Why the naive adulation of one-world government?

Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by Dogbrain, Sep 6, 2010.

  1. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do people still naively swoon over the idea of a one-world government? It won't eliminate tyranny. It won't eliminate oppression. It won't eliminate the use of the military to slaughter millions and impose the will of a government against the will of the people?
     
  2. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    Where do you find people that are in favor of a one world gov't, I've never met one.
     
  3. chakraman

    chakraman God save us from religion

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    0
    i suppose it might be easier to see what is false, like nationalism (which is glorified tribalism)....perhaps there is no one solution like one world government etc, maybe if just one or more saw, fundamentally and radically to the core of their being, the folly of nationalism, conflict (both personal and collective), competitiion, aggression (psychological and physical) etc etc the "solution" would arise out of that realisation, be whatever that may be...

    but not one person has in my experience, completely eradicated in themselves the personal source of this global mess. if that did occur then a one world government may factor in there as a by-product of that realisation...a person who has done away with his own personal authoritarian, antagonistic, conflicting nature, needs only administration for physical needs...until the individual does this then he will invite an authoritarian government instead of a purely administrative one....we are not seperate from or innocent of the cause of this mess, any of us...

    for me personally i must end nationalism, antagonism, aggression, competitive nature, conflict, misery in myself first...never met anyone who's done that...that (the individual source) maybe the starting or beginning point....perhaps even if just a handfull did this, they might be a force for good like no other. but no, i'm lazy just like y'all...sit, squat, fart n point fingers at the not very nice people cos it makes living with myself "apparently" easier...
     
  4. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, if a one world government ever came about, it would go a long way in helping to eliminate these problems. The point is that it will never happen.

    But the thing to remember is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the desire for uniting the human race under one flag. All the "unifiers" from Khan to Napoleon had the same idea.

    The funny thing is that even the conspiracy pushers and opponents of NWO support their own versions of it. They just have different flags. Mainstream Christians/Jews/Muslims all think some messiah will come and unite the world. The political right hopes for total globalization, while the left hopes for some form of global anarchosyndaclism. Like I said, different flags.

    This battle will continue, until there's nothing left. It is our fate, for the human heart craves unity. All our social politics arise out of this desire. Even support for "diversity" is essentially (at its core) the desire for harmony and eventual unity. Think about that.

    I was once a great proponent of the green flag and its domination over all others. Until I realized what that first black flag actually meant...
     
  5. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    No matter the "leadership" if it is man in control, expect corruption, greed and a power struggle... Same **** different "leaders".
     
  6. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    I doubt it....unless it comes by naturally.

    It can't be foisted upon us. We can see in the middle east and in Africa what it is like for people to have lines drawn in the sand by others and gov'ts foisted upon tribal peoples...

    We saw in the growth of the USSR what it was like for 'satellite' nations to be gobbled up by a larger gov't and controlled.

    One day by agreement.... like the USA...a federal entity was created for 13 independent states...which eventually were swallowed up by the entity and lost their independence...but it happenned slowly and we went willingly of sorts... like the EU where folks voted themselves into the same scenario...and will eventually by like USA :eek:

    Like NAFTA, which will probably eventually eliminate borders between our countries and merge into one nation.

    But we are talking hundreds of years before Africa or the middle east can become one...just to diverse, no one cause, there has to be common ground in the majority for this to happen...
     
  7. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ah, like war of the worlds, or Independence Day...:cool:
     
  8. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    .

    @ Wil

    There is no "natural" way to bring about union.

    NAFTA might seem natural, but it required colonization,
    wars between empires, wars of independence, civil wars,
    and lets not forget the near ethnic eradication of the natives.
    The EU might seem natural but it required thousands of
    years of warfare, and it still might fall apart.

    The problem is in humanity's attempt to "unify" itself,
    but not the idea of unification.

    This is why we are fated to destroy ourselves.
     
  9. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, now you've met one.

    Dogbrain, that's quite the wish list you projected on those who support a world government. It is a classic straw man tactic. Paint an opposing viewpoint in absolutely ridiculous terms and then ask who could possibly support it.

    Who indeed? Certainly not me.

    No... I don't expect mankind to instantly transform into a benign and enlightened species simply because by adding another layer of governmental oversight. That's a tad unrealistic even for a pie-in-the-sky liberal like myself.

    But what a world government might be able to achieve is a degree of oversight and regulation over global matters such as Climate Change, Pollution, Human Rights, Nuclear Disarmament, Terrorism, Space Exploration, etc. That doesn't mean everyone will magically comply, anymore than laws against murder have stopped people from occasionally killing somebody.

    But would you advocate for doing away with laws simply because some people don't always comply with them?

    Of course not.
     
  10. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you advocate extending the reach of government to meddle into every single aspect of private life?

    If you support one-world government, the answer is and must be "yes", because the larger a government is, the MORE it extends its tendrils into private life. One-world government will, inevitably and inescapably, do so completely.

    Are you so narrow-minded and totalitarian that you think opposing one-world government means opposing ANY AND ALL forms of government? Obviously, from the arguments you choose to make, the answer is yes.
     
  11. shawn

    shawn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is very little, if any "private life" for anyone.

    Certainly the cabal which is spearheading the 1-world agenda is to be suspect as they have a lot of blood on their hands and many skeletons in their closets.
    But the idea of a 1-world gov't is inevitable and sensible if it is done properly.

    So now there is 2.
     
  12. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    2
    Absolutely.

    Lately I've really enjoyed the "freedom" and peace of mind that comes from government dictating when I should take a dump, who I should have as a friend, and what songs to put on my iPod.

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    The tyranny of free choice was so frightful to me that I gladly turned my every thought, whim and action over to government so I would never have to make a decision again in life.

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    Now if you'll excuse me, I need to call the government and find out if I should take a crap before bedtime, or if I should hold it till the morning.

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  13. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    At least it is a plan. "Fail to plan, plan to fail" is what my teacher used to say to me every day. Two world wars and many smaller ones before that tell us that somebody, somewhere, someday is going to have to end war somehow or we are done for. I am not sure whether it is a workable plan, but it might be. An Earth government, while many details are nebulous, is at least rooted in a positive desire to create stability. If nothing else it is a plan. It does have some problems that need sorting. To be stable, it requires an preparatory cultural revolution. Reminds me of Carl Marx a little bit, so I don't see how it is going to work. Maybe it could.

    I think if we keep having world wars, then there is a large chance we will mostly all be wiped out. That is one problem a super-government is intended to prevent. Another problem we have is colonialism and annexation. Alliances have not been enough to prevent these things from happening. You may consider these a separate issue from an Earth government, but these are the 3 main things an Earth government might prevent. Even if we don't like one-world-government, there still needs to be some kind of plan in motion to prevent world wars. It can be the 'Love conquers all' plan or 'Jesus will return and stop everything bad from happening' plan. Some are confident that superpower-countries will generate peace on earth through political influence (but I think these are part of the problem). Others believe in Technological Determinism--that technology will save the world. That is probably backwards as the world is busy trying to save technology from evil uses.
     
  14. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I long for the day when the ATTITUDES of the people are a leeeeeettle bit more enlightened, and their minds & hearts are a leeeeeeettle bit more open to the idea that you are so willing, so proud, so ready and so determined to shoot down, DogFighter - uh, I mean Dogbrain.

    Care to talk a bit about WHAT that day will look like, and how people will be (in heart and mind, and action) at that point?

    Go on, friend, I'm still listening ...


    In short, why such IGNORANCE, OPPOSITION, FEAR and HATRED from those who otherwise might actually be able to help us to WORK for such?

    Simple answer, really. Somebody TOLD YOU it wasn't a good thing, and you forgot to ask why. You forgot to question them. You forgot to THINK.

    It's okay, friend. You aren't the first, only or last poor sap to become befuddled, turned upside down and taken for a ride.

    I'm just wondering, when will you realize who's driving that chariot of yours, and WHEN will you decide that his goals aren't the ones you should be aligning yourself with so determinedly?

    "Forgive them Father, for they know NOT ... what it is that they are doing to me, and doing to YOU."

    oh yeah, and this goes well with a slice of

    "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

    and as some try and help remind us today

    WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?

    Matthew 24, v. 7, Mark 13, v. 8, you should've known this is WWII, a hint for you out the [proverbial] gate;
    Isaiah 2, verse 4, Joel 3, verse 10, Christ told you to love your God, did He ... but what did He say about MEN?
     
  15. path_of_one

    path_of_one Embracing the Mystery

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    And then there were three. Four?

    Anyhoo, this.

    I fail to see how any of these reasons for wanting global oversight extends at all into private life. In fact, the reasons for desiring global oversight extends far more into *global* concerns. We've already seen that we can't have meaningful policy on multinational concerns through disparate and disjointed national efforts. This is an extension of the same concept that unites the United States- that it's pretty darn hard to have a decent national economy if everyone uses different currency, or to have any meaningful human rights nationally if every state has different laws about slavery and women's status.

    The idea of global oversight (I'm not sure I'd call it a one-world government myself) is an extension of the idea of the U.S. And while I don't hold up the U.S. as a shining example of human evolution, I do have to say that it's been remarkably effective (given the many barriers to such efficacy) at holding together a large landmass and 300 million people in a reasonably orderly fashion. We've managed to get rid of slavery, give women equal legal rights, create a unified financial and economic system, support security, and other stuff that would have been nigh impossible if we were 50 states competing with each other and failing to coordinate.

    The value of larger collaborative effort, planning for long-term complex decision-making horizons, and checks and balances is found at nearly all levels of human social organization, from corporations to the global system. While good stuff can get done at a local level, if the problem exists on a regional or global level, cooperation and planning is essential to have a substantial impact. We can see this particularly in the case of environmental sustainability issues. Without collaboration, the Tragedy of the Commons generally is the result.

    It's not adulation as much as logical means to solving problems that transcend local issues. About the only reach into "private lives" is stuff that *ought* to be regulated in private lives... such as owning other human beings, coercing women to do stuff as if they were property, protecting the rights of children to not be treated as expendable and cheap labor, ensuring sustainability of resources we all depend on, etc.

    I really fail to see how anyone could think individual freedom to own another human being or to consume resources to the point of threatening the capacity of future generations to use them is a healthy thing. That really is like saying we shouldn't limit people's personal choices and freedoms to kill other people, and often, quite literally as many areas of the world that lack basic human rights DO allow people to be outright killed.

    I've never met a person who wanted global oversight who cared at all about personal choices such as sexual orientation, general lifestyle issues, occupational choice, etc. By contrast, and oddly enough, I've met quite a few vehement conservative right-wingers who think the collective humanity should ignore global issues like basic human rights, health and sanitation, poverty, and sustainability... but should make sure that people shouldn't sleep with who they wish, have "unwholesome" music, etc. Because, you know, the right to be free to impoverish, kill, and enslave people worldwide ought to be protected, but the right to love someone of the same gender or listen to music with swear words or suggestive language should definitely be shot down.

    End rant.
     
  16. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    The USA is a federation of states, each with their own government.

    The United Nations is either already a federation, or in many ways functions like one. It already has a judiciary and legislative branch (General Assembly, Security Council and various other councils and organisations). It just doesn't have an executive branch yet.

    The U.N. is unlikely to get an executive branch. It would require approval from the permanent members of the Security Council. At least two of them are political, military and economic rivals.

    It also doesn't have its own army or police force.

    Personally, I prefer a world political order either dominated by a single hegemon like the USA or a multipolar one including the USA, Russia, China, the European Union and Japan than a one world government requiring everybody to live by the same rules.
     
  17. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yeah, I'd like an answer to this, Dogbrain, if you don't mind. Who is advocating for a one world government?

    I would point out that the countries with the highest standard of living are small social democracies. I wouldn't hold up the US as any sort of example excellence in governance. We have a rising poverty rate and constantly shrinking middle class. Smaller is better.

    Chris
     
  18. path_of_one

    path_of_one Embracing the Mystery

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know of anyone who actually wants or thinks it is possible to have a one-world government, which is why I posed it as global oversight.

    I'm for a meaningful federation of nations that ensures global oversight and collaborative solutions on the most pressing issues, such as poverty, sustainability, and basic human rights.

    I do think certain rules should be global. Basic ones, like not allowing slavery. My moral relativism is pretty broad, but it does have its limits, and those limits involve slavery (and its various insinuous forms such as debt bondage), child labor (given certain broad exemptions necessary to maintain many of the world's cultures, but protecting children from prostitution and sweatshop labor), certain aspects of state-endorsed murder, and certain aspects of women's rights (such as FGM and the enslavement of women).

    I'm not sure that it is size, or the fact they are social democracies. After all, the US is fairly new as a nation and has a learning curve. Look at how long it took those other nations to get to the point they are at now. They went through long periods of dictatorships, aristocracies, theocracies, all sorts of stuff we'd consider horrific. By comparison, to be fair, the US ain't all THAT bad.

    Granted, I'm not holding it up as some stellar example. Our primary problem is, in my opinion, we are governed by corporations (and our populace is largely ignorant and led around by media owned by said corporations). But I don't think that can be solved just by making our nation smaller bits and pieces.
     
  19. China Cat Sunflower

    China Cat Sunflower Nimrod

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm with you there. No, I don't mean to suggest that we can solve our problems through succession. The real issue is that we can no longer avoid globalization. We can't just draw up a fence around the first world plantation while those on the outside starve and live under despotism. In the effort to float all boats the tide must inevitably drop. That's a fact.

    Chris
     
  20. shawn

    shawn New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    The way of it is to have all these alleged countries become like provinces.
     

Share This Page