One World Government

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
One World Government seems a future inevitability.

However, would it erally be an advantageious situation?

On the one hand, there is the idealism that the world would be united under a single force of democratic representation - but let's take into that perspective, for example, events in the USA over recent years.

Implicitly, isn't inviting the scenario of a one world government inviting not a world run by the likes of Kofi Annan, but of people like George W. Bush?

And wouldn't such a situation be extremely destabilising for the world, rather than a force for unification?
 
I said:
One World Government seems a future inevitability.

However, would it erally be an advantageious situation?

Obviously, not for everyone. In order for it to happen there would be too many concessions to be made.


On the one hand, there is the idealism that the world would be united under a single force of democratic representation - but let's take into that perspective, for example, events in the USA over recent years. Implicitly, isn't inviting the scenario of a one world government inviting not a world run by the likes of Kofi Annan, but of people like George W. Bush?

Unification through the U.N. (currently the most likely candidate, IMO) seems to me much more likely than unification under George Bush or any other American president. Through the U.N., it would be a gradual or even painstakingly slow process, but it could happen. But if George Bush tried to "unite" the world under the American flag...I don't even want to begin to imagine the mess that would turn into. WWIII?


And wouldn't such a situation be extremely destabilising for the world, rather than a force for unification?

Again, it's all a matter of how it would come about. I don't think world unification under a superpower would happen without a serious amount of bloodshed.

The problem people have with world unity, I think, is that we don't have any examples to fall back on. The only people in the past intent upon large-scale unity have been conquerors and dictators. Therefore, it really is stretching the imagination to envision another means of attaining world unity. But the funny thing about humanity is, we have a real knack for turning fancies of the imagination into reality.

The nature of society all across the world is permanently changing, slowly but surely. The internet alone guarantees an information flow unheard of throughout history. Mass media, biased though it may be, can make any war up close and personal on a moment's notice, with real-time satellite transmissions via highly versatile and portable equipment. The isolation that allowed nationalistic propaganda to be so successful in the past just isn't there any more. The idealism that sustains long-term warfare is practically impossible in highly developed nations these days. Despite a nations best efforts, some jarring truths will always slip through the cracks with a clarity unheard of in the past. The accessibility of the realities of war via modern media make it unlikely people will support wartime conflicts long enough to affect major change. IMO, wars among highly developed nations will continue to decrease in frequency, and lesser developed countries will become more peaceful as the standard of living rises. The practicality of a functional world government will increase as alternate means of settling differences need to be found.

As long as we are able to see other possibilities than unity through conquest, I think a world government is not only possible but could truly benefit humanity in the long run. With some form of legal unity things could be resolved without war much more easily, and greater stability would result.

The trick, of course, would be ensuring some level of equality between nations. But I'll leave that discussion for a later date...

QG
 
Baha'i perspective is in terms of centuries ....

I said:
One World Government seems a future inevitability.

However, would it erally be an advantageious situation?

On the one hand, there is the idealism that the world would be united under a single force of democratic representation - but let's take into that perspective, for example, events in the USA over recent years.

Implicitly, isn't inviting the scenario of a one world government inviting not a world run by the likes of Kofi Annan, but of people like George W. Bush?

And wouldn't such a situation be extremely destabilising for the world, rather than a force for unification?

Brian,

These events moving toward a representive world government are transitional...Note how the thirteen colonies onthe eastern seaboard eventually moved toward a federated representive republic... It took time...there were bumps along the road...same will be true of an eventually forming world government.

When i was growing up as a child during WWII it seemed that such a system as a world government was the talk of idealists and wouldn't be very practical, but today the necessity for world networks of trade and finance are much more evident. We think in one-world terms today economically, environmentally and scientifically... having international space station as wellas global communication satellites, an online internet with all countries involved were the stuff of dreams when I was a boy.

The newly formed International Court of Justice is an example of an institution foreseen by Baha'u'llah over a hundred and thirty years ago! Whether or not our US government administration of today cooperates with it or not or flouts it is immaterial.... The Institution exists and what the future holds we do not know, but see how the states in our own Union have at times thumbed their noses at the decisions of the US Supreme Court and consider how those very decisions were the bedrock of future case law.

So we Baha'is have a very long range view of things that takes a centuries long perspective and we are not therfore easily dismayed by the seeming paradoxes of a few years.

- Art ;)
 
Hm, I think perhaps Baha'is should consider that they are not the only ones who look at human events over the scales of centuries and millenia. :)

The trouble is, when you do, certain lessons of history become quite evident.

As for my comments about the US government and One World Government - perhaps my point was not clear.

We can take ourselves back to the idealism of the Founding Fathers, and their wish to see its citizens representated equally throughout the United States.

Then we move forward to the modern era: where the President of the United States of America received the least amount of votes in a two horse race; his family ensures the courts back the loser, not the winner; he ensures the protection of the interests of the military-industrial complex to such a degree as to ensure that protected wilderness is dug up for oil, and that other nations should be conquered for their oil; that their policies will be sold to the US public through government reports dressed up as complimentary media reports; by a US government that has seen fit to undo the national economy for short-term gain; etc etc etc etc

My point is: we can expect that any world government will look to serve the interests of the powerful first, because this is the example of history dictates that this will precisely be so.

So that people should realise that any world government is going to end up as another playground for people like like the George W Bush. Modern day corporate interests are simply so powerful that it cannot be any other way.

If politics cannot properly represent the people at the local or the national level, then what on earth is the justification for believing that there will be a proper and fair representation of the entire global population of humanity on the international level?
 
Don't lose you idealism Brian!

I can appreciate what your saying but again we have to take the long term view of things and not get bogged down in partisan political skirmishes.

This is something Baha'is have learned in our history and it may seem novel or odd to some people but we really are totally non-partisan in our outlook... We don't even register as Deomcrats or Republicans when we vote in civil elections...

So don't lose your idealism simply because of a recent poltical set back or step backward....

- Art
 
inevitable?

I said:
One World Government seems a future inevitability.

However, would it erally be an advantageious situation?

[endquote]

Maybe what the Baha'is are saying is that some type of global governace is inevitable, so we should start thinking about how to do better than we have in the past (and in the present). The message seems optimistic--that we can learn from past mistakes, and that we must if we want to survive.

Just my two cents,
lunamoth
 
The trouble is, we don't do very well at learning by our past mistakes.

If I may try and push the point - a one world government would exist to serve the world's corporations, and would would not be representative of the needs of the world's populations.

Whether anyone thinks that is a good thing or not is a personal call.
 
I said:
The trouble is, we don't do very well at learning by our past mistakes.
has a different sense of meaning. :0

If it were true that humanity doesn't learn, every government in the world would still be pure despotism. It doesn't hurt to sit back and marvel at all of the progress we have made since we showed up on the planet. I know that can be difficult, though, since we're so conditioned to be negative.

QG
 
And man did what was right in his own eyes...

QueryGuy said:
It doesn't hurt to sit back and marvel at all of the progress we have made since we showed up on the planet. QG

And what progress would that be? But sure, let's do away with the checks and balances of a fragmented world, and put ourselves completely into the hands of a few people and their agenda. After all, if they are smart enough to create the hydrogen bomb, surely they'll be responsible enough to maintain human rights. We could start by putting a bar-code on everyone's wrist to regulate global trade.
 
Baha'i view of future is very optimistic!

lunamoth said:
I said:
One World Government seems a future inevitability.

However, would it erally be an advantageious situation?

[endquote]

Maybe what the Baha'is are saying is that some type of global governace is inevitable, so we should start thinking about how to do better than we have in the past (and in the present). The message seems optimistic--that we can learn from past mistakes, and that we must if we want to survive.

Just my two cents,
lunamoth

This is true Lunamoth....and thanks for your comments! Baha'is are very optimistic about the future of humanity .... While we cannot really foretell how immediate events will play out, our long range view for humanity is of a glorius future and world civilization that will mean improved ecology for the planet and biosphere along with social and educational advances for the people... This is really the keynote of theh Baha'i message for greater unity and peace on the planet.

'Abdu'l-Bahá states:

"When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then there will be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world, which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles, and then will mankind be united in the power of the love of God."

So unlike some visions of the future as apocalyptic, the Baha'i view is very optimistic for the long range.

- Art
 
I'm not talking about an apocalyptic future - merely of political realities. It doesn't take negativity to realise that politicians do not generally exist as extreme altruists, but instead often have their own personal, party political, and business agendas to deal with.

As for Baha'i and Baha'u'lhah - you're talking about yet another division within human unity, which holds it's own dogmas and superstitions. It is not fitting for the kettle to call the pot black.
 
Optimism about the future:

I said:
I'm not talking about an apocalyptic future - merely of political realities. It doesn't take negativity to realise that politicians do not generally exist as extreme altruists, but instead often have their own personal, party political, and business agendas to deal with.

As for Baha'i and Baha'u'lhah - you're talking about yet another division within human unity, which holds it's own dogmas and superstitions. It is not fitting for the kettle to call the pot black.

Well Brian, I think everyone shares your views to an extent about politicians and partisan and business loyalties...that's why it's necessary to transcend them...

Looking back over the years we've certainly had our share...but people who are dedicated to their self interests I think will be won over eventually to the necessity and practicality of the future world government...that's why in our Writings it specifies "political peace" as the initial stages... later the Writings concern the emergence of a Most Great Peace.

Also if you're familiar with the concept known as "synergy" that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts I think you'll appreciate how a dynamic can develope among human affairs that will set in motion very positive directions rather than the negative spiral many of us are used to today.

If you'd like to be more frank about your remarks:

"As for Baha'i and Baha'u'lhah - you're talking about yet another division within human unity, which holds it's own dogmas and superstitions. It is not fitting for the kettle to call the pot black."

I'm sure we'd like to hear what it is your referring to!

- Art
 
I mean that you speak of unity over the divisions of humanity - yet the Baha'i perspective is yet another division of belief within humanity.

Whilst the ideals may be laudable, the actual doctrines (belief in Baha'u'llah as a fulfillment of world religious prophecy - and adherence to his teachings) are yet another set of doctrines in rising competition with other world religions. Hence division through doctrine.

This is an issue I was under the impression you were implying that Baha'i faith is firmly above - hence my pot and kettle comment.
 
I said:
I mean that you speak of unity over the divisions of humanity - yet the Baha'i perspective is yet another division of belief within humanity.

Whilst the ideals may be laudable, the actual doctrines (belief in Baha'u'llah as a fulfillment of world religious prophecy - and adherence to his teachings) are yet another set of doctrines in rising competition with other world religions. Hence division through doctrine.

This is an issue I was under the impression you were implying that Baha'i faith is firmly above - hence my pot and kettle comment.


I'm still trying to understand your comment Brian... Are you saying the unique features of the Baha'i revelation are devisive with other religions? If that's the case, then maybe you're not familiar with how Baha'is work with other religions toward comon goals.... Many of us serve on Inter-Faith Councils in the US and are very accepting of religious pluralism...

Internationally through non-governmnetal oragnizations the Baha'is have had an office working with other religions and issues for amny years and are usually represented at international conferences on women and the environment.

True we accept Baha'u'llah and the Bab...most of us came from other religions and have found a new way to accept each other through this...that is, former Moslems, Jews and Christians abandon their previous animosities when they become Baha'is.... In time I think the world will be seeking new ways to express spirituality without antagonising one another... that's the well spring of our Faith to seek ways people can find greater harmony and unity....

- Art
 
I was probably being a little pedantic and literal with my comments on division. In short, my argument was simply that of Baha'i being another ideology in competition with other ideologies. Essentially, increasing division.

But, really, I'd like to keep this thread focussed on the initial political question of One world Government.

Whereas, on the one hand, I do quite appreciate the potential for great good - especially where issues reach the national level (ie, handling future tensions between the USA and China, for example). However, politics itself remains a stamping ground for those with agendas to support other than those people they are elected to represent. My point being that a lot of corporate money helped push George W Bush into the presidency of the USA, and he has returned the favour in kind with various legislative moves.

With reducing that comment to a partisan political argument, the point of that statement is as much to say that it will the interests of the very rich - chiefly international corporate bodies - who could stand to gain the most from having a single source of world power to influence the decision making process of.

In short, a One World Government has great potential both ways - but it is the negative potential perhaps we should be most mindful of - thus be in a position to voice our concerns should such an adminstation ever come into being.

Hm, I feel like I'm rambling tonight. :) Been a busy day. :)
 
I said:
I mean that you speak of unity over the divisions of humanity - yet the Baha'i perspective is yet another division of belief within humanity.

Whilst the ideals may be laudable, the actual doctrines (belief in Baha'u'llah as a fulfillment of world religious prophecy - and adherence to his teachings) are yet another set of doctrines in rising competition with other world religions. Hence division through doctrine.

This is an issue I was under the impression you were implying that Baha'i faith is firmly above - hence my pot and kettle comment.
Dear Brian,

This all depends on your perspective. From an outside view it may appear as yet another division but from within the Baha'i Faith this is not the case. Baha'u'llah brought a unifying message. He has told us that all of these divisions are manmade, conceived by human error. God is One. There is no division in this reality. People fight what they do not understand. Hence divisions arise. But the message of Baha'u'llah is one that will ultimately serve to unify the various doctrines.

Over the past 160 years since the revelation of Baha'u'llah came into being. Many of the principals He expounded are becoming increasingly acknowledged among the masses. At the time when He taught these things such things were unheard of. People thought these things could/would never become reality. Slowly but surely various views are becoming reconciled. From within the Faith, Baha'i's recognize His unifying influence at work in the world. But I understand that it's almost impossible to recognize this looking from the outside, without the the benefit of the Baha'i framework to view through, it only looks like chaos upon chaos in the world.

Baha'i's only work toward unifying peoples views. We will not argue our point. We will share what we understand from our viewpoint and leave it at that. We are only human so at times some of us will get sucked into an argument, which does nothing to further our goal, but fortunately this is the exception and not the rule. Our ultimate goal is to help tear down the barriers that divide us.

As far as being in competition with other world religions, this is inaccurate since we are not competing with others, but helping others to see that all stem from the same source. Hence it is not a competition for us. Others may see it that way, since it is a struggle within themselves to detach from their own understandings. If it were a competition we would be saying ours is the best, leave yours behind. But we are saying all are equal in the sight of God, embrace them all, it does not seek to exalt itself over the others. It's only competitive to those who feel their religion is the right one and all others are inferior, it challenges their perceptions. It becomes a competition within their own selves.


Loving Greetings, Harmony

edit: oops, sorry, took too long to compose and didn't see your next post.
 
Concerns about multinational corps...

I said:
......

With reducing that comment to a partisan political argument, the point of that statement is as much to say that it will the interests of the very rich - chiefly international corporate bodies - who could stand to gain the most from having a single source of world power to influence the decision making process of.

In short, a One World Government has great potential both ways - but it is the negative potential perhaps we should be most mindful of - thus be in a position to voice our concerns should such an adminstation ever come into being.

Hm, I feel like I'm rambling tonight. :) Been a busy day. :)

Once again, as you know Brian, we Baha'is are strictly non-partisan w/regard to any comments about the current US administration.

But... I think one of your greatest fears is the interest or stake of large multi national corporations will likely influence a future world government perhaps....

Let me suggest though that probably the only thing that could "trump" a large international corporation might be international laws and standards enforced by a world government AND the enforcemnet of International Court rulings.

- Art
:)
 
I said:
Then we move forward to the modern era: where the President of the United States of America received the least amount of votes in a two horse race; his family ensures the courts back the loser, not the winner; he ensures the protection of the interests of the military-industrial complex to such a degree as to ensure that protected wilderness is dug up for oil, and that other nations should be conquered for their oil; that their policies will be sold to the US public through government reports dressed up as complimentary media reports; by a US government that has seen fit to undo the national economy for short-term gain; etc etc etc etc

I find myself sharing in equal parts your pessimism and Arthra's optimism. Perhaps one thing we can do instead of despairing is to consider what can be done now to improve democracy in governance.

Take the scenario above. One essential factor in that is the role of the electoral college---one of the arcane features of the American system which mystifies democrats in every other jurisdiction.

Because of the electoral college system, it didn't matter who got the most votes overall. It mattered who got the most votes in Florida. Why? Because whoever got the most votes in Florida got all the electoral votes from that state.

Now the shenanigans of the Florida vote aside, my question is: why does one candidate get ALL the electoral votes of any state.

I remember asking Americans about that just after the election. I know the electoral college itself is in the constitution, so the most sensible step: elect the President by direct popular vote--is not in the cards.

But what does the constitution say about the distribution of state electoral college votes? From what I heard, it says nothing. It does not say 100% of a state's votes must go to one candidate.

That's just tradition, not law.

Now consider what the outcome of the election would have been if each state divided its electoral votes among the candidates in proportion to the popular vote in that state. Since Florida's vote was so close, its votes would have gone more or less equally to both candidates, and its influence would be minimal instead of all-important.

That, apparently, is something that can be done without changing the constitution. And while it is not a direct popular vote, it is a lot closer to it, and would be a fairer representation of the actual will of the American people, than the current system.

Of course, that still doesn't speak to the problem of politicians being in bed with the big corporations, but one step at a time......
 
Dollars vs. Morals

arthra said:
Let me suggest though that probably the only thing that could "trump" a large international corporation might be international laws and standards enforced by a world government AND the enforcemnet of International Court rulings.

All I can say to that is no way, Art. Multinational corporations are and always have been above the law, whether because they avoid it through loopholes, buy it, or in some cases are it. You are right insofar as international laws and courts would hinder their actions, just as trees hinder erosion-- hinder it, but don't make it impossible.

Companies grow in proportion to their market: local, then national, then multinational, and finally global as in the case of Coca Cola. You think multinationals are powerful now?? Wait until they expand to fill a truly global niche by merging and buying each other out like Microsoft, but on a global scale. Even better, wait until they organize themselves horizontally like labour unions, uniting themselves to lobby for amendments to these international laws you spoke about.

I have listened to many people speak about a bright and glorious future built by the hands of human beings. To me this idealism is akin to sitting in front of a lemon tree and waiting for mangoes to grow on it: it's a nice thought, but there is absolutely no precedent to make me think it will ever happen. Take a good long look at history and remember that throughout all of the tragedies and bleak times in our past there were people who believed that peace was right around the corner.
 
Marsh said:
All I can say to that is no way, Art. Multinational corporations are and always have been above the law, whether because they avoid it through loopholes, buy it, or in some cases are it.

You're right of course, because presently there is no truly effective international law to govern international corporations. The biggest loophole, if anything, is the lack of a system of standard global business law and a global branch that can enforce this law. The most that can happen now is that representatives of different countries agree on a ruling in a specific incident, and that is rare.


You are right insofar as international laws and courts would hinder their actions, just as trees hinder erosion-- hinder it, but don't make it impossible.

So your lamentation is that there will always be corruption involved in business, especially big business? That's very likely, though as long as ethical abuses continue there will be resistance against them.


Even better, wait until they organize themselves horizontally like labour unions, uniting themselves to lobby for amendments to these international laws you spoke about.

Such things already happen on a smaller scale, especially where there are government subsidies involved. The important thing, then, is to make sure others outside such horizontal organizations have a voice too, and that talks leading to amendments are not conducted behind closed doors.


I have listened to many people speak about a bright and glorious future built by the hands of human beings. .... it's a nice thought, but there is absolutely no precedent to make me think it will ever happen.

Progress does not happen by relying on precedents. Progress happens by creating them.

QG
 
Back
Top