There is a lot of discussion around the internet, and indeed in various places in real life, wherein I've heard it discussed that most supposedly "evil" heads of corporation are campaigning for a world government. This is quite commonly referred to as a "New World Order", with quite obvious negative connotations surrounding the founding of such, and generally accompanying such are rally cries for the populace to fight back against such. On the face of it I can only see a world government being a good thing, with the only real negatives being the abolishments of localized forms of government that either don't conform to specific global standards, or treat their citizens without due care. Another potential issue would be the bureaucracy inherent in such a thing, as current governments are quite rife with such, taking years just to consider if they should get a coffee in the morning or afternoon. More than once I've asked such people why they oppose a world government, and have never received a sufficient answer (generally it is some cliché scaremongering tag line, like "Citizenry will be treated like chattel"), so I pose to you the following: Why would a world government be a bad thing? If you think much the same as me (that it would be beneficial in most aspects of our daily lives), then why do you feel there is such a universal opposition towards such, and what arguments have you heard in opposition?
A world government wouldn't be a bad thing at all. I don't think there is universal opposition to it, people just aren't ready for it yet.
The only people I've ever heard positioning themselves behind the idea as a good thing would be intellectuals within academia (talks, lectures, books, ect). So "universal opposition" may have been the wrong term, but there isn't exactly a notable favouring for such global movements within the general populace (or so I've gathered by how strong the anti-global government/corporation movement is).
My main problem is that, eventually people will riot. Then rebel states may be created. I just feel, it couldn't work for too long. Its a great idea, but not sustainable.
Forget world government, everyone has got their own agenda, we can't even get the countries of the UN to co-operate. What is it with humans and plans for world domination
^That, pretty much. Just look at europe and the UK, we like to govern out selves but have to bow into pressure and rules imposed by brussels, even though those rules are often harmful to a lesser or greater extent to the way we would like to lead our lives ( see: metric measurements & too-bendy bananas ) . Getting the whole world to agree to one set of rules on how a country should be run would be impossible in our lifetime, maybe in the distant future when different nations see eye to eye on issues affecting their own and over countries... /startrek future.
Having a world government that operates with the interest of all truly at its heart, would in many ways be a good thing. However the closest thing we have to that atm is the U.N, and look how that operates. There is this odd assumption that The west (USA and Europe) is the only culture who has a say in what is right and what is not. However we are far from perfect, hell at least in cultures where governments openly abuse its citizens, the citizens have someone to fight. The west uses its teachers, business men, politicians and rigid rules to control the flow of its population, sure we have free choice within certain limits. Yes most of those limits are sensible, but there are equally as many pseudo fascist rules out there. However lets say we do manage to get all cultures to unify under one seemingly perfect banner, do we really want such uniformity? everyone is different, this is a good thing and it drives progress. Yes many countries mistreat there citizens and abuse there power, however this is typical of a developing country, where power is in the control of a elite few. The more developed countries have moved on to more subtle control. In the end those developing countries will become developed countries anyway, and visible corruption will disappear. Yes we may halt conflicts, we may create a booming economy, we may create a world where every person has equal rights. However all that would be for naught if we loose our freedom as sentient beings. able to think and create. Something George Orwell books shows very well. What would be the difference between a Human and a Robot? The crux of it is that, small localized governments can better understand and cater to the needs of its people and offer more freedom of choice. A Global government would either attempt to cater to the needs of all its people, essentially a impossibility as the EU has shown. Or cater to the needs of a selective group, perhaps based on perceived understanding and exceptions of what is right and wrong. However as Humans are sentient, we don't always see a object in the same way. Person A sees Deep water as bad, person B sees Deep water as wonderful (heh got a fear of deep water). Both A and B are human, yet they both have two different opinions on the same mater. That is because we perceive, the world is not black and white. Everything is to some extent Subjective The point of Government is then to represent the thoughts of the people living within its jurisdiction to the best of its ability. How this is achieved differs, and sometimes, perhaps to often the Government becomes corrupt and ultimately fails at its sole purpose. If a World Government can achieve a equilibrium where it can represent every person equally who is under its jurisdiction then great! I think the key is however, most people don't see that as possible, or if it is somehow possible, Just not worth taking the risk. You also have to question how power might effect those in Government, it would be nice to think they are pure enough to resist the temptation of ultimate power. However you can never truly predict whats in a persons heart and mind. Not only that but the more people you control, the larger the amount of people whom are not happy with you will be. A localized Government can attempt to deal with the issue before it gets out of hand. If the government does fail, it might fall and be replaced. Take Egypt for example. A world government will anger a lot more people and have a much harder time sorting the issues out, if it fails and falls we will find ourselves in a total state of Anarchy. (Duex Ex SPOILER ALERT) I think Dues Ex shows all sides of the dilemma pretty well. Do we want total and pure control without perception interfering for a apparent better future. Do we want to try to control the world but allow perception to exist, something not truly possible. Or do we want to remain the same and allow each area to be controlled locally. Personally, I cant ever see a true New World Order being formed in such a way that is beneficial on anything but paper. Note: I am tired so sorry if that was a total mess to read and I hope at least some of it made sense. Should really stop posting at this time of the night. The bloody Motherboard in the background is moving!
The fact that people won't like some rules that are imposed on them by government isn't limited to the UK and Europe, it's happening every day, in every country. To give you a non-Europe thing, speed limits for motor vehicles. I doubt there's a single driver that hasn't thought "the speed limit here (wherever) is too low." Whether the rule is imposed by Government, the police, your parents, or a New World Order makes no difference. Sometimes we just don't like having regulations imposed on us.
Well, firstly it's never going to happen. As others have already said people don't agree with each other on all issues. Even in the UK which is a tiny island full of people with a roughly similar background/culture, speaking the same language we can't really agree on much. We also have devolution where Scotland and Wales and generally seeking more independence. Do we really think that all the states on the planet are going to agree to give up their individual power to some meta-state? Secondly do we really want this to happen? I for one don't. Do you really want a government to exist that has ultimate power over the entire planet? Who would that government be answerable to when they control everything on earth? I think that we need separate countries that are run independently. Yes, in a ideal world it would be lovely if we could all get along and there was no corruption and everything was lovely. Unfortunately that's not how the world works. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Do you want to hand a person/group of people absolute power?
People are too tribal. Different cultures, languages, living circumstances. We cannot bridge those gaps easily. So it isn't going to happen any time soon.
Several thousand years ago, there was no such thing as tribes. It was individual families. They self-governed. After that, came extended families joining together to form tribes. They self-governed. After that came little settled mud-huts that became villages. They self-governed. After that, villages banded together (for one reason or another) to form regions. They self-governed. After that, regions banded together and formed countries. They self-governed. After that, countries banded together to form common-purpose 'conglomerates'. They self-governed. I don't see why you are all surprised at a NWO or so against it. It is a natural evolution of our species. Are you seriously telling me that if everything turns out alright and we are able to carry out colonisation of other planets, we will still have a UK? Or a France? Or even a USA? Nope. We won't. By then we will have realised that there is a common goal that can only be shared by pooling resources and developing together. Yes there will always be resistance - there has been resistance to this for as long as it has been happening, but it has not stopped it from happening. It's all to easy to look at things from the view of some kind of fashionable 'conspiracy-theory' or somesuch, but where would you all be now if those little mud-huts here and there hadn't decided to band together for greater protection and pooling of resources? You wouldnt be reading this right now, that's for sure... It's not just limited to humans - the effect of greater and greater cooperation is also seen in the Animal and even Plant kingdom... A World Government WILL happen. Get used to it.
Yes, I'm sure it will happen but not in my lifetime. We're too concerned about material worth, self-aggrandizement, etc. to do it now. Perhaps we need something earth-shattering like a nuclear war to wake us out of this stupor?
Possibly, certainly not anytime soon. There is no certainty about it though, you can't say it WILL happen I can't say it won't. There are few things we can be certain about and I don't think this is one of them. What about the meteorite that hits earth next week and wipes out all human life? This is going off on a tangent but I don't particularly see a move towards greater co-operation from animals and plants. Some species have evolved into a lifestyle that requires some form of colony, pack or group yes. However it's not apparent that this is becoming more common. Nor that this form of lifestyle is more successful than organisms that eschew contact with other individuals of their species.
The problem is, each time you scale up the size of community you end up with more difficulties. With families, villages and regions banding together it tends to be alright as the groups concerned more than likely have a lot in common, little tension between them other than neighbour rivalry and there are going to be very few people with extremist views against it and that sort of thing. However when you talk about this on the scale of countries it is different. Each country has its own rituals and customs, and other countries may think they are stupid whereas they may think the countries that do not do something their way are evil(I use this word in a loose way). For communities to combine their customs it is not too hard, however with the huge amounts of people involved with countries making universal customs/laws etc. will face a lot of opposition. Also by banding together countries there will always be some that lose out from this, and so why would they go along with it? And how would we agree which country should have the leader of this government? There will always be people who think that this leader is taking advantage of this for his own countries gain(even with the countries clumped together things like patriotism are unlikely to just disappear), whilst others may feel left out by the fact they have little say or they feel their culture is being crushed, so there are far more complications with this idea concerning countries than there are involved with smaller communities, so it is far less likely to happen in my opinion, not for a very long time anyway. I havn't explained this as well as I hoped, I am really struggling for ways to put it, but I hope you understand what I mean
Only in the sense that current governments happen. We have a United Kingdom, but at the same time we have devolution into Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments. We have people killing each other in N. Ireland over essentially tribal differences. We have increasing ethic segregation. We have the EU, but we also have Nationalist tensions and immigrants are viewed with dislike and suspicion. And of course we still have religious tension all over the place. We have the UN, but I don't need to tell you how that is working out. So yes, nominally, in perhaps a thousand years, we will have a global government. For a given valu of global government. We will also still have people kicking each others' heads in on the football pitch for no other reason than that they support different teams.
Thats true, humans fear the unknown and thus we will look for security and protection by banding together. However how long do you think a world government could last? you control billions of people, the logistics of controlling that many people would be unsustainable. As power expands more obstacles are encountered. It only takes one obstacle to topple the stack. The Roman empire, perhaps one of the most well known multi national governments shows this well. Its own downfall came from the very fact its power had grown and expanded to such an extent, even though they allowed many areas to self-govern. All a NWO would be is a modern day version. Good luck getting every country to give up there sovereignty and be controlled by some organisation that has no clue about there internal affairs bar what they see in one sided reports. The U.N a organization that attempts a much tamer version of this, cannot even manage to get all of the countries in the world under a single banner. Even internally each country has its own interests and the biggest 'benefactor' gets the biggest say. Like I said earlier, I am not against a NWO that is truly through some miracle able to represent each person on equal grounds. However how would that work? how could one group of people fulfill the wishes of everyone? if a local government cant do it, how do you expect a global government to do it, that will even further away from the people it represents than the more localized governments we have today. If anything we need to go the other way and reduce the scale of our Governments, WHILE retaining strong relations with each other. A over-arching organisation such as the U.N has its benefits but I think a line needs to be drawn when it starts to gain to much power .
A world government? They'll try, but to do so would strip all vestige of individuality from the many diverse nations of the world. And, considering the people pushing for it, push the WASP mentality on the world. We in America have no idea as to the concerns and needs of Shaka Zulu in Africa. Why should we tell him what to do? It fails for the concept of the preservation of national and cultural identity, plus it fails in the concept of you will never get everyone to believe the same or hold the same values, so how would you govern so many disparate concepts fairly? Abolishing religion doesn't work, and besides, there's no good reason to try. It's part of what makes people individuals. If you want a unified world government, go govern a planet of robots all running the same OS and firmware. Bout the only way to do so.
What I am taking away from this is that there is a general dislike for the idea of a singular controlling body due to the implication that it would strip peoples individual identity, and indeed a nations patriotic identity. It is bad because it is assumed that a government only serves itself best by not allowing the citizenry freedom of self. Where do you lot get this idea? By no measure do any western (or modern) governmental systems operate by reducing it's citizenry to grovelling plebs, only just able to breath on their own without governmental assistance. This is the mentality of governments with a small citizenry, wherein they wish to control them outright (think North Korea). Nowhere within any modern large-scale governmental system do we see the systematic reduction of individualistic expression, unless you wish to say that certain culture specific practises which are deemed dangerous/deplorable by any metric you wish to use are of such a type of expression (think genital mutilation, holy war, human sacrifice, ect). Thus I would posit that as a government grows it can only survive by giving up more control to smaller individual states, only serving as a body to govern laws and blanket policies. I've always just gone with the most logical of ideals in this regard: singular governmental body controlling global, universal laws (stop stabbing other people, don't take other peoples stuff, ect), and preventing conflict between individual states, with smaller bodies allowing for more local concerns to be controlled by those of whom it affects most (public buildings/services and their operation, with the obvious mandate and budget by proportion to it's populace allocated by the global governance). But lets go with the main idea here of keeping nations separate: does it really make sense to anybody that there is an artificial line drawn in the sand that I am unable to cross without quite rather a lot of bureaucracy because somebody several hundred years ago decided that was the limit of their territory? Does it make sense that only a couple of nations the world over have almost all the global wealth? And are you really comfortable saying that we should protect a nations "identity", it's morals and ethics, even if it is committing the worst of atrocities towards it's citizenry?
