLY in Western nations that are often economically wealthy and even some might say imperialistic, while a global federation would give voice to smaller nations.
I think that's partly why so many of us in the developed world are against world government. We'd just be dragged down by these basket case countries.

Meh! So a body of people can get things wrong as well as right. I reapeat Meh!
They seem to be getting it wrong in a really spectacular fashion, even more than our governments. I hate to think what things would be like if they were given more power, it's like giving a child a loaded gun. I'd hardly class it as crazy not to worship the glorious EU.

They seem to be getting it wrong in a really spectacular fashion, even more than our governments.
At least the EU didn't support the war in Iraq. I mean, seriously, every government makes mistakes, what could possibly make the EU worse than the British government?

(As a side note: apparently the anti-Europeans in this forum are mostly UK people? I'm surprised :))

It seems that you are trying to prove that the EU is just like any other government: it tries to do what it should, makes some mistakes along the way, and has some corrupt people in it.

I suppose your own government is not like that, on the contrary, it is quite flawless.Oh no, our own current government has all-too-many flaws as well and I look forward to seeing it lose office... but it's a lot easier to vote-out a national government than it would be to get rid of the dominant coalition in the 'European' one.

At least the EU didn't support the war in Iraq. I mean, seriously, every government makes mistakes, what could possibly make the EU worse than the British government?

(As a side note: apparently the anti-Europeans in this forum are mostly UK people? I'm surprised :))
"The EU" didn't support or oppose anything, different EU countries took different positions. Most were against it, but some countries gave diplomatic support, others full on military support (Such as Italy, Spain, Denmark and Poland) and Ireland remained neutral. Just because a majority of EU countries were correct in this case doesn't mean I suddenly want to see this country absorbed into some EU superstate.

it's a lot easier to vote-out a national government than it would be to get rid of the dominant coalition in the 'European' one.

True. But that works on every level. You could just as well say that Scotland would be better off if it were independent, because the big guys in London are out of control. And once Scotland is independent, one of the Orkney islands may think the government in Edinburgh is no good for them and declare their independence.

In the end, it's about looking after yourself in your own little area and hoping the world won't interfere, versus cooperating with the world to find the best solution for everyone.

True. But that works on every level. You could just as well say that Scotland would be better off if it were independent, because the big guys in London are out of control. And once Scotland is independent, one of the Orkney islands may think the government in Edinburgh is no good for them and declare their independence.

In the end, it's about looking after yourself in your own little area and hoping the world won't interfere, versus cooperating with the world to find the best solution for everyone.
What if the rest of the world just wants to bleed you dry?

What if the rest of the world just wants to bleed you dry?

Dang, you're onto us. :)


You weren't serious, were you?

EDIT: Besides, it's probably better to talk to them about their bloodlust than to hide in the corner until they invade you.

Dang, you're onto us. :)


You weren't serious, were you?

EDIT: Besides, it's probably better to talk to them about their bloodlust than to hide in the corner until they invade you.
Heh, I wasn't going quite that far. The EU is made up up largely wealthy, industrialised countries so things aren't too bad at the moment. But if things ended up expanding to the level that pro-world government people wanted, then it could end up making things very difficult. We'd end up with a load of poor countries in. They'd resent us for our wealth compared to their poverty (Hell, I'm pretty sure they do now and I don't entirely blame them) and they'd want a slice of it. They'd be too much of a burden on us.

I can't really see that happening. People whine on enough about sovereignty and the queens head on the coins as it.

Now yes, I'm sure you are right. What about say 300-400 years from now?

Up with the communes and freedom, down with the centralists and mass-murderers.

They seem to be getting it wrong in a really spectacular fashion, even more than our governments. I hate to think what things would be like if they were given more power, it's like giving a child a loaded gun. I'd hardly class it as crazy not to worship the glorious EU.


Meh! Yeah I know what you mean, as Brit being allowed to go live, and work in any other EU country well thats bad that is.:rolleyes:

Heh, I wasn't going quite that far. The EU is made up up largely wealthy, industrialised countries so things aren't too bad at the moment. But if things ended up expanding to the level that pro-world government people wanted, then it could end up making things very difficult. We'd end up with a load of poor countries in. They'd resent us for our wealth compared to their poverty (Hell, I'm pretty sure they do now and I don't entirely blame them) and they'd want a slice of it. They'd be too much of a burden on us.

There is soooooooo much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start.

Make the world wealthy and well fed, and make it so that no body wants for food or shelter, thats got to be better for everybody innit? Much better than protect our borders coz them without are coming for our stuff, innit?

Meh! Yeah I know what you mean, as Brit being allowed to go live, and work in any other EU country well thats bad that is.:rolleyes:
I'm not completely against some integration into the EU. I won't complain about economic integration and freedom of movement between wealthy countries. I just think it's gone far enough. I don't see the need for political integration, all it does is adds another unnecessary layer of government that we've being doing just fine without.

There is soooooooo much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start.

Make the world wealthy and well fed, and make it so that no body wants for food or shelter, thats got to be better for everybody innit? Much better than protect our borders coz them without are coming for our stuff, innit?
Do you honestly think it will ever be possible to civilise a country like Somalia or any of these other shitholes of (Mainly) Africa? Face it, these kinds of countries still maintain a tribal mentality and no attempts to help them will ever succeed until they get their own acts together. I seriously doubt that full global equality is even possible, and attempts to build a utopia have tended to end in hell on earth.

Do you honestly think it will ever be possible to civilise a country like Somalia or any of these other shitholes of (Mainly) Africa? Face it, these kinds of countries still maintain a tribal mentality and no attempts to help them will ever succeed until they get their own acts together. I seriously doubt that full global equality is even possible, and attempts to build a utopia have tended to end in hell on earth.

Fuck me of course I do. Why do you not? What about America 300 years ago? Civilisation is just another way of saying educated to a decent standard, and the amount of people that live in the dirt and eat the dirt is less than the amount of people who don't.


Also can't you see the inherent contradiction in your post above?

These kinds of country have a tribal mentality and will not get better until they join the global village. That is more or less what you have just said. So globalisation will only hlep out thoses tribalisied nations, whilst those nations that are already part of the global village would be better served to tribalise? What sort of sense does that make?

As to utopia, I can't even name one single attempt at that, can you?

Heh, I wasn't going quite that far. The EU is made up up largely wealthy, industrialised countries so things aren't too bad at the moment. But if things ended up expanding to the level that pro-world government people wanted, then it could end up making things very difficult. We'd end up with a load of poor countries in. They'd resent us for our wealth compared to their poverty (Hell, I'm pretty sure they do now and I don't entirely blame them) and they'd want a slice of it. They'd be too much of a burden on us.

It is a complicated problem. Basically the planet provides us with a certain amount of land and resources, and we have to divide it among all people. It may be best for a certain group of people (though of course bad for all others) if they have control over most of the resources and deny it to the others --as we in the west are currently doing, to a certain extent.

However, I don't think that's a viable long-term solution. As long as we keep fighting for the resources, we will continue to overuse and deplete them. The only way to make sure that Earth remains a viable place for anyone is to put all selfish and nationalist sentiments aside and cooperate.

Fuck me of course I do. Why do you not? What about America 300 years ago?Oh, I see, you mean wipe out those countries' existing inhabitants -- or, at least, force them into relatively small 'reservations' -- and then replace them with European colonists...

It is a complicated problem. Basically the planet provides us with a certain amount of land and resources, and we have to divide it among all people. It may be best for a certain group of people (though of course bad for all others) if they have control over most of the resources and deny it to the others --as we in the west are currently doing, to a certain extent.

However, I don't think that's a viable long-term solution. As long as we keep fighting for the resources, we will continue to overuse and deplete them. The only way to make sure that Earth remains a viable place for anyone is to put all selfish and nationalist sentiments aside and cooperate.

*nods*

Considering that we all have to deal with the environmental problems caused by a minority of us, I would support some sort of international body that had teeth enough to slap down those organisations (private or public) that are currently destroying our natural habitat.

Fuck me of course I do. Why do you not? What about America 300 years ago? Civilisation is just another way of saying educated to a decent standard, and the amount of people that live in the dirt and eat the dirt is less than the amount of people who don't.


Also can't you see the inherent contradiction in your post above?

These kinds of country have a tribal mentality and will not get better until they join the global village. That is more or less what you have just said. So globalisation will only hlep out thoses tribalisied nations, whilst those nations that are already part of the global village would be better served to tribalise? What sort of sense does that make?
Being in this wonderful 'global village' wouldn't change anything. Europe was divided tribally in ancient times, but we eventually got over tribal divisions, long before this globalisation ever came about. The tribal mentality of these people is something ingrained in their culture and it can never be eliminated by outside interference. I'd have thought the war in Afghanistan or the UN attempt to stabilise Somalia would have taught us that.

As to utopia, I can't even name one single attempt at that, can you?
Yes, communism. That was a pretty big one.

It is a complicated problem. Basically the planet provides us with a certain amount of land and resources, and we have to divide it among all people. It may be best for a certain group of people (though of course bad for all others) if they have control over most of the resources and deny it to the others --as we in the west are currently doing, to a certain extent.

However, I don't think that's a viable long-term solution. As long as we keep fighting for the resources, we will continue to overuse and deplete them. The only way to make sure that Earth remains a viable place for anyone is to put all selfish and nationalist sentiments aside and cooperate.
I'm not sure about that. Global inequality and the use of resources are two seperate matters. If anything, increasing global equality would exacerbate the environmental problems we're facing. After all, if the standards of living in the undeveloped world suddenly greatly improved then they would end up putting far greater strain on the environment, like we are now. No reduction of resource usage in the west would be enough to offset that. Besides this, such action would impoverish the developed world (At least relative to the situation we're in now). Do you really think people in the developed world would ever be willing see such things happen?

Being in this wonderful 'global village' wouldn't change anything. Europe was divided tribally in ancient times, but we eventually got over tribal divisions, long before this globalisation ever came about. The tribal mentality of these people is something ingrained in their culture and it can never be eliminated by outside interference. I'd have thought the war in Afghanistan or the UN attempt to stabilise Somalia would have taught us that.

Hehe you are funny. How can you know that for sure? have you got inroads to the future? As you say yourself, we got over our own tribal division. How are you certian that others will NEVER manage it?


Yes, communism. That was a pretty big one.

Hahahahah methinks you need to go google the definition of the word Utopia.

I'm not sure about that. Global inequality and the use of resources are two seperate matters. If anything, increasing global equality would exacerbate the environmental problems we're facing. After all, if the standards of living in the undeveloped world suddenly greatly improved then they would end up putting far greater strain on the environment, like we are now. No reduction of resource usage in the west would be enough to offset that. Besides this, such action would impoverish the developed world (At least relative to the situation we're in now). Do you really think people in the developed world would ever be willing see such things happen?
To keep living the way we are is unsustainable. We are using up the resources. Oil is the most visible at the moment, but all resources are being depleted at a frightening pace. We will have to change our lifestyle, whether we want to or not.

Everyone will have to change their lifestyle. The poor people in Africa for instance will have to learn to have less kids. Sacrifices will have to be made by everyone, in order to give the future generations any change of survival.

And, knowing people, you can bet that no one will make even the slightest sacrifice unless other people do the same. Thus: international coordination is necessary.

Hahahahah methinks you need to go google the definition of the word Utopia.

I dunno, maybe Lenin and Castro really meant to create their own utopia. It did go badly wrong, of course, at least in the Soviet case.

Though those are authoritarian systems, quite unlike our democratic EU/UN/future world government.

I dunno, maybe Lenin and Castro really meant to create their own utopia. It did go badly wrong, of course, at least in the Soviet case.

Though those are authoritarian systems, quite unlike our democratic EU/UN/future world government.

May that was their intent. It was not perfect though so how can it be utopia?

Hehe you are funny. How can you know that for sure? have you got inroads to the future? As you say yourself, we got over our own tribal division. How are you certian that others will NEVER manage it?

I didn't say they'd never manage it, but I can't see them doing it in the forseeable future. Maybe they'll surprise me, but if they do it won't be imposed on them by anyone else. That just won't work.

Hahahahah methinks you need to go google the definition of the word Utopia.
Communism was initially an attempt to create a utopian society where everyone was equal, poverty was eliminated and eventually there wouldn't even be the need for a government. It was certainly a utopian movement.

To keep living the way we are is unsustainable. We are using up the resources. Oil is the most visible at the moment, but all resources are being depleted at a frightening pace. We will have to change our lifestyle, whether we want to or not.

Everyone will have to change their lifestyle. The poor people in Africa for instance will have to learn to have less kids. Sacrifices will have to be made by everyone, in order to give the future generations any change of survival.

And, knowing people, you can bet that no one will make even the slightest sacrifice unless other people do the same. Thus: international coordination is necessary.
I won't argue with that. Sacrifices will have to be made sooner or later, but the idea that some people come out with that we can both drag Africa up to western levels and protect the environment is a load of crap.

And, knowing people, you can bet that no one will make even the slightest sacrifice unless other people do the same. Thus: international coercion is necessary.Corrected.

I didn't say they'd never manage it, but I can't see them doing it in the forseeable future. Maybe they'll surprise me, but if they do it won't be imposed on them by anyone else. That just won't work.


Ahhh I see some crossed wires here. However you did say this:

"The tribal mentality of these people is something ingrained in their culture and it can never be eliminated by outside interference."

From which I infered the word 'Never'.


Communism was initially an attempt to create a utopian society where everyone was equal, poverty was eliminated and eventually there wouldn't even be the need for a government. It was certainly a utopian movement.


Well yes I can give you that.

However I don't recall mentioning trying to force anybody.

Ahhh I see some crossed wires here. However you did say this:

"The tribal mentality of these people is something ingrained in their culture and it can never be eliminated by outside interference."

From which I infered the word 'Never'.
Yeah, I probably should have made it a little clearer.

Well yes I can give you that.

However I don't recall mentioning trying to force anybody.
No, but that's where it will inevitabley lead. There will always be someone who isn't quite convinced of this glorious utopia. Then it will be a case of "They are an enemy of the people" or "They must be clinically insane to disagree with this wonderful ideology".

...Sacrifices will have to be made sooner or later, but the idea that some people come out with that we can both drag Africa up to western levels and protect the environment is a load of crap.

It's only a load of crap if we assume that the developing world will become developed in the exact same manner as the currently developed nations. Since technological advances, especially in the fields of ecologically sustainable industrial design and civil engineering, continue to come about, there is no reason to make this assumption.

We can help Africa attain the levels they want without creating a copy of the wasteful consumer lifestyle we have in the developed world.

No, but that's where it will inevitabley lead. There will always be someone who isn't quite convinced of this glorious utopia. Then it will be a case of "They are an enemy of the people" or "They must be clinically insane to disagree with this wonderful ideology".

Agreed, in which case I ask you to look at my earlyer posts in this thread.

Utopia again? You must get this thought out of your head, not least of all because such a thing is not possible in a species as veried as ours, and secondly because nobody has suggested that is what we should stive to do.

I am actually surprised 17 support the idea of a global federation.

A mix of options 1, 4, and 5.

They're closing the library now, so I'll post more when I get home rather than risk being interupted.

While I like the idea of a World Government , and have even posted a thread on this same topic, along similar lines, I just dont see it being practical, itd probably be much more efficient to attempt to give the UN some much needed Teeth, than to try and really unite the world...

For alot of countries the only means would be to conquer them, and when they are conquered they will rebel, and engage in guerrilla warfare, meaning perpetually dealing with "Insurrections" and "Contingencies" and, for lulz, "Man Caused Disasters"...

Done properly, a world government is a good thing.

Done improperly, at best it'll be worse than the current status, and at worst it'll leave the earth a lifeless rock.

Personally, I feel that humanity is not ready for a global government yet.

Why would a global commonwealth or federation turn into despotism? That is like saying the Swiss Federation could become despotic, it could, but in such a structure unlikely.

History shows that if it is possible for a government to assemble powers unto itself, it will do so. Often these will be for the very best of reasons; observe the power grab in education in the US, where the Federal Government has basically taken control of school policies via the use of grant monies - first make the states reliant upon the grants, then threaten to withhold those monies unless the state "gets with the program". This is advertised as "raising the levels of education in poor areas" and the meaningless buzzwords "accountability" and "equality of opportunity", but it is really a power stealing exercise. Likewise the Federal Government of Australia bullied the states into a power grab of weapons control rules some years ago.

History also shows that all governments, cultures and systems are finite. They are born in necessity, thrive in idealism, and suffer a long death of systems failure and cynicism - if they are not supplanted by a new, more vibrant culture before or during that long death. Invariably, even those nations not wedded to despotism develop such in their senility, and this equally invariably contributes to their demise.

Tyranny is an inevitability. Global government would raise that tyranny to a whole new level - and the Dark Age that followed it to a whole new depth.

True. But that works on every level. You could just as well say that Scotland would be better off if it were independent, because the big guys in London are out of control. And once Scotland is independent, one of the Orkney islands may think the government in Edinburgh is no good for them and declare their independence.

<snip>

Then you end up with Peepelonia's tribalism. Which isn't such a bad thing, really - it's possibly the only global system where no-one is being ruled over in a particularly oppressive way.

Agreed, in which case I ask you to look at my earlyer posts in this thread.

Utopia again? You must get this thought out of your head, not least of all because such a thing is not possible in a species as veried as ours, and secondly because nobody has suggested that is what we should stive to do.

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing." - Oscar Wilde

The Federation only works in idealistic fiction like Star Trek, because humans are at the bottom of it self-interested and don't give a rat's ass about what's happening to someone on the next block, never mind from a different culture and different continent.

See: what Marx and Engel envisioned, and how communism has been put into effect in reality.

The Federation only works in idealistic fiction like Star Trek,And even for that setting, I've seen it suggested that it only works because the Vulcans must have put some pretty effective drugs into the Humans' drinking water... :p

No real American is ever going to put up with subordinating the sovereignty of his country to the whims of Third World savages and hordes of Chinese following the orders of the Party. And since we have the means to prevent it, no global government is likely to come into being.

Unless and until the Vulcans show up :rolleyes:

I voted all countries should have complete independence.

with too many economic intrests bigger and more powerful then many nations, really its becoming questionable that even the most powerful nations have either the capacity or the will to rain them in, the question becomes not whether planetary government, but what kind, representing whome, and protecting whome from what.

sometime within this millinium, actually within the thousand years that began in 1844, something of some sort, fulfilling that discription WILL come into being, like it or not.

i don't think the dominance of any one idiology, even one i embrase or invent myself, is ever going to be a peaceful and sustainable answer. yet such a durable peace, and not an oppressive one, is destined within this thousand years to come about.

the first reason i gave above is but one of several. sometime, when human culture and human wisdom matures sufficiently, there will very likely be open contact with other worlds, however much our current understanding of the mechanics of time and space make this seem unlikely and all but impossible.

so, i'd love it if suddenly there were so few of us there would be no one able to enforce building codes or close and enforce borders, but until that happens, or even if it does, and how these things come about, inevitabilities in hindsight that seemed impossibilities in their own day, there are many in the history of human society, and i see no reason to discount the possibility, even likelihood, that a world government of some kind is in this planet's future.

sometime within this millinium, actually within the thousand years that began in 1844, something of some sort, fulfilling that discription WILL come into being, like it or not.


Are you a Baha'i?

Are you a Baha'i?

gee, how did you ever guess? (i don't suppose 1844 kinda gave it away)

well actually, i've been a Baha'i on and off, for several decades now. but then i'd have to add, "among other things" too.

it does do my heart good to know that the faith is no longer so obscure that it any longer goes unrecognized.

gee, how did you ever guess? (i don't suppose 1844 kinda gave it away)
well actually, i've been a Baha'i on and off, for several decades now. but then i'd have to add, "among other things" too.


I have just been individually studying it, but the books are in a lot of major bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Hastings so I am sure there is some awareness of it.

gee, how did you ever guess? (i don't suppose 1844 kinda gave it away)

well actually, i've been a Baha'i on and off, for several decades now. but then i'd have to add, "among other things" too.

it does do my heart good to know that the faith is no longer so obscure that it any longer goes unrecognized.

I have read somewhat of your faith, it seems kinda cool. why o why though are the Sikh guru's not mentioned, huh huh?!?!?:D

I have read somewhat of your faith, it seems kinda cool. why o why though are the Sikh guru's not mentioned, huh huh?!?!?:D

in all likelyhood Baha'u'llah did not consider them a major indipendent outpouring. certainly they do deserve much honor and credit. as do many many other similar examples. what he did and did not mention was based on what he tells us were gods chosen messangers. he also mentioned that he DIDN'T mention everyone who might have been. particular he mentions 9 major revelations of the cycle that Bab completed, but only specifies 6 or 7 of them.

quite possibly lao tzu and or kung fu tse might belong on that list, as might kulkulcan/quetzicatl.

i think, just my personal speculation, the sikh leaders might be classed with the lesser prophets of christianity's old testimate for example. great teachers filled with legitimate outpourings but not themselves devinely appointed revelators of an origeonal indipendent revelation.

his own forruners discouverer's teachers, of the mathlevi might be another such example.

he does interestingly mention Krishna, Buddha and Zoroaster.