Global government- return to hangar

[Yeekim]

I heard from some friends that talk of a plan for a One World Government is all around the news.

What kind of news are your friends watching?

 

[lovett]

We probably should wait for wealth distribution to become more even-handed, too.

I would contend that the modern day distribution of global wealth is the single most compelling normative reason for a single world government. A re-distributive world government aimed at alleviating the horrific living standards borne by the global poor.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I agree, but I also think that with such big wealth gaps we have right now it offers too much potential for internal conflict -exactly because it will due to its normative urgency be a hot topic. And I don't trust the richer parts to suddenly become all dedicated humanitarians. But I do trust the poorer parts to demand the support of the rich parts.
Great potential to divide rather than unite, to grow resentment rather than communal spirit.

 

[amadeus]

A worldwide government from which you could not escape? How could that possibly be a good thing?

 

[timtofly]

Although it has been some time since i last watched tv (due to the general misery presented on it) i heard from some friends that talk of a plan for a One World Government is all around the news. Obviously mostly focused upon as some sort of over-plan of shadowy centers.

I was wondering if a OWG would really be a good idea though, even if it is not a plan. Even today, with local governments, there is little sense of the rulers being held responsible for the crisis they cause; what is to happen if instead we have only one country, a country of seven billion people?

Personally i heavily doubt it would be a force for overall good. Also i doubt there would be a majority of people wanting it atm.

What say you? Are you in favor of a OWG, and do you think the current crisis was triggered due to innumerable little factors which were just out of control, or was it some plan of some sort?

Btw the return to hangar, obviously referring to the famous eponymous song by Megadeth, was meant to signify a secret plot, although like i said i do not bother to follow the news even when they are less conspiracy-oriented than now. Got to admit though that the EU collapsed pretty fast, and no, 300 Billion of debt was not the catalyst; this was 2% of the EU's combined budget and just imagine how well the crisis in Europe could have been avoided with a logical plan.

If the EU falls apart, then OWG goes back to get a major overhall for the next attempt. Global politics is not so much as global control, but a means to unite everyone in "likemindedness". A unified lingua? Even the internet is a "force" to bring people together in a common "bond" even though ideologically people have their own opinions. I do not even think that it has to be a physical enemy. Famine on a huge scale that threatens global economy would be a uniting force.

Global economy is almost there. Even if the EU falls apart, the idea of a common currency or trade has been implemented. Even if each country has to fall back to their own currency, for trade to happen, there has to be equality at some level. Trade is the key factor and it will eventually bring people together in "likemindedness" whether any one likes it or not.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A worldwide government from which you could not escape? How could that possibly be a good thing?

Please elaborate why it must be possible to escape. Realize that you already can't escape some form of governmental authority.

 

[Murky]

A worldwide government from which you could not escape? How could that possibly be a good thing?

Would you rather live under a unified global democracy or a third world dictatorship like North Korea?

 

[amadeus]

Please elaborate why it must be possible to escape. Realize that you already can't escape some form of governmental authority.

Suppose the government has committed a grave injustice and people must flee for their lives. Under a one-world state, where could these people go?

Would you rather live under a unified global democracy or a third world dictatorship like North Korea?

Would you rather live in a shopping mall on the moon or inside a Pepsi bottle at the bottom of the Adriatic Sea?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Suppose the government has committed a grave injustice and people must flee for their lives. Under a one-world state, where could these people go?

That in deed is a problem. As I already said, the potential of a world government to benefit the whole of humanity in unique ways comes hand in hand with its potential to screw the whole of humanity in unique ways.
So we would need to have good reason to assume that putting all our money on one bet is not foolhardy. And I don't see that now. As squadbroken already said, such good reason would require sort of a revolution of human societies and the governmental systems they breed. What that exactly will be I can't say so this will be a point of debate.
But to argue that this is out of the question to begin with seems narrow-minded and a little too fear-guided to me. A consequence of your ideology I presume?

 

[Murky]

Would you rather live in a shopping mall on the moon or inside a Pepsi bottle at the bottom of the Adriatic Sea?

Interesting analogy. Between the chances of successfully establishing a one world government and putting a shopping mall on the moon, the latter is more likely to happen within the foreseeable future.

 

[SG-17]

Suppose the government has committed a grave injustice and people must flee for their lives. Under a one-world state, where could these people go?

There are plenty of uninhabited islands you could sail to.

Interesting analogy. Between the chances of successfully establishing a one world government and putting a shopping mall on the moon, the latter is more likely to happen within the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately the commercialization of space is the only way we will be getting out there any time soon.

 

[amadeus]

There are plenty of uninhabited islands you could sail to.

They would all be under the jurisdiction of the world state.

 

[Murky]

Which would you choose if given the choice.

A) Living under a world government (democracy) where everyone has freedom of speech.
B) Living under a communists dictatorship where speaking out is likely to get you killed but if you manage to sneak across the border you can be free.
C) Living in an undersea Gangland where mob rules are enforced ruthlessly. Total Darwinian but if you rise to the top you can be King.

 

[Quackers]

D) Live on an internet forum with pointless analogies.

 

[Murky]

D) Live on an internet forum with pointless analogies.

It's not pointless. My point is that for many people a unified world democracy would be a lot better than what they have now. Visit some third world country sometime and find out.

 

[Quackers]

It's just pointless to the discussion. "Unified global democracy" or "North Korea dictatorship". Oh you chose democracy I win the argument!!!

 

[Murky]

It's just pointless to the discussion. "Unified global democracy" or "North Korea dictatorship". Oh you chose democracy I win the argument!!!

It's a pointless thread anyway because it's not going to happen.

 

[amadeus]

Murky, would you rather live in:

(1.) a stateless society where free markets ensure peace and prosperity?
(2.) the Buchenwald concentration camp as a slave laborer?

 

[Colonel]

I do not really see this as possible because of the Nationalist sentiments in many nations, namely the most powerful country on the planet. Some Europeans accept the idea of a unified government in Europe and may even be partial to a unified world government but I don't see that many people in the US being willing to accept such a thing. We would be partial to a world government if it were headed by the US but then it really wouldn't be a world government and I doubt that other areas of the world would accept such a circumstance.

So simply put the most organized and closest to a world government I could ever see would be something like NATO expanding into a governing body with a great deal of autonomy that still remained with the respective states.

 

[Murky]

(1.) a stateless society where free markets ensure peace and prosperity?
(2.) the Buchenwald concentration camp as a slave laborer?[/URL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.