Your Views on a world Government
 

Okay this is sprung up from the Why Aliens don't come here thread, it's always been an interesting topic to me.

Anyway the topic is obvious and the questions that follow are should allow you to give a pretty good opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
What are your views on a Unified World Government?
What would be required to create it?
What would be the benefits?
What are the cons?
Which nations do you think should be dominant in it's creation?
(Add your own statements as you'd like please as long as it's not lame *** stuff like get rid off all the lawyers or something.)

Anyway if you want a good summery of how I see a Unified World government and it's most proboble temperment towards others look at my Icarans. I think it would be absolutely hostile towards non "party line" Groups and would most likely absorb any national cultures it encountered.

I beleive that it would probobly take either a global crisis or global war to unify the nations of the world into a single government and even then I think it would probobly just end up being a more stabilized UN.

The benefits of a global government would be obvious in that a single world economy would probobly allow countries to bring their populations out of homeless states because former country A could be turned into an industrial complex and the uneducated people could find jobs there, while Country B could be turned into a tech producing country where the highly educated folks could find jobs and produce technology for those of country A while the folks in country A produce the machinery for the folks in B.
Other benefits would be a singular scientific nation instead of the dozens of "secret" projects where countries refuse to share their technologies with one another.

The Cons are quite obvious as well, the folks in the more educated regions of the world would begin to see themselves as superior to the uneducated and class systems would probobly fall into place whether intentional or not.

A global economy is dangerious in that if it crashes THE WHOLE WORLD CRASHES with it.

As to which nations would probobly take the lead in the formation of such a government:

USA (not saying we are evil so don't go there, it's just as an economic powerhouse and military power it would be logical)

China (they'd have the manpower to pull off resource allocation if a unified world government did take over)

European Union (the whole dang thing is probobly the first step toward world government anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)

Possibly some of the middle eastern states (though I doubt it as they are pretty hostile as a whole)

So anyway what's your opinion?

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

A world government at this point in human development would be the greatest evil I could imagine. The current set-up runs a close second.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

A unified world government would undoubtedly lead to tyranny, due to the lack of competition. Monopolies are a bad thing, whether in economics, government, religion, or any other part of life.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Glad to know I'm not the only one that thinks it would be bad thing to have that sort of unified government I mean heck starcraft probobly had it right with the UED heh.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I definitively no want to live in unified world.
Unless I'm the unifier.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I think this phrase pretty sums up how I feel on this.

The Values of So Many should not be controlled by The Interests of So Few

Probably some adaption to something already existing, it's something I just thought of. But I'm afraid the fate of several billion people should not be controlled by a handful of people when it comes to ruler/subject ratio, that and I don't trust politicians with a whole planet!

Plus I can think of several other reaons why not, but thats the main one.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

My view on world government is a bleak one at best. I honest do not see it happeing in my life time or that of say my great grand children. I do believe that at some point it may happen, but it certainly will not happen until something catastrophic occurs to force it into being.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I agree with Atrocities. The world is not ready for the idea socially, the feelings of nationalism run strong (not that that's a bad thing) and each nation would be too wrapped up in it's own affairs to accomplish anything.

Thinking about it, I really don't think it can work as long as there are separate nations. Just look to the beginnings of the US government and transpose that to a world scale. Nation A would want more voice because they are more powerful economically, nation B would want more voice because they have more territory, and nation C would want more voice because they have more population.

Yeah, AT is right, it won't work unless forced.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Well, I'm all for it. But maybe in that basic human rights for all is all that should all be mandated. And the U.N. should have some teeth to it's mandates too. 3rd world soldiers in baby blue helmets isn't much of a deterent to anyone. But do I trust the U.N. now? No way! France, China, and Russia (wassup with those 3?) sure sling the phrase "multi-lateralism" around quite a bit. But dig down far enough and their "multi-lateralism" hides only thier very own unilateral goals. I would welcome a benevolent international organization that puts the smack down on bad guys...But right now the only people I trust (Switzerland) don't have aircraft carriers and are a little too nice.
Sorry I didn't answer your questions one by one. So.. yeah I'm all for it...eventually.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Re: Monopoly. Re: Corruption. Re: Bad.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Tell that to the millions of Jews [et al] exterminated by the Nazis, an operation primarily financed by plunder knowingly laundered through Swiss banks for a dozen years.

And the only reason they don't have aircraft carriers is that they aren't near an ocean. They do have compulsory military service for nearly all citizens with legs, though.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Not likely to happen anytime.

Above all, a universial language.

Boundless trade is the only benefit that I see.

Many. Should one form right this instant, terrorism would be a big factor.

China, India, USA, The European Union (should it ever develop into nationhood).

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

HEH you trust Switzerland PLEASE! lol they are one o the most shady nations you'll find speaking from a monetary point of view I wouldn't trust them to run the world.

As far as China, Russia, France, they all have one thing in common at the moment (well a few) but the biggie is that all three have comunist power hungry leadership Groups that are interested in making the world's Last superpower (AKA US) and anyone who supports it look bad to the 3rd world nations, in fact if you think about it those three are probobly quite responsible for a LOT of the mideast tension towards foreign powers. (mainly France and Russia)

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

You know a unified government is actually listed in Revalations as one of the steps in the end of the world? Revelations 13:7: (emphasis added) (NIV) "He was given power to make war against the saints and conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation."

Skipping the Apocoliptic prophecy, however, there is a very practical reason why I don't like the idea of a world-wide government: If the government decideds to do something evil, what you gonna do about it? With a zillion countries, it's at least possible (if not always easy nor safe, such as in the case of the Berlin wall in Germany for a time) - to "vote with your feet" and go to another country. That doesn't work with only one country.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

See IMHO the only way we'll have a united "Earth" government is when we have offworld colonies in other systems, in all probobility such colonies would eventually form their own nations, Earth would likely form a united government by then.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Maybe we'll settle for continental or regional powers. Like North America, Oceania, Eurasia. O.k. now that I've typed that it kinda looks and reminds me of Orwell's 1984. Here's a shout out to the homies at "Airstrip One" (England) Anyway I am aware of Switzerlands past misdeeds as well as my own country too. But c'mon, all they do now is make chocolate, watches, and cuckoo clocks. I trust neutrality. Anyway I look forward to this new European fast reaction force. Maybe now they can get their hands dirty in world affairs rather than complaining if the U.S. does or does not.
One world government? Probably not in our life time. Of course global war and catastrophe will shorten our life time.
I like this topic. Good job Starhawk, good replies all.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Actually they are still just as involved in blood-money laundering, they just do it for drug dealers and petty dictators now.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

But enough about Switzerland, all countries have plenty of skeletons in their respective closets.

The real key to peace, prosperity and the general success of humanity as a species is... more bureaucracy.

No, really, you read that right. Throughout history, the main cause of the death-spiral most civilizations (that aren't conquered by outsiders) find themselves in eventually is lack of institutional resistance to change.

For example, the Roman Empire was arguably a rather successful civilization for a number of centuries. How did this happen? Bureaucracy! The Romans practically invented the stuff, and it was the giant sticky morass singularly responsible for holding it together for four or six (I always forget which) centuries, until a lack of computerization finally did them in. Technically barbarians, but in reality it was the lack of computerization. Think the barbarians would have conquered mighty Rome if they had had to submit thirteen applications in triplicate to the Bureau of Conquering and Cultural Assimilation? Hardly. No self respecting barbarian would have had the patience for that, instead they would have wandered off to conquer other, lesser (and less bureaucratic) civs, or just hung around and played lawn darts.

Anyway, the point is, the more resistant to change of any sort a civilization is, then by definition the longer it will remain cohesive and intact. The U.S.'s founding fathers knew this, hence the beautiful system of checks and balances they wove into the fabric of our government to make it virtually impossible to effect any real change. I weep with joy at the ruthless inefficiency of our triply-redundant executive/legislative/judiciary house of mirrors, each patently incapable of accomplishing anything meaningful (aside from voting themselves pay raises), each replete with its own complex web of inherent redundancies (a bicameral house/senate--Brilliant! Allow 50 separate states to retain just as much bureaucracy as the Federal system, while simultaneously adding another 50 layers of bright-red tape to interstate interaction [commerce, law, etc] process--Brilliant!).

The wisdom of our 'fathers shall ever shield us from the inevitable fate of nations. A brief primer on how it happens in nature:

First: The Founding--some people have a relatively innocuous idea for a nation/empire/hegemony of some sort, and go about creating it (often by killing people).

Second: The Short Golden Age, wherein a few people are Actually Happy, usually at the expense of at least one other class of people who are Generally Put-Upon. Often characterized by frequent fireworks displays, and the occassional third world Police Action.

Third: The Slow But Inevitable Death Spiral of Change. More people think they have good ideas, make some changes (often by killing people), see that their changes inevitably make things worse, and the cycle continues until the splendor of the bureaucratic state has devolved into a nightmare world of chaos and change and loud yelling, often referred to as "Parliament".

Fourth: Sunset. Either another group of people have a relatively good idea for a nation/empire/hegemony and come conquer our sad example state (because they lack computerization; think: Rome, Mongols, countless Chinese Dynasties), or our heroes slowly recede into the dustbin of history in a faded state of decay and whistful meandering thoughts of lost glory and empire, and The Way Things Used To Be (think: Britain).

Change is bad! Revolution isn't the answer! Vive le Bureaucracy! Even the very word 'bureaucracy' comes from the French, and we all know how effective they are... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

No politicians were harmed in the making of this post.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Revoultion is always the answer. If the government is oppressing your rights and nearing or at the point of a Totaltarianistic state, revoultion is good for you and you country. It has worked in nearly every situation, America, France, Cuba, Mexico, and so on.

A World Government today would be the worst possible answer, due to the fact you may get an idiot elected because he is a good politician. In 200 or so years when humanity as a whole has smartened up a bit it would be a good thing possibly so long as man's never ending quest for glory and greed dont over take us all.

Also if a World Government is ever established, this should be one of its highest laws. NO ONE who wants to lead should be choosen to lead. But rather they should select the possible leaders out of the scientfic and academic world. Simple way to do away with certian people

Look at the pic attached, my feelings about politicans

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

America did not have a revolution, we fought a war of secession. If it were a revolution, the British government would have been completely deposed. As King George retained the throne, more or less, it was not a revolution.

Your mileage may vary on France and Mexico, but you call Cuba's revolution a success? I guess if the goal was to secure poverty for all...

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

So far, everyone has pretty much made it clear why a world government won't work. What about what it would take for it to work?

As I see it, there are certain technological nessesities for a world government. First IMO is fusion power or something similar. Something that will provide all the power needs of the whole planet without adding costs and/or enviromental damage. For a world government, there would have to be a "leveling of the playing field" in terms of technology. And without a substantial power source, that won't happen. Whether fully used or not, I think the availablity of technology would be the first step.

Second would have to be some sort of unified world opinion on what's important in terms of human rights and similar topics. That also won't happen without some sort of condition that affects the whole planet. (ala: Deep Impact, Independance Day, Day After Tommorow, etc.)

Third would have to be near-total participation. Not on a national level but on an individual level. Example: a global reforendum is held on whether to unify the world or not. This would require a method for, and acutal participation of, 90%+ of the world population.

So, that said, what it will take is an Alien attack in the form of an asteroid smashing into the Earth causing a new Ice Age that will wipe out approximatly 4 Billion people. The remainder of which are smart enough to develope highly advanced technological feats andd all actually get off their butts come election day.

OT: why is it in nearly all global disaster movies, Canada is among the first to go?

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I relish the idea of a single world government, however I can not see it happening anytime soon. There are too many Groups in the world at present that would refuse to accept the changes necessary. Instead it should be a gradual process so that perhaps in a hundred years the world population awakes one morning to find that the process has been completed. However such a long term vision is unable to take into account the effects technology may have on our lives in the next century. In a hundred years we may all be uploaded into our own virtual worlds and have no need to care about the rest of the population. By then perhaps there will be only one line of work in existance, software programmer (can't let the robots write their own software or they would take over).

I believe by removing nationalism and ethnic diversity we can end conflicts. Every citizen needs to be taught that they are no better than others and that their responsibility is to serve the race rather than the individual. As someone said there exists the problem that one nation (in the time before the disolving of national identities) may try to wield power through the excuse that "well we have the biggest population in the world, or we have the largest country etc" but they must come to learn that China for example may have 1 billion world citizens but there are 5 billion other humans in the world. A country may have a political system (using China again as an example, since it is a large country with a large population using a distinct political system) that they feel is superior to other existing systems and that they believe the world state should use, but existing political systems should be removed and a whole new system suited to the advancement of the world as a whole should be instituted.

This is not a theory that assumes Democracy should be the default system. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority and the use of what is popular over what is best. Instead of 51% of the population forcing the other 49% to do what they want, a system is necessary where a group tasked with the guidance of the world decides on the most logical course of action.

Puting aside for a moment the contentious issue of Switzerlands past history I would like to point out the fact that Switzerland is renowned for everything being orderly. The trains run on time and the population is cared for by the government. Switzerland does not have a single national leader, but instead has a council of ministers each of whom runs their department. Since it is deemed necessary to have a single figure represent the country at international meetings and events a President is chosen each year from the council but they have no particular powers, they are just that years representative. I didn't know before about the effect bureaucracy had on the longevity of the state but I must say I am delighted at the information as it enforces my longstanding belief that bureaucracy is the ideal means to run the state.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I meant the first revoultion, not Castro.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I think you've got that backwards.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Uh and how do we remove "ethnic diversity"? hmmm? Not to mention if you remove "ethnic diversity" you leave the door open to lots of bad crap.

In other words true form of tyranny wherein the minority who decides they are superior gets to rule over those they see as inferior, briliant idea there man (rolleyes)

Well let's see consider that it's run like a giant buisness (which the country practically is), I definately wouldn't recomend this for a world government as blood money would probobly be considered an okay thing.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I don't know? What do we do now if the Dread Governor of Arkansas decides to do something evil?

A world government can still have checks and balances.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

In what way is it backwards?. Communism seems to think the government should be made to care for and run by the workers. I believe the government is there to serve the people but that they owe allegiance to the community. Its not all people are equal as workers, but instead all people are equal as citizens of the state.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Basically if I am a doctor I get stuck being reduced to the same equality of a drug addict, great that encourages me to do things in life now doesn't it?

The problem with your idea is that people need to be motivated by more then force to actually give a damn and do something worthwhile in the world, your idea would put a smart educated and useful person at the "equal" of a lowlife scumsucking moocher, why should I be a doctor then?

That is and has always been one of the primary failings of communism I DON'T want to be equal to some of the folks I've met, I am confident in my superiority and glad of it, and I'm sure there are others that are superior to society then I am and good on them (I've met a few people smarter then me).

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I thought you meant to say serve the individual not the race, since you said before that you wanted to remove ethnic diversity, therefore eliminate the idea of race.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

lol

One thing's for sure. If someone is going to develop a single world government, it won't be this group http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I actually believe that a corporate structure would have the best chance at a world government. Not the same setups as most of today's corporations, but something similar. Instead of answering to voters, those in power would have to answer to shareholders, who would be all of the population.

Also, the comments about individualism/state-ism (?), I also think that a shareholder/voter situation would satisfy that requirement. If the government does better, you make more money! If the government does poorly, you get paid less. Something like this would be more inclined to get most people to pay more attention to the goings on of whats around them than simply if you show up, you get paid. Regardless of what is done/not done, you get paid the same. IMO this is why Communism in particular and any other socialist government in general does not work. This is also why I'm opposed to labor unions. Show up, get paid. Regardless if whether you actually work or not. Don't get me wrong, I believe there is a place for unions but not to the degree that they are now.

Eg: Several years ago (mid '80s I believe), a disgruntled worker for the National Film board of Canada, brought a handgun into work and shot one his co-workers. The victim didn't die (thankfully) and the attacker was put on a temporary leave. After which (don't recall the time frame) his job was still waiting for him. Under the terms of the Union, he could NOT be fired for shooting a fellow employee.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I have the perfect caption for any human-conceived world government, of ANY kind.

"All Your Base Are Belong To Us."

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I don't know if that was your purpose, but the "France, at the moment, have communist power hungry leadership Groups" made me laugh quite well. I will only address this single point for lack of time: the communist party in France is... how shall we say? virtually dead (it had about 5% of the popular vote in the Last presidential elections, while it had as much as 20% votes in 1981 if memory serves.). The even more to the left, extreme left-wing parties, had a bigger share of the votes, but extreme votes should not be considered as simply being a vote for that party. one of these parties had an untypical candidate, 27-year-old, employed in the postal service, which helped give them their 7 or 8% share of the votes. Does it mean these people converted to the ideals of Trotsky? Not quite.

The closest France came to be under communist control was shortly after WW2, as a plot would have been likely in 1947 or 1949 (it is only one of these two, but I cannot remember the actual one. I will check once I get back from school). But that plot failed, and even if it succeeded, would have had a very tough time keeping power; they had little backing from the army, and the USSR would have had trouble sending help as far as France (there was Western Germany in the way). What you may argue is that marxist ideals are still present in the ways trade unions operate, but above all, in social representations. That would be, however, a different topic, and I should stop digressing.

Lastly, you might wish to know the biggest opponents to the United States (Charles de Gaulle, between 1958 and 1969, did pretty well) were often from the right-wing (as is our current government), and had nothing to do with the communisty party. And I would be very surprised if the words of France had that much impact, especially coming from an ancient colonial power that was reluctant, to say the least, to give up its Empire. I cannot speak of Russia and China, but I would feel the same about their foreign policy; when you are the leading power, it would be very odd if you didn't sprung the biggest amount of criticism from virtually everyone else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Actually yes it was intended to make you laugh I guess I should have made that more clear eh? I have a warped sense of humor and sometimes forget that internet=not being able to carry over the "tone" of what I'm saying lol.

Though I did get a kick out of the rumor that France accidentally voted in a communist,it was almost as good as the
"Why does Michael Jackson like twenty eight year olds? Because there are twenty of them" joke.

But anyway back on to a serious topic China and Russia both have strong communist leaders (Though Puttin claims to be an ex KGB (ex-communist) he runs his government's foreign policy like the old Soviet Block.) China is less openly hostile to foreign policy but they are still rather "guarded" in their contacts.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

sorry for the confusion, I should have said Human race. All people should work together to care for the Human race as a whole, rather than advancing themselves at the expense of others.
It is a problem how to remove different opposing Groups. I don't want to resort to force and I can't see any other way except educating people to agree with others. The idea is not that low life people are as good as others but that no one is better than anyone else. For the drug addict, he must be rehabilitated and educated to understand his responsibilities, then made into a useful member of society. We merely have to determine how much money is necessary for a person to live comfortably and then each citizen has that much. They don't need to live extravagantly, just have the considered necessities. There are no rich or poor, merely world citizens of equal standing. People can still strive to excel, it will give them something to do and not make them feel guilty taking advanatge of the system, but they shouldn't be considered better than everyone else because of it just admired for their dedication. The Drug addict has a problem and he must be helped.
Let me finish with an example of what I consider refusal to accept what is best. The official goes to the farmer to explain that the government will relocate him and flood his farm.

Farmer: "my family have lived on this farm for 4 generations and I aint moving"
Official: "but sir, its just land. You will be relocated to another farm of equal value. If we flood this area we can irrigate more land and feed a million people".
Stubborn Farmer: "I don't care about 1 million people I aint moving"

I agree it would be difficult to convince everyone to think the same way so that the leadership can carry out what is necessary. Unfortunately every time I see anarchists throwing bottles at police I lose my belief that people can accept order. If an alien landed and said that in return for my dying he would ensure humanity was orderly and lawful I wouldn't think twice before agreeing.
Is my idea really that stupid?. I have heard worse, such as the preposterous idea that a human being is considered of less worth merely because of the colour of their skin. I am not calling for tyranny or anything I just want what I consider best for everyone. Perhaps I'm just misguided to believe that everyone else would agree. Starhawk, if your example is the truth, and I sadly think it might be, than my idea and humanity is doomed.

excuse me but I have to go take my medication. Just thinking about the problem is getting me depressed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

'And the second is like unto it, to love thy neighboor as thyself.'

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I was not aware that xenophobia and/or protection of your national interests equalled Communism.

China never reached a "Communist" state. Ever since Kissinger successfully opened their borders to trade with the US back in the 60s, they have moved more and more away from the Soviet form of "Communism" (which is in quotes because it was never actually Communism) to "merely" a military dictatorship.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

I think it needs to be pointed out that there has never been (and probably never will be) a truly communist nation. What we refer to as "communism" is really socialism.

As someone pointed out earlier, all people being of equal value is a fallacy propagated by governments in order to maintain control over the population. All people are not of equal "value" but... should have equal rights and opportunities (value is a rotten word for this but it's the best I can think of). Government's purpose is to enforce laws and protect the populance from external threats not to babysit our children, not to tell us where we can and can not go, not to tell us what to believe in, and not to give handouts to those who are unwilling to help themselves (help those who can't, sure, help those who won't, hell no!)

The Star Trek vision of future Earth society is BS. It makes us feel good to think that we are working towards that kind of world but I don't see it ever coming to pass. Human nature is to want more than what we have. The trick is to maintain a society(note I did not say government) that allows for this.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Ah but the problem with this is that it creates a welfare state wherin I don't NEED to work to live, much like the way the Soviet Union provided a "basic living stipend" I believe it was called, every citizen got x-ammount of money whether they worked or not and look at how that went, a large ammount of people only worked when they were practically shoved in at gunpoint.
And can you really blame them? Humans by nature will not work for what we can get for free, if I can be paid the same as say a doctor for hangin out with my friends and family then why should I bother striving to be a doctor?

I understand your intentions are good but a welfare state where "everyone is paid equally" would not work very well, especially because some jobs are a HECK of a lot more stressful or dangerious then others and should be paid more money as appropriate to their risks and stress.

Now one thing I do agree with you on is the idea that humans needed to be trained to think about humanity and not just their own interests.
I mean let's face it do you know how many starving homeless people could be fed on the sallery of a single NFL player for just one year? a LOT yet instead we waste millions of dollars on unproductive, whiney, generally punk jerkass professional athletes that B and M when they don't get that extra ten million dollars when the average person would just like enough money to be able to take their family on vacation without going into debt.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

That is the free market at work. As long as people are willing to buy tickets and/or watch on TV the players will continue to ask for more.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

There's a reason I used "government" rather than "ruler", "leader", "president" et cetera. The US president can be removed without assasination precisely because he is a portion of the government, rather than the government itself. Sure, he is capable of doing a lot of evil stuff - nuking half the planet, for instance - without consent of the rest of the government; even if he had the full support of the entire US government, the average joe could still in practice run away from laws that were truely evil (such as mandatory lobotomies for everyone (except those closely related to a government official) with an IQ over 90) as the US does not hold sway over the whole planet. Sure; of course, checks and balances occasionally break down. Take, for example (a fairly extereme one), Hitler's rise to power. Post WWI Germany was handed a constitution as part of the WWI cleanup (I'm simplifying a lot here). They got an elected body with specific, limited powers, modeled after the British and US system. Their constitution gaurunteed certain rights, which could only be supressed in an emergency by at least a two-thirds majority vote of the elected body with at least two-thirds of that body present. The body was a party-election setup, similar to the British system; that is, the party with X% of the popular vote got X% of the seats.
Then Hitler came along. He was popular; he managed to get something like 45% of the popular vote for his party. Then, one day, it came about that all of his people were present, and enough of the other representatives were gone that there were just barely enough there to qualify for an emergency rights supression vote. Interestingly enough, two-thirds of two-thirds is four-ninths; which is 44%. The vote went along party lines and Hitler was handed the full reins of Germany, with full permission to do whatever he liked.

For a smaller example, take Washington State's (now named, wasn't so named at the time) SafeCo Field. Bills for funding it went to the voting public two or three times. Every time, it was turned down. Currently, you can buy a ticket and go see a game at SafeCo field, and know that the majority of the construction was funded by taxpayers, and the majority of the profits from the building go to private enterprise.

Tell me, do you really think that you (or anyone else) can come up with a worldwide system cohesive and strong enough to be safely called a world government that will (A) be long-term stable, (B) be "good" for virtually everyone (ignoring for the moment that virtually everyone has a different specific definition of "good"....), and (C) have checks and balances of such near-perfection that a particularly extraordinary person or group will never be able to come along and turn this ideal government around so that it now only cares about that particular person or group?

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

As many of you, I'm an opponent of world government idea.
But on a second thought I came to idea that our judgements are way too banal: global state = very big USA/China/EU/whatever -> despotic methods = bad.
I thought about different things, though.

For example, my science work is dedicated to "automatization" of urban economics. Together with vast of other projects it might lead to humanless expert system of local administration guided via declaration of will of citizens (electronically). Such autonomous cells could be united into state-scale grid, and then (theoretically) into world-wide grid. So finally we will have global "government" which rule world economy in a most effective and rational way. All this is possible from scientifical point of view.
You'll ask, "What about politicians and such?" Well, they'll be obsolete. Several millions of controllers over the world will be enough to check and maintain such system.
Want success stories? Internet grew up the very similar way - local nodes united to local networks and then LANs formed global network.
You'll say, "I won't trust computers to manage my life!". Well we do it already. We trust computers to make cars, electronics, and other computers. We trust them to pilot airplanes and cars. We trust them to manage enterprise resources (ERM systems and most of middleware). They're not smart enough to make some complex decisions yet, but I think it's a matter of time. You don't really need true AI, just very good algorithms and very good mathematical models.

I agree that such future looks quite joyless, but I think it's possible. And probably in our lifetime.

About Russia as the leader of world integration:
As Russian I can say for sure, that our society is turning into typical police state (ala Pinochet's Chili), which has nothing common with communism or socialism. Of course our Soviet past has huge influence still, but it's a matter of methods, not ideas. Ex: local elections are limited (you can't elect Governor or city Major anymore); our parliament will be reduced to minimum, freedom of national referendum is limited (in fact, it should be approved (sic!) in Moscow!!). Combined with ruined economy and science, this negates any chances for Russia to be a leader of world integration.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

An AI government would not make human error; however, it would make computer error; that is, misunderstanding of human nature. To solve this, humans would have to correct AI descisions. As one or the other would have to be in overall charge, this once again leads to problems of lack of choices.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

One problem with a computer run society is that, eventually, a successful cracker will come along and change things to his/her liking (and/or ruin the lives of others). Or do you truly believe someone will invent the perfect computer program? Especially when SOMEBODY has to have access to the hardware?

In a hogepodge (many different reasonably independant nations, many different reasonably independant systems) if something goes horribly, horribly wrong with one government, or one form of government, people can escape to the others (well, unless one "succeeds" in nuking everything, or similar), which can cause the collapse of the form that went horribly wrong (not necessarily directly - if a refugee starts a war that ends the regime (s)he fled, that indirectly caused the collapse (for loose definitions of collapse)); even if push comes to shove, in a hogepodge, things are recoverable even with extremely high levels of corruption.

A fully encompassing government, however, doesn't have a repair mechanisim that can operate on that level. Of necessity, a fully encompasing government needs to be held to a much, much higher standard - to the point of true perfection; which isn't really possible in something run by humans as they are, or as they will be within the foreseeable future.

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Isn't this somewhat contradictory? I mean presumably the so-called checks and balances will require some sort of overwhelming majority to make big changes, so in order to make a government care only about a particular person or group, a sizable majority of people not in the favoured group must also somehow be persuaded that favoring this particular group is somehow good.

And of course, this is already the case in modern industrial economies. In France, for example, the majority of the population put up with higher taxes and higher food prices in order to maintain subsidies for farmers at least partly because they agree that it is part of France's national identity that the so-called "produits du terroir" be accorded a privileged and honored position and that having a France with no sweeping farmlands would just not feel like France.

And note: this is not a bad thing. It's simply what the French people want, and the government gives it to them.

And finally, isn't someone going to rebut Randallw's communist nonsense? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

What's wrong with starting a revolt when you're still in the country? After all, there's no reason why revolts must start outside the country in question. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

But, before you start a revolt, you must start a volt!

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Without getting into it, there was a lot going on with Hitler.. the basis being the allied powers failed to ensure a prosperous German nation where Hitler would not have been able to succeed as easily as he did or as completely. The fact is the allies created a situation in Germany and then allowed it to deteriate to the point that if Hitler hadn't come along someone like him would have.

Rasorow

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

The world today resembles classical Greece's city-states, on a diferent scale.
They never managed to create a single Greek state. They had quite a few leagues, some very succesful, but unification was only achieved when the Macedonian Falanxes decided to march south. Short lived unification, by the way.


Then a there is the other matter.
Unification tend to slow down progress due to the lack of competivity. The hellenistic kingdoms, the succesors to Alex's Empire, achieved more during the 2 centuries of rivalry between them than after the Roman unified them by conquest.

As another example, the success of Western Europe, that from the "dark ages" went all the way to an almost 5 centuries long global domination, was fueled because no single power managed to unify Europe after the fall of Rome, while in every other area in the world empires raised one after another, with just relatively brief periods of political fragmentation (ie: China, Middle East, etc.)

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

ok, I disagree with about everyone..

Below are my opinions, I will happily elaborate if asked but will state them briefly here...

1. A world government is a desirable thing.
2. The world governments discussed here are not what a world government would look like. A world government would not be a handful of politicians nor companies, running the world. It would be more outside the box.
3. The human race is not currently evolved enough to work with a world government
4. The human race will never evolve enough as long as humans value money over fulfillment.

I'll stop here.

Rasorow

Re: Your Views on a world Government
 

Not necessarily. In the Democracy variants that you seem to believe are inherently implied in a good system, they merely need to be convinced that the particular bill that warps things is a Good Idea. You don't even need to do that much, really; fraudulent votes or corrupt/misguided representatives could also serve the same purpose.

However, democracy variants are not the only forms of government that have been suggested in this thread.