I've been wondering for a while now why some people are so disdained with the idea of a world government or a larger organization in the future. I was always hoping that nationalism would die out and people would more or less worry about humanity as a whole instead of individual countries. If you have any thoughts on the idea, leave a post, maybe with the pros and cons of it. Maybe I've just been swayed by watching too much scifi as I grew up.
As I am a dedicated Christian, a world power is inevitable. How ever, I do no believe America will be apart of said power.
Do you believe that the people within it wouldn't allow it or that you personally feel that America should not partake? If so for what reasons?
The problems with one world prower is the same problems that the US debated about when it was first formed and still does. The balance of power between the federal government or the state governments? What kind of checks and balances will there be to stop a few people from taking control and telling everyone to bend over because here it comes. There is the issue of the differences of the standards of living across the world. Then there are nations that want their religion to rule them. Others seem to be so corrupt that they are essentially criminal countries. The world is to fractured to really agree on anything right now.
Which is why I can't really form an opinion on this until I'm giving a specific world government to consider. Preferably one that could plausibly form, but discussing implausible ones can be fun. Especially if it can't plausibly sustain itself, since the discussion will derail onto how the government will fall apart.
I guess a good starting point would be this article. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html I didn't know you guys wanted specifics on how it would be run, but the general idea of giving up nation hood to be subject to a higher power, something that is happening in the EU.
Mainly, because of the lack of options. Right now, if you don't like the way a country is run (for whatever reason), you can move to another. In a unigovernment world, the government can implant tracking devices and such in everybody and know everything you do and everywhere you go.... and you can't do anything about it. Stuff like this is already being planned. The ones controlling this unigovernment would be corrupt, and impose their corrupt will on the people. They will not hesitate to use force (who's to stop them???). It will not be a democracy, that's for sure. A unigovernment world is a scary concept. There ALWAYS needs to be a balance of powers in the world. One single mighty power is not balance, and will only lead to evil.
I guess that's one way to look at it that people are usually naturally corrupt and with out a power to balance, then they would be able to anything regardless of the consequences. A always thought that when a unitary government came to happen, people would be able to move past things like that. But I have a feeling that the only way for that to happen would be an outside threat, something to unite humanity as a whole.
The way to look at it is from a "what works" perspective, and see what can be slightly adopted into a structure which is both based on benefiting the people as a whole assuming each individual in a cynical light unless proven otherwise. Sure there are plenty of people wanting a good world and willing to work for it, but let's face it... everyone has their own lives to concentrate, they have loans to pay off and even the wealthy are so tightly wound up in a high concentration high income lifestyle that they no longer have lives... and they work so hard so that they can afford to take breaks (which they need at that point) and have other people do everything for them for which they pay them with the money they earned. I think the major problem with the way the world works is a basic combination of neurobiology and economic trends. Someone works hard, goes to school, spends their youth earning their knowledge so they can work their way up a job and pay off a loan they acquired to get said knowledge, and by the time they can focus on themselves on that path they are around 35+ so their brains are so focused and cement set on how the world currently works making them rigid and ignorant to change. So I guess that's just how it works, money is earned and owned by those who have less use or vision for it than those who are in debt to be in such a position, and it's a parent's job to push that as an aspiration. For those who are not familiar with basic brain development, a child from age 1-12 is highly susceptible to brainwashing into cults and ideas because that's the receptive stage, from 13-20 we develop most of the skills for the rest of our lives because that's the brain's growth stage, we doubt and refine our information as it comes in so I guess that's the learned growth stage, and from 20 onward our brains don't have the natural tendency to grow which means that like a stomach if you don't work it out and flush it full of junk it turns to a big ol spare tire in strength, and in structure it stays pretty set on what it learned in the past. With age comes increasing difficulty to change the course of one's mind. I'm ranting though, hope this helps.
i like the concept of a world govt, but there are alot of problems that would prevent it from working. the population imbalances would make elections no-contest [chinese would win, and indians would get the opposition, simple numbers.]. america will never acknowledge a higher govt. no rich govt would willingly give up its treasury [ie, americans would never agree to havng thier tax dollars spent on saving starving/illiterate/poor africans.] etc
The problem with a world government is that the world is simply too big. It would be almost impossible to be fair, or be fair in the view of everyone. The various cultures are too far fetched, set in their ways, and simply different for the same set of rules to work for everyone. You would wind up with a situation the US experienced with the Civil War but on a much grander scale.
World Economy yes, World Government no. If there was only one limiting factor it would be Religion. Too many people are too ignorant to accept others. It's just how it is.
I could deal with a global monetary unit, kind of like "credits". The only problem is it would be really hard to police.
to many religions out there that dont agree, no one would ever form a one world government, now as seckys puts it its gonna happen anyways, hes right. But thats far in the future, there has to be a person that condems all religions and tries to unify the world through one religion. I mean why do you think people dissagree through-out the world right now... think about it. This isnt political since its not in effect nor will it be for awhile, its just an question and a pretty simple one to.
Kav, there's a difference between politics and discourse over ideas, as long as dicussion stays on topic and remains civil, this thread should be able to remain open. -KM
I'm all for a world government, but with all the differences in religion, politics and culture, it's not going to be a clean transition. Sadly the only way I can see a global merger is through force, with one religious/political/cultural government taking over (and no I'm not thinking of any particular nation). The only way to avoid this is if every nation decides to drop everything they grew up and got comfortable with and start with a clean slate. Either way I actually see a global government ruled and managed through corporations.
Oddly enough, probably the most likely thing would there to be some relaly big nation states and them trying to police the smaller ones, such as with the middle east.