Your Views on a world Government

[TerranC]

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.

I think you've got that backwards.

[Randallw]

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.

[Starhawk]

Randallw said:
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.

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).

[bearclaw]

lol

One thing's for sure. If someone is going to develop a single world government, it won't be this group

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.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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

"All Your Base Are Belong To Us."

[Yef]

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.)

[Rasorow]

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

[TerranC]

Yef said:
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.)

5 centuries of global domination? Correct me if I'm wrong, but true dominance of world trade by western european nations only began after the industrial revolution; the age of sail started only after it became necessary to find new routes towards India and China, as Portugal and Spain searched for new ways to bypass muslim states which held in their control land routes to western africa and asia; not because Portugal simply wished to outdo Spain, England, France, and others.

Also, even though politically Europe was fragmented, one could say that it was unified under christianity; not even entire states could resist the will of the church, and of the pope, until protestantism came about. Western Europe was also spared by, I would say, sheer luck; the bubonic plague hitting europe when it was having an economic slump, the moors being turned away by simple rumors concerning the non-existant massive frankish army, the turnaround by the mongolian hoard just before they reached present-day Germany, et cetera.

As for the percieved unity of China and the Arabic world, there has been many times when the dynasties of both regions fell apart and were replaced by warring states; the only difference between them and Europe being that the two worlds never fell into a dark age.

[Fyron]

Europeans did plenty of raping and pillaging around the world before the industrial revolution started...