Your Views on a world Government

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

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.

[DarkHorse]

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro said:
...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. .

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

[DarkHorse]

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...

No politicians were harmed in the making of this post.

[Colonel]

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

[DarkHorse]

Colonel said:
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.

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...

[bearclaw]

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?

[Randallw]

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.

[Colonel]

DarkHorse said:
but you call Cuba's revolution a success? I guess if the goal was to secure poverty for all...

I meant the first revoultion, not Castro.