World Centralized Government. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Mild necroposting has been permitted because it has always been mild but since it is growing into a bane it will no longer be tolerated.

Moderators are therefore advised to initially move necroposts into stand-alone threads and for repeat offenders to hand out official warnings if said posters continue the practice.
All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Joka
#14791038
Is there anybody on this forum that supports the notion of a unified world government body? If so, I would like to know more about your beliefs and why you've chose them.

How would you initate a world government body? How would you react to inevitable nationalist sentiment and rebellion?

It seems in this late era of ours in human history there are a lot of individuals coming out of the woodwork saying a world government must be created mostly from the upper echelons of the global international elite.

If you are a person with these beliefs share them in this thread.
#14791047
I would in theory, and I think we are part way there.

First of all, I think there is a natural progression to states... starting at villages to cities to city states to kingdoms to empires to nations to alliances (NATO/WP/EU etc, the next main step being the AU, whose time will come, I think)

Anyway, what I mean about it being in motion is that our economies are incredibly interconnected. While it isn't the same as a unified government, it does severely impact most decisions made. Adding onto that the rapidly broadening access to free information - not just form the internet but radio etc - we become a more global culture, or at least are exposed to and nomalized in disparate countries instead of having a kind of block from seeing them at all, like we saw though most of history; you had to trust the few sources you had, and those were largely government, military, or colonial. Now, it is so hard to avoid that that nations are struggling with how to deal, as we see with China and Russia, primarily.

I think we will arrive there without realizing it. I don't think it will be exactly a unified government, but we'll be so tied up it is unavoidable to make policy without regarding everyone connected.

The UN experiment has failed on large parts of its platform, succeeded in others, but I think is very flawed (vetoes, putting terrorists on humanitarian boards, etc) and should be largely replaced by continent bodies like the AU and EU.

All of this is just my opinion, and at that it is more of a hypothesis, I haven't put actual research time into it.


EDIT

Oh, forgot one important point - the environment. This is really the first time in history that the domestic policies of one country can drastically effect not only the neighboring countries, but the continent and even the planet. States have to be responsible for that, it is a shared burden. This is something I *have* actually studied, and we have to be careful. Simple issues are like one country damming a river and screwing everyone who counted that... further are terraforming projects that led to things like the Aral Sea and encroaching Sahara (both largely manmade events).
#14791055
I agree with Zagadka, we are already there for more than people realise.

I would go about doing it the same way that it is being done since 1945. You build consensus on broad subjects like human rights in the UN, collective bargaining in the EU and then you build little by little upon that consensus. The EU and Eurozone are good examples that demonstrate both pros and cons of such programs.

The EU in my view is a model of international administration and consensus. Its powers are extended mainly by unanimous agreement among the member countries so its members maintain sovereignty and the plurality of opinion among the members ensures that many sides of the political spectrum are catered for to achieve that consensus. The levels of integration within the EU are also close enough to maintain cohesion but also far enough to allow the countries room to breath on their own.

The eurozone aims to take that a step further and the closer you bring countries together, the more integrated they become, the more necessary it becomes to erode their own sovereignty in the service of the system, the eurozone unique in world history, created a currency union without a fiscal union, a currency was created without central command of the budgets of the territories using that currency. Silly example but fitting would be, it's like sharing a bank account with other people, when times are good and everyone goes to the ATM anytime one wishes, nobody cares because everyone is happy but when there is not enough money for everyone and someone has to organise when people can go to the ATM, then everyone starts talking about his sovereignty to go to the ATM anytime he likes. And therein lies the dilemma and Eris' apple.
#14791070
Zagadka wrote:First of all, I think there is a natural progression to states... starting at villages to cities to city states to kingdoms to empires to nations to alliances (NATO/WP/EU etc, the next main step being the AU, whose time will come, I think)


Yeah and because house prices have been bubbling up for the past 30 years they will continue to do so forever; one day soon a damp card board box situated in the wrong part of town will cost the same as 5000 human kidneys. Because the tide never goes out. The sun just keeps on rising, no chance of setting ever.

But no.. all things wax and wane. The main reason political powers trended towards enlargement is because militarily speaking big armies tend to beat smaller ones, otherwise people prefer to go their own way and do their own thing and to hell with what big brother wants.

World government can't happen any other way than by riding on the back of another world war. Assuming we survive that then with peace people will start going off and doing their own thing again. Absent an alien threat there will be no external enemy terrible enough to hold a globe spanning government together. The inevitable rebels don't count because everyone will love the rebels and hope they win against the evil globe spanning empire.
#14791074
Global communication technologies make it inevitable in the long run. The more we communicate the more blended together the world will become, the more mixed our global economy, and the less distinct our cultures. It could happen quicker violently, but if left alone in a few centuries there won't be much preventing it but a vauge sense of tradition.
#14791089
mikema63 wrote:Global communication technologies make it inevitable in the long run. The more we communicate the more blended together the world will become, the more mixed our global economy, and the less distinct our cultures. It could happen quicker violently, but if left alone in a few centuries there won't be much preventing it but a vauge sense of tradition.


Culture is != to governance.
#14791110
That is not a substantive response.

Of course culture is intricately linked into governance. If you don't share fundamental values about the role of government then you won't accept being under the same government.
#14791128
Joka wrote:
How would you initate a world government body? How would you react to inevitable nationalist sentiment and rebellion?



What do you class the UN? Or are you talking about 'One Nation One Government'? A world without borders. A major obstacle with such a notion (as semi highlighted by yourself) is no one in the UN can agree on any major issues now. Because different leaders have different cultures and beliefs. Then who is going to create this government... and more importantly run it? And lastly, no world leader is going to give up power to create a united government. At best you might have an EU for different continents or perhaps the EU branching out to a global network. But ultimately, no nation is going to give up complete sovereignty so I can never imagine a complete united world government.
User avatar
By Joka
#14791136
B0ycey wrote:What do you class the UN? Or are you talking about 'One Nation One Government'? A world without borders. A major obstacle with such a notion (as semi highlighted by yourself) is no one in the UN can agree on any major issues now. Because different leaders have different cultures and beliefs. Then who is going to create this government... and more importantly run it? And lastly, no world leader is going to give up power to create a united government. At best you might have an EU for different continents or perhaps the EU branching out to a global network. But ultimately, no nation is going to give up complete sovereignty so I can never imagine a complete united world government.


No, I'm talking about something much different then a world government political body of the U.N.

I am talking about those who have the notion of getting rid of independent nation states world wide that support the concept as you eloquently just described as one global nation (if it can even be called that) under one global governing body.

The European Union it could be argued was created as means to point the entire world in that direction as expiriment.

You get rid of nation states by creating continental unions or economic blocs where overtime after the world is separated in various unions and economic blocks molds into one giant global superpower that controls(manages) the entire planet centrally.
#14791143
Joka wrote:
You get rid of nation states by creating continental unions or economic blocs where overtime after the world is separated in various unions and economic blocks molds into one giant global superpower that controls(manages) the entire planet centrally.


So what is your opinion on such a concept? In principle I'm not against it. But I can't see how it could ever work. Every nation is different. I look at the West trying to force the world to adopt their ideology and all it does is create conflict. The world is not united. For that reason I could never support such a concept even though I would love to. We (humans) are too different with different cultures and beliefs to one another. And one government couldn't keep everyone happy. Someone will feel unjust and ultimately be oppressed. Then you have to consider another problem that could be arise with just a single world government... corruption. What if the government became BIG BROTHER! A sole world government would be more powerful than you could ever imagine. It would have no competition apart from civilization itself. And they could easily suppress dissenting voices and nobody could stand in its way.
Last edited by B0ycey on 28 Mar 2017 19:48, edited 1 time in total.

I am still stunned by Trump's personal expenses,[…]

Looks like Sean Hannity may be the next domino to[…]

Here you go. . One example of many. Of course, i[…]