Questions on One-World Governance.

[vision]

Manual split from here.

The mechanics of a one-wold government would take years of research and experimentation in order to create a working system. I don't have any illusion of showing you this. It is clearly beyond my limited faculties and would need to be a long-lasting community effort, as it should be. But before the mechanics can even be addressed, important questions need to be asked. Depending in their answers, we can see how necessary or beneficial a one-world government is. The following are some of the questions I think should be asked. I envision a one-world government as a complex, layered system and I've spent the last few days trying to peel back those layers. What I hope to reach is a foundation to build upon. Obviously, a few days is hardly enough time to consider such a monumental thing and much less time than great thinkers have spent on the subject. Nevertheless, I see this is a fun and interesting exercise and welcome others to help me search for the important questions (not the answers; we'll get to those later).


Can it be said convincingly that everything touches everything else and what happens to people in one region affect not only their neighbors, but possibly the entire world? I believe this to be a self-evident. There are clearly some things that have global consequences, like nuclear disasters and economic meltdowns. Is it in the best interest of all to discover the most serious threats to well-being and work together to avoid them?

Are there currently threats to the world that demand action to avoid immense loss of life and suffering? I think the most important condition for life is clean air and water. Are we at risk of spoiling our world to the point where quality and quantity of life is expected to drop dramatically?

What are things government does well, generally? Can these things be scaled up and used to meet global needs? Is it possible to meet global needs without creating an inclusive framework for problem solving, thus reducing the need for a type of global governance?

If we were to ask every country “do you think there a global problems that need attention, and if so, what would they be?” could we find a consensus? Given that we do find a consensus, wouldn't it be beneficial to form a global alliance to address only what is agreed upon? Do successful models of such an alliance already exist?

It's understood that any global problem will likely be deeply tied to economics and changing anything would send waves through markets everywhere. But given that a global need is identified and all agree for change, mustn't the sacrifice be made regardless? Isn't it usually in the case that change isn't being made because of economics, but not making the change sets up an even greater economic pitfall later?


Again, I'm not looking for answers, but I'm sure some of you can't contain yourselves. I would prefer if you modified and/or added questions of your own. It would be nice to dig deep and see if we can reduce the number of questions and come up with something fundamental, something that says “based on the answer to these few questions the need for a one-world government should be obvious,” whether the answer is yes or no.

[Tunnelcat]

We can't even get along with the 2 party system we have here we're so polarized. Europe is the same way, they don't like each other enough between countries to even agree on monetary policy and debt. The Brits don't even like the Euro, the supposed common money of the European Union. How do you suppose that the entire world could come to agreement on one type of governance that wields the power over all if no one can even agree on monetary policy, let alone resource distribution and military issues?

Socialistic countries that are happy with the way they live would definitely not like pure Capitalism. Capitalistic countries like our own would throw conniptions over the very idea of pure Socialism running things here. Islamic countries would never share power with Christian countries, etc., etc. Get the idea of the problem? We as a species are too involved with our own tribes to let someONE entity or power run the entire world.

[vision]

I get the distinct feeling you didn't even read the original post, haha. Oh well.

[roid]

i question whether any extra "governance" is required, beyond what already exists in the state or national model. ie: why change anything, doesn't the current system work well enough?

The whole notion of a global government seems to be ... like all governments... to maintain order/safety (already done by nations, mostly satisfactorily) and managing common resources (again, done by nations mostly satisfactorily).
So i guess the question is: Do nations generally maintain order/safety and manage both their and collective global resources satisfactory?

The current idea on howto solve the global climate change problem (it concerning a collective global resource) is to manipulate the economics by getting each nation to locally tax the production of greenhouse gases. Seems reasonable to me. Certainly seems a better idea than preventing climate change BY FORCE.
So to perhaps put this into more of an open question form: What is the best way of changing our current system to reduce the output of greenhouse gases?

I'd also like to add in another question:
Since many governance problems are basically just problems of scarce resources (ie: water, arable land, living area), would it not be apt to expand to new frontiers? ie: space.

[Tunnelcat]

I get the distinct feeling you didn't even read the original post, haha. Oh well.

Sorry vision. As good of an idea as a single world government might be, I just can't see how we could get a functioning world government in place when a large majority hate the one we have in this country so much.

[vision]

Sorry vision. As good of an idea as a single world government might be, I just can't see how we could get a functioning world government in place when a large majority hate the one we have in this country so much.

I think the word government is a problem for people. It doesn't really have to be modeled after anything we have right now; it could be a completely new type of system. I like what roid said in that other thread about efficiency and diversity. It's possible this "one-world government" could work more like a special treaty than a sitting bureaucratic agency. Something where countries come together to solve global problems for the duration the problems exist, then dissolve the system until later. I know this has been tried on the climate change front without success, but that's not to say a variation wouldn't work. It's not easy topic, but we shouldn't give up looking for an answer.

I don't believe our US government is totally inept. Our population isn't starving, there aren't widespread riots, most people have water and electricity and roads. We are obviously doing some things right even with the massive corruption. Think positive. Maybe there is something we're already familiar with here that no one's thought to apply to a global situation.

I also want to add the question, "if economic incentives are the most effective way to produce change (and it seems like they are), is it possible collaboration between global financial institutions can move things in a better direction without the need to form a one-world government?" Is there a way for these financial leaders be elected and impeached though a global democracy (something like the UN)? Note: I have no idea what I'm talking about right here.

[flip]

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Source

[flip]

I posted the link above to make a point about the mindset of those who pushed for world government before it was ok to talk about it . Why keep it hidden? If it's such a great and wonderful idea, why keep your actions hid? I myself just see it as a way of those who ended up in power, to establish and secure that power for generations to come. Not for ideals or the common good, but just because if somebody is gonna be in charge, I'd rather it was me

[vision]

If it's such a great and wonderful idea, why keep your actions hid?

Agreed! There is no way we can have high-level global unity unless everyone can be involved. It has to be voluntary and inclusive.

[Tunnelcat]

Wanna know what might bring the world together into one government? Think of the movie Independence Day and alien invasion. It would have to be a huge, world-involving catastrophe or global threat that finally gets humans to band together and work for the survival of our species, maybe.......

[Sergeant Thorne]

For the survival of our species? You don't get how bad it is, I'm afraid. There are "doomsday" bunkers that have been built, and it ain't for the survival of our species, it's so that the wealthy people who built them will be preserved while we perish, because there is no threat outside of Hollywood so great or so not-manufactured-by-these-bastards-in-the-first-place that they need any of US to live through it, when they can instead wait for the population to die off (or to naturally check itself, in deference to callmeslick) so they can enjoy more resources and land. This idea is purely fantasy. There is nothing threatening us that threatens the powers-that-be equally. The only thing that threatens them is when you know what the ★■◆● is actually going on behind all of the official-speak and laws they pass.

[roid]

The "form a government only for a specific purpose as needed, then dissolve it after" thing seems to be based on rather Anarchistic principles, if that helps.

I also want to add the question, "if economic incentives are the most effective way to produce change (and it seems like they are), is it possible collaboration between global financial institutions can move things in a better direction without the need to form a one-world government?" Is there a way for these financial leaders be elected and impeached though a global democracy (something like the UN)? Note: I have no idea what I'm talking about right here.

Political financial leaders are generally accountable to their electorate (ie: state or nation). AFAIK corporate leaders tend to be accountable to their boards and shareholders, and the corporation itself is accountable to local governments. These things can be manipulated in our favour, particularly via PR. Often corporations will opt to scape-goat a board member for PR reasons, but it's even better when an insider can give a local government the evidence it needs to gain warrants for paperwork seizures - & bring down a whole serving board.

[Tunnelcat]

For the survival of our species? You don't get how bad it is, I'm afraid. There are "doomsday" bunkers that have been built, and it ain't for the survival of our species, it's so that the wealthy people who built them will be preserved while we perish, because there is no threat outside of Hollywood so great or so not-manufactured-by-these-bastards-in-the-first-place that they need any of US to live through it, when they can instead wait for the population to die off (or to naturally check itself, in deference to callmeslick) so they can enjoy more resources and land. This idea is purely fantasy. There is nothing threatening us that threatens the powers-that-be equally. The only thing that threatens them is when you know what the **** is actually going on behind all of the official-speak and laws they pass.

We won't know unless an invasion were to actually occur. Nothing is impossible, including the existence of some space-borne species that may decide someday we're ripe for the picking. But it was only an example of something that perhaps may bring about a compelling reason for a world government to be formed. However, roid pretty much summed up our human nature. We would all just go out as little groups or individuals to protect ourselves instead of banding together for survival of everyone on the planet anyway.

[roid]

However, roid pretty much summed up our human nature. We would all just go out as little groups or individuals to protect ourselves instead of banding together for survival of everyone on the planet anyway.

Oh spreading us thin isn't a necessity - sorry if i gave that impression. Groups don't have to be small, there could be millions of people on a single starship, or halo/orbital/ringworld. I just want more humans, an easy way to do that responsibly is to launch ourselves beyond the physical constraints of our planet. I mean what if our planet gets hit by a comet? BOOM. All our eggs are currently in one basket, it makes me nervous.
I just want less physical constraints on our species. The planet is a big constraint, we're stuck in a box of limited size atm.

I mention spreading ourselves thin in space more because it would be a tempting consequence of having so much physical space and resources. I mean if you asked city dwellers if they could have acres of land, they'd probably be like "yeah that's a nice dream, too bad we're landlocked here in this 2 dimensional city though".
Think of what it'd be like if there was still undiscovered country on our planet? There'd be such pioneering, my goodness the pioneering. It's hard to resist.
SPAAAAAACE

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think you lost your mind a bit in the first paragraph, there, Roid, but you certainly have a point with the second.

Think of what it'd be like if there was still undiscovered country on our planet? There'd be such pioneering, my goodness the pioneering. It's hard to resist.

A very interesting thought. And certainly true. You adequately capture what it would be like to have undiscovered/unoccupied territory--it'd be great! And then you refer to "space"... Don't the difficulties of surviving outside of this oasis in the universe, whether in the harshness of space or the almost equal harshness of another planet more than counter the tendency to pioneer, in reality? Except in such matters as the space program, of course, in which a monumental effort is exchanged for a minuscule, albeit very unique return. The Earth has been created to be so incredibly accommodating, in many ways, despite the need to take various basic precautions (shelter, food storage, ...). The difference is like having a choice between a bubbling fountain and a 20' straw 1/8" in diameter--sure you can drink from the straw, but it takes so much effort you probably won't go out of your way. A community would only begin to form around the straw when access to the fountain is made more difficult than drinking from that little damn straw (like you have to walk 50 miles to get to the fountain). In the interest of being open-minded, I await your answer, but I think your dreams are utterly disassociated from any semblance of reality, and what of that?

[roid]

Yeah space is not a very comfortable proposition atm, we'd need technological developments to help it be a more comfortable existence. They'll come though.
Compare the very first bicycles with the comfort of a modern car.

Hmm, fountain/straw analogy.... It's like one bubbling fountain compared to infinite straws. There's lots of possible goals:
Use the straws to search for more bubbling fountains, or maybe just fountains that aren't bubbling that we can jerry-rig to bubble nicely (ie: terraforming).
Make those straws INTO bubbling fountains, some of them can even be wheeled. Upgrades to our straw technology will be inevitable. It'd be a nice upgrade if we could leave our bubbling fountain and malarkay around in WHEELED bubbling fountains.
Make more straws/wheeled-bubbling-fountains with the resources we find. Expanding towards that infinite horizon.

Space based mining is an exciting prospect, opening many doors. Increased automation is another door opener, but unfortunately as a society we always seem to be overestimating it's speed of development though. (sophisticated A.I. has been continually 10 years away for how many decades now? lol)