One World Government

[PITTM]

There are many regional organizations on trade and relations which are successful, ASEAN being a great example. These organizations create regional pacts for the benefit of those in the region. The issues that would be created by having one single government is just too extreme. While it may work for our economic and political interests, it will ignore the interests of states based on religion or states that simply are not interested in maximizing efficency, but keeping their cultural values at the forefront. So yes, i agree that international relations are much more important now than they used to be, but i dont think that it is a call for a global government by any means.

rj

[natedogg]

A one world government is a terrible, terrible idea.

For one, a one world government will be oppressive. The local needs of any given community will be drowned out by the special interests that will demand their due from the OWG. Picture the corruption of the U.S. Congress beholden to corporations, now magnify that 100 fold.

Furthermore, the danger of a OWG becoming oppressive is far more ominous than any single country becoming oppressive because you can always leave your country. If the good ol' USA decides to take everyone's guns and start up the kindertransport, you can always leave to Canada. If the OWG decides to kill all the Jews, where are they going to go?

You may think it sounds crazy but it's happened on very large scales within our own lifetimes. There's no reason why it couldn't happen with a OWG.

Imagine the OWG being taken over by a radical Islamic powerbloc. Now you have the whole world subject to the Taliban rule. At least when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan you could, theoretically, get out.

Lastly, the inertia of a OWG, the bureuocracy will be stifling. It's important for human societies to compete and experiment with new modes of doing things. Under a OWG, we could easily suffer an instance like in medieval china where one stifling emperor outlawed all ocean-going technologies. This effectively sealed off china and handed the future to Europe.

Now Europe was certainly plagued by wars and conflicts, but the aggressive economic and social competition between states created an atmophere of astonishing innovation and growth.

With growth come growing pains but the growth and innovation are too important to give up for ... for. .... what? What will actually be the BENEFIT of a OWG?

natedogg

[wacki]

I'm with natedogg. OWG = bad idea. A quick look at history an and you can see dozens of examples of a large governing body enacting genocide between two ethnic groups under it's domain. After WWII russia used one russian ethnic group to slaugher more russians on the eastern front than Jews killed in germany. Why? Because the "must of cooperated with the germans". Much harder to do this between countries.

No checks and balances = bad bad idea.

[Cyrus]

"One world government is a goal to be aspired to, and is in fact essential if the human race is ever going to get anywhere as a species."

What you want is extremely close co-operation between national governments, and particularly in matters that affect other nations. Such as energy, etc.

What you definitely don't want is "one world government".

BTW, see how, throughout History, European "great men" aspired to unite Europe -- under their own boot, of course. It all came to blood and misery. Note also how, after WWII, by the thrust of economic motives, Europe has not seen war (unique in its 1500 years!) and is advancing, slowly but surely, towards integratioon in matters of ecology, economy, foreign policy, etc.

The same applies, many times over too, for the "plan" to "unite the world". Noble sentiment but watch it...

"Advancing technology will, over time, tend to smooth out the cultural differences."

National culture is usually belligerent. National culture, as affirmation of other-ness, and acts as a deterrent to peace. So, despite the loss of many "unique" cultures that this entails, the coming homogene-isation (ugh) is good for peace and good for the planet. Up to a point.

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
[I just wanted to clarify that I'm not talking about GWB ruling the world or anything crazy like that]

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you don't like President Bush? Wow I would have never guessed with your support of an OWG. Next you'll tell me that your not even a Republican.

BTW have you considred the fact the overwhelming majority of people on earth are guided by religeous beliefs and that if everyone were to vote the winner would more than likely be much much less apealing to European and American Liberals than President Bush? Perhaps you would only support a OWG as determined by the Western and I guess "less crazy " World.

[The once and future king]

I am english.

We still use S. Even if some use Z using S is not in anyway a mistake that warrants the patroniSing correction you made in your post.

[Six_of_One]

I'm not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. I'm not sure why that matters. As to your point about religion, part of my original point was that advancing technology over time will tend to smooth out cultural differences that are so divisive today. This includes religion. The developed world is more "connected" today than at any time in the past due to technology...this will only spread as time passes.

Again, I want to make it clear, this is a long-term perspective. Hundreds of years. I'm not talking about anything you can prove or disprove in a single lifetime. It's just my opinion.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
if the human race is ever going to get anywhere as a species.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even want to know what your idiotic, socialist definition of getting "anywhere as a species" is? Where the hell are we supposed to be going?

[Six_of_One]

I think our main difference is that you're using today's political climate to explain why OWG would be a terrible idea. Well, I agree -- today, OWG would be a terrible idea. But today's political climate will not last forever. Countries don't last forever; religions don't last forever.

I believe that, over time, world culture will gradually become more homogenized. Many see this as a negative; I don't. Cultures come and go, as species do. This is the natural way of things. So, as people come together culturally, the risk of oppression from one culture to another diminishes. War is less common; poverty can be more effectively attacked; general quality of life improves.

By the way, I should mention that I'm sort of refining my views as I go here. This is something I just thought of yesterday. In my initial post, I made reference to something like "not in my lifetime, or probably the next 100 years." I think that was a fairly drastic underestimation of the time frame necessary here. I'm thinking we have to be talking about 500 years, minimum.

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't even want to know what your idiotic, socialist definition of getting "anywhere as a species" is? Where the hell are we supposed to be going?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think I'm a socialist, I assure you, you're missing the mark by a wide margin.

And where are we going? Somewhere that doesn't include life with the various assorted types of misery we have to choose from today.