Manorfire

To quote Ronald Reagan - "In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognise this common bond. I occasionally think, how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."

So, could an Utopian society ever result from a global catastrophe or other traumatic event, like an alien invasion? Such a massive threat to humanity may unite us as a race, and maybe create the need for a centralised governing body, especially if we were to pull together and defeat it. But, would this involve the destruction of 'Nationalism' for the sake of 'Universalism' and would it be worth it?

After the First World War, 'The League of Nations' took the first steps towards a "New World Order" of sorts. Then, after the Second World War, 'The United Nations' were formed. Yet, it is argued by some that both of these bodies were failures at precisely what they set out to do. Does this mean we should forget about 'Earth Republic' for good?

Many individual political units would probably oppose the foundation of such a far reaching system. However, I also have great reservations about a one world government, as if a totalist political group (such as Communism or Fascism) came to power in such a government, then Humanity may never break free from totalism. Also, a one world government could find 'ruling' over billions of people impossible without resorting to ruthlessness and deception.

What are your opinions on a single world government? What situation might it take to employ one and would you be against it? Would such a government bring peace, fairness and goodwill to the world?

The_Dunedan

A worldwide Gov't? You mean the ones we have now aren't bad enough?

In all seriousness, a one-world setup would be a catastrophe. Besides the immense, hugely expensive, cumbersome burocracy inherent in such a venture, there are loads of cultural problems which this would -not- help, and which would probably produce low-intensity shooting wars in some parts of the world. America's Gun Culture would be legislated out of existance, which would not go over well, and I doubt seriously that anyone in Europe would like the idea of being overruled by the likes of Moroccans, Jews, and Gypsies. The immense sums of money required for something like that would result in the radical increase of taxation rates which already range from the merely larcenous to the truly murderous, and corruption in such a body would make the problem even worse.

If such a system were democratic, as would be all but gauranteed, the expenses would get even higher, since most of the world's population (the voters, in this case) come from countries suffering from one degree of Socialism or another, and would likely vote to extend and expand benefits worldwide. And, of course, you can't overlook the possibility of a single highly populous region (China and India immidiately spring to mind) uniting to elect someone legitimately monstrous. In such a system, the idea of Deng Xiaoping or someone similar becoming "World President" is not at all farfetched. An Electoral College system would get around this, of course, but only the US uses such a system and the rest of the world is quite hostile to the idea.

Put briefly, the Americans would not stand for the Chinese and British making their guns illegal, the Chinese wouldn't take too well to American and British dietary laws, and to say that the Brits would react badly to the possibility of being outvoted by PAKISTAN would be the understatement of the week.

Willravel

Humanity won't be ready for a single, centralized government until we have someone else to fight. Say, for example, we terraform Mars. Suddenly we have a growing population that really isn't answerable to the Earth governments. What happens? Massive spin. "Astronomers today have confirmed that the Martian Federation has been building up a stockpile of nuclear weapons. When reached for comment, the President warns that Mars will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and will take steps to stop them. Mars has welcomed UN weapons inspectors for decades, who have confirmed that the only nuclear material on the planet is being used to create electricity." The president will insist that Mars not continue to seek nuclear weapons, Mars will be like, "WTF?!" and there will be humanity's first insterstellar war. World war 5 is Mars vs. Earth. Suddenly, there are only 7 planets left.

Hmaunity is thousands of years away from a functional world government because we are still having trouble allowing our altruistic, forward thinking, patient, sympathetic, scientific, logical sides to have doninance over our baser instincts. It might happen, but I won't be around to see it.

dksuddeth

300 million people can't even agree that freedom means everyone having all of their individual rights guaranteed and inviolate and someone thinks that 8 billion people can do it? yeah, right.

There would only be one absolute way to have an orderly society under a one world government and that would be through a non-democratic empire.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

pig

It will eventually happen. Population density, ease of travel and communication, global commerce, homogenization of race/ethnicity/culture. I don't know when it will happen, but I think its pretty much inevitable. An outside presence (aliens) would be a strong motivating factor. I don't think it will matter if people are against it or not - eventually, it will happen because it will have to happen. The benefits will outweigh the costs. It will be necessary. I don't think it will bring peace, fairness or goodwill anymore than Federalization of the States brought that state to the US, or that nation formation in Europe brought about peace, or in Asia or anywhere else that agglomeration has occurred. It seems to me that this is just one of things that happens. First, I think that the continents will meld under multi-national goverments as a step along the way.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

joshbaumgartner

Barring a forced unity to compete in an interstellar community of nations, or a single totalitarian entity conquering the world by force, I just don't see a single world government coming into existance. In the former case it would really just be another step of consolidation as our 'world' expands to include the heavens, possibly analagous to what we are seeing now with European unification. In the later it would likely be a rather short-lived affair.

Solving some major crisis that faces the planet would likely not result in a world government. Global warming, killer asteroid, deadly plague, you name it, countries will create all kinds of cooperative international ventures to deal with a problem, but they won't in the end yield their own sovereignty beyond what little they absolutely have to in order to survive the crisis more or less intact.

That world government, brought on by whatever means, would equal some kind utopia or bring the dawn of some new age of human enlightenment and happiness, is not terribly realistic. It is easy to envision utopia (whatever flavor you subscribe to), see that utopian vision as being impossible to realize within the framework of the current nation-state structure of the world, and thus move to seeing world government as the way to achieving that otherwise unacheivable goal. But this lure is dangerously similar to the one that causes us to let totalitarians run over our countries on a regular basis. The initial promise is always to cut through the inefficiencies and gridlock of the preceding government to achieve some form of greatness for the state; this is as true for Rome's Julius Caesar as it was for Italy's Mussolini in the 20s, or is for Pakistan's Musharaf today.

Conservatives are right to be wary of the size and cost of such a government. Libertarians should definitely fear for the rights of individuals in such a state. Progressives should be scared white at the danger such a government would pose to the citizens and its unresponsiveness to local individuals and groups. Socialists ought to recoil in knowledge of the massive empowerment such government would offer to businesses over labor and consumers.

As easy as it is to imagine such a government working on behalf of your ideology of choice, the fact is, the closer you get to the 'foothills' if you will of the One World Government 'mountain', the more apparant it is what a monster it really is to just about all of us. If you aren't a business magnate or a political elite likely to have a role in such government, it is hard to really see the benefits of it in our present situation.

Josh

CandleInTheDark

A unintrusive world, democratic state would be a blessing. A large behemoth of beauracracy and corruption would not be.

Whether or not you oppose a world government is based entirely on how you envision such a future state to exist.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.