One World Government

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Actually, less government would be the rule.  Since there would be no need for much of a military/police presence in such a government it would be hard to achieve a dictatorship.

 

Meanwhile, it is clearly too early to discuss any kind of real union as long as things like this happen.  As long as the term 'patriotism' and its associated meanings have any strength, a world union of any kind stronger than the UN is unlikely.

[hym 358]

Actually, less government would be the rule.  Since there would be no need for much of a military/police presence in such a government it would be hard to achieve a dictatorship.

 

A single government for the world does not negate the need for police or military.  People will continue to rob houses and torch cars.  Al Qaeda isn't simply going to pack up its bags and go home once we all live under the rule of one government.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Central world government needs only a department of Justice and a Criminal Code.  The Sectors should be empowered with law enforcement.  A military would presence should be unnecessary, and any arguments to the contrary are welcome.

 

Fewer laws are better laws.

[hym 358]

Central world government needs only a department of Justice and a Criminal Code.  The Sectors should be empowered with law enforcement.  A military would presence should be unnecessary, and any arguments to the contrary are welcome.

 

The Romans ruled the known world of their time.  They employed one of the most advanced forms of territorial government of their time.  Provinces that submitted to Rome were largely allowed to manage themselves.  Those who refused to comply faced Rome's most terrible weapon: the legion.  The mere threat of Rome dispatching a legion was often enough to scare nations back into compliance.  What did Rome get for its efforts?  Insurrection after insurrection.

 

There are no two ways around this.  People are violent and have a incredible capacity for hating each other.  There are tribes in Afghanistan that have been at war for over a century over a single dead grandfather.  The same thing applies to nations.  Lots of people refuse to be ruled by another nation.  I suspect that there would be a lot of Canadians who would be pretty pissed off if the US decided that it was turning Canada into "America North."  It's entirely possible that there would be a lot of Canadians that would be pissed off enough to start an insurrection.

 

A world government would, under no uncertain terms, be forced to deal with insurrectionist movements.  It would have two options.  Either allow the insurrectionist movements to continue and thus undermine itself as the world's sole government, or it would be forced to respond with force, thus necessitating a military.  For such a thing to be legal, the military would have to have the authority to conduct operations against the government's citizenship (which is an incredibly dangerous thing to allow).  Militaries obtain their objectives through violence, meaning the government is sanctioning violence against its own people.  This is the behavior of a dictatorship, which raises the question if it is even possible for a singular world government to be anything but a dictatorship out of sheer necessity to maintain itself against those who refuse its rule.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

We are not talking about a traditional imposition of a government from without.  We are talking about the American model, sort of.  That is, government of the people, by the people and for the people, but without the subsequent silliness that has evolved by what could have been a model state. 

 

I figure that this idea will take at least a century of continued mismanagement under the present systems before much of a world government movement can start.  In this time, I expect several fiscal collapses and perhaps WW III (non-nuclear) as WW II was non-poison gases.  The capitalist, and mixed capitalist/socialist systems should exhaust themselves completely by then, and it will be necessary to develop a new economic system with a paradigm shift rather than one of the systems that have already been tried and have failed. 

 

Perhaps some limit on growth of capital might be necessary, but who knows?  If man quit chasing the buck down the street, would we be better off?  The Star Trek model might work if there was no poverty and anyone could have anything within reason and capability.  Maybe merit is better than greed.

[CapTon 592]

Actually, less government would be the rule.  Since there would be no need for much of a military/police presence in such a government it would be hard to achieve a dictatorship.

 

Meanwhile, it is clearly too early to discuss any kind of real union as long as things like this happen.  As long as the term 'patriotism' and its associated meanings have any strength, a world union of any kind stronger than the UN is unlikely.

There would definitely still be the need for a military/police presence in this form of government. It's like hym said; people won't just stop.

 

Without a police or military presence, the people would feel that they could do whatever the hell they want and get away with it.

[fan o SC4 128]

 

Actually, less government would be the rule.  Since there would be no need for much of a military/police presence in such a government it would be hard to achieve a dictatorship.

 

Meanwhile, it is clearly too early to discuss any kind of real union as long as things like this happen.  As long as the term 'patriotism' and its associated meanings have any strength, a world union of any kind stronger than the UN is unlikely.

There would definitely still be the need for a military/police presence in this form of government. It's like hym said; people won't just stop.

 

Without a police or military presence, the people would feel that they could do whatever the hell they want and get away with it.

 

You'd definitely need an army of some sort, even if you had a world government, there would resistance movements all over.

 

People are not going to ever tolerate being a ruled by someone who isn't them, victims of Imperialism would certainly never join voluntarily, neither are people with beliefs that differ from the leadership. Nobody would want to be ruled by somebody that is not on the same continent as them, and if this state does permit elections, which allocate representatives based on populous, then states with low populous won't get represented, and those oppressed wouldn't sit back and take it. Minor cultures and faiths will be the most steadfast in opposition, as every aspect of there life would be under threat (freedom, faith, culture, etc.), Just sayin'

 

And you seem to say this possible if we all learn to get along, converge on some common culture, well, culture is like evolution, no convergence, no pinnacle, just change, differences are just as inevitable in human culture as they are in biology, that will NEVER change.

[LexusInfernus 908]

We are not talking about a traditional imposition of a government from without.  We are talking about the American model, sort of.  That is, government of the people, by the people and for the people, but without the subsequent silliness that has evolved by what could have been a model state. 

Even the US has need for a military. It to suffers from constant terrorist attacks from within by right wing extremists who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a central federal government. So called sovereign citizens who do things like bombing federal buildings. 

 

The US has created a media frenzy about Muslim terrorists, but it has a far larger problem with homegrown rightwing extremists. 

 

And a government without an army is fundamentally incapable of imposing its sovereignty. You just need a province that trains a strong national guard and they could secede without problems. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Every recent poster has missed the point.  You don't need a standing army if the sectors each have their own police force.  At the most you need some kind of co-ordinating cadre.  Consider also a 'flying squad' made up of volunteers from the sector police.

 

Now, admittedly, homo sap. is a predator and has all the appropriate built-in hostilities.  However, we are also discussing the possibility of the aftermath of the next world war.  Can we pretty much agree that imperialism is dead as a week old mackerel lying in the sun?  This, notwithstanding some of the current fiascos being attempted by some governments east of Greenwich.

 

This is going to be very difficult to pull off, and I don't see it happening any time soon, especially in the face of the failed attempt at the EU.  For a speculative run at the idea read "The Shape of Things to Come" by H. G. Wells.  The story ends in chaos.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Every recent poster has missed the point.  You don't need a standing army if the sectors each have their own police force.  At the most you need some kind of co-ordinating cadre.  Consider also a 'flying squad' made up of volunteers from the sector police.

 

Now, admittedly, homo sap. is a predator and has all the appropriate built-in hostilities.  However, we are also discussing the possibility of the aftermath of the next world war.  Can we pretty much agree that imperialism is dead as a week old mackerel lying in the sun?  This, notwithstanding some of the current fiascos being attempted by some governments east of Greenwich.

 

This is going to be very difficult to pull off, and I don't see it happening any time soon, especially in the face of the failed attempt at the EU.  For a speculative run at the idea read "The Shape of Things to Come" by H. G. Wells.  The story ends in chaos.

You need a standing army to prevent each individual sector, or smaller groups within that sector to just tell the central government to piss off and secede. You need an army to deal with things like terrorism and violent conflicts that outgrow the police capacity to deal with.  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Maybe you'd like to tell us the size of the Netherlands' standing army?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Hmm lets see. Its kinda hard to be exact because they are constantly selling off and then not selling off things. 

 

Wikipedia has a nice list of personnel numbers

 

In terms of equipment, I can't tell. We got a bunch of stuff, but due to budget cuts we can't afford the maintenance on the majority of those things. I heard that when we get those Joint Strike Fighters (we ordered a few dozen of them) we can probably only afford to keep around 3 or 4 of them in the air. The rest can't be maintained. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Not surprising.  Our F35 (JSF) fighter order is now officially a set of non-operational facts.  Procurement of gear has now been taken away from the military as being too complex for them.

 

If you have a world government, why  would you need such hardware at all?  With whom do you go to war when there is only one overriding political entity?  The sector police forces should be able to handle any insurgencies, eh?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Not surprising.  Our F35 (JSF) fighter order is now officially a set of non-operational facts.  Procurement of gear has now been taken away from the military as being too complex for them.

 

If you have a world government, why  would you need such hardware at all?  With whom do you go to war when there is only one overriding political entity?  The sector police forces should be able to handle any insurgencies, eh?

Than they would require the kind of hardware that a military has. Worse, you would essentially be militarizing the police, which tends to result in very sloppy police work. More doors needlessly kicked in, police using military tactics to deal with problems, etc. The US has been militarizing its police for decades now and it has not done them any good. No the police and the military should remain two very separate entities. 

 

Besides, if you give a sector control over whats basically an army, what is to stop them from declaring themselves independent? A state can only be sovereign and successful if it retains control over the armed forces and essentially has the overall monopoly of violence. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This is why you should not have a pure military presence.  A military is a war machine.  If you have a world federation, with whom will you war?  War is obsolete in any case considering the weapons systems now available.  SWAT teams in the police should be sufficient. 

 

Remember that world government is not imposed.  It is agreed by all sectors.  This really is a paradigm shift.  The present model does not apply.

 

One thing that would make this work would be weather control.

[hym 358]

That is the point of contention though. Not all of us are going to agree to such a thing, and it isn't much of a world government if it doesn't govern the whole world.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

And that, my friend, is why I say it will take at least a century or WW III.  If we are ever to deal with extra-terrestrial civilizations which we are now actively seeking, we have to have a unified voice with which to speak.

 

This whole thread is what Einstein called a 'gedanken' experiment.

[AkemiAzula 280]

You need to ensure corruption is killed as soon as weeds are sighted apoking ftom the raked soil.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Actually corruption comes after the weeds have matured and they rot.  The real trick is to pull the weeds and compost them.

[AkemiAzula 280]

A owg needs to be very strictly and openly conducted. It must have a system of honest accountability and none of the weaknesses of party politics. I think an elected monarch makes sense but the problem i see is as dissent is common against such unity there is no drive for it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There certainly has to be more altruism than is currently displayed worldwide.  If man ever gets to the point where this can happen, we could be said to be truly civilized (or extinct).

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Sorry but WWIII will most likely wipe off enough life on earth that humanity will no longer exist. Communications networks are key to governing but a major war would wipe them out. There are so many different populations on earth that no one will be fairly represented besides the oligarchs.

--Ocram

[Meg 368]

There certainly has to be more altruism than is currently displayed worldwide. 

 

Are you sure that altruism exists?  I guess it depends on the definition.

 

I work with several non-profits in various capacities which some might regard as altruistic.   But I do it because I enjoy it.

 

[CapTon 592]

Not surprising.  Our F35 (JSF) fighter order is now officially a set of non-operational facts.  Procurement of gear has now been taken away from the military as being too complex for them.

 

If you have a world government, why  would you need such hardware at all?  With whom do you go to war when there is only one overriding political entity?  The sector police forces should be able to handle any insurgencies, eh?

Nationwide uprising? Something of that sorts

[fan o SC4 128]

 

Not surprising.  Our F35 (JSF) fighter order is now officially a set of non-operational facts.  Procurement of gear has now been taken away from the military as being too complex for them.

 

If you have a world government, why  would you need such hardware at all?  With whom do you go to war when there is only one overriding political entity?  The sector police forces should be able to handle any insurgencies, eh?

Nationwide uprising? Something of that sorts

 

Yeah you would need such an army to rule the disgruntled world populous with an iron fist. And as far as 'only one overriding political entity' goes, bad idea, single party states exist to alienate those the state does not want to answer to. A one party state would require thorough global brainwashing, it would inevitably resemble Oceanias 'The Party' (1984 reference), or for a RL example, North Korea's Korean Workers Party, restricting political affiliation would require restricting thought, which has never worked out for anybody,

 

So again, in a world government, without a one party state you would have the rise of secessionist parties, so the state would have to either oppress the people or things completely disintegrate, so either way things don't work out. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I really love how the nay-sayers always cite insurrection.  Well, if that is a possibility, a world state will be well-nigh impossible.  The majority has to be in agreement before you can create such a thing.  And if there are minorities, then education and persuasion has to be the answer.  Demagogues can be dealt with, usually by co-opting them.  Oubliettes can be found for the intransigent.

[CapTon 592]

I really love how the nay-sayers always cite insurrection.  Well, if that is a possibility, a world state will be well-nigh impossible.  The majority has to be in agreement before you can create such a thing.  And if there are minorities, then education and persuasion has to be the answer.  Demagogues can be dealt with, usually by co-opting them.  Oubliettes can be found for the intransigent.

I only cite insurrection when I know that insurrection is a possibility, and it is with a world government.

 

Some people are going to want different things. Some of these people that want different things will not take action either because they do not care as much as they say they do or they are too weak to overpower the government, and some of these people will take action in order to get their way.

 

Most people, if they want change, will not just sit on their hands and hope that the people running the government will have a change of heart and go with their plans. They'll take as much action as they need to in order to either incorporate their plans into the government or take the government down entirely and start from scratch.

 

To sum it up: people want different things, and they're willing to do whatever it may take in order to get those things.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

To quote an ancient Chinese proverb; "Who strikes the first blow admits he has lost the argument".

 

Some people think jumping up and down in the streets with or without Molotov cocktails is an approach to protest.  What it really is, these days, is a way to have your image placed in a file that will damage you for the rest of your life.

 

There are more civilized ways.

[CapTon 592]

Well it's not like some people will do things in a civilized fashion just because.

[jlt122 46]

One factor I see left out of this is religion. If you are going to have a one world government you most certainly need something that would bring people into a one belief system. Religion has always been used to help give direction to mankind, a sense of purpose and to help a one world government you need the masses total allegiance. Because truly the different religions of the world aren't so cooperative with one another as the media portrays sometimes. In my opinion though, you would have to divide up the world into different ethnic zones to get the cooperation of many nations. In each of these zoned areas people are elected much like senators and through the senators they would elect a leader for the said one world government. This way the senators (or zone representatives) would be able to remove said person from power or vote on replacing said corrupted leadership, you could also have a 2nd in command. In case untimely death etc... As far a military presence goes? Well for sovereignty's sake those zones could have a certain number of troops incase of type of national guard is needed or resistance arises but this may not be needed in all cases. Along with a group of senators, there would still need to be mayors, local representatives and so on. As for a One World Army? That would only be needed for one purpose and that is to protect the planet from a extraterrestrial invasion. Knowing how mankind is though and its long history, I believe man will be its own worse enemy in the end. Who knows though, mankind might grow up enough one day to prove me wrong in a thousand years from now because really there are other factors at play also. The Sun doesn't last forever and surely we are overdue for a extinction size asteroid to hit. Man kind has always squabbled over little bits and pieces of land just to go out of its hands when he/she dies and for what? In the end it will be all for nothing if we don't find some way to work together and find a new home in which to move too. The cycle will just repeat itself eventually if man finds a way to make that become humanly possible. A real one world government could happen if and only if man wanted it too and was willing to realize we're all in this together, on this planet and it's going to take everyone's cooperation to succeed. I think the true topic should have been " One World government and why man cannot get past it's own selfishness to cooperate with one another."