A single world government?

[Anarchist]

i could not see there being a single world government, for one thing imagine the amount of recounts of votes! it would be anightmare and almost definately fiddled! plus who could say they would vote for someone of another nationality to head this governement? i certainly wouldnt. for example if a westerner were elected they would implement policies that would favour them rather than those poor countries (which of course is currently happening) but equally if someone from africa for example were appointed there policies would obviously be biased towards achieving goals that africans want (these would almost definately be better for the majorit of the world than if a westerner were appointed) and so would almost certainly cause conflict.

Thats why i dont think it would be a democrasy(doesnt work that well to begin with, only has favor for the idea behind it) The nationality problem is caused partially by nations existing, and the problems caused by imperialist religions(lets not go that deep into it) I do see that as a problem(does that mean Chinese rule the world?) I honestly believe it would take a socialist approach to government before a world would be able to support it(the belief that we are all on earth TOGETHER)
Conservative extremists will also cause a major problem, by telling the world how it should be. They will most likely have to relise that they cant rule others

I do see the "undeveloped" countries prospering simply because it wont be about us vs. them it will only be about us. that alone eliminates so many of the world problems, part of the reason to abolish all governments is supported by the idea that no governments means no wars. just like no religions means no more jihads.

Im not saying i think its an easy transition, but it has my support for the anarchist goals in me

[alex_white101]

ok i see what you are saying anarchist, however the bit about how it would not be us vs them i think you are being over simplistic. multinationals have huge power in effecting governments. for example western multi national companies would wish for all protectionist meausres in developing economies to be demolished. this would set back these developing economies decades as there markets are flooded and domestic firms lose all their business. this would lead to HUGE monopoly powers for rich world firms which would be exploited even more than they are now. i could not see a governement ever being able to come to an agreement if they were all from different countries.

the common opinion would of ourse be go down the humanitarium route and protect the people and economies that need it. but put simply this would NOT benefit rich world countries. and so it would not happen as the people in power know full well they can only stay on top for as long as others are below them. i know this is obvious but does anyone in the world want to see their country LOSE influence power and more importantly money? i think not which is why this single government couldnt work.

[flashleg8]

Flashleg, im not sure what your refering to... theres a Futurist classification that refers to...
Class 1 planet- can control the weather
Class 2 planet- can leave its own solar system(guessing on that one)

Not sure if its related at all....

I forgot about this - I thought it might be the Kardashev scale, as well, which is what you seem to be referring to.

But that scale is based on the amount of energy that a civilization can harness, not its political organization.

That might well be it Stopper, its quite a bit different from what I remember - but hell I was failing that class anyway

[Anarchist]

Good point

i forgot about the capitalist bastards, and your right they wouldnt. However me and my peace pipe wish otherwise

[chewyman]

Anarchist, I seem to remember you arguing that we shouldn't have a government and we should all become tribes etc? How does the ideal of a global government work with that? On the one hand you want to dissolve state power, on the other concentrate it.

Seems to me that if a single world government were to occur it would be fascist and imperialist. We aren't all going to come together out of brotherly/sisterly love, it'll be through an iron fist.

As for the argument that there wouldn't be any wars anymore that isn't entirely correct. The single state would just turn to crushing any remaining/new opposition demanding sovereignty. Instead of the threat of nuclear warfare there would be the threat of a nuclear holocaust from the state against its own people. Without a rival the state would either implode from separatist struggles or become totalitarian beyond anything we have ever imagined (I'm talking 1984 + some more).

[Anarchist]

Anarchist, I seem to remember you arguing that we shouldn't have a government and we should all become tribes etc? How does the ideal of a global government work with that? On the one hand you want to dissolve state power, on the other concentrate it.

Seems to me that if a single world government were to occur it would be fascist and imperialist. We aren't all going to come together out of brotherly/sisterly love, it'll be through an iron fist.

As for the argument that there wouldn't be any wars anymore that isn't entirely correct. The single state would just turn to crushing any remaining/new opposition demanding sovereignty. Instead of the threat of nuclear warfare there would be the threat of a nuclear holocaust from the state against its own people. Without a rival the state would either implode from separatist struggles or become totalitarian beyond anything we have ever imagined (I'm talking 1984 + some more).

First choice is Zero Governments(tribalism wasnt me-though i think its better then modern day) However one government would eliminate alot of the segregation of the world, rest caused by religion. Your right it would prolly be through an iron fist and enforced with martial law, I never said it was plausible. Only that i would support it.

Government can only support itself as long as the people allow it to exist
(rule through fear only those who fear death will survive--go ahead Chewy) I cant imagine a muslim extremist world government(my god that would be scary!)

simply put- 1 government is better then 300- (less targets)

[alex_white101]

simply put- 1 government is better then 300- (less targets)

i cant agree with that, hmmmmm, it would be plausable if there was one race, one religion and one currency. this of course is not the case, so having one governement in my eyes would only ever cause conflict.

i think a better compromise would be the UN, just with power balanced out not by the economy of the country but by the number of people they represent. and not run simply by the countries with money.

[Anarchist]

we have one race, were humans(homo sapiens)
religion(dont get me started! worst idea ever was to conform what you believe is wrong and right!)
currency, im really not that attached to money(look at the value of Euros lately?)

Biggest problem is religion, they are the ones so obsessed about our differences.

UN may not be a bad way
EU works(though the politicians i can never trust)

[chewyman]

Instead of 190 targets it would be 6.6billion targets.

BTW, I am a huge fan of the EU.
The UN would also be OK, but only if it had a standing army.

[alex_white101]

i too am a fan of the EU, other than the CAP, which i think should be removed. soon as possible.

[Anarchist]

im in america(unfortunately)

therefore im removed from the politics in the EU
though i love the basis for the idea (Nederlander)

whats the CAP?

[alex_white101]

common agricultural policy, put simply, it garuntees european farmers a decent yearly wage, whilst denying developing countries (who produce most things at significantly lower costs) access to the current biggest single market in the world, it also allows eu farmers to destroy the markets developing countries do have access to by dumping excess goods at a disgustingly low price due to the subsidies they recieve from the EU.

[chewyman]

protectionism = the root of all evil

[Anarchist]

Evil has a LOT of roots....

[Skittles!]

Evil is human made.

[chewyman]

lol it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Evil itself is a concept created by the mind. Whether or not that mind is human or supernatural is up to your own personal beliefs.

[Jenos Ridan]

Instead of 190 targets it would be 6.6billion targets.

BTW, I am a huge fan of the EU.
The UN would also be OK, but only if it had a standing army.

Then the UN becomes the totalitarian police state everyone is scared of. We could stand to gain from having fewer nations, but planet-wide government is a noble, if highly impractical goal. Much like how I view large-scale communal societies.

[diddle]

Evil has a LOT of roots....

i know people have probably already asked you this, but who is that in your avatar?

[Anarchist]

Evil has a LOT of roots....

i know people have probably already asked you this, but who is that in your avatar?

2 escorts from manchester- yummy

[chewyman]

Then the UN becomes the totalitarian police state everyone is scared of. We could stand to gain from having fewer nations, but planet-wide government is a noble, if highly impractical goal. Much like how I view large-scale communal societies.

Except that you'd need the entire security council to agree before being able to use that force. They can't even agree on warning somebody without watering it down so far it no longer matters.

[Jenos Ridan]

Then the UN becomes the totalitarian police state everyone is scared of. We could stand to gain from having fewer nations, but planet-wide government is a noble, if highly impractical goal. Much like how I view large-scale communal societies.

Except that you'd need the entire security council to agree before being able to use that force. They can't even agree on warning somebody without watering it down so far it no longer matters.

True, but we must be vigilant in case of totalitarianistic take-over. In such a large agency, that much power means a clear systems of checks and balences.

[Jenos Ridan]

Then the UN becomes the totalitarian police state everyone is scared of. We could stand to gain from having fewer nations, but planet-wide government is a noble, if highly impractical goal. Much like how I view large-scale communal societies.

Except that you'd need the entire security council to agree before being able to use that force. They can't even agree on warning somebody without watering it down so far it no longer matters.

Which is why when the US really wants to get something done, we ignore the UN. All it ever goes is send hatemail to the nations that it doen't like.

[chewyman]

You have an edit button, use it.

But your point about just sending out nothing but hate mail is mute if the UN actually had that standing army. Then the UN would be a force to reckon with and powers would be less inclined to get on its bad side.

[Jenos Ridan]

You have an edit button, use it.

But your point about just sending out nothing but hate mail is mute if the UN actually had that standing army. Then the UN would be a force to reckon with and powers would be less inclined to get on its bad side.

Which means if the UN gets it in it's head that American Citizens doesn't deserve to have guns, then watch out, hear comes the invaders. And America would not be the ONLY Target of such abuse of power.

[Titanic]

Then the UN becomes the totalitarian police state everyone is scared of. We could stand to gain from having fewer nations, but planet-wide government is a noble, if highly impractical goal. Much like how I view large-scale communal societies.

Except that you'd need the entire security council to agree before being able to use that force. They can't even agree on warning somebody without watering it down so far it no longer matters.

Which is why when the US really wants to get something done, we ignore the UN. All it ever goes is send hatemail to the nations that it doen't like.

Lol, that is so wrong in so many ways. The US ignore the UN because there is rational and moral thought within the UN. Also because the US cannot bully countries and people within the UN, which means that they have to negotiate and listen. Thats a thing that the US governemnt is not used to. It also means that the US can only do things if the other countries agree with its course. Some other things as well, but thats the jist of it.