World Government
- Thread starter kmguru
- Start date
Twenty years may be a little soon to dissolve national cohesive factors that make a nation a nation. There are very few countries that are only 20 years old and most of them are third world and lack the stability of the larger nations. To this effect another member from the UK made a post today.
Prehaps the correct question would not be by time limit but when. Will it go that way. I'm sure it will. There are to many driving factors pushing it that way. But governments are conservative. As such they will resist any erroding of their soverneign rights on what takes place within their borders and how the world at large precieves them as a country in their own right.
Prehaps the correct question would not be by time limit but when. Will it go that way. I'm sure it will. There are to many driving factors pushing it that way. But governments are conservative. As such they will resist any erroding of their soverneign rights on what takes place within their borders and how the world at large precieves them as a country in their own right.
It already is a world government. owned by big business and allowed to run by the politicians and governments who have been paid enough to allow it to happen. Pity we won't be able to keep our cultures. Everyone very soon will have Pepsi tatoos on their foreheads and intel chips in their hearts.....
Sorry I prematurely sent that one...
As I was going to say, I don't believe we'll every be a world government, see: "Could the European Union become a supercountry?" I think that will better explain some of the one world government BS.
First about the UN, EU, and NAFTA. The EU for now, and defiantly NAFTA are STRICTLY free-trade alliances. You'll never see an integrated US, CANADIAN, MEXICAN military force. For America is too far ahead, and has its own foreign policy goals to reach. The EU I'm a little bit more worried about, with a united currency, and talks of their own military this could become a continental European state. I hope not.
The UN for that fact isn't a front for the One World Government, this is to work out problems primarily between first-world governments, and to create a communications link between the first and third-world. Not worried about the UN. Plus lately the US has been vehemently pulling away from the UN, at this rate by 2011, we'll be out of it. I hope that doesn't happen.
I commented about Isolationist America, in "BUSH PISSES ME OFF", which is inside this forum.
As I was going to say, I don't believe we'll every be a world government, see: "Could the European Union become a supercountry?" I think that will better explain some of the one world government BS.
First about the UN, EU, and NAFTA. The EU for now, and defiantly NAFTA are STRICTLY free-trade alliances. You'll never see an integrated US, CANADIAN, MEXICAN military force. For America is too far ahead, and has its own foreign policy goals to reach. The EU I'm a little bit more worried about, with a united currency, and talks of their own military this could become a continental European state. I hope not.
The UN for that fact isn't a front for the One World Government, this is to work out problems primarily between first-world governments, and to create a communications link between the first and third-world. Not worried about the UN. Plus lately the US has been vehemently pulling away from the UN, at this rate by 2011, we'll be out of it. I hope that doesn't happen.
I commented about Isolationist America, in "BUSH PISSES ME OFF", which is inside this forum.
Biggles, YES I WOULD OBJECT.
Eventhough I'm an American, we don't need to have over twenty-coutntries united under one hand to create a superstate. Without the checks and balances of other nations watching eachother you could get a way with a lot of bad things.
Hitler tried to create a united Europe, and the Soviets wanted a united Europe. After 100s of years of fighting to have their countires seperate why would the Europeans give themselves away easily if indeed they try to create a contental Europe.
Eventhough I'm an American, we don't need to have over twenty-coutntries united under one hand to create a superstate. Without the checks and balances of other nations watching eachother you could get a way with a lot of bad things.
Hitler tried to create a united Europe, and the Soviets wanted a united Europe. After 100s of years of fighting to have their countires seperate why would the Europeans give themselves away easily if indeed they try to create a contental Europe.
kmguru
Staff member
Bobby Lee:
There is a book out there on the very subject with a title something like the rise and fall of American Civilization. I have not read it. It is possible. There is a factor that prevents from such fall in case of America, which can not be said for other countries.
That factor is 'immigration'. We drain the best minds (some times crooks) of the world for a common purpose. So there is always fresh blood to point us in the right direction. When we stop doing that, witihn a few generations we probably will go down too.
There is a book out there on the very subject with a title something like the rise and fall of American Civilization. I have not read it. It is possible. There is a factor that prevents from such fall in case of America, which can not be said for other countries.
That factor is 'immigration'. We drain the best minds (some times crooks) of the world for a common purpose. So there is always fresh blood to point us in the right direction. When we stop doing that, witihn a few generations we probably will go down too.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that a European super-state (or World Government!) would be susseptable to corruption?
Yes, in essence. I think the German attitude has always been one of unification, either by means of military force or, as it is now, political. The German government are now the driving force behind Europe, not to mention the most affluent (much to the disgust to the Brits, but fortunately our rivalry is kept to the soccer pitch nowadays!).
However I disagree with your comment that the European member states have "given themselves away easily". The political discussions on the formation of a trading union and ultimately a federal superstate, such as your own, have been ongoing for decades.
Anyway this discussion is taking place on a different thread. Thanks for your response thecurly1.
Why object thecurly1 ...
And, we are a 'superstate' thanks to our greater resources.
We, the United States, have a larger land mass, forty eight states, plus Alaska and Hawaii. The one advantage we have is not having Europe's history and a greater homogeneity.
And, we are a 'superstate' thanks to our greater resources.
True Biggles ...
But the sense I meant it in was that European history has been one of almost constant bickering and warring ... with all the baggage and animosity that it creates. Remember, we have only had one war between the States in over two hundred years.
How many has Europe experienced in the same period?
And though it has been often thrown in our face that we are crude colonials without a history and unsophisticated, I think it is more of a strength than a weakness since it leaves us with fewer 'bones to pick'.
As to England and Germany burying the hatchet ... all too often it has been in each other's back ... with France standing aside and looking on (Vichy France for example).
But the sense I meant it in was that European history has been one of almost constant bickering and warring ... with all the baggage and animosity that it creates. Remember, we have only had one war between the States in over two hundred years.
How many has Europe experienced in the same period?
And though it has been often thrown in our face that we are crude colonials without a history and unsophisticated, I think it is more of a strength than a weakness since it leaves us with fewer 'bones to pick'.
As to England and Germany burying the hatchet ... all too often it has been in each other's back ... with France standing aside and looking on (Vichy France for example).
I think a world government is an absolutely horrible idea and hope very much it never comes to pass. I very much doubt it will, unless human beings are all truly foolish enough to completely forget history. There will always be at least some resistance to it by the less brainwashed among us.
kmguru
Staff member
Lisa:
welcome to sciforums. If you like watching Startrek, they assumed we have a world government, more like interplanetary government.
Whether you like it or not, as multinational corporations cover the globe and people travel for business or pleasure, business processes within various government and business will gradually change to accomodate an wide audience.
And that is basically the start of the world government. And it is already under way. Today, if you cross US into Canada, you can do your daily stuff without feeling, you are in an alien state. Even though there is a full separation of the two governments, if it is basically the same, in my book, it is one society and someday one government.
welcome to sciforums. If you like watching Startrek, they assumed we have a world government, more like interplanetary government.
Whether you like it or not, as multinational corporations cover the globe and people travel for business or pleasure, business processes within various government and business will gradually change to accomodate an wide audience.
And that is basically the start of the world government. And it is already under way. Today, if you cross US into Canada, you can do your daily stuff without feeling, you are in an alien state. Even though there is a full separation of the two governments, if it is basically the same, in my book, it is one society and someday one government.
A Dangerous Idea
You say that a world government is underway and then you cite businesses - that's not a world government - that's business. A world government is more like what the UN engages in.
Big businesses are like "little" governments that control their little portion of the world. Inside their world you play by their rules. Nevertheless, they are NOT government in that they cannot control individuals outside of their borders with GUNS. That's really the difference between government and business. Big government has the ability to control individuals with guns.
Think about it - would you like a WORLD government deciding issues like abortion, the death penalty, income redistribution, and the like? In the US we are certainly moving towards a more centralized federal government - but that's because most people foolishly believe that they can control others this way. They want the federal government deciding all aspects of OTHERS lives, never realizing that the control extends to them if they happen to lose the majority. The point of STATES was to prevent the tyranny of majority rule.
I tend to think that as soon as any kind of serious world government arises it will be destroyed because people will realize very quickly that they don't like it and rebel. Of course the USSR came very close to this sort of thing - which is why it had to carefully control how many people left the country.
In my opinion in the US issues like abortion should belong to the states - and here's why:
270 million people split down the middle with a clear win on one side amounts to approx. 135 million disenfranchised people. At a state level lets assume approx 9 million people - a split down the middle infringes upon the rights of approx. 4.5 million. Now, to my mind, I would go even lower - to the municipal level - the lowest level of government possible - say there are 50 thousand individuals - a split down the middle disenfranchises only 25 thousand - but at the lower levels the chance of a split down the middle is lessened because individuals closer to one another will have more opinions in common.
AND those individuals who find the law intolerable can easily relocate.
Where will you go when a world government becomes world tyranny?
You say that a world government is underway and then you cite businesses - that's not a world government - that's business. A world government is more like what the UN engages in.
Big businesses are like "little" governments that control their little portion of the world. Inside their world you play by their rules. Nevertheless, they are NOT government in that they cannot control individuals outside of their borders with GUNS. That's really the difference between government and business. Big government has the ability to control individuals with guns.
Think about it - would you like a WORLD government deciding issues like abortion, the death penalty, income redistribution, and the like? In the US we are certainly moving towards a more centralized federal government - but that's because most people foolishly believe that they can control others this way. They want the federal government deciding all aspects of OTHERS lives, never realizing that the control extends to them if they happen to lose the majority. The point of STATES was to prevent the tyranny of majority rule.
I tend to think that as soon as any kind of serious world government arises it will be destroyed because people will realize very quickly that they don't like it and rebel. Of course the USSR came very close to this sort of thing - which is why it had to carefully control how many people left the country.
In my opinion in the US issues like abortion should belong to the states - and here's why:
270 million people split down the middle with a clear win on one side amounts to approx. 135 million disenfranchised people. At a state level lets assume approx 9 million people - a split down the middle infringes upon the rights of approx. 4.5 million. Now, to my mind, I would go even lower - to the municipal level - the lowest level of government possible - say there are 50 thousand individuals - a split down the middle disenfranchises only 25 thousand - but at the lower levels the chance of a split down the middle is lessened because individuals closer to one another will have more opinions in common.
AND those individuals who find the law intolerable can easily relocate.
Where will you go when a world government becomes world tyranny?