One World Government? When will Happen?

Great Debates
21

Just when you thought it was going to be a boring day at the SDMB, out comes Wildest Bill with his paranoias about the UN. It is people like these that are the laughingstock of other Americans and the rest of the world.

>> Who is going to run it the UN, NATO or who?

If you would bother to read a bit you would know these organizations are not meant to be world governments. Your fears are unfounded.

>> 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 guess you feel no need for the US to interact with other countries except to nuke them if they do something the US doesn’t like.

>> I for one hope it never happens to the US but I think it will one day.

And you base that on…? Your vast knowledge of international affairs may be?

>> 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.

Yeah. The US is the only “real” country! The rest are just dumb A’s! <sigh>

>> 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?

When people like you gain some common sense. In other words, not any time soon. Another condition is that frogs have to grow hair so I don’t think it will be quite yet.
>> 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?

Well, speaking for all liberals… Oh wait, I am not a liberal… I’ll let them liberals speak for themselves then.

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

I cannot see how this is in the least related to the rest but, in any case, there was a thread about this some months ago. The answer is “no”. Currency will be around for a while. You can rest easy. Just let us know if you spot any of those pesky black helicopters.

22

The World would have to evolve considerably for a OWG to work, but evolve it does. Who knows what will happen over the next 100-200 years? It’s a tremendously complex question; the obstacles and problems are too numerous to mention. I would say that such things as a permanant solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and democracy in China would be pre-requisites, for example. It’s bettter to think in terms of grass-roots support gradually building than a top-down regime suddenly being imposed. Let’s dismiss all paranoid conspiracy theories.

Actually, my own vision thing is to forget about a OWG and instead support the development of regional federations, like the United States of Sub-Saharan Afica. Each region could integrate at it’s own pace. Europe is leading the way, but then again, the U.S. is already a regional federation. An international system consisting of a dozen or so of these superstates would be more stable than the current cacophony. There would still be numerous complications, but I feel this is a somewhat more realistic approach than jumping ahead with talk of a One World Government.

23

The UN can’t even get rid of slavery, the IRA, the Taliban, or end world hunger…you think it’s gonna be able to manage the world?

24

All you have to do is watch the evening news once a week to see that there is NEVER, I repeat NEVER any hope for one world gov’t.

I’ll use the West Bank as an example. There has been a war in that part of the world for thousands of years on and off and you’re telling me that they are gonna agree to play nice all of a sudden? Or that they are finally gonna listen to a world telling them to forget about their holy war?

These people are willing… no, EAGER to strap bombs on their backs and walk into discos and blow Jerusalem to hell - yet they are gonna politely sit in “congress” next to one another and ponder say, global warming? Come on. They certainly will not see eye to eye after sharing a fuckin’ happy meal for lunch either as Varlos contends.

Basically, there are too many fundamental issues which a common world gov’t would have to share. Many countries’ citizens aren’t willing to give such concessions. Currently, religion (among other things) plays too big a role in most of the world’s population to “overlook”.

25

Consider this, WB - the Euro. The Euro took over 12 years from the beginning of negotiations, and over 7 years from the signing of the treaty, to come into effect. If it took that long for 11 relatively closely aligned nations to implement the coordination of one bit of their economic policy, how long do you think the negotiation and implementation of a OWG would take, even if negotiations started tomorrow?

IF OWG happens (a massive if), it would probably be incremental, starting with the regional federations mentioned by sqweels, as well as giving enforcement powers to certain supranational organizations for limited areas that need international cooperation, such as air traffic control, the environment, etc.

So sleep well tonight, WB. This will be a problem (or an opportunity) for your grandchildren, not you.

Sua

26

And there you have it.
Eventually humanity will colonize the solar system, and the colonies will have their own local governments. When that happens, there will be an external political entity for the earth-bound humans to compete with, and it’s quite probable that a global government will evolve. I can certainly imagine a loose global confederation for mutual defense.
Needless to say, this sort of thing is not going to happen in the next 20 years, but it could happen within the next 200.

27

Sua,

I see what you are saying about the amount of time it could take. But everythings is moving faster all the time with technology advancing so rapidly. Also I tend to agree with rjung on something happens where the world comes together after some chaos.

Most of ya’ll know what I believe being a Christian but it doesn’t have to be ufo’s(like rjung said) it could be huge natural disaster(meteor) or maybe an outbreak of some sort of plague that kills a good percentage of the population and wipes out the vegetation too. Therfor hurting the world’s food supply and they could use that as the catalyst(i hope I spelled that right) for a world government to control the planet.

28

**

Why do you feel that NATO would end up running a OWG?

Why do you object to a OWG? Do you consider the UN to be one?

Why do you raise such a question in a OWG thread?

-Ben

29

How about this, Bill?

The giant meteor is coming to destroy us all, and the nations and religions of the world must band together to save ourselves. A religion other than Christianity and a government other than the United States may be in charge.

Are you coming?

Also, technology, McDonalds, intermarriage and the rest of the list will have little or no effect on conflicts that have been raging for thousands of years. I mean, if the Industrial Revolution, cars, television, the longer-lasting light bulb, telephones and fast food didn’t help, does anyone really think that a web-enabled phone, a couple of interracial or interfaith marriages or a Happy Meal will?

Don’t worry, Bill, you can just hole up and be a proud conservative Christian American and ignore the outside world for a little while longer.

30

How are we supposed to know what you believe about the UN and NATO based purely on the fact that you’re a Christian?

-Ben

31

Gee, good thing I’m not a conservative christian american and just a conservative one. So I can still see what’s going on out there? :wink:

32

Maybe the US could have ruled the whole world in 1945, when only we had atomic weapons.

Today, I see no way at all that a world government could form, so the question of US domination becomes moot.

33

I’ll make sure and answer each one of your questions because I know how upset you get if I don’t and next thing I know I’ll be the pit again. So here we go:

I didn’t say they would I was saying they could. Because they are already respected as governing body for internation problems.

Because I know what is next. And from my patriotic side I’m american before I am global earthling.

Yes I think the UN would be a catalyst for a one world govt.

Why do you raise such a question in a OWG thread?

-Ben **
[/QUOTE]

Why not? No seriously because it would give the govt more power over our lives.

oh as far as your last question about me a being a Christian that was just to let people know what I believe is the reason for a one world govt.

34

IMHO the “treat” that will be the drive for a world government, will be the disregard international corporations and organized crime have for the current governments. Trade and production are guided and controlled by international organizations that are beginning to flip the bird to workers rights and even the rights of nations. After more and more of those abuses come to view, it will become painfully obvious even to many in the “No world government” camp, that some world government to rein on that treat is going to be necessary.
In the organized crime side: the laundry of money in many banks overseas is a major problem that can only be reigned if the world gets together to close that loop hole.
I think in the examples I mentioned already, the moves to create or enforce the rule of law in a worldwide setting are happening. But, mostly corporations are in control of the enforcement too, so if you think that is NOT a problem, just continue fighting against our representation in a worldwide setting. The international corporations will love you for that.

As for the complaint that we should never start a world government because the UN is ineffective in getting rid of slavery and other problems, remember that the USA was also ineffective in doing that when the nation was founded.

As for the idea that all these wars that we have will prevent us from creating a world government: Just because the Hatfields and the McCoys were blowing each other that was not a reason to break the USA.

35

I’ll focus on the Middle East as the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

Solution acceptable to Palestinians- Full control of Jerusalem, and an independent Palestinian nation.

Solution acceptable to Israelis- Varies wildly from-give up land in exchange for peace but never relinquish Jerusalem,- to expel all Palestinians, destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple.

Of course, Jordan expelled the Palestinians a while back and would likely see a Palestinian nation as a threat.

As far as pop culture and homogenisation- There are no McDonald’s in Israel. There are McDavid’s. I kid you not. The menu differs due to differing supplies and culture. McDonald’s in Islamic countries serve no pork products.

The Middle East has been in conflict for approximately all of recorded history. Unless one side anhilates the other, true and lasting peace is unlikely.

One language? Which one? Mandarin is spoken by the most people. The attempt to create an artificial and universal lahguage, Esperanto, failed almost completely. It exists today mostly as a hobby. Many religions require that texts are written in a certain language. Judaism requires that Torah scrolls are always reproduced exactly. Rabbis speak whatever their native language is. But with the exception of some Reform rabbis, they all speak fluent Hebrew.

 As for colonisation of other planets, we'd just have another UN. Let's say that the UK, the USA and OPEC all put colonies on Mars. They will form a Martian UN. They will still be extensiosn of the UK, USA and OPEC. Unless abused (Ie taxation without representation, etc), they would have no reason to sever allegiance or cooperate  with colonies loyal to other parties. It would not be a case of Earth and Mars governments. It would be a case of various nations having influence on several planets. A 51st state on Mars would remain a part of the US. Any attempt to secede would be unconstitutional and lead to another civil war.
36

**

Actually, WB, I get upset when you behave in an unchristian fashion.

**

When have I asked anything of you which Jesus does not also ask?

**

A “governing body”? How so? What laws did NATO pass, and how are they legislated, judiciated, and executed?

(This is not meant to be snarky- I was unaware that NATO was a “governing body” in any traditional sense.)

**

That’s notably unhelpful, WB. What do you think is next?

**

Why is it good to be an American before being a human?

**

So you do not believe that the UN is a OWG?

And in what sense could it become a catalyst for one?

Do you believe that NATO could be such a catalyst?

**

How so? Do you have similar objections to the Internet?

Do you realize how unhelpful that is?

“Since I’m a Christian, you know what I believe.”

“How are we supposed to know what you believe just from the fact that you’re a Christian?”

“Oh, I just said that to let people know what I believe.”

-Ben

37

Well, personally I think it would take a great event to unify the world’s nations, and even then it would be iffy.

In Harry Turtledove’s * Worldwar* series, aliens invade, and even then the nations of the world don’t really unite.

That having been said, I think that the creation of Regional federations is far more likely than a OWG. I’m just waiting for American currency being declared legal tender in Mexico and Canada…

38

I believe what WB was getting at is that some conservatives firmly believe that a OWG is a tool of the Antichrist. (Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting your beliefs, WB).

To quote from an article easily found online by googling for ‘one world government christianity antichrist’:

39

Ben -

WRT Bill’s last point, I think you know very well what he’s getting at. However, since I often find myself in threads simultaneously defending and bickering with Bill, I’ll spell it out for you.

Bill’s brand of Conservative Christian believes that a One World Government is a sure sign of the AntiChrist; that, in fact, the OWG will be headed by the AC.

I’ve no idea, however, why Bill’s choosing to be so coy about it. Probably tired of being hit with the cluestick when it comes up.

40

Why not? No seriously because it would give the govt more power over our lives.

oh as far as your last question about me a being a Christian that was just to let people know what I believe is the reason for a one world govt. **
[/QUOTE]

A point and a question:

  1. A world government!=government having more power over our lives. It could be an libertarian world government that doesn’t, for the most part, interfere with people’s day to day lives at all.

  2. Why would the abolition of currency give the government more power over our lives? Even with currency, things like interest rates and ease of lending are controlled by the government, and most money isn’t in the form of currency now. (Today, I got paid…my employer electronically transferred the money into my checking account. I’m going to spend that money on rent and repaying a student loan. I’m writing a check for the rent, and the loan is electronically debited from my account. With some of the money, I bought books, using an electronic debit card to transfer money into the bookstore’s account from mine, etc) I don’t particularly see how my cashless transactions give the government more power over my life than ones I pay with cash, except that, hypothetically, the gov’t could track my purchases…is that what you meant?