One world government?

JayGW, what you are proposing isn't one world government, it is is just an additional layer of government.

And with any power that an additional layer of government garners, comes more corruption.

WHich in turn will lead to internal conlfict, and dissent..nations *will* leave/refuse to join.

And if nations are free to leave, then it isn't a one world government.

And as others have noted, it might be nice to have a single world government, with no nations, states, etc, just 'citizens of Earth'....but getting there is a whole 'nother story.
 
jay gw said:
Nobody's money will be taken away. It is investment that will make poorer countries better, not welfare. Welfare is just handing money to someone who made mistakes. Why won't they just continue making mistakes?
Click to expand...
But we are investing now. The money doesn't end up being used the way it is intended and money doesn't necessarily solve problems. How would OWG solve these problems?

It is about reform. Nations all must reform to allow for progress.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but how do we get people to reform?

The world cannot exist any longer as isolated, scattered states. There must be an alignment of laws to allow for free movement.
Click to expand...
Why?

Why negotiate treaties with 190 countries? Why not just make the same law apply in all places? Which one is better?
Click to expand...
And how do you do that? Isn't this what we are trying in part to do in Iraq? I think such an effort would be disastrous on such a large scale.
 
Upchurch said:
Question: Why is this in R&P and not politics?
Click to expand...

Isn't it simple? Anyone who thinks that a One World Government could work is a True Believer.
 
But we are investing now. The money doesn't end up being used the way it is intended and money doesn't necessarily solve problems. How would OWG solve these problems?
Click to expand...

Investing where? Africa? Then why are they still having famines and Aids epidemics? Where exactly is this "investment" going, toy stores?

You realize that most of the IMF and World Bank money does not actually end up being invested, don't you?

One world government would completely eliminate the need for any World Bank. Capital would simply flow naturally, exactly like it should be doing now. The reason capital and technology don't flow naturally is due to artificial barriers and technology problems - banking laws in poorer countries are something out of Alice in Wonderland.

All obstacles to the internal reform of the poorest nations would be instantly removed through a one world government.
 
Well, it's a very nice, very impractical dream, Jay. Wouldn't it be nice if large governments were not corrupt, and everyone would cooperate and give what they can to those who have nothing?

Too bad the world isn't really like that.

One world government would lead to a body of entrenched politicians working to implement the greatest profit for themselves, period. We see this in the U.S. constantly. The top politicians, while supposedly working for their people, are really working towards maximizing income into their private investments.

Step one in creating your 'world gov' would be to somehow produce honest, selfless people. Unless you can do that, your OWG is just another pipe dream.

So... how about it? How do you produce selfless, honest people with power?
 
jay gw said:
Nobody's money will be taken away. It is investment that will make poorer countries better, not welfare.
Click to expand...

Then what do we need this one world government for? We can invest now. Adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of the mess we have today is going to make things worse, not better.

It is about reform. Nations all must reform to allow for progress.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

The world cannot exist any longer as isolated, scattered states.
Click to expand...

I don't think the world has existed as "isolated, scattered states" for a thousand years or more, if it ever did.

Why negotiate treaties with 190 countries? Why not just make the same law apply in all places? Which one is better?
Click to expand...

Making lots of treaties is better. You have flexibility, some measure of competition to keep the economic juices flowing, and, most of all, each nation gets to decide for itself what best serves its own interests. One monolithic law not only consolidates power in a body that may not have the first clue what it's doing, but also tries to make one size fit all. Show me a law that can deal optimally with the specific needs of 190 counties, and I guarantee it'll be a thousands times more incomprehensible than the U.S. tax code. Better to let economics sort things out on its own.

Jeremy
 
zaayrdragon said:
Well, it's a very nice, very impractical dream, Jay. Wouldn't it be nice if large governments were not corrupt, and everyone would cooperate and give what they can to those who have nothing?

Too bad the world isn't really like that.

<SNIP>
So... how about it? How do you produce selfless, honest people with power?
Click to expand...

Or alternatively, how do you negate the corrupting effects of power?
 
jay gw said:
Investing where? Africa? Then why are they still having famines and Aids epidemics? Where exactly is this "investment" going, toy stores?
Click to expand...
THAT'S the problem. You prove my point.

You realize that most of the IMF and World Bank money does not actually end up being invested, don't you?
Click to expand...
Again, you are making my point.

One world government would completely eliminate the need for any World Bank. Capital would simply flow naturally, exactly like it should be doing now. The reason capital and technology don't flow naturally is due to artificial barriers and technology problems - banking laws in poorer countries are something out of Alice in Wonderland.
Click to expand...
You are simply stating conjecture. You don't state how the very real problems that are demonstrably inherent in the system would be solved by OWG. You simply state that it would. You ignore that there are still logistical and political problems and corruption. Adding a layer of beauracracy will not solve these problems.

All obstacles to the internal reform of the poorest nations would be instantly removed through a one world government.
Click to expand...
Again, this is only unsubstantiated conjecture and is belied by the very real problems of culture, tribalism and geography. The Soviet Union could not get everyone in their empire to act with one mind. The Chinese couldn't do it either. There are very real problems that you are ignoring thinking that waving a wand will solve.

You are going to have to address the issues raised that you have so far ignored before your proposition can be accepted.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Step one in creating your 'world gov' would be to somehow produce honest, selfless people. Unless you can do that, your OWG is just another pipe dream.

So... how about it? How do you produce selfless, honest people with power?
Click to expand...
The Cinese tried re-education with disasterous effects. It is hard to force people to accept that which is counter-intuitive to them.
 
Making lots of treaties is better. You have flexibility, some measure of competition to keep the economic juices flowing, and, most of all, each nation gets to decide for itself what best serves its own interests. One monolithic law not only consolidates power in a body that may not have the first clue what it's doing, but also tries to make one size fit all.
Click to expand...

No, treaties can be broken. The United States broke every one with the Native Americans they ever signed. Each nation will still have it's parliament to handle local issues, but will agree to be bound by what the central body, the one world government, decides on issue like international trade and perhaps defense.

Again, this is only unsubstantiated conjecture and is belied by the very real problems of culture, tribalism and geography
Click to expand...

The only real problem you listed is geography, and it's becoming less of a problem each day. Culture and "tribalism" are completely socially manufactured and irrelevant.

Do you really think "culture" tribalism and geography are serious barriers to anything? You must not be familiar with this:

Kathmandu, Himalayan mountains, the Roof of the World

People in Kathmandu are powerfully aware of living in a radically new era. Whereas the grandparents (and even parents) in this wedding story grew up at a time when communications with the world outside the Kathmandu valley required weeks of grueling overland travel, the bride and groom grew up watching global media events like the Gulf War and the World Cup "live" on television.

People born since 1951 have witnessed the world arriving along the first motorable roads into the valley; through telephones and now satellite telecommunications; through electronic entertainment media (cinema, television, video, satellite TV); via air transportation, mass tourism, and a surge of global commodity imports; and through the logics of a new bureaucratic state apparatus, party politics, and large-scale foreign development aid.

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s7365.html

Everyone in the world recognizes that governments vary wildly in quality and everyone wants the best government they can get.

That's unless you name one group, anywhere in the world, and provide the link please, that has stated: "We want bad government! Give it to us now! Give us more corruption or we're going to start rioting!!!"

The Soviet Union could not get everyone in their empire to act with one mind. The Chinese couldn't do it either.
Click to expand...

That's because the Soviet Union and China used force to get their way.

Do you not understand the difference between choices made at gunpoint and choices made by debate and voting? There is an incredibly large difference between those.

There is no way a one world government could become a tyranny. There are so many mechanisms available to prevent something like that from happening, it is not at all realistic as a probability.
 
jay gw said:
No, treaties can be broken. The United States broke every one with the Native Americans they ever signed. Each nation will still have it's parliament to handle local issues, but will agree to be bound by what the central body, the one world government, decides on issue like international trade and perhaps defense.
Click to expand...

So what happens when one of the "member states" breaks a law? Who is punished? How? Do troops invade? Are uncooperative governments taken out by the Uberreich? If so, it kinda flies in the face of what you said earlier about countries being free to leave, doesn't it? And if not, then it seems that your treaties can be broken pretty easily, too.

I'd still like to hear what's in it for the big, rich countries, besides that warm fuzzy feeling you get from indiscriminately redistributing your wealth to random nations. For that matter, you haven't said what's in it for the corrupt, poor countries, either -- they are corrupt and poor largely because those in power want it to stay that way.

If neither those who are able to help, nor those who need the help, want anything to do with your coalition, who's left? What purpose does it serve?

Jeremy
 
"....Do you not understand the difference between choices made at gunpoint and choices made by debate and voting? There is an incredibly large difference between those.
There is no way a one world government could become a tyranny. There are so many mechanisms available to prevent something like that from happening, it is not at all realistic as a probability.

The request has been made for evidence rebutting the axiom about power corrupting, and so far, I've seen nothing except more assertions...
What are these mechanisms, and exactly how will they work?
 
jay gw said:
The only real problem you listed is geography, and it's becoming less of a problem each day. Culture and "tribalism" are completely socially manufactured and irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Wow! Really? This is contradicted by all of the ethnic killing that has happened non stop for thousands of years.

Do you really think "culture" tribalism and geography are serious barriers to anything?
Click to expand...
It is hard to close my eyes to Rwanda, Northern Ireland, Israel, The Sudan, Bosnia, Nigeria, Kosovo, The slaughter of Armenians by the Turks, The struggle for civil rights in America, Cambodia, Native Americans following the arrival of the Europeans, Al Qaeda, The Taliban, etc.. This list is sadly long and unmistakable.

Kathmandu, Himalayan mountains, the Roof of the World.
Click to expand...
It's called an anecdote and the Muslims who beat women who show their face do not share the values of the peaceful people living in the Himalayas. This is a really bad and singular example to make your point.

That's because the Soviet Union and China used force to get their way.
Click to expand...
And how else do you get people to accept your methods?

Do you not understand the difference between choices made at gunpoint and choices made by debate and voting? There is an incredibly large difference between those.
Click to expand...
Do you not understand that choices made by voting never create a consensus? That there is always somebody pissed off and feeling that they got the shaft and wanting to blame someone for it? Where do you suppose wars come from?

There is no way a one world government could become a tyranny. There are so many mechanisms available to prevent something like that from happening, it is not at all realistic as a probability.
Click to expand...
This is just rhetoric. I do not at all accept this because history has shown you to be wrong. Completely wrong. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Governments do not scale well. The larger the government the more bloated the beauracracy. The greater the chance for corruption and tyranny.

Again, you will have to provide some reason to accept your proposition. So far all you offer is rhetoric and anecdote that is easily shown to be by far the exception and not the rule.
 
RandFan said:
It's called an anecdote and the Muslims who beat women who show their face do not share the values of the peaceful people living in the Himalayas. This is a really bad and singular example to make your point.
Click to expand...

And, of course, not all people living in the Himalayas are peaceful.
 
I don't have too many thoughts on this, kind of neutral I guess.

Countries would run better if we built all the cities the same way, and laid all the streets the same, had the same stores.

But would I want to live in such a world? Probably no.

I also agree that the further government is, the less responsive it is.

I mention the Bahai's every long-once-in-a while because I find them a fascinating study in religion. I can't let a discussion on 'one world government' go by without giving them a passing mention:

http://www.bahai.org
 
"Novus Ordo Seclorum." Hmm ... So, who would be set in charge -- secretly or otherwise -- of this New World Order?
 
zaayrdragon said:
No, he means that totally hoopy frood who really groks where his towel is.
Click to expand...
Well then, you'll have to forgive my ignorance and "bear" with me on the matter. What are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom