Your Views on a world Government

[bearclaw]

So far, everyone has pretty much made it clear why a world government won't work. What about what it would take for it to work?

As I see it, there are certain technological nessesities for a world government. First IMO is fusion power or something similar. Something that will provide all the power needs of the whole planet without adding costs and/or enviromental damage. For a world government, there would have to be a "leveling of the playing field" in terms of technology. And without a substantial power source, that won't happen. Whether fully used or not, I think the availablity of technology would be the first step.

Second would have to be some sort of unified world opinion on what's important in terms of human rights and similar topics. That also won't happen without some sort of condition that affects the whole planet. (ala: Deep Impact, Independance Day, Day After Tommorow, etc.)

Third would have to be near-total participation. Not on a national level but on an individual level. Example: a global reforendum is held on whether to unify the world or not. This would require a method for, and acutal participation of, 90%+ of the world population.

So, that said, what it will take is an Alien attack in the form of an asteroid smashing into the Earth causing a new Ice Age that will wipe out approximatly 4 Billion people. The remainder of which are smart enough to develope highly advanced technological feats andd all actually get off their butts come election day.

OT: why is it in nearly all global disaster movies, Canada is among the first to go?

[Randallw]

I relish the idea of a single world government, however I can not see it happening anytime soon. There are too many Groups in the world at present that would refuse to accept the changes necessary. Instead it should be a gradual process so that perhaps in a hundred years the world population awakes one morning to find that the process has been completed. However such a long term vision is unable to take into account the effects technology may have on our lives in the next century. In a hundred years we may all be uploaded into our own virtual worlds and have no need to care about the rest of the population. By then perhaps there will be only one line of work in existance, software programmer (can't let the robots write their own software or they would take over).

I believe by removing nationalism and ethnic diversity we can end conflicts. Every citizen needs to be taught that they are no better than others and that their responsibility is to serve the race rather than the individual. As someone said there exists the problem that one nation (in the time before the disolving of national identities) may try to wield power through the excuse that "well we have the biggest population in the world, or we have the largest country etc" but they must come to learn that China for example may have 1 billion world citizens but there are 5 billion other humans in the world. A country may have a political system (using China again as an example, since it is a large country with a large population using a distinct political system) that they feel is superior to other existing systems and that they believe the world state should use, but existing political systems should be removed and a whole new system suited to the advancement of the world as a whole should be instituted.

This is not a theory that assumes Democracy should be the default system. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority and the use of what is popular over what is best. Instead of 51% of the population forcing the other 49% to do what they want, a system is necessary where a group tasked with the guidance of the world decides on the most logical course of action.

Puting aside for a moment the contentious issue of Switzerlands past history I would like to point out the fact that Switzerland is renowned for everything being orderly. The trains run on time and the population is cared for by the government. Switzerland does not have a single national leader, but instead has a council of ministers each of whom runs their department. Since it is deemed necessary to have a single figure represent the country at international meetings and events a President is chosen each year from the council but they have no particular powers, they are just that years representative. I didn't know before about the effect bureaucracy had on the longevity of the state but I must say I am delighted at the information as it enforces my longstanding belief that bureaucracy is the ideal means to run the state.

[Colonel]

DarkHorse said:
but you call Cuba's revolution a success? I guess if the goal was to secure poverty for all...

I meant the first revoultion, not Castro.

[TerranC]

Every citizen needs to be taught that they are no better than others and that their responsibility is to serve the race rather than the individual.

I think you've got that backwards.

[Starhawk]

Randallw said:
\

I believe by removing nationalism and ethnic diversity we can end conflicts. Every citizen needs to be taught that they are no better than others and that their responsibility is to serve the race rather than the individual. As someone said there exists the problem that one nation (in the time before the disolving of national identities) may try to wield power through the excuse that "well we have the biggest poupualtion in the world, or we have the largest country etc" but they must come to learn that China for example may have 1 billion world citizens but there are 5 billion other humans in the world. A country may have a political system (using China again as an example, since it is a large country with a large population using a distinct political system) that they feel is superior to other existing systems and that they believe the world state should use, but existing political systems should be removed and a whole new system suited to the advancement of the world as a whole should be instituted.

Uh and how do we remove "ethnic diversity"? hmmm? Not to mention if you remove "ethnic diversity" you leave the door open to lots of bad crap.

:


This is not a theory that assumes Democracy should be the default system. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority and the use of what is popular over what is best. Instead of 51% of the population forcing the other 49% to do what they want, a system is necessary where a group tasked with the guidance of the world decides on the most logical course of action.

In other words true form of tyranny wherein the minority who decides they are superior gets to rule over those they see as inferior, briliant idea there man (rolleyes)

Puting aside for a moment the contentious issue of Switzerlands past history I would like to point out the fact that Switzerland is renowned for everything being orderly. The trains run on time and the population is cared for by the government. Switzerland does not have a single national leader, but instead has a council of ministers each of whom runs their department. Since it is deemed necessary to have a single figure represent the country at international meetings and events a President is chosen each year from the council but they have no particular powers, they are just that years representative. I didn't know before about the effect bureaucracy had on the longevity of the state but I must say I am delighted at the information as it enforces my longstanding belief that bureaucracy is the ideal means to run the state.

Well let's see consider that it's run like a giant buisness (which the country practically is), I definately wouldn't recomend this for a world government as blood money would probobly be considered an okay thing.

Every citizen needs to be taught that they are no better than others and that their responsibility is to serve the race rather than the individual.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[spoon]

Jack Simth said:
If the government decideds to do something evil, what you gonna do about it?

I don't know? What do we do now if the Dread Governor of Arkansas decides to do something evil?

A world government can still have checks and balances.

[Randallw]

In what way is it backwards?. Communism seems to think the government should be made to care for and run by the workers. I believe the government is there to serve the people but that they owe allegiance to the community. Its not all people are equal as workers, but instead all people are equal as citizens of the state.

[Starhawk]

Randallw said:
In what way is it backwards?. Communism seems to think the government should be made to care for and run by the workers. I believe the government is there to serve the people but that they owe allegiance to the community. Its not all people are equal as workers, but instead all people are equal as citizens of the state.

Basically if I am a doctor I get stuck being reduced to the same equality of a drug addict, great that encourages me to do things in life now doesn't it?

The problem with your idea is that people need to be motivated by more then force to actually give a damn and do something worthwhile in the world, your idea would put a smart educated and useful person at the "equal" of a lowlife scumsucking moocher, why should I be a doctor then?

That is and has always been one of the primary failings of communism I DON'T want to be equal to some of the folks I've met, I am confident in my superiority and glad of it, and I'm sure there are others that are superior to society then I am and good on them (I've met a few people smarter then me).

[TerranC]

I thought you meant to say serve the individual not the race, since you said before that you wanted to remove ethnic diversity, therefore eliminate the idea of race.

[bearclaw]

lol

One thing's for sure. If someone is going to develop a single world government, it won't be this group

I actually believe that a corporate structure would have the best chance at a world government. Not the same setups as most of today's corporations, but something similar. Instead of answering to voters, those in power would have to answer to shareholders, who would be all of the population.

Also, the comments about individualism/state-ism (?), I also think that a shareholder/voter situation would satisfy that requirement. If the government does better, you make more money! If the government does poorly, you get paid less. Something like this would be more inclined to get most people to pay more attention to the goings on of whats around them than simply if you show up, you get paid. Regardless of what is done/not done, you get paid the same. IMO this is why Communism in particular and any other socialist government in general does not work. This is also why I'm opposed to labor unions. Show up, get paid. Regardless if whether you actually work or not. Don't get me wrong, I believe there is a place for unions but not to the degree that they are now.

Eg: Several years ago (mid '80s I believe), a disgruntled worker for the National Film board of Canada, brought a handgun into work and shot one his co-workers. The victim didn't die (thankfully) and the attacker was put on a temporary leave. After which (don't recall the time frame) his job was still waiting for him. Under the terms of the Union, he could NOT be fired for shooting a fellow employee.