With 1-4, if you live outside the US, you could be forgiven for thinking we have that now, (assuming you meant "super elitists" - I don't think I'd have much to fear from a bunch elite late evening meal eaters!!!)
Ultimately we must move into space to ensure the survival of our race. Having everyone on a single planet is always going to be a risk. That said, I would gladly sacrifice a few years or decades of progress in space if it meant solving your point 5.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
I disagree with your points:howdy,
a world government would IMO create the following:
1. a group of supper eliteist would control everthing with no respect for culture.
2. all financial/net worth issues would be determined by one group with total disregard for whom created it.
3. organised religion and political diversity (i.e. political activism)as we know it would be in serious jepardy due to the watering down of individual rights.
4. the little people (you and i) would have no say what so ever in the creation and eforcement of laws. just look at what just happened in Iraq.
5. space travel would be a thing of the past, all eforts would be on bringing everyone into equality socialy and financialy thus leaving few resources for technological advancement.
i could go on but sufice it to say, world domination by a single force has been tryed and has failed many times through out history and if attempted now it would fail again.
1: Don't see why you end up with super-elitism in a world government, if anything you end up with less eliteism because everyone is part of the same group.
2: Yea.... but that "group" would be everyone! I see no problem here either.
3: Why, would individual rights decrease?
4: We would be voters.
5: This is speculation, though it is pretty feasable, space travel might well be put on the back-burner for a while, but eventually it would get back in the spotlight.
The benefits would be STAGGERING, aside from the vast sums of money spent on defence we would actually be able to start solving world problems because decisions would actually get made.
If it happens and i believe it will (and that you can see the start in the EU), it will happen gradually over a LONG period of time.
howdy,
you make a valid point.If it happens and i believe it will (and that you can see the start in the EU), it will happen gradually over a LONG period of time.
i think the UN and possible the Warsaw pact were probably an attempt at setting up a world government, both failed or are failing.
if you look at the US, the "leaders" are very seldom people from the main stream. they are usually bussiness people from families that have been wealthy for a long time. I doubt this would change in the case of a world governing body.
with a single governing body political diversity i.e. Democrate/Republican... would be gone. or basically the 2 party system we love and hate here in the US. i'm afraid that on the coat tails of a single government comes a single religion or at least a single recognized religion.
everyone on the planet voting??? now that would be interesting. i envision helicopter loads of Amazon tribesmen brought into a vilage to vote whaile the world military looks out for attacks from rival tribes men..
M.R.
I don't like you very much. Please post a lot less.
Cheez
*and then*
No, I know you were joking. My point still stands.
"if you look at the US, the "leaders" are very seldom people from the main stream. they are usually bussiness people from families that have been wealthy for a long time. I doubt this would change in the case of a world governing body."
That is true of the US, but i don't think it's true of Europe (certainly not of the U.K.), hence it does not necessarily have to be true for a world governing body, it all depends on the mechanics of the system used.
"with a single governing body political diversity i.e. Democrate/Republican... would be gone. or basically the 2 party system we love and hate here in the US. i'm afraid that on the coat tails of a single government comes a single religion or at least a single recognized religion"
Whats to stop multiple political parties eventually existing on a world stage? or the existance of a world parliament/congress/other alternative?
"everyone on the planet voting??? now that would be interesting. i envision helicopter loads of Amazon tribesmen brought into a vilage to vote whaile the world military looks out for attacks from rival tribes men.."
Right not exactly a realistic scenario, but consider this scenario;
Individual countries form unified organisations like the EU and gradually over decades maybe centuries power is gradually transfered from the individual member states to the central organisation. For poorer countries the process will be much slower because of infrastructure problems, how they can be encorporated into a global governing body without paralysing the system will not be easy to solve but i don't see it as an insolvable problem especially given time.
I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon, but i do think that at some point in the future there will be a global governing body, and that it will be a great thing.
Still i have no way of testing my hypothesis so it remains mere conjecture.
>>The benefits would be STAGGERING, aside from the vast sums of money spent on defence we would actually be able to start solving world problems because decisions would actually get made.
Umm...yeah. We wouldn't save money on defense, because what are now wars on an international level would turn into civil wars. I'm sorry, but some groups are never going to agree with one another.
Away.
"Umm...yeah. We wouldn't save money on defense, because what are now wars on an international level would turn into civil wars."
By your reasoning every country would be in the midst of civil war because the different clans and warlords that once existed would still be fighting..... just as small territories and kingdoms were replaced by countries so too will countries be replaced by collections of countries.
Besides a civil war doesn't make sense in light of the fact that people will be benefitting from the global state. Do you think that Europe is going to be drenched in civil war as more power is passed to Brussels?
" I'm sorry, but some groups are never going to agree with one another."
Groups of people don't agree because of differences in two things; culture and religion, one naturally fades away as integration occurs the other becomes less and less important as education progresses.
Last edited by Clyde; 05-03-2003 at 03:54 PM.
Was Europe drenched in war when Alexander the Great controlled it, Rome took power, when the barbarians took it back, or during the Carolingian Empire? If you don't know, perhaps you can answer these questions. Was Europe drenched in war when Napoleon led all of Europe? Was Europe drenched in war during WWI, when one nation decided to govern Europe, whether they wanted it or not? Was Europe a nice, safe, happy place to be during World War II when they tried it again?
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington
Away.
>>Was Europe drenched in war when Alexander the Great controlled it, Rome took power, when the barbarians took it back, or during the Carolingian Empire? If you don't know, perhaps you can answer these questions. Was Europe drenched in war when Napoleon led all of Europe? Was Europe drenched in war during WWI, when one nation decided to govern Europe, whether they wanted it or not? Was Europe a nice, safe, happy place to be during World War II when they tried it again?<<
Whilst I don't think a world government is a realistic possibility, your examples are somewhat irrelevant. There is a world of difference between one conquering nation attempting to force it's rule upon others and groups of nations attempting to work together to create a better overall life for everybody.
"Was Europe drenched in war when Alexander the Great controlled it, Rome took power, when the barbarians took it back, or during the Carolingian Empire? If you don't know, perhaps you can answer these questions. Was Europe drenched in war when Napoleon led all of Europe? Was Europe drenched in war during WWI, when one nation decided to govern Europe, whether they wanted it or not? Was Europe a nice, safe, happy place to be during World War II when they tried it again?"
All those examples are of someone trying to take control BY FORCE, of course that results conflict. But if the countries by CHOICE unify gradually over decades even centuries then there is no cause for conflict.
So i repeat my question, do you believe that as more power is transfered from individual governments to Brussels civil war will break out? If you do then why hasn't it already?
howdy,
i must say even after the differences in opinion regarding the war in Iraq the EU remained as stable as it has been, of coure this is only a small test. The real test will come when one of the EU members embarks on an unpopular action then we will see how tightly wraped the EU is.
M.R.
I don't like you very much. Please post a lot less.
Cheez
*and then*
No, I know you were joking. My point still stands.
I think the real test of the EU will come the next time one of the member states decides to give genocide another go...most likely in the Balkans, but possible anywhere...
Away.
>>So i repeat my question, do you believe that as more power is transfered from individual governments to Brussels civil war will break out? If you do then why hasn't it already?
Ask yourself, why did the soviet union break-up?? It was a conglomeration of different countries who became satelite republics but they benefited militarily and economically from the soviet union even how bad it was. Why did they ALL decide to break-away in the early 90's??
Ask yourself why did the league of nations break up?? Japan left the league of nations b/c they felt that they were being chastized and being prevented from dealing with their own issues, namely a lack of resources is why they invaded china.
There are always regional issues and no matter what political or religious lines can be blurred those regional matters will remain and it seems the height of arrogance to say that a council in brussels will deal with and make all decisions concerning an issue like the tensions between the Turks and the Kurds.
I see absolutely no benefits from a central govt. commitee that the UN wishes to become. The polotics won't change, and the economics won't change, in fact they will be hindered greatly by new regulations and probably approvals needed for every single major biz transaction decided in the councils - a big honkn slothy mess. The only benefit would be to those anti-americans out there who wish to see american power and influence eroded to nothing.
Most likely a UN central govt. would be SOCIALIST and impose high taxes and a redistibution of wealth and publication of formerly privately owned biz's. Guess what - socialism like communism doesn't work - great you're guaranteed a job but for only $100/month and u must pay 70%+ taxes and live with the incompetence and inefficiency of govt. run services. That's why european countries are so stagnant and in poor shape as they are up to their eyeballz in social welfare programs. Here's another shocker, ppl are selfish and they work for their own benefit and not for the cuase and wellbeing of the STATE, REPUBLIC, or UN...
You wanna see a civil war... just have this UN govt. tell us americans that our constitution is now invalid and the first thing the UN does is eliminate the "right to bear arms". You'll see some blood then.
My Avatar says: "Stay in School"
Rocco is the Boy!
"SHUT YOUR LIPS..."
OF COURSE the UN government would be socialist. Check the universal declaration of human rights for proof! They might even border on all out communism.
Away.
OneStiffRod - I don't think your comparisons are fair:
The USSR satalites were oppressed by a central government far away without much election power. Any UN state that would develop in the future would have to have a democratic system to select leaders due to the domination of the world today by westren democracies. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be socialist.Ask yourself, why did the soviet union break-up?? It was a conglomeration of different countries who became satelite republics but they benefited militarily and economically from the soviet union even how bad it was. Why did they ALL decide to break-away in the early 90's??
The League of Nations was a joke with no teeth. Especially when the founding country didn't join.Ask yourself why did the league of nations break up?? Japan left the league of nations b/c they felt that they were being chastized and being prevented from dealing with their own issues, namely a lack of resources is why they invaded china.
Also a socialist system doesn't mean garenteed job and insane taxes. Britain is socialist. Their taxes aren't quite that high. There is a big diffrence in socialism and communism.
>> Most likely a UN central govt. would be SOCIALIST and impose
>> high taxes and a redistibution of wealth and publication of
>> formerly privately owned biz's.
> Also a socialist system doesn't mean garenteed job and insane
> taxes. Britain is socialist. Their taxes aren't quite that high.
> There is a big diffrence in socialism and communism.
Also the Netherlands is quite socialistic, depending on the composition of the government. Last year we had a right-wing government, leading to high taxes, large unemployment and decreasing social securities. It were the socialists bringing the jobs and distributing wealth among the people. I see no bad in distributing wealth among people, in my opinion that's better then a few people being wealthy and most of the people being poor.
And yes, there is a big difference between socialism and communism. Communism is more extreme, we have a few communistic parties here. But they are very, very small.
> That's why european countries are so stagnant and in poor
> shape as they are up to their eyeballz in social welfare
> programs.
People in the European countries maybe don't have the wealth the American people have, if that is true, when expressing wealth in terms of money. But wealth is more than just money. If you are happy with the situation in which you live, than that is much more wealth than only having a lot of money and be unhappy.
Social welfare programs are the foundations of most European countries. Solidairity is an important thing, it keeps people together. In a non-social society, where it is: everyone for himself, you usually see big differences between poor and rich and little solidairity.
I don't see anything bad in having a social society. You Americans like to live in your society, we live in ours. I think if one is happy and feels rich in the country one lives, that is the biggest wealth one can get.
Last edited by Shiro; 05-04-2003 at 03:15 AM.
