One world government?

[Brian37]

One world government is necessary to ban private space exploration. Elon Musk is the most dangerous man on Earth

Yes, because surely the prospect of pioneering a means to get off this rock if we fuck things up beyond repair is the most despicable issue facing the human race.

Not going to happen. At best we might travel to Mars and back, but our best bet is to worry about ending our stupid tribalism as species, focus on poverty, pollution, climate change and a meteor defense system.

The prospect of getting humans physically out of our solar system to another inhabitable planet would be a few generations down the road if at all. The universe is huge and we would still have to find that planet first.

[AceBoogie]

Suppose the North Korean government was the only government in the world. That would be bad. Suppose ISIS ran the world....that would be bad. While many governments increase the chances that there will be some bad governments....it also increases the chances there will be some good governments.

Okay, so how different would things have to be for a one world government to work? How radical of a change do you think society would have to undergo for it to be possible? Or, regardless of any sort of change, would a one world government simply not be the ideal situation for world peace and consensus?

We already have that in global corporatism. Banks and fuel are investments friend and foe, open and closed societies invest in.

I agree that economic globalization has been increasing as of recent years. What would a completely globalized economy look like? Or is it even possible to define that, to draw that line?

Which brings me to something I wanted to ask you in your introduction thread, why do you think the guy in your avatar is so great? Che was an opportunist nothing more. What he built is nothing any open society would want to live in.

Let's start with the agreement first that I 'think he is great.' I would not so much say he is 'great,' nor would I say I admire his political policies as much as I admire him for being one of those people in the history of the world that was able to drastically alter things with a specific vision in mind. As to whether or not Cuba ended up exactly how Ernesto Guevara envisioned it, I couldn't say. I can say however that I am confident that whatever he did, it was for the love of the PEOPLE of Cuba, not hatred for the government. Also I think he is a very well written author, read The Motorcycle Diaries when you have a chance.

I admire this passion and willingness to change things. Now one could point to the example of Adolf Hitler to which I would reply that I also admire his passion and willingness to change things as much as I may disagree with his vision and plan... as much as I may think that he was a very misguided, manipulative and violent human being, that ability to change things is what we all need to keep in mind when a society comes to a position where its people are being misused or mistreated to an extent that said people find said conditions unacceptable. There is a general attitude amongst many people that one person cannot change anything in this society. And though that may be true to SOME EXTENT, one person's vision CAN spark the change necessary to improve society as a whole.

You do not simply have a revolution to have one. The Russian revolution was the result of centralized wealth in one class. Which simply shifted the wealth to a party. Jefferson supported the French Revolution and that ended up with a dictator.

I am no fan of our corporate owned government, but that is not the fault of the Constitution anymore than you can blame a hammer for the user bashing someones skull in. I am no Ayn Rand atheist and I hate libertarians even more than republicans because they are simply republicans on steroids.

But I am also not for a Cuba style government either. They have no political diversity and speaking out against the government is not acceptable there. Cheap food and healthcare and free education can be obtained without setting up one party rule.

I think Europe and Canada and Australia are examples of balance, although global corporatism is trying to break them as well.

But no, there will never be a one world government in the context having one entity or one global state. I find it absurd in a diverse species to expect all 7 billion of us to be on the same page.

I do think what is more reasonable is that we promote the idea that our common needs should be a bigger priority than our differences.

Well I am sorry that you hate libertarians. I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist (which is not a contradiction despite what many believe), so I suppose you don't care for me much? Regardless I do not think a one world government is realistic considering the current state of the world (as limited as my understanding of the entire world may be, mind you), but I think in an ideal situation a one world government would be great.. where everyone simply acted in the interest of the whole rather than in the interest of the self. Now is a OWG necessary for that? I don't know maybe I am being an idealist.

I also think that the United States of America could learn much from Europe and Canada, especially in terms of health care and the like.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It would be too unwieldy to govern effectively, given current technology; and too remote to garner the approval of all peoples, because policies benefiting one region may well hurt another.

---

Lord Jesus Christ will establish a One World Government. Time in nigh.

[Aoi Magi]

One world government won't work because there would be no one to challenge that authority. I on the other hand do agree that we need to lower the current count of governments. Maybe 3 strong governments would be the best bet. Too many powers and we get all the conflicts as we see today, too few and a dictator is bound to rise up and ruin everything, so a balance is necessary.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Three strong governments would be just as bad as twenty, or sixty, or one, for the reason Brian has already pointed out: they would be operated by humans.

[Dystopia]

A one world government is something that sounds beautiful from an utopia standpoint, but awful when it comes to realism - And I'll confess I prefer living according to a realist philosophy and trying to make the best pragmatic decisions. There will never be a consensus on a single world government, for a huge variety of reasons - Economical, social, religious (yes I am including this), nationalistic, cultural and other sorts.... Get over it.
Oh and b sides that, I don't want a one world government. A government that could affects us all (humans) positively could also, as easily, persecuted and torture, oppress us, from a political power standpoint it's a way overpowered almost all-mighty government, and I hate all-mighty governments, I like them limited and small - Just my opinion though
Please have a good day.

[AceBoogie]

What about a one world government that strictly served the needs of the people as a whole? Where corporations were kept under heavy regulation from creating monopolies or destroying the ecosystem... The rich would be heavily taxed and their wealth redistributed amongst the rest of the world.

I am being an idealist though, and I realize some people are more so taking the realist perspective, as Blackout stated. The situation I am assuming is a world where people no longer feel the need to control people and everyone has come to a point where greed, malicious intent and the rest of it is simply not part of the human psyche anymore... obviously UNrealistic hahaha

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Blackout's realism is the point that needs to be most considered and the political and, for me, economic reasons as the main obstacle to what Michio Kaku elucidates on as a Type 1 civilisation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_I

Consider the supranational body of the EU. Not even that can create a unified socio-political economy and there we're only considering a very small landmass and population relative to the entire world.

But factor in time and everything is variable. I wonder what the world will look like in 3, 4 centuries.

---

Lord Jesus Christ will establish a One World Government. Time in nigh.

Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Educate yourself on even the most basic elements of politics, economics, sociology, the natural sciences and even comparative theology, and you'll begin to realise why what you said is the most redundant in possibly the most redundant way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What about a one world government that strictly served the needs of the people as a whole? Where corporations were kept under heavy regulation from creating monopolies or destroying the ecosystem... The rich would be heavily taxed and their wealth redistributed amongst the rest of the world.

I am being an idealist though, and I realize some people are more so taking the realist perspective, as Blackout stated. The situation I am assuming is a world where people no longer feel the need to control people and everyone has come to a point where greed, malicious intent and the rest of it is simply not part of the human psyche anymore... obviously UNrealistic hahaha

I can't remember where I read it, but politics is the art of the possible.

[Heywood]

Okay, so how different would things have to be for a one world government to work? How radical of a change do you think society would have to undergo for it to be possible? Or, regardless of any sort of change, would a one world government simply not be the ideal situation for world peace and consensus?

It might happen when everyone starts speaking the same language. Right now there are about 7000 languages spoken in the world. In about a 100 years it will be around 3500. Eventually it might come down to one language.