Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Single World Government?

  1. #1 Single World Government? 
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    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……


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    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.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    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! :P

    And yes, I see the validity of your points...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Good to know you're not taking a hardline stance on this one!
    It's the coffee talking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Single World Government? 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    How far do you think we are from such a scenario?
    With any luck, very.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    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.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Demen Tolden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    475
    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.
    The most important thing I have learned about the internet is that it needs lot more kindness and patience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Demen Tolden
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    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".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    35
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    A large government (or any really) begins to fail the moment its leaders begin to concern themselves with self-interests and not their responsibilities.

    In the absence of a holding factor (such as a strong dictator) or an unrealistic collective of do-gooders, the struggle to build and sustain a government will depend on the ability to feed the fat-cats while keeping those less "fortunate" from feeling so bad they rise up. If that balance can be maintained, the government system will flourish. If not, it will collapse.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    35
    No matter how well the government treats the unfornute they will always rise up at one point or another. I also think that it depends on how the world government was created. If through war it may turn out like after America's revolution. Where groups of people get the idea to rebel and they try (i.e. Whiskey Rebelion)But through peaceful ways it may take longer. No matter how it is the mild class will always want to be the upper and rebel with the poorer as the pawns. And to appiont your first statement the moment anyone gets into power they start going for their self-interests. It's through the policies they create and act off of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •