One world government?
- Thread starter jay gw
- Start date
-
- Tags
- government
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
jay gw said:
You aren't having a debate about one world government...
You are refusing to answer legitimate questions.
I've demonstrated that because no nation in the last 100 years has gone from 3rd world to 1st solely and exclusively through it's own national efforts, that in order to remedy poverty and create conditions of progress everywhere, not just in the developed world, a one world government is needed.
There is no other hope for the developing nations.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
No.
You haven't.
Time for you to have a treat...maybe it will help you learn something.
You haven't.
Time for you to have a treat...maybe it will help you learn something.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
I think the argument that a one world government would be impossible because cultures differ so much from eachother is bogus. If everyone was the same and everybody agreed with eachother, then governments would not be necessary. They would likely not even exist. Governments form when people are disagreeing with eachother and want an authority above them to settle their disputes. So if nations and cultures have disputes, they will form a government-like structure to settle them.
The UN is a good example of such a structure beginning to form. This happens because there are differences, because without differences there would be no point in forming something like that. Would there be a UN if there were never disputes and conflicts between nations? I don't think so. The more differences there are, the more likely it is that some sort of worldwide government will form.
The argument that a one world government will try to homogenise the world by forcing one particular morality on all nations is not much of an argument either. I even think having seperate nations encourages homogenisation more than a world government. Today there are lots of countries forming large unions. A good example is the European Union. There is also the beginning of an African Union.
Such unions tend to homogenise the countries within them, but this is caused to some degree because they are interacting with other blocks. A lot of changes in the EU are justified by claiming that the EU must 'speak with one voice' when it comes to foreign policy.
A world government doesn't have foreign relations (at least not until 'First Contact' with the Vulcans), so it does not need a consistent foreign policy and does not have to 'speak with one voice'. It can limit homogenisation to whatever is needed for some internal consistency for example on the issue of human rights. But it can also allow a great deal of diversity within itself.
The idea that several nations would be better, because if one becomes tyranical people can at least flee it and live in another country is also largely bogus, I think. We now have lots of different nations, but most of them restrict immigration, so most people have no choice but to stay in the country they don't like.
Having a world government means that everybody becomes a citizen of the world. Hopefully that will also mean that there will be free traffic of people. But at the very least the traffic of people can be regulated globally, so countries are not competing against eachother to try to have as few immigrants as possible, which just results in 'burdening' all the other countries even more.
A world government might mean more freedom to move across the globe, not less. Since a world government will probably not be able to regulate every aspect of life, there will still be more than enough difference between countries to chose between.
I think the biggest problem with a world government is that some countries will be more powerful in it and people within them might get the impression that it can do without the world government.
These countries will have such a strong influence on the world government that people will consider their own country's influence in the world as obvious, and only percieve the costs of the world government. Their impression will be that being part of the world government is a burden and they get nothing for it in return. We can see something similar happening in the way the UN is seen by many Americans, or how many Brits see the EU. Even in the way (to a lesser degree) many Texans view the United States government.
The idea that a world government or even the UN would be not be necessary because disputes can be solved with treaties is also bogus. A treaty is like a contract, it is a mutual agreement. If there is a dispute over the exact meaning of a contract, or whether one party fulfils its part of the bargain, or whether the contract is fair at all and not signed under duress, you have a independent judge (part of the government) look at it.
So what happens if there is no authority above nations and there is a dispute over a treaty? In the absence of an authority or consensus, the only way to settle a dispute is through violence. With nations, that means war. Few people want that, so most will try to avoid it by setting up systems to peacefully settle disagreements.
The UN is a good example of such a structure beginning to form. This happens because there are differences, because without differences there would be no point in forming something like that. Would there be a UN if there were never disputes and conflicts between nations? I don't think so. The more differences there are, the more likely it is that some sort of worldwide government will form.
The argument that a one world government will try to homogenise the world by forcing one particular morality on all nations is not much of an argument either. I even think having seperate nations encourages homogenisation more than a world government. Today there are lots of countries forming large unions. A good example is the European Union. There is also the beginning of an African Union.
Such unions tend to homogenise the countries within them, but this is caused to some degree because they are interacting with other blocks. A lot of changes in the EU are justified by claiming that the EU must 'speak with one voice' when it comes to foreign policy.
A world government doesn't have foreign relations (at least not until 'First Contact' with the Vulcans), so it does not need a consistent foreign policy and does not have to 'speak with one voice'. It can limit homogenisation to whatever is needed for some internal consistency for example on the issue of human rights. But it can also allow a great deal of diversity within itself.
The idea that several nations would be better, because if one becomes tyranical people can at least flee it and live in another country is also largely bogus, I think. We now have lots of different nations, but most of them restrict immigration, so most people have no choice but to stay in the country they don't like.
Having a world government means that everybody becomes a citizen of the world. Hopefully that will also mean that there will be free traffic of people. But at the very least the traffic of people can be regulated globally, so countries are not competing against eachother to try to have as few immigrants as possible, which just results in 'burdening' all the other countries even more.
A world government might mean more freedom to move across the globe, not less. Since a world government will probably not be able to regulate every aspect of life, there will still be more than enough difference between countries to chose between.
I think the biggest problem with a world government is that some countries will be more powerful in it and people within them might get the impression that it can do without the world government.
These countries will have such a strong influence on the world government that people will consider their own country's influence in the world as obvious, and only percieve the costs of the world government. Their impression will be that being part of the world government is a burden and they get nothing for it in return. We can see something similar happening in the way the UN is seen by many Americans, or how many Brits see the EU. Even in the way (to a lesser degree) many Texans view the United States government.
The idea that a world government or even the UN would be not be necessary because disputes can be solved with treaties is also bogus. A treaty is like a contract, it is a mutual agreement. If there is a dispute over the exact meaning of a contract, or whether one party fulfils its part of the bargain, or whether the contract is fair at all and not signed under duress, you have a independent judge (part of the government) look at it.
So what happens if there is no authority above nations and there is a dispute over a treaty? In the absence of an authority or consensus, the only way to settle a dispute is through violence. With nations, that means war. Few people want that, so most will try to avoid it by setting up systems to peacefully settle disagreements.
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Just because it is socially manufactured does not make it irrelevant. I think it is easier to argue that it is relevant because it is socially manufactured. The few things that are not socially manufactured are considered not very relevant by most people.
But they don't exactly agree on what is best.
Name a few.
Your question is vague, because it is unclear what you mean with 'their own national efforts' and what you mean with 'transfers from other countries'. It is obviously true that no country ever became a 1st world country by isolating itself from the rest of the world, and all 1st world countries became that way by trading extensively with other countries. So if your definition of 'transfers' includes ordinary trade relations and your definition of 'own national efforts' does not include trade, you are completely correct. I think though that most people will think 'transfers' means extensive inter-governmental development programs and think import and export still constitutes 'their own efforts' even if it makes them dependent on other countries' economic activities.