| Author |
Message
|
| KALSTER |
 Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: Single World Government? |
 |
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Africa
|
I have been thinking for a while now about exactly how such a government would work and if it would even be desirable. Would it be possible in such a setup to quickly get rid of poverty? How would money work? Social grants might be raised to a respectable level, but how then would people be motivated to do their part? Imagine what can be possible when funding is no longer an issue for things like the space program, all kinds of research, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. In such a setup, there is no need for each country to lose its identity, in fact countries might be able to more freely develop their own identity. I think a scenario like this is the closest one could come to Utopia. How far do you think we are from such a scenario? Do you even think it is possible to put something like that into practice? I fear not……
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
As jy dom is, moet jy kak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3331
Location: England, UK.
|
It would be incredible, resources would be owned by everyone, there would only be civil wars at best. It would bring all nations together as one and as you say a lot of probelms will be solved.
If I were to still use my Christian opinion, I'd probably say that it was one step closer to armaggeddon and the ruler of all the nations would be the antichrist.
All nations together under one government would be a way for all the greedy leaders of some nations to actually be obligated to cooperate with all. That is to say of course there would still be sub governenments tracking each other, much like the CIA and NSA do each other, an intergovernment spying if you will.
There would still be backstabbing, but there would be a good prospect from the whole idea.
The only problem I can see is sentimental people wanting to keep (and prideful people) keeping their nations. Selfishness.
_________________
"Victory is in trying. Defeat is in not". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1022
Location: London
|
I have long hoped for a world government and believe all sorts of wonderful things will ensue but...
a more cynical (or realistic?) person than I pointed out to me that a single world government would allow for no checks and balances against tyranny, reduced tolerance of difference, greater 'forced' conformity, etc.
You pays your money and you takes your chances...
I'd love at least for there to be a 'single' Europe (a bit more closely linked than the current EU), where we were actually allowed to vote for MEPs who made a real difference - the current European 'government' seeming to me to consist primarily of bureaucrats rather than policy-makers answerable to voters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 850
|
Impossible!
In Europe they struggle to find the right role for the European Parliament, which many there would love to see disappear completely. A constitution embodying a number of rather socialistic ideas was soundly rejected. Any suggestion of an even bigger bureaucracy would lead to revolt.
The idea of individual freedom and limited government is one of the founding principles of the USA and it is not just an academic pipe dream. It is hard enough for States to accept the Washington bureaucracy; a world government would be total anathema.
In the developing world, religious and tribal stresses will not disappear just because of western hubris about bringing them better government. Iraq would seem like a cakewalk.
Human nature seems, IMHO, to place limits on the acceptable reach of and distance from the center of government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1022
Location: London
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
Impossible!
In Europe they struggle to find the right role for the European Parliament, which many there would love to see disappear completely. A constitution embodying a number of rather socialistic ideas was soundly rejected. Any suggestion of an even bigger bureaucracy would lead to revolt.
The idea of individual freedom and limited government is one of the founding principles of the USA and it is not just an academic pipe dream. It is hard enough for States to accept the Washington bureaucracy; a world government would be total anathema.
In the developing world, religious and tribal stresses will not disappear just because of western hubris about bringing them better government. Iraq would seem like a cakewalk.
Human nature seems, IMHO, to place limits on the acceptable reach of and distance from the center of government. |
Good to know you're not taking a hardline stance on this one! 
And yes, I see the validity of your points... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Africa
|
Diversity is a smal price to pay for the eradication of poverty and all the other probable benfits. I would think that nations would still go on much as before in terms of government, except for a few guidlines from the world councel. people can still vote for their own governments. Also, I don't think it would have to be mandatory for inclusion in the world union, but I think few countries would pass up the enormous benefits of joining. These countries might even still engage in trade as usual. I guess it would be basically a world union, but with unlimited funds available.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
As jy dom is, moet jy kak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 850
|
| Quote: |
| Good to know you're not taking a hardline stance on this one! |
 It's the coffee talking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 850
|
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Diversity is a smal price to pay for the eradication of poverty and all the other probable benfits. |
But this is idealism, not pragmatism, and doesn't take human nature into account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
| A constitution embodying a number of rather socialistic ideas was soundly rejected. Any suggestion of an even bigger bureaucracy would lead to revolt. |
Bad news. the constitution has been slipped in the back door under another name and another guise. No revolt, no significant protest.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Wolf |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:09 am Post subject: Re: Single World Government? |
|
|
Forum Lycanthrope
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1014
Location: Here
|
| KALSTER wrote: |
| I have been thinking for a while now about exactly how such a government would work and if it would even be desirable. |
We'd have to find a new form of government. Oddly enough, it would likely be a mixture of socialism, communism, and overall dictatorship. The lax freedom of democracy and its wealth mongering would break down over a universal system.
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Would it be possible in such a setup to quickly get rid of poverty? |
You're assuming poverty is something that can be gotten rid of. Unless you make everyone's situation exactly equal, there will always be someone less fortunate than another. The line of poverty is relative to the social situation.
If you find a way to feed, house, cloth, educate all the poverty stricken in the world, you simply shift the line of poverty. If the humanitarian foundations of the world got all the resources they needed, you'd end up with a population of folks who have a set of cloths, a hut, and a bowl of rice each day with water. They're no longer starving and dying, but are they no longer in a state of poverty?
Second, the distribution of "wealth" across the system is based upon those who have and those who don't. Basically, you believe you are not in poverty because you have a closet full of clothes, plenty of food, etc etc.
| KALSTER wrote: |
| How would money work? |
Same as it does now, probably. Although our physical wallets hold a paper currency that is particular to our country and monetary position, the world no longer runs on that paper currency. Everything is held in electronic sum which, in a way, is universal and equal.
We would have to leave the physical money behind and develop a universal physical currency that reflected the electronic currency of the world. I'd assume that such an event would be similar to the EU developing and distributing the Euro.
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Social grants might be raised to a respectable level, but how then would people be motivated to do their part? |
That's a problem even now, and providing it globally would be akin to financial suicide. There needs to be a way to provide for the "poor" while maintaining the "rich" else the system will collapse. In addition, if you offer a support system which brings the "poor" to a socially acceptable level of living, their motivation will likely wane. There is only motivation to move higher if there is something higher (or if there is none, but that can be dangerous).
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Imagine what can be possible when funding is no longer an issue for things like the space program, all kinds of research, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc. |
Imagine giving a company unlimited access to resources. What would happen?
Any basis for control on such a system would be akin to the monetary control that exists now.
Further, the need for resources is not evenly distributed. Who would say that China (for example) is allowed to have all the world's steel? What if India decides to build a home for every person in its country? Or rather, what if the world decided to build a home for everyone in the world?
How do you protect and manage the resources in an open system, without applying a control similar to those that already exist?
| KALSTER wrote: |
| In such a setup, there is no need for each country to lose its identity, in fact countries might be able to more freely develop their own identity. |
Maintaining identity in a system where the scope is universal, is difficult.
In the EU, countries maintain their identities because they are still countries that remain separate despite the union. In the United States, each State is essentially a country but since the government and national identity is singular, the identities between states has grown very loose.
In order to maintain identity, there has to be an effort to maintain difference, and that is something that it seems many people are moving away from.
| KALSTER wrote: |
| I think a scenario like this is the closest one could come to Utopia. |
Not to beat a dead horse, but the same line of logic has been followed by some other individuals in history. I'm sure I don't need to name them.
| KALSTER wrote: |
| How far do you think we are from such a scenario? |
With any luck, very.
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Do you even think it is possible to put something like that into practice? |
There are currently (at least) too many fundamental differences between people for a universal system to take place. It is impossible enough to get the EU or the UN to agree with themselves, and governments remain distrustful and separate even under the best of circumstances. Add to this the separation of the religious sects of the world, and you have an even bigger problem. How would a "world order" handle the inclusion of Islam and Christianity and other main set religions together, without each going at it as usual?
Unfortunately humanity depends on and is driven by its conflict and disassociation with others. There has to be satisfaction between relation.
_________________
Wolf
---------------------------------------------------------
"Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3331
Location: England, UK.
|
Bottom line, we'd have to find out we are not alone in the universe and be able to prove it and they have frequent contact with us before we can be united in such a way.
_________________
"Victory is in trying. Defeat is in not". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Demen Tolden |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Bachelors Degree
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 446
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
|
Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash is a story that contains a global system that the world is run by, although it might not actually be called a government. The story for the most part takes place in North America. In this story corporations have basically become territorial. If you are standing on a piece of land anywhere in the world, you are on the property of x company. All laws, rules, and regulations of that company apply to you since you are standing on their land. There is no government that provides any services for any company. The United States itself has become just another coorperation, and they pretty much only hire people who still believe in it. They give lie detector tests weekly just to make sure along with an odd wire tap here and there.
This to me seems to be the direction that things are heading, and as far as I know, most things already are controlled by the flow of money. We probably wouldn't see anything too drastic though until governments start to be a very unprofitable solution, and coorporations an efficient solution. Are we at that point now? I don't know. I just need to learn more.
I also think that no government change would ever happen unless it was easily profitable money wise.
_________________
Emotions are contagious, and passions create room for ignorance. Please treat others with kindness so that we can all understand each other and are not waylaid by needless hostility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1022
Location: London
|
| Demen Tolden wrote: |
Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash is a story that contains a global system that the world is run by, although it might not actually be called a government. The story for the most part takes place in North America. In this story corporations have basically become territorial. If you are standing on a piece of land anywhere in the world, you are on the property of x company. All laws, rules, and regulations of that company apply to you since you are standing on their land. There is no government that provides any services for any company. The United States itself has become just another coorperation, and they pretty much only hire people who still believe in it. They give lie detector tests weekly just to make sure along with an odd wire tap here and there.
This to me seems to be the direction that things are heading, and as far as I know, most things already are controlled by the flow of money. We probably wouldn't see anything too drastic though until governments start to be a very unprofitable solution, and coorporations an efficient solution. Are we at that point now? I don't know. I just need to learn more.
I also think that no government change would ever happen unless it was easily profitable money wise. |
I thought Snow Crash kind of lost its way towards the end, but what marvellously inventive ideas it contained! And like you, I have ever since speculated about the idea of a free market in nationality - removing the actual geographical barriers and territorial notions that we humans seem so strongly to cling to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SolomonGrundy |
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 245
Location: USA
|
what a joke ... for your time
in the future yes
but not now ... not now!
_________________
Solomon Grundy
In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ilikeick |
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 23
|
| one single government will not last. I believe that the powerful will be oppressive. Ever read 1984 or animal farm. Animal farm would be if a majority of the poor take control and 1984 if the military did. Plus look at what the USSR tried and failed at. They wanted to control the world and pretty much did or a large part of it and they collasped because the strong the government the weak it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
