News Why we need a one world government

[nismaratwork]

I think it is easiest to throw cheap shots, but its not the best way. If you are condescending to someone, and poke fun at them, they won't value your opinion anymore. So now you've thrown away your voice and your opinion. Then it creates a negative atmosphere on the thread.

But the reality for me is that I don't want to spend the effort and time being polite and thorough in my explanations, when I feel that the person I'm speaking to is delusional in some aspects. Since I don't respect Forestman's opinion, or the way it was presented, the chances of me approaching his posts with an ounce of compassion are slim to none.

Your first point is for me, inextricably linked to the second, but very few P&WA posts, even by those I violently disagree with (Russ' for instance) are like that, or warrent that kind of response. Those few which are beyond hope shouldn't be instantly met with condemnation, but between ignoring someone and poking them a bit... I would poke. The latter has a chance at least, of eliciting a respone, which may be a loss for me personally, but it may also lead to something better in the future.

There is a world of difference between unfounded ranting like Forestman's, and extreme ideology rigidly presented. The latter is annoying, and frusterating, and may have the same result, but the former is hopeless. In the latter case, there's still hope, but cordiality is all that's expected or required.

 

[Gokul43201]

This really is one of the reasons there is debate on reforming P&WA.
...
No content is given, no actual thought put in. It's akin to a teenage girl declaring she deserves a new $50,000 SUV for her 16th birthday. Why? "Because."

I count at least 5 fairly clear violations of the existing P&WA rules over the course of the thread between the OP and the above post. Did you report any of the bad posts? I did. Asking for more moderation to make up for the lack of initiative from the membership is just lazy, if you ask me. This is a volunteer run site. It's like a teenage girl asking for a new $50,000 SUV because her current $50,000 SUV has a flat tire.

I think some of the responses in this thread, including yours, are a bigger problem than the op. If the stated position doesn't make sense, then explain why it doesn't make sense. Your position suggests that education has no place here. How is that consistent with the mission of this forum?

What I see is a mob mentality and a bunch of cheap shots.

I see the cheap shots too. But nevertheless, it is true that the claims implied in the OP could use a lot more substantiation than was given. Requiring the OP to compose a well thought out and expressed thread starter based on at least some published sources is hardly unreasonable, and certainly doesn't diminish the educational value of PF.

What you are saying is definitely true. However, I think this thread should have been shut down a while ago. Making the kind of statements that Forestman was making on page 1 of the thread, without citations or even any rational support, is going to get this kind of response every time.

I mostly agree, but there is a very simple solution to this problem. REPORT the bad posts.

Although I will say that Forestman has shown better conduct than most on this thread...

I agree.

 

[nismaratwork]

I count at least 5 fairly clear violations of the existing P&WA rules between the OP and the above post. Did you report any of the bad posts? I did. Asking for more moderation to make up for the lack of initiative from the membership is just lazy, if you ask me. This is a volunteer run site. It's like a teenage girl asking for a new $50,000 SUV because her current $50,000 SUV has a flat tire.

I see the cheap shots too. But nevertheless, it is true that the claims implied in the OP could use a lot more substantiation than was given. Requiring the OP to compose a well-thought out and expressed thread starter based on at least some published sources is hardly unreasonable, and certainly doesn't diminish the educational value of PF.

I mostly agree, but there is a very simple solution to this problem. REPORT the bad posts.

I agree.

Reports lead to warnings and infractions... I for one would prefer to argue with someone unless there is no hope, or the content of the posts is truly egregious. Maybe the reporting habits in P&WA reflect an underlying lack of a desire to be moderated or moderate in the current fashion around naturally combustible issues?

Besides, every report = work for a mentor... if the issue can be resolved without resorting to that, why not? Spare the volunteers, who in Politics have their own internal issues (unless mentors lose their political views upon initiation) in what often boils down to deeply personal issues.

There is also this: would you ever design a pressure vessel without an emergency relief valve? Welcome to what (as far as I can tell) is that valve.

 

[Gokul43201]

Reports lead to warnings and infractions...

That certainly isn't the policy, and I've never once seen it happen while I was on the staff. Perhaps a continued abuse of the report system (even after warnings not to do so) may result in infractions.

I for one would prefer to argue with someone unless there is no hope, or the content of the posts is truly egregious. Maybe the reporting habits in P&WA reflect an underlying lack of a desire to be moderated or moderate in the current fashion around naturally combustible issues?

That is your personal preference. However, in general, it is unreasonable to demand more moderation when even the tools that exist are not being utilized. Furthermore, belittling a member or insulting them, rarely helps further an argument in any constructive manner. Not to mention, it's clearly against the rules.

Besides, every report = work for a mentor... if the issue can be resolved without resorting to that, why not?

Even the best intentions can lead to bad outcomes. Reporting the OP could have had the thread locked pending a revised, better sourced OP. That single report may alone have spared the huge headache that inevitable arises when a bad-to-borderline thread that is not being continuously monitored is eventually reported at page 10, requiring a Mentor to have to read through 9+ pages of posts to figure out how to deal with the thread.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

i think the article, if true, supports what was said about einstein.

It’s true, but you have to put it in context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government#United_Nations

World government

World War II, 1939–1945, resulted in an unprecedented scale of destruction of lives (over 60 million dead, most of them civilians), and the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some of the acts committed against civilians during the war were on such a massive scale of savagery, they came to be widely considered as crimes against humanity itself. As the war's conclusion drew near, many shocked voices called for the establishment of institutions able to permanently prevent deadly international conflicts. This led to the founding of the United Nations in 1945, which adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Many, however, felt that the UN, essentially a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments, was insufficiently empowered for the task. A number of prominent persons, such as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell and Mahatma Gandhi, called on governments to proceed further by taking gradual steps towards forming an effectual federal world government.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/

World Government

After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, atomic scientists lobbied for the international control of atomic energy as a main function of world federalist government. Albert Einstein wrote in 1946 that technological developments had shrunk the planet, through increased economic interdependence and mutual vulnerability through weapons of mass destruction. To secure peace, Einstein asserted, “A world government must be created which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. This government must be based on a clear-cut constitution which is approved by the governments and nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons” (1956, 138).

 

[nismaratwork]

That certainly isn't the policy, and I've never once seen it happen while I was on the staff. Perhaps a continued abuse of the report system (even after warnings not to do so) may result in infractions.

You misunderstand, I mean that it ends that way for the reported party... that's still not always desirable.

That is your personal preference. However, in general, it is unreasonable to demand more moderation when even the tools that exist are not being utilized. Furthermore, belittling a member or insulting them, rarely helps further an argument in any constructive manner. Not to mention, it's clearly against the rules.

De Jure or De Facto?... Obviously they are sharply divided in practice in P&WA, and the reporting practices you describe are indication that this is more than just my preference.

Even the best intentions can lead to bad outcomes. Reporting the OP could have had the thread locked pending a revised, better sourced OP. That single report may alone have spared the huge headache that inevitable arises when a bad-to-borderline thread that is not being continuously monitored is eventually reported at page 10, requiring a Mentor to have to read through 9+ pages of posts to figure out how to deal with the thread.

Good intentions can lead to bad outcomes indeed, and blowback, and unintended consequences in general. You make a good point about dumping this on a moderator after 10 pages... I'm not arguing for that at all. I'm saying that in a case like this, where you have nearly universal condemnation of the OP's notion (not the OP though), where's the harm? This is the reaction s/he'll get in life, only lasting and without the benefit of as many rules and regulations.

Besides, I've rarely seen an active thread in P&WA without at least one mentor actively posting, never mind reading it. Your good intentions to attenuate hostility may have the unintended consequence of leading to increased, but veiled hostility... which does seem to be the case. When looking to change rules, it's best to look at the past (which sounds unpleasant by all accounts), the present, and possible futures.

Do we go with the ideal that is not followed, the practice that's imperfect and imperfectly enforced by your standards at least, or a new model? Maybe the issue is the topic... guns, abortion, elected officials, unions, corporations, war, peace... these issues are ones that engender passion. My guess is that to make this sub-forum peaceful, you'd need to close it... the kind of enmity that builds in these cases can only be bridged by individuals.

Example: WhoWee and I often do NOT agree, yet we don't' fight tooth and nail over everything. I've come to respect him as a valuable source of information, and while he has a strong view that I don't' agree with, he often presents in a way that I have no answer to. Others just make noise, and the same noise, over... and over, and over... as though awaiting the perfect echo. Without a measure of conflict, the latter would be free in P&WA, and the former would probably never have happened.

Unintended consequences tend to be more extensive than just, "more reading".

 

[FlexGunship]

We need a one world government too:
Stop man made climate change.
Stop terrorism.
Stop over population.
Stop the threat of nuclear war.
Create a stable economy.
Create a defense against asteroids and solar flares.

Not quite making the connection between number of governments and these particular issues. What if the one world government, for example, wasn't interested in anthropogenic climate change?

The fundamental problem with your argument isn't really feasibility (plenty of dictators have help power over too many people for far too long), but that you simply assume this one-world-government would align itself with your desires. Hardly seems likely!

Besides, with many governments there is an inherent check-and-balance system in place. Is Russia nukes South Africa (I don't know why), then Russia expects retaliation. With a single world government, who would be left to keep that government in check?

Sounds like one of those 8th-grade social studies discussions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not quite making the connection between number of governments and these particular issues. What if the one world government, for example, wasn't interested in anthropogenic climate change?

The fundamental problem with your argument isn't really feasibility (plenty of dictators have help power over too many people for far too long), but that you simply assume this one-world-government would align itself with your desires. Hardly seems likely!

Besides, with many governments there is an inherent check-and-balance system in place. Is Russia nukes South Africa (I don't know why), then Russia expects retaliation. With a single world government, who would be left to keep that government in check?

Sounds like one of those 8th-grade social studies discussions.

Good to see you back and kicking hard.

 

[Pattonias]

We need a one world government too:
Stop man made climate change.
Stop terrorism.
Stop over population.
Stop the threat of nuclear war.
Create a stable economy.
Create a defense against asteroids and solar flares.

I think it would be better to pick at the individual statements than to criticize the statement as a whole. Most of these ideas can be thought out logically using historical examples without picking at the OP himself.

Stop man made climate change -
This certainly could be achieved by a world-wide regulating authority assuming that we have enough of an impact on climate to make a change by regulating industry. That would be another topic entirely.

Stop Terrorism -
This is impossible. According to the US Department of Defense's http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_4.htm"
definition of terrorism.

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

By this definition you can never really stop terrorism, any more than you can stop every individual in the world from committing unlawful acts.
The only affect a world government would have is preventing a state sponsored terrorism. This would be a mute point because you would only be stopping state sponsored terrorism because their would only be one state. On another note, what stops the single world government from committing terrorism.

Stop Overpopulation -
A touchy subject in itself, this could theoretically be solved by having a single world government by implementing laws regulating the number of children people can have. I can just imagine how we would have alternating periods where everyone is required to have one child, followed by maintenance periods where we are required to have two children to maintain optimal population followed by periods where we have to have three in order to increase the population during periods that are dwindling. Like the climate change argument, this could be discussed in its own thread.

Stop the Threat of Nuclear War-
Mutually assured destruction is just as strong a deterrent as a hypothetical world government. A world government could theoretically dismantle all nuclear weapons, but to what end. We live in the post-nuclear age, we are going to have to accept that these weapons exist and come to a balance. If we dismantle them all, as time progresses the possibility always arises that through need or evil intent they could show up again. The other problem I can see is that with a single world government, there would be no way to hold your government accountable should it opt to use nuclear weapons in an isolated incident. It seems to me that there will always be a threat of war and of great loss of life. Should a world war arise between large groups of people, these extremely efficient weapons will rear their ugly head again and again.

Create a Stable Economy-
Unifying currencies has not shown, so far, any improvement in stabilizing economies. When you unify currencies you tie the worth of your money to the stability of every local and regional economy in the currencies reach. The up-side is that should, through political or agricultural turmoil, a local economy is doing poorly the currency doesn't lose worth and inflation is less of an issue. The reason for this is that the stronger economies can prop up the currency until the local area stabilizes. The downside is that the more widespread economic decline the larger the burden on the other countries and a wide-spread failure is more likely to affect a larger area.
For instance a decline in one country can stifle the growth of another country. Stifling growth is roughly equivalent to initiating decline economically. The results in both countries ending up in a decline and this snowballs into a general decline.
It just doesn't make economic sense to put all your eggs in one basket. This isn't idealistic, but there is no such thing as an perfect economic system.

Create a defense against asteroids and solar flairs -
Sadly I can't really come up with a discussion to address this. The subject matter is a little far fetched. This is roughly like saying we need a defense against the Earth ending. Eventually technology will reach a point where defending against these problems will be feasible. A unified government certainly could coordinate to find a defense, but at what cost economically, and socially. At best, it would speed up a defense, but not really so much so that it would be worth the drawbacks in other areas. By the time we developed the tech to destroy, move entire asteroids we may also have the means to colonize other planets and evacuate Earth. There are just too many variables.

Other issues to consider -
Politics -
How much more frustrating will politics become with world government. Think about what it is where your from multiplied by the number of people who don't live in your country. You have to accept that the most popular (not most able) people get elected and that politics are inherently corrupt. You accept these facts like any reasonable person accepts the duality of man.

Bureaucracy -
The operation of government would be so complex that it would be near impossible to manage it, and near absolutely impossible to run efficiently.

(I did read the posts between the first and this, but I didn't really feel like drawing on those arguments just yet.)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Second of all I don't want any kind of world power, I just feel that world government is the only way to solve many of the problems currently facing the world.

And you might be right, but one of the criticism of world government is that you’re going to create more problems than you solve, and the first obvious is – WHO is to be in charge??

Are you going to solve it with – one woman/man, one vote?

Total Population

In Spring 2000 world population estimates reached 6 billion; that is 6 thousand million. The distribution of the Earth's population is shown in this map.


Or, are you going to solve it with – one $, one vote?

GDP Wealth

This wealth map shows which territories have the greatest wealth when Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is compared using currency exchange rates. This indicates international purchasing power - what someone’s money would be worth if they wanted to spend it in another territory.

Next problem; if you don’t get global acceptance for a "World government", how are you going to avoid ('self' generated) violence?

(Maps from http://www.worldmapper.org/" )

 

[FlexGunship]

Yikes, wouldn't want to navigate by one of those maps.

The idea of many governments is a pretty good one. I bet we could do away with a few of them though, there are so many small sovereign states and they all seem to rely on outside support to keep their population alive (if they aren't actively killing their population instead).

Not to add drama and contention to the discussion, but the most natural dividing line for world governments wouldn't really be geography, but religion. Even the differences between capitalist states and socialist states are smaller than the differences between a secular state and a Muslim state.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world#Islamic_states)

Blue = secular state
Dark green = Islamic state
Bright green = Nations with prescribed religions (predominantly Islam)

Even for similar GDPs and geographical regions, the living conditions are very different in these two bordering regions.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

And the rest of the 'grey world' is... "united"...??

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png/800px-Prevailing_world_religions_map.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

 

[dacruick]

A one world government is something that we are working towards. it is a distinct possibility to me. But I'm talking in terms of thousands of years. There is a high rate of economic globalization right now, and governments will follow the money. You can see this beginning to happen with China and the U.S, and the EU is very codependent. This is a trend that will continue in my mind. At one point, with technological advancement, and the elimination of geological limitations, it will make sense to start mutually governing bodies.

But this is an infant stage of such a state. The U.S is one country and doesn't (IMO) have an up to standard governing structure. I think in future years we will see the federal government start to take power away from the state. Sorry for the tangent.

EDIT: But Hell, I live in Canada and 40% of Quebec has been trying to separate for a hundred years. And they are smack dab in the middle of the country!

 

[FlexGunship]

And the rest of the 'grey world' is... "united"...??

Hah, no... obviously not. It was just an example. By segmenting information it's much easier to make a simple point. But I was specifically discussing existing governments which are based on religion (i.e. state religions) which your map doesn't take into account.

 

[Physics-Learner]

What concerns me is the movement in the United States that "all government is bad". With a nation of 300M+ and a world of 6B+, we need to have government. Anarchy would be a disaster. The challenge is to make the government more efficient and responsive. Throwing up our hands and saying "all government is bad" is not the answer.

i think you unknowingly changed my meaning. do you understand the difference between "all govts are bad" and "all government is bad" ?

my statement was about the status of actual current entities.

your statement is about a process.

while there may have been a few, there are no govts in the past 2000 years that i can recall off the top of my head that were good.

human nature, as it is, govts are formed by wealthy people who can exert control. and then exert control in such a way as to benefit mostly themselves.

if you look at the u.s. govt, we could probably do without about 90% of it. if you make a govt small enough, it is much more apt to actually serve the people, instead of the people serving it, which is what we have today.

govt should be localized as much as possible, since a localized govt is much easier to be made accountable for its actions. and much more visible to see said actions.

instead of a country, i would like to see our geographical area actually be a federation, whereby we are federated on those issues that make sense. we should have one language, one currency, some sort of federal military, etc.

what we actually have is ridiculous.

 

[Newai]

The sky is falling. Been falling since the dawn of civilization.

The decline of oil production will be gradual. As this happens it will be more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, other energy sources will be improved upon and utilized as the cost of them begins to be less than the cost of oil. It's the natural order of things. It won't be a catastrophic collapse.

Between oil and all the other resources that rise in cost, while we can generally get by, what will be the human response under all that pressure?

 

[FlexGunship]

Between oil and all the other resources that rise in cost, while we can generally get by, what will be the human response under all that pressure?

I don't know, but I think frat boys will drink more; politicians will lie more; and idiots will get dumber.

 

[ginru]

while there may have been a few, there are no govts in the past 2000 years that i can recall off the top of my head that were good.

human nature, as it is, govts are formed by wealthy people who can exert control. and then exert control in such a way as to benefit mostly themselves.

if you look at the u.s. govt, we could probably do without about 90% of it. if you make a govt small enough, it is much more apt to actually serve the people, instead of the people serving it, which is what we have today.

govt should be localized as much as possible, since a localized govt is much easier to be made accountable for its actions. and much more visible to see said actions.

instead of a country, i would like to see our geographical area actually be a federation, whereby we are federated on those issues that make sense. we should have one language, one currency, some sort of federal military, etc.

what we actually have is ridiculous.

Makes me think of the Federation of Planets from Star Trek.

I like this direction but then the roadblock is those wealth/power elites that would stand in the way of something like this happening. Maintaining the status quo would seem to serve their interests. I could imagine the powerful elite cooking up some propaganda to paint any such movement as destabilizing their respective countries.

That's why I feel a unifying, alternative currency would be a meaningful step towards pulling society and the global economy away from the control of the wealthiest minority, especially if it empowers future generations to create a more effective system for serving the people.

 

[nismaratwork]

Between oil and all the other resources that rise in cost, while we can generally get by, what will be the human response under all that pressure?

War.

 

[nismaratwork]

A one world government is something that we are working towards. it is a distinct possibility to me. But I'm talking in terms of thousands of years. There is a high rate of economic globalization right now, and governments will follow the money. You can see this beginning to happen with China and the U.S, and the EU is very codependent. This is a trend that will continue in my mind. At one point, with technological advancement, and the elimination of geological limitations, it will make sense to start mutually governing bodies.

But this is an infant stage of such a state. The U.S is one country and doesn't (IMO) have an up to standard governing structure. I think in future years we will see the federal government start to take power away from the state. Sorry for the tangent.

EDIT: But Hell, I live in Canada and 40% of Quebec has been trying to separate for a hundred years. And they are smack dab in the middle of the country!

Which "we?" The UN, The EU, The USA, China, Russia? You see it as a distinct possibility, although no such thing has ever existed, and the tendency is to fragment along cultural, tribal, religious, monetary, resource...etc... lines. Codependancy doesn't end in a perfect union, it ends in tragedy or seperation, and frankly what infantile state do you see technologically?

How do you coerce a world of people who largely hate and covet each other, to hold hands without fighting over resources, including land, views, clean air, access to water... etc. You might want to research the history of water rights and warfare before you even consider more lofty issues.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Makes me think of the Federation of Planets from Star Trek.

I like this direction but then the roadblock is those wealth/power elites that would stand in the way of something like this happening. Maintaining the status quo would seem to serve their interests. I could imagine the powerful elite cooking up some propaganda to paint any such movement as destabilizing their respective countries.

That's why I feel a unifying, alternative currency would be a meaningful step towards pulling society and the global economy away from the control of the wealthiest minority, especially if it empowers future generations to create a more effective system for serving the people.

actually, just the opposite. the powerful elite wants to rule the world, not just anyone country. be very wary of anyone wanting to head in that direction.

 

[alt]

actually, just the opposite. the powerful elite wants to rule the world, not just anyone country. be very wary of anyone wanting to head in that direction.

What direction ? Rule of the world, or rule of the world by powerful elite, ie, plutocracy ?

I would hate for the world to be ruled by one party, but would prefer plutocracy to communism any day !

 

[dacruick]

What direction ? Rule of the world, or rule of the world by powerful elite, ie, plutocracy ?

I would hate for the world to be ruled by one party, but would prefer plutocracy to communism any day !

A one world government pretty much screams communism doesn't it? Maybe by that time we will have advanced enough as a race to apply communism properly. I hear China is working on it...

 

[nismaratwork]

A one world government pretty much screams communism doesn't it? Maybe by that time we will have advanced enough as a race to apply communism properly. I hear China is working on it...

One world government screams facism to me, and tolalitarianism... Communism would collapse first.

 

[dacruick]

One world government screams facism to me, and tolalitarianism... Communism would collapse first.

And what if you leave your pessimism behind??

 

[nismaratwork]

And what if you leave your pessimism behind??

I'd probably melt like the witch from 'The Wizard of Oz'?

I'm Skeptical old Cromm, not cynical... communism grows, and collapses... it's history not pessimism.

 

[dacruick]

History doesn't govern the future though. 100 years ago women weren't even allowed to vote. I don't think any rational person can say that women don't have a core role in the success of every social and economic system.

 

[Physics-Learner]

A one world government pretty much screams communism doesn't it? Maybe by that time we will have advanced enough as a race to apply communism properly. I hear China is working on it...

communism fails because it requires people to work hard for the benefit of strangers. but there is one very common instance where communism works great. anyone tell me what it is ?

 

[dacruick]

No but now I'm curious.

 

[nismaratwork]

communism fails because it requires people to work hard for the benefit of strangers. but there is one very common instance where communism works great. anyone tell me what it is ?

Not a clue, but I'll bite too.

@dacruick: It doesn't govern the future, but it's a good object lesson(s) in this case. I'm not looking at just 100 years either... attempts at unification of even marginally dispirate elements (China for example) is violent and maintained by the threat of vioilence.