{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Mister Sparkles :
12/17/2013 7:26:33 PM
35
World Government
It seems inevitable that we should eventually reach the stage of a single, worldwide government. Or failing that, a regression back to a WWI-esque alliance system, without the inordinate hostility.
If it is a world government, or at the least some sort of Euro-American government, which comes to fruition, it seems like the [i]only[/i] option is for it to be authoritarian and fundamentally anti-liberty. It may be the case that a government is established on the principles of civil libertarianism, social equality and economic freedom, but how likely is it that it will continue like this? Just look at the U.S.; even without capitalism as an influence, the State is an institution and it is always in the interest of such institutions to consolidate power and reinforce authority.
Of course, there could be solution to this. Anarcho-communism being one, and while it might work at first, I can't see it being sustainable for any decent period of time. There are far too many operations of social control and efficiency that require a State. Also, one idea that came to mind while thinking about it is to have the State as a [i]function[/i] of society, instead of an institution. It's difficult to explain, but fundamentally it relies on the idea of the government not being an entity, but a process from which everything is formed. The obvious issues here being that some sort of socialist economy, likely syndicalism, would be necessary, and that the government would be both legislatively and executively weak.
It seems the problems with political beliefs is that they assume there is a solution to the dissatisfaction and problems we face.
[b]TL;DR: A world government, or united "western" government, seems inevitable. However, it also seems the only way for this to be effective is for it to be authoritarian. [/b]
-
[i] [/i]
-
A world government can't represent it's subjects properly. So that would be kind of bad.
-
1 ReplyWhat makes you think it's inevitable? You really think that all countries in the world would make 1 government?
-
Edited by The Deputy: 12/28/2013 5:29:41 PM[quote]It seems inevitable that we should eventually reach the stage of a single, worldwide government.[/quote] Lol-worthy. Too many conflicting people on this earth for there to be a One-Earth Gov. Even if it does, by miraculous divine intervention, happen, then there will be rebels opposed to it. This topic is broke. Edit: realized this thread was made like a week ago *shrug*
-
3 RepliesI've played enough Civ V to know that an authoritarian government that takes over half the map can't sustain itself.
-
Actually, an alliance between a world banking group and a world military could work, with minimal interactions in local governments until it came to disputes or unfair/inhumane policies. Throw in some control over education and make sure that no one group of people are left isolated from others and discrimination will drop significantly. Maybe a crisis here and there to encourage teamwork.
-
21 RepliesWe will never progress as long as we have government.
-
9 Repliesworld wide implementation of socialist democracy. capitalist economy, effective property rights, and effective defense of personal rights and freedoms, and well as excellent welfare policies, examples are the nordic states, commonly referred to as the "best run governments in the world"
-
1 ReplyI would literally fight to stop a world government
-
1 ReplyGlobal absolute monarchy pl0x
-
1 ReplySocieties are too jealous of their independence. It would take an enormous crisis for a OWG to be a possibility.
-
12 RepliesEdited by cxkxr: 12/17/2013 12:57:40 AMWell, first and foremost, a western united govt is essentially already established, which is self-evident(at least to me) of the inevitability that said govt's will collaborate to consolidate more power over more territory in the name of "security" and "peace"(and said power will, without a doubt, be abused). Before I start, I'd agree that an [i]attempt[/i] for world govt is inevitable, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're doomed for such a civilization. I think we need to avoid the notion that a small group of elites can govern the world all together, and push for a more individualistic civilization instead. The only solution I can think of is economic and educational. Capitalism and [i]free[/i] markets where people can compete equally without govt coercion or intervention. Education, being the idea/principles of liberty needs to be taught to our children more adamantly, and what it takes to maintain freedom, and what responsibilities and morals one needs to uphold to thrive in a free society(and no more nanny state indoctrination!). Also as a footnote: Faith + virtue are crucial to free civilization, laws are NOT enough. Above education, morality is most important IMO. Now, the globalists have an easier argument to make bc they justify a one world govt thru force and perceived time the problems of the world can be solved(which is [i]never[/i] with their approach). My ideas, however, are not so appealing bc it's not easy, simple, but not easy, but doable. The ONLY way freedom can reign over all nations, is if we restore the USA back to it's glory of free markets and liberty and strong morals. I[b]f we manage to do that, innovation and prosperity will soon follow(again) and hopefully(more than likely) we can persuade other countries to adopt our methodology by [i]example[/i], voluntarily[/b](not thru military might). The US is literally the last stand on Earth for humanity to achieve freedom from authoritarian govt. I've sent to you a video lecture from former KGB agent Yuri Besmenov a while ago... I recommend you check that out if you haven't already. You'll get mass revelations from his talk.
-
Well... no shit.
-
2 RepliesEdited by Diplomat: 12/27/2013 7:01:14 PM>It seems inevitable that we should eventually reach the stage of a single, worldwide government. I disagree; at least for now, national, ethnic and religious divides are far too volatile to allow for a singular government to arise in the near future. It will be a LONG, LONG time before the world reaches the cultural homogeneity to allow for a united Earth government to arise. There might be certain events that expedite the progress, such as extraterrestrial contact that forms new perceptions of self and group (i.e. instead of Tom the American, it's Tom the Human). The idea of the "End of History" has been touted for quite some time, since the early 90s. It's actually affiliated with the rise of neoconservatism. >If it is a world government, or at the least some sort of Euro-American government, which comes to fruition, it seems like the only option is for it to be authoritarian and fundamentally anti-liberty. Why? You're saying this without offering any sort of substantial logical foundation for your position. Is it because of intergroup tensions? Historically, these have been managed by an authoritarian government, such as Saddam's Baathist government keeping a lid on sectarian tensions in Iraq. >Also, one idea that came to mind while thinking about it is to have the State as a function of society, instead of an institution. Are the two really mutually exclusive? An institution is an organization that executes a function. Police provide security, hospitals provide care, and airlines provide transport. There needs to be an entity that directs the flow of work in a meaningful fashion for society to function properly.
-
1 ReplyI can never tell if these are actually ideas or just new words. Because you never explain it beyond just the word. Like when you talk about what would replace a government in anarcho-communism, you say syndicates some shit like that. But you never explain the difference other than the fact you came up with a new word to parade around. [quote]There are far to many[/quote]*too
-
3 RepliesSo it would just be authoritarian and restrictive because "well duh all governments are"? Well, that sounds reasonable.
-
2 RepliesI don't like reading...
-
2 RepliesQuit spamming these political threads already.
-
1 ReplyAs long as countries like Russia and China exists it won't happen.
-
8 RepliesEdited by faunidae: 12/16/2013 10:35:33 PMGo read[i]1984[/i]. Not a good idea.
-
8 RepliesSuper advanced AI will rule the world government, with justice and logic.
-
1 ReplySo people who are in power can get more power. Yeah.....
-
21 Replies[quote]However, it also seems the only way for this to be effective is for it to be authoritarian. [/quote] Screw that, having an authoritarian government or a one world government both sound awful. Why the Hell would I want both?!
-
How About no
-
1 Reply[i] [/i]
-
Screw that noise, too much room for oppression.
