One World Government? When will Happen?

Great Debates
1

Who is going to run it the UN, NATO or who? I mean I see the world trade org, world health org and world this & world that and more global this and global that than I care to talk about. I for one hope it never happens to the US but I think it will one day. I say let all those other countries be dumb A’s and do it if they are too stupid to govern themselves. But we don’t need it.

My big question is WHEN? When will it happen the next 5 years next 10 or will it take 20? I just know it is around the corner but how long I don’t know. Ya’ll have any guesses on when?

How do ya’ll feel about a one world gov’t? I know there is alot of liberals on this board. Do ya’ll in general support this idea or not?

Oh one more question with the credit and computers getting so advanceed when do you think currency will go away?

2

If there is -ever- going to be a ‘one world government’ you can be reasonably sure that the US is going to have 99% of the say in it. Yes, there’s a World Health Organization, and the International Money Fund, and UNICEF and UNthis and UNthat, but do you honestly think that if they say “jump”, the US will say “how high?”

Despite the occasional anti-Americanism in the General Assembly, the UN is basically a way for the US to project itself overseas with an air of legitimacy. Remember, we’ve got a permanent seat on the Security Council, which means we can veto anything we don’t like.

And like it or not, but the US is part of the world. Isolationism is a thing if the past. We can no longer just hide between our two oceans and say “la la la I can’t hear you la la la”. Whether we have the right or the duty to intervene militarily or politically is another thread entirely, but no one can realistically deny the fact that as a major power of the world, the US by default is involved with the world.

Basically, the only way you’ll see a ‘one world government’ against the wishes of the US is if the US provokes the rest of the world into uniting against it. And if that happens, well, then we’ll get what we deserve, because the US will be full of dumb A’s who are too stupid to govern themselves.

3

:rolleyes:
You realize the futility in arguing agaisnt one-world government schemes by asserting that there already is a one-world government, and it is run by the US.

Our derision in the rest of the world’s eye, our recent boot off the HRC… oh yeah, we run the world all right, no one tells us what to do.

4

Very good reply LNO. If we would pull our policing effort back and have the military due what they designed to do(protect the US), then I think we would be better off. Then the rest of the world would just hate us for our prosperity only. :smiley:

5

There is never going to be a real, honest-to-goodness, “One World Government,” in the sense of a single body responsible for governing the citizens of every country on Earth as the Federal government governs the U.S. now. It’s never going to happen despite what some . . . [sub]must be polite[/sub] religious leaders would like their, um, constituents to believe.

That fact can be demonstrated by asking oneself a simple rhetorical question? Why on Earth would the Taliban agree to be on a governing body with, or be governed by, the Netherlands? Are Jordan and Israel really likely to consent to being governed by the same entity? How about Saudi Arabia and Canada?

The cultural gulfs involved are so enormous as the make the likelihood of this happening not significantly different from zero. Not today, not tomorrow, not ten years from now, and not ever.

6

Try reading his post. He doesn’t claim anything of the sort. Rolleyes, indeed.

7

There will quickly be a one-world government when the planet is placed under threat by a major extraplanetary source. It’s the only thing that IMO would work, shifting our nationalistic us-vs-them mentality to a planetary us-vs-them mentality…

C’mon, martians, invade already! :smiley:

8

rolleyes rolleyes indeed indeed.

9

Key words to note “if…ever…going to be…going to have”. Which somehow you construe as

LNO says “going to be”, you construe it as “already”. LNO says “if”, you construe it as an “asserting”.

So yes, I would say that you have totally misrepresented his post. Anytime you’re ready to retract, feel free.

10

I’m inclined to agree for one simple reason. The current trend is towards smaller and smaller autonomous units. Nationalism runs pretty high these days. Witness the rather recent breakups of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. If you want to go back even further there’s Bangaldesh and some others I’m sure, that I can’t recall at the moment.

11

You are correct, I misstated my intentions and misunderstood his. I do resent the idea that a one-world government almost assuredly will be run by the US.

:sorry: :frowning:

12

Actually, that probably makes the most sense. The only reason for having one world government would be to combine economic and/or military resources in order to compete with some external political entity. I still think you will never see one world government. Just look at how hard it is to get just the Europeans to agree.

Say we colonize Mars and in 1000 years it has a population of a couple of billion people. I think its more likely there would be a bunch of Martian nations than one Mars government (ie New China, US of Mars, Republic of Bob, Microsoft Country, and so on.)

13

No worries; I’m just happy someone could clarify before I got back. (Thanks, Gary.)

When you say you resent the idea that a one-world government would be run by the US, do you mean that said one-world government would not or should not be run by the US? Whether it should or not is a matter for debate (and I’d probably be on your side there) but whether it would seems relatively clear-cut. If that’s what you were getting at, could you explain why?

14

A one-world government, for all intents and purposes, is inevitable given enough time.
pl:

A valid point, but you’re not thinking in four dimensions (as Doc Brown might say). You’re assuming that the cultural divide is static when, in fact, increasing cultural homogenity (Television, Hollywood, McDonald’s) and genetic homogenity (intermarriage) will make the divide a thing of the past. Given that we don’t blow ourselves up, there will be no good reason not to unify (though it should take hundreds – if not thousands – of years).

15

Actually, I think there is almost a 0% chance of the US being the dominant part of the OWG. America is not the most respected country in the world. The only way we would become the leader of a OWG is through force, and I find that to be completely unlikely if not impossible.

I do believe a OWG is inescapable, however (given that we desire to continue to raise the worldwide standard of living and technological achievement), and that many of the ideas inherent in American culture will dominate its thought, but those ideas aren’t exclusively held by Americans. Most likely, IMO, is that the OWG will take the form of a policing body as opposed to enforcing soveriegnty in all manners. The idea of a confederate group of independant nations agreeing on basic premises of how a nation should be run is what I’m thinking of here.

The general thrust, here, is that the behaviors we, as a country, are most likely to act on successfully are ideas that we don’t exclusively hold. It will be a compromise, and a significant one at that.

16

I disagree. The cultural divide is not static, but it will always exist in some form. You can place all the McDonald’s restaurants you want overseas, but it won’t change the fact that China and the United States differ in some very significant ways. I used current real-world examples because I can’t, obviously, predict what cultures will exist 100 years from now (let alone ten years). But I do know that human history is a series of stories involving the ways in which groups of people choose to differentiate themselves from one another. If they don’t do so with one particular criterion, they’ll find another.

17

I can buy this. Gotta look at the big picture. There won’t always be a U.S.A. There won’t always be Taliban. I don’t know that I’d say OWG was inevitable, but I think the trends favor unification over disintegration.

18

No argument here, but the question is whether they’ll find enough consensus on which to build a cooperative institution - which does not of course preclude a competitive relationship but rather encourages people to notice sameness rather than differences. As I said, I don’t know that it’s inevitable, but maybe the former Marxboy (if he still posts here) can come along and make that case.

Europe used to be populated by wandering tribes. In modern times, people came together to form nations. Now Europe is coming together to form one large economic unit. Who’s to say we won’t see a lot more of that in the future?

Meanwhile in the Balkans (yes, I realize that the Balkans are part of Europe) ethnic - or national - rivalries are tearing people’s lives apart. IOW, nationalism as a worldview doesn’t stand up too well next to internationalism. The nations that stick together instead of scrapping with one another over stupid things like religion and ethnicity have a better chance of survival - kind of a “national Darwinism”.

19

First of all, “Never” is a very long time.

I personally don’t think it will happen in my lifetime, but the potential is there for it happen in the next few thousand years. It seems to me a matter of globalizing the mind of the common man. Admittedly, that’s no small feat considering the number of small minds among common men, but it is within the realm of possibility.

Obviously it’s not going to be an instanteous process. People aren’t going to suddenly wake up one day and agree to ditch their current systems. It’s going to be long gradual process, probably requiring an unprecedented era of peace. The most obvious steps to me are:

  1. One world currency.
  2. One world language.
  3. One world government.

Imagine the difficulty with just that first one. But look at the Euro. It is possible if people really try hard enough. Language is clearly harder and will happen over multiple generations, but it’s a logical step. Perhaps universal gov’t will proceed universal language, but somehow I doubt it.

That would depend upon what trends you are looking at. One can probably argue the evidence from either side. Compare maps of the world from today versus over the past 4,000 years, and it’s more cyclical (as empires rose and fell) than trendy in either direction. But as technology progresses, those trends may no long apply. (Let’s hope, anyway…)

20

Prediction in the realm of sociocultural evolution is impossible.

Consider entities such as the Taliban, the dictatorship of East Timor, the IRA, the Mbuti, Catholics, the United States of America and polyandrous marital institutions. Would the Taliban, the Pope or US WASP senators approve of polyandry? Would the Mbuti of the Ituri Forest condone American industrialization? Would the IRA endorse actions such as the oppression of the East Timorese? The problem with government is that it does act as a policing force. That, in and of itself, is a problem, but the greater underlying problem is the impetus for establishing said policing force. The impetus is that of enforcing adherence to a particular morality. No objective morality exists. A global government enforce a moral code? Which morality should be codified?

In the USA there remains derision pertaining to issues of abortion, stem cell research, racism, sexual orientation and the environment. As a nation, the USA cannot resolve its internal problems. On an individual level, consider the divorce rate in the USA. Individuals that may love each other cannot resolve their differences in many instances. Tolerance on individual, national and global scales does exist to the extent necessary for the existence of a global government. How could a unitary force not alienate its constituent parts?

In the matter of sociocultural evolution, a stimulus must be presented. This stimulus must be asserted by individuals highly esteemed by the populous to have hope for acceptance. Given that, the concept or thing must be evaluated and modified before assimilation into the sociocultural system is possible. Cultural homogeneity is not possible in the sense that any given concept introduce will be accepted only in specific ways. That acceptance will differ subtly from system to system. Such stimuli have different ramifications on an individual level.

In order to establish a global government, a global stimulus must present itself. That stimulus could be extra-planetary, environmental or a state of political incompatibility on a global scale. Barring such a stimulus, a sociocultural evolution resulting in the unification of all sociocultural systems should be impossible. Given the rise of such a stimulus and the assimilation of it, how does that effect the individual? The question still remains, to what morality will the policing force ascribe?

As an idealist, I truly hope that I will see the human population act in unison. Pragmatically speaking, I am doubtful about that possibility.

For anyone interested in sociocultural evolution, I recommend a book authored by Bruce Trigger. I do not remember the title, but the terms “sociocultural evolution” are in the title. It is a fascinating text.