Is a One World Government/Currency a Necessary Step in Social Evolution?

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Topic: Is a One World Government/Currency a Necessary Step in Social Evolution

Details: Many "conspiracy theorists" have been quoted for hundreds to thousands of years all in suspicion of an eventual One World Government or Currency. Generally seen as a bad thing, these theorists claim we are headed there and we should be wary.

For this debate, I want to see whether you think a One World Government would be a good or bad thing, a necessary or unnecessary thing (for societal/political evolution), and whether it should be implemented regardless of how good, bad, necessary, or unnecessary it may be.
 

DeletedUser44426

Guest
It shouldn't be implemented whatsoever. A one world government offers more bad then it does good. Scratch that, it offers no good benefits at all. There are countless reasons why it is bad.

Centralized government has NEVER worked ultimately for the benefit of others. This can easily lead to humans having any right eliminated from them, while the elites walk all over us.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
bad thing
not necessary for anything except for the acquisition of power by a despot - initially a despotic group but ultimately they all want to be the only one.

"should be implemented?" implies the power to do so has (at the point the question could be asked) already been acquired. The question then would better be, "should be prevented?"
I find it unlikely that the power to implement a single govt could be acquired by humans, though possibly by another power over us (see the AI debate). Although a single strongest majority govt will likely come and go through the ages, it would never be universally accepted.

And in short, since I should be elsewhere, the reason it would be bad and should be defended against is that people are various and need various things. The impetus to rule all things tightly enough to succeed would be unlikely in people who do not have a raft of beliefs they feel should be imposed on others. Necessarily the sort of person/people who could be part of such a govt would not be the sort of people who should be allowed power over anyone who doesn't actively sign up to be part of their clique.

The direction of "social evolution" is away from the prescriptive toward acceptance and welcoming of diversity. Looking at current societies and cultures which are still prescriptive and exclusive (eg of gender roles, sexuality, accepted clothing, etc) is like looking at our own culture's past 100 to 2000 years ago. Those are either societies which have not yet evolved to the western level, or pockets of regression.
I will probably return later to expound on that if anyone wants me to. I know I have stated it starkly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Centralized government has NEVER worked ultimately for the benefit of others.
really? I mean sure it has it's flaws but almost every time a centralized government has arise in history societies have flourish. Sure those governments eventually fall but "the golden age" of anything usually coincides with centralized government.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
bad thing
not necessary for anything except for the acquisition of power by a despot - initially a despotic group but ultimately they all want to be the only one.

"should be implemented?" implies the power to do so has (at the point the question could be asked) already been acquired. The question then would better be, "should be prevented?"
I find it unlikely that the power to implement a single govt could be acquired by humans, though possibly by another power over us (see the AI debate). Although a single strongest majority govt will likely come and go through the ages, it would never be universally accepted.

And in short, since I should be elsewhere, the reason it would be bad and should be defended against is that people are various and need various things. The impetus to rule all things tightly enough to succeed would be unlikely in people who do not have a raft of beliefs they feel should be imposed on others. Necessarily the sort of person/people who could be part of such a govt would not be the sort of people who should be allowed power over anyone who doesn't actively sign up to be part of their clique.

The direction of "social evolution" is away from the prescriptive toward acceptance and welcoming of diversity. Looking at current societies and cultures which are still prescriptive and exclusive (eg of gender roles, sexuality, accepted clothing, etc) is like looking at our own culture's past 100 to 2000 years ago. Those are either societies which have not yet evolved to the western level, or pockets of regression.
I will probably return later to expound on that if anyone wants me to. I know I have stated it starkly.

Seems to me you're talking about having a single party government to rule over the world through dictatorship and its disadvantages (all of which makes perfect sense in that regard, do not get me wrong) - but I believe the opening post simply states there would be one government for the world, and I would assume it's a multi-party system in which representatives of their respective electorates would compete for being the ruling party (or via a coalition of like-minded parties to achieve a majority).

Isn't the same already happening in European Parliament? National parties send representatives, who take place in like-minded groups (like ALDE, for exampe) and pursue their political ideals together. If there were a dictatorship, it's simply that of the majority, which is how democracy works. In an Utopian world, one world government could still be perfectly democratic.

Having said that, I don't believe it would work - the world is simply too big (yes yes, it's all relative!), the cultural differences too great, and too many interests not aligned with eachother. If anything, the EU has a small chance, in its efforts to stay relevant on the global stage of politics and dealing with the likes of the USA, Russia and China.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Having said that, I don't believe it would work - the world is simply too big (yes yes, it's all relative!), the cultural differences too great, and too many interests not aligned with eachother. If anything, the EU has a small chance, in its efforts to stay relevant on the global stage of politics and dealing with the likes of the USA, Russia and China.
I agree with you, although you are severely underestimating the influence of the EU on a global scale in your last sentence.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
It shouldn't be implemented whatsoever. A one world government offers more bad then it does good. Scratch that, it offers no good benefits at all. There are countless reasons why it is bad.
a single currency you can use around the world thus making business and travel far simplier. There is one benefit for you.

Centralized government has NEVER worked ultimately for the benefit of others. This can easily lead to humans having any right eliminated from them, while the elites walk all over us.
I've already addressed this

bad thing
not necessary for anything except for the acquisition of power by a despot - initially a despotic group but ultimately they all want to be the only one.
That's an arguement against government in general and you know it.

Anyway, a one world government is necessary for there to be a world without foreign wars. See how easy it to prove someone wrong when they deal in absolutes. Please don't deal in absolutes.


I find it unlikely that the power to implement a single govt could be acquired by humans,
we have the power already. Seriously, we could totally pull this off if we really wanted to. The only thing stopping us is us.
Although a single strongest majority govt will likely come and go through the ages, it would never be universally accepted.
So government in general?

And in short, since I should be elsewhere, the reason it would be bad and should be defended against is that people are various and need various things. The impetus to rule all things tightly enough to succeed would be unlikely in people who do not have a raft of beliefs they feel should be imposed on others. Necessarily the sort of person/people who could be part of such a govt would not be the sort of people who should be allowed power over anyone who doesn't actively sign up to be part of their clique.
so government in general? I'm not even joking these are some really decent arguments for anarchism.

The direction of "social evolution" is away from the prescriptive toward acceptance and welcoming of diversity.
really? Most modernized secular countries have been moving towards greater acceptance and welcoming of diversity last I checked. Yes we have speed bumps on the road mostly because people are idiots but we are definitely moving forwards not backwards.

Seems to me you're talking about having a single party government to rule over the world through dictatorship and its disadvantages (all of which makes perfect sense in that regard, do not get me wrong) - but I believe the opening post simply states there would be one government for the world, and I would assume it's a multi-party system in which representatives of their respective electorates would compete for being the ruling party (or via a coalition of like-minded parties to achieve a majority).

Isn't the same already happening in European Parliament? National parties send representatives, who take place in like-minded groups (like ALDE, for exampe) and pursue their political ideals together. If there were a dictatorship, it's simply that of the majority, which is how democracy works. In an Utopian world, one world government could still be perfectly democratic.
this. I agree with this. However, screw political parties.

Having said that, I don't believe it would work - the world is simply too big (yes yes, it's all relative!), the cultural differences too great, and too many interests not aligned with eachother.
I could replace "world" with "US" and this statement would still be accurate.
Look democracy isn't about agreeing. The point is to disagree and debate on what is the better option. The argument that there will be too many disagreements is stupid. Disagreements are a good thing as long as we don't disagree like members of congress.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Seems to me you're talking about having a single party government to rule over the world through dictatorship and its disadvantages (all of which makes perfect sense in that regard, do not get me wrong) - but I believe the opening post simply states there would be one government for the world, and I would assume it's a multi-party system in which representatives of their respective electorates would compete for being the ruling party (or via a coalition of like-minded parties to achieve a majority).
Perhaps I did skip to the end a bit, but even as a multi-party democratic system, literally billions of people would be ruled by politicians they did not vote for, who likely do not (or do not appear to) understand their life, values, culture or problems.

Isn't the same already happening in European Parliament? National parties send representatives, who take place in like-minded groups (like ALDE, for exampe) and pursue their political ideals together.
The EU is a bit like that, and aspires to be more so, however it does not currently take the place of national governments, and fear that it wants to does hold some (eg the UK) back from fully joining in.
If there were a dictatorship, it's simply that of the majority, which is how democracy works. In an Utopian world, one world government could still be perfectly democratic.
Yes, which is an example of why democracy is not a holy grail, just a system that works better than many others most of the time.

Having said that, I don't believe it would work - the world is simply too big (yes yes, it's all relative!), the cultural differences too great, and too many interests not aligned with eachother.
Yes this!
If anything, the EU has a small chance, in its efforts to stay relevant on the global stage of politics and dealing with the likes of the USA, Russia and China.
Russia and USA would sink in a world democracy unless they aligned with more populous areas, or corrupted the process by violence and/or financial force. Which is the outcome I would expect if any serious attempt was ever made at this.
That's an arguement against government in general and you know it.
It could be, but it wasn't.
Anyway, a one world government is necessary for there to be a world without foreign wars. See how easy it to prove someone wrong when they deal in absolutes. Please don't deal in absolutes.
Point made - your points are about finding pointless arguments against anyone else's points regardless of their validity or lack of it. Point taken.
we have the power already. Seriously, we could totally pull this off if we really wanted to. The only thing stopping us is us.
Yeah, see my point above about your points.
So government in general?
That may be a point you could make if you chose to, but no, not the point I was making. I rather suspect you intentionally misunderstood.

so government in general? I'm not even joking these are some really decent arguments for anarchism.
Again, no. Note I said "such a govt" and gave descriptions. Whilst you may like to use my words to argue for anarchy or any other random topic, that is not what this thread is about, nor what I was writing about. Again, you know it. Feeling trollish today?

really? Most modernized secular countries have been moving towards greater acceptance and welcoming of diversity last I checked. Yes we have speed bumps on the road mostly because people are idiots but we are definitely moving forwards not backwards.
Yes really. Why the "really?" followed by a rewording of what I just said? Makes it sound like you meant to disagree but actually agreed.
Look democracy isn't about agreeing. The point is to disagree and debate on what is the better option. The argument that there will be too many disagreements is stupid. Disagreements are a good thing as long as we don't disagree like members of congress.
Much as I like democracy, even if it results in the govt the majority wants (or even voted for) that does not necessarily make it the best govt for the majority. It certainly does not make it the best govt for the rest of the people.
It is foolish to pretend that a world govt would only cover the same range of diversity that national govts cover, or that the diverse peoples would not rise up against the foriegn (both regional and cultural) govt imposed upon them. It barely matters that you got a vote if it was never going to count.
Do you suppose that the majority of usa (pop 0.3bn) citizens would accept a chinese (pop 1.4bn) president?
It is difficult to imagine most of africa or asia accepting white/hispanic rule again, and why should they at 75% of the votes?
Perhaps jews (0.1bn) would like to be under christian (2.2bn) control, or islamic (1.3bn).
And the Kurds for sure just want a space of their own. We all do.
Even when there is little (or no?) obvious discrimination, cultures and nationalities want to have sovereignty over themselves, and those who are misfits within that group need to be able to leave to a differently run place.

That doesn't mean no government, it means governments that suit the people, which means many (or at least several) governments.

And seriously, idk or care how congress disagrees, but I have an idea of how groups at war disagree, whether civil or foreign, and I am sure it is not something to aspire to in preference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8396

Guest
I think the issue here is that we have such a limited perspective on government and how we can twist it to our own circumstances. Here is a brief overview of a political system I am working on developing which I personally believe would be the most effective way to govern the world:

The basic premise, with a great deal of details left out (still working on them), is this:

There is an elected ruler at least the age of 30 who, once elected by the people, rules until death. Once dead, a new ruler is elected by the people. This ruler may make any and all laws which are applicable to the entire world. He is also first in command for the military as well as in charge of the judiciary system.

From there, the entire world is divided into zones (dependent upon population, cultural differences, etc.). For each zone presides a publicly elected governor. This governor can call for a zone-wide vote to nullify a particular law made by the Monarch. He also establishes more zone-specific laws, but all laws created by the governor are subject to nullification by the King as well as the sub-zones (similar to counties).

Below the governor lies a Region, governed by a Regional Administrator. This office provides more of the minutia rules for the region, all of which are subject for nullification by either popular vote or by any zone official higher than the Administrator.

Below that are the subzones, divided equally by population size and are led by a small council elected by the people. This section is responsible primarily for organizing votes.
______________________________________________

The system is rather similar to some current systems without this part:

All leaders in every section of the government are subject to immediate removal from office through at least one means.

Council members are subject to removal on each voting period (2 years or whenever called by a Region Administrator).
Region Administrator may be removed by popular vote of the entire region or by majority of council members.
Governors may be removed by a popular vote of the entire zone, by a unanimous Regional Adminstrator vote, or by a majority of the other Governors with Monarch consent.
Monarch may be removed by unanimous Governor vote or by world-wide popular vote.

All laws are subject to nullification on either a zone-level or world-level. For zone level nullification, a governor must call a vote where the vote will take place in the sub-zones. If a majority pass, then a regional vote. If a majority of the Regions pass, the Governor signs and the law in nullified in that zone. For world-level, the same process will continue but also proceed to the zone-level, in which 67% of all zones must agree to nullify the law entirely. All nullification votes, if passing the zone-level, automatically issue a world-level nullification vote.

The military is based on a voluntary system. Tasked as a peace-keeping force, the military's main effect is to ensure that each position of power, including the monarch, abides by the rules set before and throughout the rest of the details. Each volunteer will be assigned to a zone, preferably the zone in which he volunteered from, but sometimes moved to keep a relative balance across the world.

The military in each zone would chiefly answer to the monarch in all areas, superseding any action by the governor unless a vote is taking place to remove the monarch or if he has been already moved. Also, if removal of the governor is ordered by the monarch without a vote taking place, the order is null.

If a fundamental degradation of both the Monarchy and Governor-levels are corrupted, the Regional Administrators (RA) may sieze control of the military through unanimous consent amoung the RA's, if achieving a majority of the region's sub-zone council votes. If all levels of government aside from city councils are corrupt, then the base population is tasked with a fundamental revolution (which is extremely unlikely to occur unless negligence takes place of several levels of the voting process).

Economics will be based of a Capitalist system with Government intervention as seen fit by the Monarch, Governors, or Region Administrators. All such intervention is subject to nullification just as before.

Obviously with so many issue to put to a vote, the population and officials will be very heavily tasked with running the government. This burden can be lifted through several different measures set in place by the officials (or by me....when I actually get to this part).

That is my very, VERY basic view of the ideal government. Checks and balances at nearly every corner, if corruption occurs the people have the capability to remove officials or take control of the military if need be. Allows efficient law making, and also allows laws to be subjected to zone-approval. The efficiency would be more clear once I've detailed all aspects of the government, but until then, this is the overview I can provide.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Thanks pebs, I have been having convos along similar lines with my 16yo son, and I am guessing most of not all of us go through this thought experiment at some stage.

With what you have specifically written so far the thoughts that come to mind are:
What sort of size zones do you envisage? Or how many?

How often are govenor elections held?

The governor can call a vote to nulify a king's law in his zone, and a king can call a vote of governors to nulify any governor's law. I wonder who would win a battle of wills, the guy who is somewhere in a 60 year rule till death who controls the army and is over all the governors, or the guy up for election in a couple of years. I wonder who the other governors would back.

I can see how the king would call for a vote against a governor, but I am not so clear how a governor would get the ball rolling for a vote to depose the king. I predict a swift and nasty end politically and/or fatally.

I have similar qalms about the populace taking control of the army if all the higher-ups are corrupt.

The concept of a system policing itself simply doesn't work. A government needs outsiders to observe, report, complain, diplomatise, and in extremis harbour refugees, apply sanctions or even consider military intervention.

Here is a saying we mostly only hear the first part of, but I think it is very relevant to this topic:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Thanks pebs, I have been having convos along similar lines with my 16yo son, and I am guessing most of not all of us go through this thought experiment at some stage.

With what you have specifically written so far the thoughts that come to mind are:
What sort of size zones do you envisage? Or how many?

How often are govenor elections held?

The governor can call a vote to nulify a king's law in his zone, and a king can call a vote of governors to nulify any governor's law. I wonder who would win a battle of wills, the guy who is somewhere in a 60 year rule till death who controls the army and is over all the governors, or the guy up for election in a couple of years. I wonder who the other governors would back.

I can see how the king would call for a vote against a governor, but I am not so clear how a governor would get the ball rolling for a vote to depose the king. I predict a swift and nasty end politically and/or fatally.

I have similar qalms about the populace taking control of the army if all the higher-ups are corrupt.

The concept of a system policing itself simply doesn't work. A government needs outsiders to observe, report, complain, diplomatise, and in extremis harbour refugees, apply sanctions or even consider military intervention.

Here is a saying we mostly only hear the first part of, but I think it is very relevant to this topic:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

I address practically each of these issues in the full version (still incomplete, mind you). There are many holes we could poke in many brief overviews of many theories, all just as fruitless as the last. I do appreciate the feedback, though.

Then it comes to the last paragraph. I disagree that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just seems so...slippery slopish. And I am substituting outside observation/intervention with the use of the zones. Again, all explained in the full length version (or will be once it is complete - I write a LOT of things...ask CoD).
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
I address practically each of these issues in the full version (still incomplete, mind you). There are many holes we could poke in many brief overviews of many theories, all just as fruitless as the last. I do appreciate the feedback, though.
OK.....I thought you might address them kinda nowish, since they were asked.
Perhaps then you could answer this one. When do you anticipate furnishing us with the "complete" version?
So we all can remember to hold our tongues till then, though in that case I have to wonder what was the point of posting the incomplete one.

It is so sad that you see/feel questions thoughts and feedback as "poking holes" and worse that you like to charactarise them as such back to the poster, and not even bother to address them.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
OK.....I thought you might address them kinda nowish, since they were asked.
Perhaps then you could answer this one. When do you anticipate furnishing us with the "complete" version?
So we all can remember to hold our tongues till then, though in that case I have to wonder what was the point of posting the incomplete one.

It is so sad that you see/feel questions thoughts and feedback as "poking holes" and worse that you like to charactarise them as such back to the poster, and not even bother to address them.

I really don't feel like getting in this annoying back-and-forth you're suggesting. I will finish the full version when I'm good and ready, with adequate time. Could be tomorrow, could be in three years. Feel free to hold your tongue til then, but do know it could grow rather dry in the meantime. As for the purpose? To show that there is at least an outline for a government which may work or at least to show that we can expand the ideas of traditional government.

And all feedback proposing questions is poking holes. Doesn't mean it is a bad thing (I'd insist it is actually a benefit, hence my thanks). And, again, I would address them if all the answers were complete and I wouldn't need to come up with approximately half the paper as a response. It'll be done in due time.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I agree with you, although you are severely underestimating the influence of the EU on a global scale in your last sentence.

Well, if I wanted to nitpick I'd argue that I said "in her efforts to stay relevant" as opposed to "[..]become relevant"! ;)
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
I really don't feel like getting in this annoying back-and-forth you're suggesting.
the "back-and-forth" I am suggesting is actually an integral part of debate and also of discussion. I am sorry you find it annoying but again it raises the question of why you would post on this "Debate And Discussion" thread something you are unwilling to debate or discuss, and find the idea of it annoying.

I will finish the full version when I'm good and ready, with adequate time. Could be tomorrow, could be in three years.
Well that's nice for you, but not so much for anyone visiting this thread for a debate or discussion on the title topic.

Feel free to hold your tongue til then, but do know it could grow rather dry in the meantime. As for the purpose? To show that there is at least an outline for a government which may work or at least to show that we can expand the ideas of traditional government.
There are many many outlines for governments which are not traditional, many are more than outlines, even completed published works, many are more radical than your posted outline, and many are more workable than your posted outline, however there is not much "we can expand" without a willingness to debate or discuss, and yeah the topic will likely be a little dusty in 3 years.

And all feedback proposing questions is poking holes. Doesn't mean it is a bad thing (I'd insist it is actually a benefit, hence my thanks). And, again, I would address them if all the answers were complete and I wouldn't need to come up with approximately half the paper as a response. It'll be done in due time.
If you have a mindset that any feedback will be poking holes then I guess most of it could be seen that way, however asking how many zones was not in any sense poking holes.

There are many holes we could poke in many brief overviews of many theories, all just as fruitless as the last.
It is unfortunate, even "annoying" that they are fruitless, but the lack of fruit is not in the questions but in your refusal to furnish the fruit, preferring to leave your post stagnant.
Then it comes to the last paragraph. I disagree that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just seems so...slippery slopish.
Yes it does, however that does not make it untrue, or provide an argument against it. Unfortunately slippery slopes do exist.
And finally
And I am substituting outside observation/intervention with the use of the zones.
Yes this did not slip my attention. It is in fact the crux of why it is undesirable. This fact alone practically guarantees largely unfettered corruption at most (perhaps all) levels of government, and widespread injustice with no escape route or censure.

Don't feel you have to debate or discuss any of this though, if you find that annoying ;)
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
the "back-and-forth" I am suggesting is actually an integral part of debate and also of discussion. I am sorry you find it annoying but again it raises the question of why you would post on this "Debate And Discussion" thread something you are unwilling to debate or discuss, and find the idea of it annoying.

Well that's nice for you, but not so much for anyone visiting this thread for a debate or discussion on the title topic.

There are many many outlines for governments which are not traditional, many are more than outlines, even completed published works, many are more radical than your posted outline, and many are more workable than your posted outline, however there is not much "we can expand" without a willingness to debate or discuss, and yeah the topic will likely be a little dusty in 3 years.

If you have a mindset that any feedback will be poking holes then I guess most of it could be seen that way, however asking how many zones was not in any sense poking holes.

It is unfortunate, even "annoying" that they are fruitless, but the lack of fruit is not in the questions but in your refusal to furnish the fruit, preferring to leave your post stagnant.
Yes it does, however that does not make it untrue, or provide an argument against it. Unfortunately slippery slopes do exist.
And finally Yes this did not slip my attention. It is in fact the crux of why it is undesirable. This fact alone practically guarantees largely unfettered corruption at most (perhaps all) levels of government, and widespread injustice with no escape route or censure.

Don't feel you have to debate or discuss any of this though, if you find that annoying ;)

Oh. You misunderstand (a trend throughout most of your most recent reply). The annoying back and forth, particularly the annoying aspect, was because it had (and has) no relevance to the actual topic. Why I posted it and when I'll have the full version complete is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether a One World Government is necessary for social evolution. The annoying aspect was your "subtle" rudeness and quips.

Already gave the reason why I posted it and how it can be useful to the debate. Interesting how you ignore that in this part of your post.

As for there being other models - fine. Post them. I just had one in my quiver that was my own. If you have one, great, use it. Then it will get my point across AND you'll stop this painfully annoying process of determining when I'll have completed mine and why I posted it in the first place.

Poking holes in the sense that it proposes something which was not addressed. Possibly a poor term to use, but doubtful.

_______________________________________

And the overview was not comprehensive, hence it being an overview. And it is fruitful for the reason I already stated.

It does, in fact, suggest that it can be untrue. Meaning that the absolute of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" becomes a sometimes, not an always. Which was my entire point. Simply because we have an absolute power does not mean it will definitely corrupt and does not mean it will absolutely corrupt. There's possibility for it to remain relatively pristine.

The crux of undesirability? Self-policing? Undesirable? Self policing, if implemented properly, is by far better than foreign intervention. The only trick will be proper implementation, which I (and hopefully other political theorists) am (are) trying to do.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
It could be, but it wasn't.
you miss my point. Infairness my point somewhat assumes you are not an anarchist though. Anyway, it would be hypocritical to use that arguement against a one world government when you do not use the same arguement to against all government. So unless you want to argue against all government don't use that arguement.

apply this response to whenever you disagree with me pointing out that you are arguing against all gov.

Point made - your points are about finding pointless arguments against anyone else's points regardless of their validity or lack of it. Point taken.
My arguements against you are very meaniful in that i prove you wrong. Sometimes i do it the easy/lazy way and disprove it based on bad wording. Such is the case here. Had you not used absolutes i might have put more effort into proving you wrong.

Yes really. Why the "really?" followed by a rewording of what I just said? Makes it sound like you meant to disagree but actually agreed.
fairly certian i misread what you wrote. Sorry about that.

Much as I like democracy, even if it results in the govt the majority wants (or even voted for) that does not necessarily make it the best govt for the majority. It certainly does not make it the best govt for the rest of the people.
yes i agree with this. Could i ask though what is the better option? I understand it's a bit off topic but i enjoy hearing opinions on this.

It is foolish to pretend that a world govt would only cover the same range of diversity that national govts cover, or that the diverse peoples would not rise up against the foriegn (both regional and cultural) govt imposed upon them.
just to be a jerk ill point out that the gov wouldnt be a foriegn one :p.

It barely matters that you got a vote if it was never going to count.
but it does. It does count. Their opinions are most certianly being taken into account however their opinions are not anymore important than anyone elses'.

As a side note in pebz gov plan he sort of fixes this issue by giving some pretty nice self governing powers. Idk if it's mentioned in the overview but i know he has discussed it with me.

Do you suppose that the majority of usa (pop 0.3bn) citizens would accept a chinese (pop 1.4bn) president?
Having seen people elect a total idiot twice in a row and then proceed to elect a black president with a Muslim sounding name twice, all the while having their privacy rights violated left and right, yes i do think the American people (even extremists) would put up with literally anything.

Also the minorities in the USA certianly accept the dealing with D.C. being the whitest place on the planet. So i do think people would up with just about anything.

It is difficult to imagine most of africa or asia accepting white/hispanic rule again, and why should they at 75% of the votes?
Perhaps jews (0.1bn) would like to be under christian (2.2bn) control, or islamic (1.3bn).
im gonna point to pebz gov again and say that they wouldnt have to neccessarliy/hopefully. Self-governing is still possible if a one world government is set up well. I understand if this isnt a sufficient answer though.
Also i would really hope that a one world gov would be secular.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
I thought that I would add some further considerations to the debate in this thread...

The title of this thread appears to be predicated on an assertion that human's societies somehow 'evolve'. History provides the evidence that we should be wary any form of social darwinism, and particularly 'social evolution'. This notion tries to treat the 'social' as somehow correlating to biological evolution, which implies that societies 'naturally' function in a particular way. Rather, societies are socially constructed in certain ways and at certain times, depending upon the dominant discourses that shape our societies. These discourses are not value-neutral (and certainly do not propel us to evolve socially in one particular direction), and are subject to a variety of beliefs and value- systems. Likewise, Governments are equally socially constructed, and are heavily dependent on power relations within society.

Having read several of pebble's posts, I am not sure that he is necessarily advocating social darwinism. I liked the idea of the democratic monarch that he delineates, and perhaps that is because it reminds me of Plato's 'Philosopher King' (albeit a more democratic one!).

Also, I would like to thank Sirloin for his stimulating posts too. In particular, he mentions 'injustice' in one of his posts, and I think that power and injustice need to feature more centrally in this debate and need to be considered along-side thoughts around the construct of a 'Democratic Monarch'.

I would also like to add that we also need to consider is the current form of economics within the context of any form of government, and in particular the neo-liberal variant. I would suggest that during the ascendancy of this form of economics, we have witnessed a reduction in the economic disparity between rich and poor countries (in the main), whilst also witnessing a significant increase in the gap between very rich and powerful individuals and the poorer across all societies. This is coupled with a significant decrease in social mobility, especially across 'Western' countries.

In sum, whatever type of government is advocated, then the construct of that type of government should be sensitive to power relations and notions of social justice. The nature of any such government needs to be in the interests of the common good, rather than in the interests of specific groups.
 

DeletedUser50653

Guest
Okay I have skimmed through most of this thread, and here's my two cents.

I do not believe that a single government ruling all of humanity (I assume we will begin living on more than one planet soon) will or should happen. Their is one reason for that, competition. Without competing human governments, what is the initiative for people to improve, or innovate? If we take a look back at history, do not many of the greatest innovations come during times of war (a form of human competition). If this one world government came to be, I predict that our race would stagnate and eventually die out when that government becomes corrupt. All governments will corrupt, democratic or not, and if there is only one government, one nation, than we have basically all of our eggs in one basket. If that government corrupts, the people can either lose all their rights, or rise up and overthrow that government. In the latter case, their is a reasonably high chance for anarchy to ensue.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
I think that the above post is also heading us back into Social Darwinism territory.

The post highlights competition, and more specifcally 'competitive' wars between countries, as being the key motor for the development of humanity. Whilst this does have a degree of validity, as the above post acknowledges, it is only one 'form of human competition'. Humans can compete in many different ways, and it appears that the central motor for competition in the world today is that of economic competition. Hence, as indicated in my previous post, I think that it is important to emphasise the role of global corporations and the structure of the global economy when considering any form of world government or currency. (In effect, we do have a couple of currencies that could already be considered 'global' - the obvious example being the dollar - as many other countries peg their currency in relation to that one).

I would also like to point out when considering key drives around the construct of society, we should also consider Trust or Mutual Aid. Societies are not in a state of constant war and struggle. In fact from the perspective of the West, War has become increasingly 'virtual', as it unfolds on our tv or internet in a far off place. What is far more important for societies are Trust and Mutual Aid, as internally societies need to be cohesive and supportive. Being friendly, compassionate, supportive are behaviours that occur on a daily basis between friends, work colleagues, families, lovers, etc. Amongst this, competition takes place too, but we need to hold a balanced picture of all of the different influences.

In addition, I would also like to point out that societies often need wars to enforce group cohesion within those societies. For example, it has been often argued that the Falklands crisis came at a crucial time for Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980's, and this was because it diverted people from internal problems within society and re-inforced social bonds in the face of an external enemy.

(Perhaps this is a more valid point to make about not having one government - after all, who else can we blame when things go wrong?)
 
Top