A One World Govt.

[jewscout]

the UN thread brought up an interesting question...

would a One World Govt. be better? the UN is completely inept, mostly because it has no power...if it did have power, especially militarily...would that be a better situation? How long before that power was used to make the UN the govt. of the world, imposing it's rule on others? Or would that be a problem at all?


IMPO the only way a One World Govt. could function with any kind of control or power would be through heavy handed means, oppression, and military control.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If I am dictator for life, I can't see how it could go wrong.

 

[Mystic-als]

I don't think they would have to be as heavy handed as you might think. They would only have to do it a few times and then I think some countries would learn. I think it is a bigger probem for the richer countries than the poorer ones.
Africa might love it and Europe might hate it.
But it would be a whole lot of fun.
So I'm for it.

 

[jewscout]

I don't think they would have to be as heavy handed as you might think. They would only have to do it a few times and then I think some countries would learn. I think it is a bigger probem for the richer countries than the poorer ones.
Africa might love it and Europe might hate it.
But it would be a whole lot of fun.
So I'm for it.

i fail to see how World War 3...which is what would happen...could be any fun.

I don't think you give some countries enough credit for resistance. Basically this OWG would have to level most of the powerful countries to the ground in order to subdue them, and then deal with years of resistance and rebellion around the world. Basically it would be a global police state.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i fail to see how World War 3...which is what would happen...could be any fun.

I don't think you give some countries enough credit for resistance. Basically this OWG would have to level most of the powerful countries to the ground in order to subdue them, and then deal with years of resistance and rebellion around the world. Basically it would be a global police state.

With de facto no liberty.

God forbid.

 

[Valjean]

Clearly instituting a functional world government is not a simple task, and, as with all governments, there is the potential for abuse and tyranny. But the potential advantages are tremendous.
I see it as a noble goal; worth working toward.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Clearly instituting a functional world government is not a simple task, and, as with all governments, there is the potential for abuse and tyranny. But the potential advantages are tremendous.
I see it as a noble goal; worth working toward.

A one world-government would be the worst tyranny the world has ever seen. How could there be anything but abuse without liberty?

A noble goal is peace between free governments.

 

[almifkhar]

seems to me that this would be a very bad idea for us masses world wide, but a swell idea for top dogs. oh the corruption

 

[Fluffy]

I truly hope for a worldwide government. It would indeed be far far superior to nation states since global resources could be allocated to where they were needed and people in richer areas would be forced to take note of their poorer neighbours.

It would not get rid of war since there would simply be more terrorism but I think, on the whole, global conflict would go down. For starters nuclear stockpiles could be destroyed since they are no use against terrorists.

I do not like decentralised governments. I feel that certain things need to be enforced worldwide whilst smaller domestic issues could be allocated to local authorities.

I'd love to live to be able to see it but I don't think I will somehow. Perhaps the very beginnings.

 

[jewscout]

I truly hope for a worldwide government. It would indeed be far far superior to nation states since global resources could be allocated to where they were needed and people in richer areas would be forced to take note of their poorer neighbours.

what makes you think this will be the case? Because we'll all be part of one big government? people within countries that have poor don't care about their own poor, why would they start caring about the poor on the other side of the planet???

again the only way said resources will be allocated evenly would be to FORCE such a thing to happen.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

IMPO the only way a One World Govt. could function with any kind of control or power would be through heavy handed means, oppression, and military control.

It would have to use that in some places but I imagine for the most part it would also have to use ingenious & insidious propagandha. That has the advantage of not upsetting people in the same way as stomping on their face does. No nerve endings in the brain!

I truly hope for a worldwide government. It would indeed be far far superior to nation states since global resources could be allocated to where they were needed and people in richer areas would be forced to take note of their poorer neighbours.

For a minute I thought you were talking about some sci fi novel about an alien planet I hope too, that some things will happen to dramatically shift the direction civilisation has been going in for the last few millenia so this place really does begin to resemble an alien planet. Our progress is now killing us. Judging by even our best current standards I don't expect a worldwide government to do anything but accelerate that process.

 

[jewscout]

It would have to use that in some places but I imagine for the most part it would also have to use ingenious & insidious propagandha. That has the advantage of not upsetting people in the same way as stomping on their face does. No nerve endings in the brain!

ah yes, brainwashing and conditioning...how could i have forgotten...

 

[Faint]

would a One World Govt. be better? the UN is completely inept, mostly because it has no power...if it did have power, especially militarily...would that be a better situation? How long before that power was used to make the UN the govt. of the world, imposing it's rule on others? Or would that be a problem at all?

No, I don't think it would be a problem...if set up properly. Some people have this crazy impression that a powerful government is corrupt by nature. This is not necessarily the case. The U.S. has tremendous power in the world (and the case could probably be made that we already control the world...imperialism and pax americana), yet despite corrupt leaders, our country benefits a great deal from that power. As a citizen of this nation, I undeniably have a great deal of freedom. I don't have complete freedom--but complete freedom would not work in any kind of civilized society where emotionally driven human beings are concerned. Moreover, the power of the U.S. also benefits our allies. When people team up, they tend to work with each other better. Of course they still argue, but at least they argue for the good of the group, rather than themself as an individual [nation]. Consider how long it's been since the U.S. has gone to war with the UK. We're partners now...and it serves both of us well. Now multiply that times X number of countries. With mankind united "nothing will be withholden from them" n'est pas?

IMPO the only way a One World Govt. could function with any kind of control or power would be through heavy handed means, oppression, and military control.

I think you're underestimating the memetic power of media and psy-ops...especially on the uneducated masses that seem to make-up the majority of the countries we will be controlling.

ah yes, brainwashing and conditioning...how could i have forgotten...

That's actually kind of funny coming from a theist. But yes, conditioning or persuasive tactics would play a major role in getting the world to accept it.

Regardless, we're moving in this direction. Some will resist of course, although reasons will vary (we'd have the "I don't want my tax dollars paying for those poor africans" vs. "it's the coming of the antichrist" etc.) Still, I wouldn't condemn the idea until you consider more of the benefits.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We are already under a new world order:

All hail Microsoft!

 

[!Fluffy!]

So I'll just throw this out there for anyone who thinks the idea of OWO is a good one: In your opinion, would such a body have prevented the Israel/Lebanon situation? When there are groups of people in close proximity geographically who hate each other, what would the response be.

 

[Faint]

So I'll just throw this out there for anyone who thinks the idea of OWO is a good one: In your opinion, would such a body have prevented the Israel/Lebanon situation? When there are groups of people in close proximity geographically who hate each other, what would the response be.

Psy-ops. In order to unite enemies, you give them both a common enemy. People bond very quickly when this is accomplished. So yes, it could have been prevented.

Now consider this: how does a nation argue about who owns a landmark (like Jerusalem) when they are part of the same nation? Do US states argue about who has a right to possess the Statue of Liberty? No. We are united, and we share the historic symbol...even though many of us value it differently and have different views of what liberty is/should be.

Also, no doubt you will admit that there are many groups of people in the US (probably in every country) who live "in close proximity geographically who hate each other". What do you do? You let them be, maybe try to mediate their differences with courts. If they become violent and can't play nice with each other, you arrest them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Psy-ops. In order to unite enemies, you give them both a common enemy. People bond very quickly when this is accomplished. So yes, it could have been prevented.

So they should just be killing someone else?!

 

[Faint]

So they should just be killing someone else?!

The enemy doesn't need to be human...it needs only play on their fears (or desires). Depending on how clever the One World Nation's think-tanks are, the enemy could become something as common as a fear of being seen as poor, or being seen as inadequate--so then everyone puts their energy into working more to afford status symbols and capitalist/consumer products that they don't really need. Or, you take advantage of youth's natural tendency to rebel against their parents by shaping said youth's mentality with a Middle East version of MTV, so they become more concerned with music videos and trendy pop stars than politics. Make TV shows that show racism to be passe, to show prejudice of Jews/Palestinians/Lebanese etc. to be something that only the goofy idiot characters (or the villians) agree with. Lampoon it. Added bonus...the old, prejudiced generations die out taking their prejudice with them. This works! Think of how in the states blacks used to be treated compared to how they are today. Obviously things will be shaky and violent at first--there will be clashes with the OWN authorities, but in the long run the OWN will likely benefit everyone.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Psy-ops. In order to unite enemies, you give them both a common enemy. People bond very quickly when this is accomplished. So yes, it could have been prevented.

Now consider this: how does a nation argue about who owns a landmark (like Jerusalem) when they are part of the same nation? Do US states argue about who has a right to possess the Statue of Liberty? No. We are united, and we share the historic symbol...even though many of us value it differently and have different views of what liberty is/should be.

Also, no doubt you will admit that there are many groups of people in the US (probably in every country) who live "in close proximity geographically who hate each other". What do you do? You let them be, maybe try to mediate their differences with courts. If they become violent and can't play nice with each other, you arrest them.

As to Psy-Ops I agree to an extent. I was fascinated by the idea of a new kind of war presented in "The Changing Face of War: 4th Generation Warfare" http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm
-- (written in 1989 and if the powers that be had paid any attention at all could have saved us a lot of pain).

But anyway in your scenario who would be in charge of deciding who the common enemy should be. Would it be an ideology, a people, or what?

As for the idea of how to go about creating a OWG -- I'm afraid I'd have to say Hitler had his way, Khomeini had his way, and we sure didn't like either of them. It would be very difficult and I'm with others here in thinking it would involve bloodshed.

 

[!Fluffy!]

The enemy doesn't need to be human...it needs only play on their fears (or desires). Depending on how clever the One World Nation's think-tanks are, the enemy could become something as common as a fear of being seen as poor, or being seen as inadequate--so then everyone puts their energy into working more to afford status symbols and capitalist/consumer products that they don't really need. Or, you take advantage of youth's natural tendency to rebel against their parents by shaping said youth's mentality with a Middle East version of MTV, so they become more concerned with music videos and trendy pop stars than politics. Make TV shows that show racism to be passe, to show prejudice of Jews/Palestinians/Lebanese etc. to be something that only the goofy idiot characters (or the villians) agree with. Lampoon it. Added bonus...the old, prejudiced generations die out taking their prejudice with them. This works! Think of how in the states blacks used to be treated compared to how they are today. Obviously things will be shaky and violent at first--there will be clashes with the OWN authorities, but in the long run the OWN will likely benefit everyone.

Looks like we crossed posts there, sorry. That's an excellent post and I like your ideas a lot.