Ok, isolationist reactionaries, what IS the problem people have with the idea with a one-world government. Seems to me the idea of a world without borders, where people can choose their own leaders and where hatred and bigotry are no longer practiced seems like a spitffy idea to me? So what is the big “conservative” objection to the idea of a one-world government?
Well, for one thing, the Football World Cup would pretty much suck.
Oh, and before anyone else does it: I just KNOW that a few of you are thinking about posting “But the Football World Cup sucks AS IT IS!” now 
By answering this I in no way want to label myself as one of the “conservative” “isolationist reactionaries”–but I think having some monolithic all-powerful government from which there is no escape anywhere in the world, is just a plain bad idea, no matter how benevolent others may think the government is. Freedom of movement (as between US States), people choosing their own leaders, and no bigotry or hatred, are all either debatable on their own terms or just plain good things, but do not necessarily follow from the premise of a one-world government.
Of course, if you are postulating some sort of utopian paradise-on-earth where nobody ever has anything to fear or dislike–then there isn’t much to debate.
it’s a great IDEA, but that is all it is. it’s a socialpsychological IMPOSSIBILITY. there are too many variations among the idiots on the planet. the economists can’t even figure out planned obsolescence is going on. or they think the stupid masses are better off not knowing about it. LOL!
Dal TimgarWhile I am perfectly happy with the idea of a world government founded on the same democratic ideals on which the US is founded, I have a sneaky suspicion that not everyone else is going to want to join the party. Personally, I don’t want a socialist system, definitely don’t want any government based on Muslim law, and as for Communis-- Well I haven’t seen a variety in practice that I care for, nor have I heard a description of a communist society that I find plausibly workable. So, while I have no trouble with a world government that upholds the basic principles that are important to me, I think that a lot of others are going to want one that reflects the basic principles important to them. In many cases, these principles would be diametrically opposed. If you can get all the other players to agree with my ideas of what would make a good world government, then I will sign the petition!
We can’t even get our own Federal government to adequately serve the disparate (and extremely localized) needs of people located in New York City and in Tucson, Arizona. What sort of government can exist that can adequately address the needs of people in Finland and in sub-Saharan Africa?
dal:
I’ve never met an economist who was unacquainted with the concept of planned obsolescence. In fact, it’s a bedrock of product development. But whatever.
Even if you did manage by some miracle to choose a form of government that would be agreeable, think of the bureaucracy. Consider the US government, multiply the number of people it has to govern by 20, add in the variation of languages and ethnic hatreds. Then tell me how you’d ever get them to agree on anything or get something done that wasn’t half-assed.
And of course, the desire for self-determination is very strong.
Human beings are going to have to change a lot before we lose the nation-state, regardless of what you see on Star Trek.
Did I really get nothing out of my years studying economics in Graduate School.
What is meant by planned obsolescence? Is this the “They no how to make a 1000 year light bulb but wont’” argument?
Guess I don’t [bold]know[/bold] how to spell.
Why can’t I edit my own message?
Both the idealistic and the paranoid should recognize that a one-world government isn’t going to happen for a looooong time. At least a hundred years. A lot can change during that time. Democracy will be strengthened. English will become more of a global language. Communism in China will be overthrown. (Islam I’m not so sure about).
Thinking about a one-world government is highly idealistic and speculative. It’s OK to make a lot of assumptions at this point. Don’t support a one-world government because you worry it’ll include a lot of bad things? Then how about a one-world government that doesn’t include any of the bad things you’re worried about? How about applying a virtual carbon-copy of the US Constitution to the entire world?
How many people escape from the US every year?
Nonsense.
Besides, individual nations would most likely enjoy more autonomy than the most hard-core state’s rights advocates want for US states.
Still, if you’re one of those who see the US Federal government as “monolithic and oppressive” then no-one will ever get you to sign off on a one-world government, so nevermind.
Oh, gee, I guess that settles that. I guess, for example, that the federal education guidelines that are appropriate for kids in Orange County, Calif. are also, coincidentally, appropriate for kids in Prince George’s County, Md. :rolleyes:
Much like in the former USSR?
Who said I do?
Obviously you don’t have to ESCAPE from the US unless you’re considered a criminal, but it’s also a sure bet the number of people voluntarily revoking their US citizenship is greater than zero. I think it’s also reasonable to assume that a few individuals who feel the need to violate US law (but maybe not Dutch law) might decide it was more beneficial for them to live under a slightly different system of government. Or maybe even a drastically different one. I think the concern is a reasonable one, given human history and the possibility of corruption.
Is it a necessary conclusion from the premise of a one-world gov’t that it be monolithic & all-powerful? Imagine a gov’t where each member nation or state gets a veto. That would hardly be monolithic or all-powerful. I think that model is as likely as any other world gov’t for the next hundred years or so (the chance of it happening is virtually nil, IMHO).
Or better yet:
A government that allows local autonomy for every culture/ethnic group/whatever, and protects the autonomy of said cultures from other cultures, while enforcing certain levels of individual rights as well, such as complete free trade and complete freedom of movement. It would be a source of protection, not of restriction. What is wrong with a government of that nature (even at the less than world-wide level)
I think that the OP was less about the theorectical problems with a one-world government and addressing more why it is considered inherently threatening by Fundamentalists Christians. I thnk pre-marital sex is just dandy, but I understand where the fundalmentalist objection to it originates. The same with most other fundamentalist positions. I do not know why the possibility of “one-world govenment” has become an issue for these people. I am sure htere is a biblical justification, and I suspect that there are other, sociological, reasons as well–earlier biblical groups such as medieval Catholoism–haven’t fixated on this. As a WAG, I would propose that the demographic group that most fundamentalists belong to historically tends to have strong isolationist tendencies, and see forign assimilation as a threat to American culture and, eventually, the Christaian faith.
I’m not an “isolationist reactionary” but the problem I see is we (Americans) number about 270 million out of 6 billion. Other countries with smaller populations would be outnumbered even more. Who wants to join a world government where you will be outvoted on issues important to you?
This is not a yes or no question. I do believe nations (which are fairly recent invention in history) have their time, like many other human inventions, and will eventually be superseded. But it will take a looong time.
The fundamentalist patrioterists feel threatened by that because they are ignorant. Just look at Pat Buchanan.
But you can see in Europe, nations are coming together and sharing nmany areas of their sovereignty. They realize it is beneficial to give the other guy a say in the common affairs because that means you also have a say and this creates mechanisms that resolve differences without having to go to war. etc.
I can see how, many areas of national sovereignty can be shared with other nations and this, in fact already happens to a small scale with the UN and other international bodies. The USA and many other countries are already obligated by international conventions they have assumed voluntarily.
IMHO expanding this concept can only bring good and only ignorant people would be afraid of it. I believe it will continue to expand as developed nations bind themselves together by treaties etc. We can alreeady see the trend in the opening of markets in all directions (NAFTA, etc)
I think this is the way strict fundamentalist nationalisms will be diluted and I think it is a good thing too.
A country that says to the world “I do as I please without caring about what you have to say” is implicitly giving the rest of the world permission to do the same.
Civilization is the voluntary assumption of limits and bindings so that we may all be better off.
Yeah, I know I’m just rambling… I better quit
The concern there is based in Revelations, where the prediction is that the world will be united under the Antichrist who will proceed to massacre Christians. I generally think concerns about this are paranoid. And if indeed this is the word of God and is destined to happen, what makes them think they’ll ever stop it?
I generally think of countries acting just as individuals do–in their own best interest. When humanity loses a good portion of its selfishness maybe countries will as well, but before that, can you really think countries will ever get along?
Well, I think it is an interesting thread. Lots of good ideas and arguments that give me a few things to write about.
mrblue92 said:
One of my text books in college argued that bureaucracy was a fourth branch of the government, and actually the final authority on how things got run. Interesting–if frightening–thought.
Excellent points. IIRC there were over 40,000 people who “escaped” from the US during the 60s and 70s as a means of avoiding the draft. I don’t know if they were considered criminals, but they were “pardoned.”
sqweels said:
The trouble is that many of the bad things I worry about are the very things that other people want–and vice versa.
As for a carbon copy of the US Constitution applied to the entire world, that is a good direction to go. But let’s make sure it is applied (rather than ignored) in the US first :).
Good point! Currently I do see the US Feds as (subtly) monolithic and oppressive, but that is another topic entirely.
wevets said:
The one-world government may not be “all-powerful” (but who will stand against it if needed?); but how can it not be (metaphorically) “monolithic?” What do you think would avoid this?
As for the vetoes for member states, that is an excellent idea (and I mean it). But let’s test it by giving the US states individual veto power over Federal laws and mandates. IIRC, the last time any states seriously disagreed with the US Government, it led to a serious war.
Fugazi said:
Another good point.
sailor said:
I hope my fears are not coming from ignorance, but of course I would be the last one to know 
!
I have nothing against a free and happy world where all everyone lives in peace, harmony, and prosperity, with local/group autonomy, protected individual rights, etc., etc., as desired. My problem is with the nature of government. Power tends to concentrate and grow, and power tends to attract the very people that I think shouldn’t have it. (I won’t even get into the “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” but it is not a light-weight warning.)
Even with the fine foundation the US Constitution provides, the US is virtually a low-key dictatorship. When was the last time the Congress or Courts actually stood up to Clinton on constitutional grounds? Yes, they snipe from the sidelines, then run for cover while he gets his way. The only “checks and balances” anymore have to do with campaign/defense funds and bank accounts.
Oh well. This isn’t the Pit so I will stifle myself. Nor did I mean to hijack, but several posts thought to copy the basic US Government model to other countries or the whole world.