Why would a World Government be a bad thing?

[Naddig74]

I'm still here and watching. I'm not poking my nose into the discussion much because I consider myself pretty ignorant as far as many of the matters being discussed go. I'm learning a lot from the discussion, and I'm enjoying it.

My position now is pretty much on the fence. Many of the arguments for and against 1WG have plenty of weight it seems to me, and we appear to be dividing into two camps, the Optimists and the Cynics.

The main thing that's exercising me is that if 1WG is an impossible/undesirable ideal, what future does humanity have?

 

[erlando]

Don't assume. I never said I thought world government would make the world nice and happy.

I asked why it would necessarily be a bad thing.

Your answer seems to be, on balance, that it wouldn't over all be better or worse than whats currently happening now. Or in other words, that it would not necessarily be a bad thing.

The experiment is being run in smaller scale with the EU. It's not going well.

 

[Mark6]

I'm going to have to ask for a clarification of the definition. If the world government tells the former Americans that guns are outlawed, is that tyrannical? If the world government tells certain former African and Asian countries that men and women will have equal rights in all aspects of society, is that tyrannical?

If the world government just tells former Americans that guns are outlawed, and just tells certain former African and Asian countries that men and women will have equal rights in all aspects of society, no it is not tyrannical. And then former Americans and former African/Asians tell the non-tyrannical world government "F-U".

Then, IF world government takes steps necessary to enforce what it told, it by necessity would be using rather tyrannical methods.

 

[Mark6]

The main thing that's exercising me is that if 1WG is an impossible/undesirable ideal, what future does humanity have?

It may well have very long future. Notice that levels of violence worldwide have been falling since WWII. It may not seem that way because violence gets reported more, but fewer people were killed in 2006-2010 than in 2001-2005 -- and fewer in 2001-2005 than in 1996-2000. And number of independent states went up during the same time.

This is very ironic considering what science fiction writers had imagined for decades. Throughout 20th Century SF assumed that any prosperous future would by necessity involve unified humanity -- that divided states would always fight, and only unification enables peace. What happened is the inverse -- peace enables disunity. It was difficult to be a small country in 1900. Small internal market condemned population to poverty. Covetous neighbors might attack. And there was always a danger that some sergeant would storm the royal palace and declare himself king.

Whereas nowadays being a small country is much easier. If you produce something valuable, global trade opens a big market. However much better it could be, international community does MUCH better job than in 1900 keeping bullies in check. And palace coups and such are more difficult in the age of ubiquitous phone cameras and Internet. So there is little pressure for unification -- quite opposite.

All through history wars and other calamities had forced diverse tribes to unite into larger groups. Today peace and prosperity make it attractive for large groups to split back into (mutually more-or-less friendly) tribes.

[Edited] Now that I think of it, if the more dire predictions of Paul Ehrich and Martin Reese come true, and environmental degradation makes world a nasty place again, conflicts will go up -- and provide a push back to unification. Not necessarily all the way to 1WG, but perhaps to regional hegemonies.

Which makes for an interesting answer to OP -- World Government is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it takes very bad things to bring it about! Which is not at all desirable.

 

[Naddig74]

Interesting points well made, Mark

So is it possible for humanity to become a Type1 civilisation without 1WG?

 

[Belz...]

Then, IF world government takes steps necessary to enforce what it told, it by necessity would be using rather tyrannical methods.

You mean, like any other law ?

 

[Mark6]

You mean, like any other law ?

Laws passed without consent of majority of the governed -- which Ladewig's post implied, -- are either tyrannical or impotent.

Judging by Belz's other posts, he can't possibly be so stupid as not to understand just what would be involved in "enforcing" Ladewig's proposed laws. So that snarky remark is pure troll.

 

[Mark6]

Interesting points well made, Mark

So is it possible for humanity to become a Type1 civilisation without 1WG?

Ouch. I'd rather not speculate on this, as I am skeptical of Kardashev scale. I think the whole concept is a 20th Century artifact, when "civilization" meant damming rivers, razing mountains, and ultimately moving planets. IMO a mature civilization would not be nearly as flamboyant -- or energy-hungry, -- as Kardashev assumed.

Or energy-wasteful: the notion of looking for Type II or III civilizations assumes they emit at astrophysical rates energy we can detect. But such emitted energy is, from the viewpoint of its originator, wasted -- which implies spectacular inefficiency. A truly advanced civilization should be invisible, at least across interstellar distances.

 

[Ladewig]

Laws passed without consent of majority of the governed -- which Ladewig's post implied, -- are either tyrannical or impotent.

Judging by Belz's other posts, he can't possibly be so stupid as not to understand just what would be involved in "enforcing" Ladewig's proposed laws. So that snarky remark is pure troll.

I didn't understand that I was implying that the law was made without the consent of the majority. Let me rephrase the case. If (1) the U.S. electorate voted to join the 1WG and (2) the whole world voted against private handgun ownership, would the former Americans be justified in considering such a law (and the accompanying enforcement) to be tyrannical?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Laws passed without consent of majority of the governed -- which Ladewig's post implied, -- are either tyrannical or impotent.

Judging by Belz's other posts, he can't possibly be so stupid as not to understand just what would be involved in "enforcing" Ladewig's proposed laws. So that snarky remark is pure troll.

The thing is that something can have an absolute majority but still have a local minority. And it does not even require a local minority for those against a decision to use violence against it.

 

[Mark6]

I didn't understand that I was implying that the law was made without the consent of the majority. Let me rephrase the case. If (1) the U.S. electorate voted to join the 1WG and (2) the whole world voted against private handgun ownership, would the former Americans be justified in considering such a law (and the accompanying enforcement) to be tyrannical?

For (1) to happen, US society would have to change so radically that (2) becomes an unanswerable question. You are talking about some hypothetical US, not US as it actually exists -- today and for foreseeable future.

And if you look at today's or any realistic near-future US, then whether they'd be "justified" in considering such law tyrannical is irrelevant. The important part is they would consider it tyrannical, and would violently resist it.

 

[Mark6]

Of course, the trick then is to eliminate all competing cultures and establish a monoculture along with the one-world-government, probably require at least a few pograms and genocidal purges but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

I assume TShaitanaku was joking, but that's pretty much it -- 1WG could be benign if many (if not most) of world's cultures are magically changed into something completely different from what they are. And US culture happens to be one of them.

 

[Ladewig]

And if you look at today's or any realistic near-future US, then whether they'd be "justified" in considering such law tyrannical is irrelevant. The important part is they would consider it tyrannical, and would violently resist it.

I agree with the conclusion you drew

For (1) to happen, US society would have to change so radically that (2) becomes an unanswerable question. You are talking about some hypothetical US, not US as it actually exists -- today and for foreseeable future.

Yes, I was offering a hypothetical ( a far-fetched one) to understand how you were distinguishing between tyrannical and non-tyrannical governments. I am still unsure of your definitions. I am less interested in if these hypothetical Americans would justifyably consider that situation tyrannical and more interested in if you would consider that situation tyrannical?

Also, is adding rights, (that have been approved by a world-wide majority) such as freedom of religion, to a society (that has voluntarily entered a 1WG) tyranny (if the majority do not want that right)?

 

[Soapy Sam]

In my view, all government is a bad idea, but anarchy is worse.
Having just one would be neat- especially when it came to enforcing global policies.

Sadly, rather than replace lower tiers of gummints, I suspect any WG would just be yet another large and expensive layer of confusion and bureaucracy on top of the already too complex mess we already have.


That said, I think it will and must come eventually.

Thankfully, I shall be long dead.

 

[Mark6]

Yes, I was offering a hypothetical ( a far-fetched one) to understand how you were distinguishing between tyrannical and non-tyrannical governments. I am still unsure of your definitions. I am less interested in if these hypothetical Americans would justifyably consider that situation tyrannical and more interested in if you would consider that situation tyrannical?

Ah. I see we have a failure of communication. I think that a law may be entirely reasonable to me, but if it is forced onto population which for whatever reason considers it unreasonable, then the process of forcing it would by necessity be tyrannical. I think that women in Afghanistan and Iran should have equal rights. I have no illusions about the methods I'd have to use in order to bring THAT about, if I somehow became top boss of either Afghanistan or Iran. I'd have to choose between acting as a tyrant, or accepting the status quo.

 

[quarky]

In my view, all government is a bad idea, but anarchy is worse.
Having just one would be neat- especially when it came to enforcing global policies.

Sadly, rather than replace lower tiers of gummints, I suspect any WG would just be yet another large and expensive layer of confusion and bureaucracy on top of the already too complex mess we already have.


That said, I think it will and must come eventually.

Thankfully, I shall be long dead.

Aw, you sentimental fool.

Maybe I've watched too many movies, but the coolest part of a WG would be all the secret societies that would spring up around it, and try to destroy it. Methinks that sort of opportunity really hones in a human's skills and clarity of purpose. Its good for evolution.

 

[Trakar]

No then, Comrade Stalin was only acting in the interests of the Soviet people

individual interests are of little relevence in the discussion of world governments ..., or the Soviet.

 

[Trakar]

No we did a fairly effective job of crushing opposing cultures under out boots in the 19th century.

Not too mention the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. A nation built upon blood-soaked lands, by leaders and followers with blood-soaked hands. (Not that its ever been different in the history of Man)

 

[Soapy Sam]

Aw, you sentimental fool.

Maybe I've watched too many movies, but the coolest part of a WG would be all the secret societies that would spring up around it, and try to destroy it. Methinks that sort of opportunity really hones in a human's skills and clarity of purpose. Its good for evolution.

Well, there is that- but they'll mostly be manned by WG 5th columnists trying to entrap crazy people who want to build space elevators out of 2 x 4 s in their back garden.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I assume TShaitanaku was joking, but that's pretty much it -- 1WG could be benign if many (if not most) of world's cultures are magically changed into something completely different from what they are. And US culture happens to be one of them.

I am not sure that you can say that any specific culture would need to change, but broadly cultures as a whole would need to be homogenized to a great extent for this to work.