Me and my friend were talking about this the other day, so I thought that I would discuss it with all of yous.

I personally think that a LOT of the world's problems today are direct results of nationalism. People are too proud of their country and their country is more important than other countries.

So we think that, although getting to that point would be amazingly difficult, the world would benefit from having a single government. No countries, no nationalism, everyone is from the same place. Everyone would work together instead of competing against each other.

I understand the difficulties in getting people to relinquish their old ideals and prejudices, but I believe that the world would benefit immensely from it.

The system of government to be used, I think would be similar to the one used by America, because at it's heart the ideas of our government i believe is the best in the world. It would just require less corruption of officials and whatnot.

I would go for the exact opposite, anarchy. I think that would be a good solution.

I think that the ideas of anarchy are grand, it's just that i dont see that EVER becoming a viable solution because I dont think man will ever be capable of it. Without set laws and punishments there will ALWAYS be people to take advantage of that.

Originally posted by munik
I would go for the exact opposite, anarchy. I think that would be a good solution. long live anarchy!

Anarchy is a nice idea, in theory. But, like true communism, human nature prohibits it. We'll be there when we're ready.

I've always said that anarchy is kinda like puberty. It'll happen when it happens, and no amount of pushing is gonna make it happen faster. So why worry about it?

(aka: Fundamentalist anarchist activists are stupid)

One look at contemporary examples of anarchy (or close approximations) will show you that man cannot function in an anarchic society. Somalia and certain Slavic provinces following the breakup of the Soviet Union are good examples. The results are warlords, ethnic "cleansing," etc.

Human nature makes us want to be loyal to ideals, even if they are our own. For example, if you observe a group of friends who get together routinely to play a sport such as football, rugby, etc., you'll notice that the teams are usually decided ad hoc. Often the teams will change and restructure during games as people come and go or to offer balance of skill. Regardless of who's on what team, the other team automatically becomes the "enemy." What one will do, to even a BEST friend, can be quite amazing in these cases.

Most (obviously not all) people will make a case for why their own country is the greatest or best nation to live in. Nationalism is a part of human nature that runs deeper than country, however. It seems to me that we are most loyal to those with whom we can more easily identify with. If I travel abroad and find myself in Germany and bump into another American on train, we'll sit together probably without question. In the U.S., people also identify with individual states, regions, cities, sports teams, communities, etc. I'm sure it's that way in most of the world.

The thing that will bring countries together in one world governement will have to be a common enemy or "other." That, afterall, is how most nations have been created in history. The "other" is needed to define the citizens. The "other" can, and has been, races, religions, ethnicities, classes, or ideas.

Until little green men pay us a visit, Earth just doesn't have that "other" to bring them together. More realistically, however, we might find the planet divided in two, three, or four federal-type governments that have consumer-capitalist driven motives.

Okay... I'll stop rambling now....... ;)

SkinWalker

Apart from what Skin has already said, I think that a one-world government is fairly impossible for another reason:

In a democratic one-world government, democracy would be voted out as it stands right now.

But I don't think that you are right that there have always been nationalistic movements. I think that they started around the time of the French Revolution.

Hi everyone ready for my 2 cents :D

One world Government hmm didn't Hitler try that and so did Napoleon not to mention them dam Romans. Oh, but you go to love the Romans that is where our civilization came from.

I have no problem with one world government it’s going to be dam hard to do it with all the differences that people hold so strongly too. Not only nationalism, but race, religion, and even sex. We did away with segregation in America and blacks segregate themselves. Women are so special they have there own TV networks. A person would think they were a race all to themselves. Hell you're the most battered person in the world if you were a Black, Jewish, Women gee wiz. People like to separate themselves and say "I'm different than you" or "I'm better than you are". For whatever the resins. People do it from the size of a country all the way down to the sides of a bed a husband and wife sleep on.

If there was one world government it would have to be a democracy, but with no figure head. There is to much focus on ONE MAN and not the majority’s interest. All you need is a Senate & House. There would have to be a Judicial and Military Enforcement Branch for them pesky rebellions. Something would have to happen that would make the world see itself as a hole and not as a bunch of different peoples. We need little green men to come kick our but so we have to work together lol

If there was Anarchy we would all kill each other and nothing would ever get done or fixed. It is simply a DUMB idea that never should have been thought of. It is for the monkeys, and rebellious teens that hate there parents, but monkeys live by rules.

I'm glad I found this thread, for the last week or so, I've also been considering a united world government. To be honest and somewhat contextual, Star Wars, or at least the old Republic presents something of an ideal system.

I don't believe that nations should be robbed of their individuality, far from it, however, a political system whereby representatives - senators if you will - from each nation represent their country in the World parliament for the purposes of major economic, scientific, diplomatic (etc.) issues. Any major decisions would then be subject to the opinions and influences of all nations. As to a global economy and single currency, I am undecided. Being from the UK which is still under pressure to take on the Ђuro, I am not completely decided on the merits, but I do believe that a single global currency would be a major step towards eliminating poverty.

Another major cause of conflict, sadly, seems to be religion. As a counterpart to the world government, inspired by the Jedi Council, there should be a world religious council with multiple representatives from all religious, be their followings large or small. This council would act in cooperation with the world government and put forward opinions, recommendations and objections to any governmental issues it considered to be relevant.

Unfortunately however, it is human nature to fight at one level or another. It is also human nature to be posessive. It's difficult to see how such a united world could take shape without the involvement of an alien race - be it in the form of a strong calming influence, or in the form of a threat that required the world to unite against, and I don't see that happening any time soon!

Another person had this idea once. His name was Adolf Hitler. Know who his Idol was? Alexander The Great....

The only solution is for Governments to work together and do the best they can to unite for a common cause....Enter The United Nations.

Anything else is merely a dictatorship, or socialism.

At no point did I say anything about their being only one person with supreme rule over all nations. A world chancellor would exists with the sole role of being a central body to a voting system. (S)he would have no power to overthrow a majority decision. Otherwise, that would be a dictatorship and not something that I support in any way, shape or form. What I am talking about is more a glorified UN, one that actually works and has all countries in the world as members, and one that actually has some strong statutory influence. If the UN worked as well as it should, it is arguable that we wouldn't now be at war with Iraq. (I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened, but it might have been delayed and given further debate)

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Hi everyone ready for my 2 cents :D

We did away with segregation in America and blacks segregate themselves. Women are so special they have there own TV networks.

I agree with much of what you say in this post, except for this bit above. "Official" and "legal" segregation was made illegal. However, even today, racial segregations exist. Certainly some are self-motivated, but there also exists many exclusions that prevent blacks from being integrated. These usually revolve around economic barriers.

I remember reading an account of a teacher in a white school at around the time segregation was made unlawful. This teacher stated, "why should we attempt to improve the education of blacks? The ones that have obtained college degrees still work in manual labor jobs. It's a waste of time to teach them if they don't want to better themselves." The opportunities didn't become open just because the degrees were obtained.

Today's segregations are economically motivated. A quick look at inner-cities reveals an ethnic majority. A careful look reveals lower education, low-paying jobs, and economic disadvantages. These kinds of disadvantages create crime opportunities.

i think thats pretty much one of the worst ideas i ever heard, no offense, if it worked sure, fine, but it would never work. hell, even palastine and israel are still goin at it and those are 2 countries, imagine continants! sure peace isnt every wear , but neither is war. throughout hisory didnt everyone who thoiught of this end up with genocide or having to kill?

Whatever the resions people chose to give up for. They choose to comit crimes and do wrong things. Nobody forces a guy rob a
7-11 he makes that choice reguarless of his life's situation.

i dont really see what that had to do with a world govt.?

Originally posted by daring dueler
i think thats pretty much one of the worst ideas i ever heard, no offense, if it worked sure, fine, but it would never work. hell, even palastine and israel are still goin at it and those are 2 countries, imagine continants! sure peace isnt every wear , but neither is war. throughout hisory didnt everyone who thoiught of this end up with genocide or having to kill?

Well for 1 Israel and Palistine are the same country.
2. Your statement is jumbled and confused.
3. I wasn't talking to you and the person I was talking to knows.

Originally posted by daring dueler
i think thats pretty much one of the worst ideas i ever heard, no offense, if it worked sure, fine, but it would never work. hell, even palastine and israel are still goin at it and those are 2 countries, imagine continants! sure peace isnt every wear , but neither is war. throughout hisory didnt everyone who thoiught of this end up with genocide or having to kill?

Hey, thanks for being close minded!!!:rolleyes:

The point is not that it will work if we set it up right now, the point is that eventually it would be the best. Because then Palestine and Israel wouldn't BE palestine and Israel..they'd just be humans...part of the world.....

Originally posted by Sifo_Dyas_03
Another major cause of conflict, sadly, seems to be religion. As a counterpart to the world government, inspired by the Jedi Council, there should be a world religious council with multiple representatives from all religious, be their followings large or small. This council would act in cooperation with the world government and put forward opinions, recommendations and objections to any governmental issues it considered to be relevant.

The most obvious solution is not the one you point out. The most obvious one would be to eliminate the problem. Litterally.

Hmm are you talking about getting rid of religion ? If you are I agree with that if your not I don't know what your talking about.

As for getting rid of religion; however, old and decrypied it is. I have known way to many people that need to believe in a god and heaven just get to threw the day let alone there life. Some of these people if you could convene them they were wrong. Would throw themselves off a bridge. I mean in reality if there is no god or afterlife why bother going threw the crud and toil of life. Personally I do it to piss people off, have fun, and learn interesting things. In all reality the only reason to live is for yourselves or for a tangible cause other than the blind belief in a god.

I can honestly say I have never been a big fan of religion of any kind. A lot of bad things that have happened in history has been, because of people welding there ideas at the tip of a sword. Look at the Colonial Americas, The Crusades, WWII, or 911. While there was economic reasons and greed going on religion was a main theme of it all.

People should get rid of religion and better themselves for themselves not a fouls god, but the human race as a hole isn't mature enough to except that.

What does this have to do with One World Gov. It's one more hurdle that has to be overcome before everyone can see themselves as equals.

...AND... at this time is my chance to plug "Pantheism"; however, I don't agre with all of it. It is a religion of no religion and is bascially a value system for excepting life as it is. It still klings to the terminolgy of spirituality, but nothing is perfect.

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack

As for getting rid of religion; however, old and decrypied it is. I have known way to many people that need to believe in a god and heaven just get to threw the day let alone there life. Some of these people if you could convene them they were wrong. Would throw themselves off a bridge. I mean in reality if there is no god or afterlife why bother going threw the crud and toil of life. Personally I do it to piss people off, have fun, and learn interesting things. In all reality the only reason to live is for yourselves or for a tangible cause other than the blind belief in a god.

There are few people who gets religios as adults, most of them are "forced" into a religion by parents and such. People aren't born with religion. If we could avoid parents pulling their religion over their kids, then we'd soon se a world where religion hasn't that much importance.

And veven though there are many good things about religion, I agree with you that there is many dumb things about it too. The world would be better if people let go of religion and got their own morals instead of be lead by other morals. Because what both Christians and Muslims fail to realize is that there is no difference between a Christian and a Muslim.

For once, I agree with Cosmos
*marks the calendar*

ok fine, maybe if you could manage to put all the ethnics and religion togeather, then maybe it would be good, but i still beleive that it would have just as many faults as now, only it would be a cival war.

At first civil wars would probably run rampant through such a system, but the odds are that they would eventually die down as soon as people started to realize that it's not us and them.....it's just US. (not U.S.) we're all humans and we should all work together to improve ourselves, as opposed to tearing ourselves down with war.

Anarchy: Why?

World Government:
I personally think that a LOT of the world's problems today are direct results of nationalism. People are too proud of their country and their country is more important than other countries.

So we think that, although getting to that point would be amazingly difficult, the world would benefit from having a single government. No countries, no nationalism, everyone is from the same place. Everyone would work together instead of competing against each other.
Wrong. There'll still be different ideas, just that your goals are disturbed by other countries. Either way, the whole idea is stupid. You can't be "for world unification". You can be for another country joining your country, but that's as far as it goes.

Anyway, a world govt., like communism, can't work. It might (emphasis on 'might') seem like a good idea, but it cannot work.

Govt.: Can't work either. Some govt. that's going to look after 6 billion people? Riiiiight. Would you trust a Taiwanese-elected president to look correctly after American interests? Don't think so. He would try, but fail.

And as for cultures: No matter if you're one country, there will still be different cultures.

ok fine, maybe if you could manage to put all the ethnics and religion togeather, then maybe it would be good, but i still beleive that it would have just as many faults as now, only it would be a cival war.
Uh... you've got no idea of what you're talking about.

You can't "put ethnic groups together". How do you, say, put Norsemen and Chinese together as one culture? What do you keep and what do you throw away??

And religions: These are meant to be different.

there have been many theories on mankinds path one government or not they always turned out the same. we ultimately destroy eachother because of one thing. Greed. its what keeps us from doing away with currency and what keeps us from living with or without a government.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Would you trust a Taiwanese-elected president to look correctly after American interests? Don't think so.


Yes....yes I would....and do you know why? Because if the entire world could actually get along together, there woudln't BE a Taiwanese president. He'd just be the guy who the world chose to rule us. And the interests of America would be the same as everyone else, because we'd all be working together for the common good.

I'm not saying that this is the kind of thing that's extremely logical and easy. I'm saying that were it possible it would be the best solution to the worlds problems in my opinion.

Different countries: Different views.

One country: One view.

No matter how you put it, a person from the
state of the NWO formerly known as Taiwan won't know what, say, a person from the island formerly known as Iceland wants.

Even if they're working for the same good, there will be differences in culture, society, etc. that affects HOW that common good is achieved. Iceland has a totally different view on how to fight poverty than, say, USA.

Oh, and look at the UN: See how they disagree with the States, although they work for the same thing? If there is one major ruling power it'll be like the UN: People are going to disagree, argue, and not follow regulations.

BTW, do you really believe in a president ruling 6 billion people? If the world was united, it'd be more of a council (it'd have to be).

I'm very hesitant to embrace the idea of a world government... people here have been using the Galactic Republic as an example, and it's a good one. It worked, for a while, a long while--but in the end, it was subverted and became the Empire. Using the apparatus and infrastructure already existing, Supreme Chancellor Palpatine was able to spread his particular form of dictatorship across the galaxy. How did he do this? Terrorism. He had his ally and apprentice, Count Dooku, created a terrorist Separatist Movement.

Terrorism has often played a roll in subverting democracy, most noteably the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand (leading to WWI), the Reichstag fire (which allowed Hitler to consolidate his power, which, of course, led to WWII), and most recently the events of 9-11 (which are leading to the consolidation of US government powers, the stifling of dissent and the claim of the right to attack any country we can imagine an Al Qeda connection with).

There are hostilities among countries, that's for certain... but for the most part, there are deterrents to full-out war between nations. There are either treaties with more, or stronger nations, or nuclear and biological weapons that deter attack, or, simply, a people who just don't want their government to get them killed. Terrorist organizations aren't nations, they are pissed off people with access to weapons. As such I don't think even a World Government would do squat toward annihilating the threat of terrorism--and while terrorism might not be the single biggest threat to world peace, it is certainly one of the most destabilizing as history has shown.

I like having numerous sovereign nations, because that gives you a kind of freedom that a single government just flat-out couldn't: the freedom to leave a nation declining into fascism and start a new life elsewhere.

That said, I think the UN is a great idea--and we need to make it work! One nation should not and must not have the ability to take international law into its own hands as the US has been doing in recent years. Because, when one nation has all that power, you're just a hop, skip and a bomb from creating that World Government. There needs to be an objective, third-party organization to be the arbiter between hostile nations. No one person is objective, can't be, but if you get enough informed people together--then, you might have a chance. There needs to be an international organization to keep international law.

BTW, ET, it's great to see you're still hanging around here!

I'm very hesitant to embrace the idea of a world government... people here have been using the Galactic Republic as an example
What do the Galactic Republic (Star Wars) and the Federation of Planets (Star Trek) have in common? They're both artificial.

The FoP in ST is also a communist-like system. Does communism work in real life? No. So why do you use the Republic as an example? It's fiction, for crying out loud, as in "something that has never existed".

Why do people like the Palestinians want their own states? To be self-governed. Democracy is a fundamental part of human society, and in a world of 7 billion voters, your voice would be about unheard. Writing a letter to the president would be futile, as he or she would receive millions upon millions of letters a day. You would have to send a letter to a legislative body instead, but they, too, would end up receiving a billion letters, so most likely you'd have to standardize the letters into forms, making it harder to speak up with actual arguments.

Also, these legislative bodies: You can't have one, because of the extremely high input they'd receive. Thus, you'd have to have dozens of legislatives for every continent, meaning eventually you'd end up having different legislatives mean different things, which would lead to stereotyping of the people in that continent (=different societies). You'd end up with your country changing so much that the good sides are outweighed by the bad and new sides.

I could go on, but it all sums into this: We are not one ethnic group. We are not one culture. And seeing we're not one people, we can't be united as one nation. Also, it's just going to be too big to work, for the reasons I described above.

What do the Galactic Republic (Star Wars) and the Federation of Planets (Star Trek) have in common? They're both artificial.
Star Wars is largely alegorical; Lucas is using the Republic to represent that government Berry Goldwater so aptly described with this quote: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have."

The point is that if a single governmental body has too much power, and if a dictator is able to assume control, the world is thrown into chaos. The bigger the government, the worst the ramifications of its declining into fascism.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
What do the Galactic Republic (Star Wars) and the Federation of Planets (Star Trek) have in common? They're both artificial. ... It's fiction, for crying out loud, as in "something that has never existed".


But one cannot discount the other thing that each of these examples has in common: that it is they fictions created from the idea or ideas of one or more real people. That's important, because as you start looking at global or even "star-system" sized problems that were once the provision of smaller nations, it will be helpful to have kicked the idea around a bit. In the future, colonization of other worlds is probably inevitable. At least in regards to Mars and a few satellites (man-made or natural).

Governorship of these worlds will likely increase globalization of our own planet.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
The FoP in ST is also a communist-like system. Does communism work in real life? No. So why do you use the Republic as an example?

The problem that all forms of government face is that the driving force is capitalism. That's also the advantage in many forms of government. People naturally seek status. I challenge anyone to show me an example of a culture where status is not sought. Status, very often can be gained through capitalistic ventures in the form of wealth. The wealthy are very careful to retain their wealth and deny it to the less wealthy and the poor.

Communism failed because of the innate desire for the ruling elite to seek and maintain status. One could say that status, for them, was a form of capital to be traded like a commodity. Those "wealthy" with status were careful to deny it to those that did not have it. This created an imbalance and instead of citizens being equal, they ended up just as stratified as Marx condemned capitalist societies as being, only in a different manner.

Therefore, successful globalization will have to take into account the consumer capitalist nature of the world and the capitalist driving forces (transnational corporations, national corporations, NGOs, et al). I believe what the world will acheive at some point is a global government that is made up of a federation of nations, each soveriegn, which participate in a larger governing body such as the current United Nations. Membership in this federation will provide development money, aid packages, military protection, police contingencies during times of disaster (i.e. tsunami, earthquakes, etc.), and other global community efforts. Perhaps inclusion in interplanetary exploration and resources exploitation.

In return, members of this corporate driven, but government regulated federation will have to occasionally abide by rulings and decisions they may disagree with. Even though they may be a sovereign nation, they may be precluded from acting out of aggression toward a neighbor whom they think might be dangerous in the future.

These are just ideas that have been swimming around in my head for a while, but I just kind of put them together for the first time.... I'm sure there are holes.