13 Sep 08
Let us discuss the concept of world government.
The concept has been has accumulated no shortage of criticism. Orwell and Huxley both illustrated the horrific possibilities of it. Though I am the neutral party of what I hope will become a Socratic debate, I find that the concept does have some merit.
Pro) What are the pros? How would it come about? Describe the world government concept you believe would work (Decentralization of power, dictatorship, etc.) Prepare to receive intelligent criticism (feel free to ignore it otherwise.)
Con) What are the cons? How can a nation deter its coming?
13 Sep 08
7 edits
Originally posted by nihilismorDictatorships, which would be the one world government, would be ruthlessly efficient, which I suppose would be both pro and con. In fact, dictatorships are the most efficient form of government that I know of. I think from this point, everything else will flow whether they be pro or con.
Let us discuss the concept of world government.
The concept has been has accumulated no shortage of criticism. Orwell and Huxley both illustrated the horrific possibilities of it. Though I am the neutral party of what I hope will become a Socratic debate, I find that the concept does have some merit.
Pro) What are the pros? How would it come abou ...[text shortened]... eel free to ignore it otherwise.)
Con) What are the cons? How can a nation deter its coming?
What would bring it about? Well change is painful, therefore, no one likes it. Therefore, the only thing that would bring about such change would be the need for such change. So what would necessitate the need for change? World economic collapse perhaps? World wide disaster of some sort perhaps? Really, what you need is a catalyst of some sort. In fact, a calamity of some sort could be manufactured if certain parties want a world government.
Another possibility I think is the current push for Democratization of world governments. If you notice, a country like the US is becoming more and more centralized. In effect, it is becoming ruthlessly efficient in and of itself as it takes on more and more responsibilities and power for itself. Dessent decreases and/or is crushed once power flow increasingly into the federal government. Case in point are governmental takeovers of Fannie Mae and company as well as projected possible governmental takeovers of the air lines and auto industries etc. Do notice the catalyst for change concerning these once private institutions. In addition, social programs such as social security and soon to be national health care require greater and greater amounts of money to flow into a centralized federal government. Once again, we are seeing a greater and greater need for the government to come in and "fix" the problem. The only question is if these problems were purposefully generated or helped along or part of a natural process. People will soon be told by the federal government if they can get a mortgage or what type of health care they are entitled to and what it will cover etc. Assuming all other "democracies" are following suit, which it appears they are, eventually these democracies will form elite federal powerhouses that could someday unite into one world system of some kind.
So who stands in the way of this? Ironically, independent dictatorships like the recent one in Iraq, however, now Iraq has become "democratized". Ok, now that they were taken care of, who's next?
Ok, now I think I am ready to write an Orwellian novel of my own. Now where did I put my pin and paper?
13 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyOf course the question could be raised, how could a "democracy" become a dictatorship? Well, in the case of the US, it is not a true democracy. In fact, taking the recent Presidential election as an example we can see that the candidates are chosen by the "party" rather than what the masses would choose. Then on top of it, the parties have the option of bypassing the popular vote within that setting and appointing the candidate they see as the best one to run. Of course, during the general election the popular vote is again bypassed via the electoral college.
Dictatorships, which would be the one world government, would be ruthlessly efficient, which I suppose would be both pro and con. In fact, dictatorships are the most efficient form of government that I know of. I think from this point, everything else will flow whether they be pro or con.
What would bring it about? Well change is painful, therefore, no I am ready to write an Orwellian novel of my own. Now where did I put my pin and paper?
So here we see that candidates are appointed by their party and then appointed as winners if need be. Then the two winners of both parties can win a general election but can also be appointed by the electoral college to bypass the popular vote if need be. What you have then are checks and balances set in place to make sure that the powers that be get their candidate of choice elected.
And to top it all off, you MUST bow to the two party system, otherwise, you are powerless to compete in a meaningful way. Of course from time to time you see "independents" winning elections randomly, but for the most part it is and will remain a monopoly of power via the two party system.
16 Sep 08
i see a world government as a loose federation much like EU is. sure it is still in its infancy and most of its states only follow the decisions of the majority when it suits them.
the central government needs to be given more power while still allowing the states to govern themselves. presidency should be given in rotation like now.
once humanity stops thinking in terms of nation interests and starts thinking in terms of humanity's interests we might see lunar bases, expeditions to Mars, an orbital space station bigger than a bathtub, bigger grants for civilian science and considerably less for military science and so on.
the cons would be the possibility that a certain nation imposes its view on the rest of the world, loss of cultural and national identity, some citizens of the world having bigger status depending on origin and so on. all of them being resolvable and all being by far outweighed by the benefits.
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by nihilismorYou've been watching Endgame, haven't you?
Let us discuss the concept of world government.
The concept has been has accumulated no shortage of criticism. Orwell and Huxley both illustrated the horrific possibilities of it. Though I am the neutral party of what I hope will become a Socratic debate, I find that the concept does have some merit.
Pro) What are the pros? How would it come abou ...[text shortened]... eel free to ignore it otherwise.)
Con) What are the cons? How can a nation deter its coming?
16 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziThis is what I don't understand. How do you expect humanity to just all of a sudden change? Human beings since day one have been all about self interest. It is their nature.
once humanity stops thinking in terms of nation interests and starts thinking in terms of humanity's interests we might see lunar bases, expeditions to Mars, an orbital space station bigger than a bathtub, bigger grants for civilian science and considerably less for military science and so on.
the cons would be the possibility that a certain nation impos ...[text shortened]... origin and so on. all of them being resolvable and all being by far outweighed by the benefits.[/b]
Having said that, the only way I see a model for what you propose is for the powers that be to assess the situation and see that it is in their best interest to create a world order of some kind. Now in order to get everyone on board with them what you need are catalysts for change like we are seeing today such as financial crisis. You need to have the masses get on board by thinking that such changes are in their best interest as well. I think it is beginning right before our eyes.
The only question for me is, assuming that the powers have seen that it is in THEIR best interest to implement some sort of one world order, are they now creating or have created catalysts for change such as our current economic world crisis so that the masses will think it would be in their best interest to do so as well?
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by nihilismorMuch like WTC7 fell after burning for a few hours, the world financial system has been primed since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed international exchange backed by a Gold standard, and what we are in the process of witnessing is a carefully controlled and engineered collapse of the international monetary system. We may see a rally in the short term but it will be a short reprieve as the columns of capital that will survive this current crises will be stressed to withstand an even greater weight until they also, irrevocably collapse.
How would it come about?
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by nihilismorAmericans will never go along with the idea because it's morally abhorrent to them.
Let us discuss the concept of world government.
The concept has been has accumulated no shortage of criticism. Orwell and Huxley both illustrated the horrific possibilities of it. Though I am the neutral party of what I hope will become a Socratic debate, I find that the concept does have some merit.
Pro) What are the pros? How would it come abou ...[text shortened]... eel free to ignore it otherwise.)
Con) What are the cons? How can a nation deter its coming?
16 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by nihilismorThe cons are that no nation will be able to resist this move. This is the whole reason for engineering the demise of the current monetary system anyway. For a one world government to emerge it will do so out of the carcasses of the current world markets. Much like the Phoenix rising out from the ashes this one will do so with a new currency that can only be tendered if you, the would be citizen, are willing to subscribe to a lifestyle that would probably be cashless, probably be high tech, and probably be administered from highly centralised locations.
Describe the world government concept you believe would work (Decentralization of power, dictatorship, etc.)
Con) What are the cons? How can a nation deter its coming?
Think of a groovy China and you'd probably have a good insight as to the world about to come.
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyhumanity has changed all the time.
This is what I don't understand. How do you expect humanity to just all of a sudden change? Human beings since day one have been all about self interest. It is their nature.
Having said that, the only way I see a model for what you propose is for the powers that be to assess the situation and see that it is in their best interest to create a world order ...[text shortened]... world crisis so that the masses will think it would be in their best interest to do so as well?
from god-kings to divine right kings, to democracies.
from church controlled philosophy to government funded science.
from cave to apartment block.
changes are in humanity's interest and sooner or later we will have one government.
and one could argue that it would be in humanity's interest for a world government to appear. there will be no wars then. (just rebellions - wink).
when there no longer is competition among the nations, we could finally build them lunar cities and flying cars. perhaps some fusion power and cancer cures for everyone.
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterthey will if america will get front seat in this adventure.
Americans will never go along with the idea because it's morally abhorrent to them.
a world lead by America, China, Russia, EU and Japan.
perhaps with one of these completely nuked by the others.
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziJust an aside. When we were kids we used to take a red house brick and draw a circle in the middle of our street and then drew radial arms for as many people who were going to play the game and then it was on for young and old.
they will if america will get front seat in this adventure.
a world lead by America, China, Russia, EU and Japan.
perhaps with one of these completely nuked by the others.
I don't remember all the rules but everyone called their segment a country and then you threw the brick outside of the circle and the first person to get to it and pick it up got to toss the brick over your head shouting I declare war against [ insert country name here ] and if the bric hit the country you called then you could claim part of that country by running back to the spot the brick landed and before the person whose country you were trying to annexe got back to the circle into their segment you could partition for all you were worth stating from the perimeter. Its just odd that nowadays that brick is called a bric
(Brazil, Russia, India & China)