Are we heading for a World Government in say 20 years? The signs are sure there. Europe as a Union, North America as one (NAFTA and all), South America working on ABC (Argentina, Brazil, Chile). What do you think?

Twenty years may be a little soon to dissolve national cohesive factors that make a nation a nation. There are very few countries that are only 20 years old and most of them are third world and lack the stability of the larger nations. To this effect another member from the UK made a post today.

Prehaps the correct question would not be by time limit but when. Will it go that way. I'm sure it will. There are to many driving factors pushing it that way. But governments are conservative. As such they will resist any erroding of their soverneign rights on what takes place within their borders and how the world at large precieves them as a country in their own right.

It already is a world government. owned by big business and allowed to run by the politicians and governments who have been paid enough to allow it to happen. Pity we won't be able to keep our cultures. Everyone very soon will have Pepsi tatoos on their foreheads and intel chips in their hearts.....

Unlikely, I

Sorry I prematurely sent that one...

As I was going to say, I don't believe we'll every be a world government, see: "Could the European Union become a supercountry?" I think that will better explain some of the one world government BS.

First about the UN, EU, and NAFTA. The EU for now, and defiantly NAFTA are STRICTLY free-trade alliances. You'll never see an integrated US, CANADIAN, MEXICAN military force. For America is too far ahead, and has its own foreign policy goals to reach. The EU I'm a little bit more worried about, with a united currency, and talks of their own military this could become a continental European state. I hope not.

The UN for that fact isn't a front for the One World Government, this is to work out problems primarily between first-world governments, and to create a communications link between the first and third-world. Not worried about the UN. Plus lately the US has been vehemently pulling away from the UN, at this rate by 2011, we'll be out of it. I hope that doesn't happen.

I commented about Isolationist America, in "BUSH PISSES ME OFF", which is inside this forum.

You can delete your premature post unlike other premature stuff....

Whats my premature post about?
:confused:

Originally posted by thecurly1
The EU I'm a little bit more worried about, with a united currency, and talks of their own military this could become a continental European state. I hope not.

Why not thecurly1? Why would you object to a continental European state?

Originally posted by thecurly1
Whats my premature post about?
:confused:

Please read your posts on this topic. You can edit and/or delete any of your posts anytime. Thanks

Biggles, YES I WOULD OBJECT.

Eventhough I'm an American, we don't need to have over twenty-coutntries united under one hand to create a superstate. Without the checks and balances of other nations watching eachother you could get a way with a lot of bad things.

Hitler tried to create a united Europe, and the Soviets wanted a united Europe. After 100s of years of fighting to have their countires seperate why would the Europeans give themselves away easily if indeed they try to create a contental Europe.

Bobby Lee:

There is a book out there on the very subject with a title something like the rise and fall of American Civilization. I have not read it. It is possible. There is a factor that prevents from such fall in case of America, which can not be said for other countries.

That factor is 'immigration'. We drain the best minds (some times crooks) of the world for a common purpose. So there is always fresh blood to point us in the right direction. When we stop doing that, witihn a few generations we probably will go down too.

Originally posted by thecurly1
Without the checks and balances of other nations watching eachother you could get a way with a lot of bad things.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that a European super-state (or World Government!) would be susseptable to corruption?



Hitler tried to create a united Europe, and the Soviets wanted a united Europe. After 100s of years of fighting to have their countires seperate why would the Europeans give themselves away easily if indeed they try to create a contental Europe.

Yes, in essence. I think the German attitude has always been one of unification, either by means of military force or, as it is now, political. The German government are now the driving force behind Europe, not to mention the most affluent (much to the disgust to the Brits, but fortunately our rivalry is kept to the soccer pitch nowadays!).

However I disagree with your comment that the European member states have "given themselves away easily". The political discussions on the formation of a trading union and ultimately a federal superstate, such as your own, have been ongoing for decades.

Anyway this discussion is taking place on a different thread. Thanks for your response thecurly1.;)

"Even though I'm an American, we don't need to have over twenty-countries united under one hand to create a superstate."
We, the United States, have a larger land mass, forty eight states, plus Alaska and Hawaii. The one advantage we have is not having Europe's history and a greater homogeneity.

And, we are a 'superstate' thanks to our greater resources.

All I'm saying is that the more countries there are, with different objectives, and militaries, other countries would have a harder time picking on their citizens or those of others nations. I still don't like the idea of a Continental Europe.

Originally posted by thecurly1
All I'm saying is that the more countries there are, with different objectives, and militaries, other countries would have a harder time picking on their citizens or those of others nations.

Sorry thecurly1, but why is that a bad thing?

And Chagur, why is not having a history an advantage to the USA. If England & Germany can bury the hatchet, where's the problem? I thought the one things American's really lacked is history.

I'll be back in an week, unscribing to all threads. I've got a problem I need to work out.

I'll see you all in a while.

But the sense I meant it in was that European history has been one of almost constant bickering and warring ... with all the baggage and animosity that it creates. Remember, we have only had one war between the States in over two hundred years.

How many has Europe experienced in the same period?

And though it has been often thrown in our face that we are crude colonials without a history and unsophisticated, I think it is more of a strength than a weakness since it leaves us with fewer 'bones to pick'.

As to England and Germany burying the hatchet ... all too often it has been in each other's back ... with France standing aside and looking on (Vichy France for example).

I think a world government is an absolutely horrible idea and hope very much it never comes to pass. I very much doubt it will, unless human beings are all truly foolish enough to completely forget history. There will always be at least some resistance to it by the less brainwashed among us.

Lisa:

welcome to sciforums. If you like watching Startrek, they assumed we have a world government, more like interplanetary government.

Whether you like it or not, as multinational corporations cover the globe and people travel for business or pleasure, business processes within various government and business will gradually change to accomodate an wide audience.

And that is basically the start of the world government. And it is already under way. Today, if you cross US into Canada, you can do your daily stuff without feeling, you are in an alien state. Even though there is a full separation of the two governments, if it is basically the same, in my book, it is one society and someday one government.

You say that a world government is underway and then you cite businesses - that's not a world government - that's business. A world government is more like what the UN engages in.

Big businesses are like "little" governments that control their little portion of the world. Inside their world you play by their rules. Nevertheless, they are NOT government in that they cannot control individuals outside of their borders with GUNS. That's really the difference between government and business. Big government has the ability to control individuals with guns.

Think about it - would you like a WORLD government deciding issues like abortion, the death penalty, income redistribution, and the like? In the US we are certainly moving towards a more centralized federal government - but that's because most people foolishly believe that they can control others this way. They want the federal government deciding all aspects of OTHERS lives, never realizing that the control extends to them if they happen to lose the majority. The point of STATES was to prevent the tyranny of majority rule.

I tend to think that as soon as any kind of serious world government arises it will be destroyed because people will realize very quickly that they don't like it and rebel. Of course the USSR came very close to this sort of thing - which is why it had to carefully control how many people left the country.

In my opinion in the US issues like abortion should belong to the states - and here's why:

270 million people split down the middle with a clear win on one side amounts to approx. 135 million disenfranchised people. At a state level lets assume approx 9 million people - a split down the middle infringes upon the rights of approx. 4.5 million. Now, to my mind, I would go even lower - to the municipal level - the lowest level of government possible - say there are 50 thousand individuals - a split down the middle disenfranchises only 25 thousand - but at the lower levels the chance of a split down the middle is lessened because individuals closer to one another will have more opinions in common.

AND those individuals who find the law intolerable can easily relocate.

Where will you go when a world government becomes world tyranny?

I understand where you're coming from iszlq and agree that certain matters should be left to the States. But what bothers me most is that certain matters should not be decided only within a State. Too often State and local governments are even more susceptible to corporate pressure than the Federal Government.

And, lets face it, there are a number of social and environmental issues we'd still be faced with if it were only up to the States to deal with them.

Elaborate please.

Other than military bases and uranium production plants, when winning WW II was more important than tight safety/environmental controls, almost all of our environmental contamination has resulted from private businesses and corporations that were supposed to be under State control.

It took the Federal government to protect the mine workers, the Federal Bureau of Mines, because the States were under the control of the big mining corporations. Same goes for protecting the railroad workers.

And even something like road building. Do you really think that we would have the Interstate Highway system that we now have if it were up to the individual States? I think not.

And, like national health. What would replace the CDC or FDA?

Just can't buy returning almost everything to State control.

Chagur said:

Other than military bases and uranium production plants, when winning WW II was more important than tight safety/environmental controls, almost all of our environmental contamination has resulted from private businesses and corporations that were supposed to be under State control.

Years ago nearly every business polluted the environment whether or not it was under government control. What ultimately reigns in environmental pollution is public opinion, not government regulation. In fact I'd venture to say that government regulation is actually a detriment to the environment at times because it provides a pollution cap that industry never fails to meet.

Something interesting that I have noticed about one particular business over the years - McDonalds - the bane of the environment.... What's interesting is that every turn of public opinion turns McDonalds. For every environmentally poor decision McDonalds has made they have corrected the situation as soon as negative publicity ensued. Certainly I may be wrong about some of their business practices, but it seems to me that public opinion means more to McDonalds than government regulation, which is not at all surprising since their business depends upon the satisfaction of their patrons.



And even something like road building. Do you really think that we would have the Interstate Highway system that we now have if it were up to the individual States? I think not.

I was under the impression that most road building IS done by the states. Nevertheless, an income tax is unnecessary for road building. I never said I was against ALL taxes - I find INCOME tax to be the most bothersome. Other taxes are generally used to provide a necessary service such as garbage collection, police force, fire department AND roads.

Don't forget that income tax is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of the US. It didn't exist until 1913.

You guys are good debaters. If some of you might be interested I'd love for you to check out my groups.

http://www.lheyden.com/Forums.html

I agree with you there, islq.

My own feelings are that a scaled 'consumption' tax would be the fairest based on the premise that those who make the most, spend the most, and that those spending the most should be taxed at a higher rate than those spending far less.

True, there might be the trillionaire who is miserly, but I think s/he would be the exception (thinking of the 'Witch of Wall Street). Hell, why be wealthy if you can't flaunt it.

Hmmm ... Maybe that might be a partial solution to the insanely high compensation that has pretty much become the norm in many areas ... even when dumping a CEO who has practically ruined the company. Ah, the wonder of 'golden parachutes'.

You say that a world government is underway and then you cite businesses - that's not a world government - that's business. A world government is more like what the UN engages in.

Hello Lisa:

Sorry for the confusion. Normally I am a minimalist. I try to convey my ideas with as few sentences as possible. Most of our very smart readers who have seen most of my posts can create the full picture from my subset. Looks like I owe you an explanation since you jumped in the middle of the conversation without reading my other posts.

To start with, let us define what a government is (from the dictionary):
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
3. Management or administration of an organization, a business, or an institution.
4. A governing body or organization, as: a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
(among others - you get the idea)

Now the definition does not say about political boundaries or physical boarders, geography, ethnic background, language that separates one government from another and whether they can or can not join in policy decisions.

If you need any more help in understanding my post, please let me know.

Yes, I realize that years ago 'every business' polluted the environment. Tanneries come immediately to mind because their pollution was so obvious, but there were many others. Yet, I can not think of a single State that imposed stringent pollution laws prior to the Federal government stepping into the picture.

Even California, until recent years, looked the other way as far as the oil companies (Texas still does) and the agricultural industry. Really, the only area where California has been a leader in recent years has been the auto industry (no jobs to be lost in California) and the power generators (and look how quickly they have backed off when faced with power shortages after a poorly constructed 'deregulation').

As for McDonalds' ... Let's face it, any industry/corporation that has to deal directly with the public is going to be more sensitive to public pressure (ex. Nike also), something that you're already aware of. But how about Boeing, or better yet, its subcontractors? How 'sensitive' have they been to 'public' pressure?

With regard to road building: That's why I specifically referred to the Interstate Highway system. Based on the German Autobahns, it was realized after WW II that a national highway system was in the country's best interest and consequently the States were heavily subsidized to meet Federal requirements regarding where and how to build their portions of the system. Unfortunately, the spec.'s for overpasses were set too low and before the system was pretty much completed, it was useless for the movement of large pieces of military equipment.

And finally, with regard to your comment, "government regulation is actually a detriment to the environment at times because it provides a pollution cap that industry never fails to meet." I think that is due to a lack of enforcement rather than the setting of a cap.

Thanks for some interesting ideas.

Chagur

And finally, with regard to your comment, "government regulation is actually a detriment to the environment at times because it provides a pollution cap that industry never fails to meet." I think that is due to a lack of enforcement rather than the setting of a cap.

What need for enforcement is there? Just at the limit no laws have been broken.
This was actually something brought to my attention by a Swiss friend of mine when I was working at a pharmaceutical company. He found the web of regulations in America to be absurd. He felt that no one had any personal responsibility and that the government enforced this lack of responsibility by setting limits. In this way companies that might have had some measure of responsibility instead readily pollute to the limit.

He felt that no one had any personal responsibility

Don't you hate when people come to your house to have a party and ignore the HOST....Oh! well, so much for the World Government....

BTW, I checked out that forum at Yahoo site...what a dog. People are rambling... babling...energy solution runs off to UFOs...The law of conservation of matter/energy is out the window...

Seems like I remember an Amerikan Corporation that was making some chemicals over in India ... had a little 'incident' ... don't remember how many died.

The only thing that corporations are responsible to is the bottom line!

Chagur

http://www.csb.gov/lib/bhopal01.htm

In the early hours of Dec. 3, 1984, gas leaked from a tank of methyl isocyanate (MIC) at a plant in Bhopal, India, owned and operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL).

The state government of Madhya Pradesh reported that approximately 3,800 persons died, 40 persons experienced permanent total disability, and 2,680 persons experienced permanent partial disability.

(Actual deaths may be higher...)

The only thing that corporations are responsible to is the bottom line!
Whether because of the "bottom line" or not, no company wants to have a major accident that destroys human life and property. It's very expensive in public opinion. (Someone brought up airlines - well suppose you heard that all Boeing 737's were crashing, would you get on one?)
The government can easily be responsible for this type of tragedy as well - Challenger, agent orange, military maneuvers at ground zero - why all the trust in government to know what's best? After an accident like the Union Carbide accident, or accidents with Goodyear tires for that matter, a company suffers from negative public opinion and they certainly want to remedy that quickly. Legislation is inevitably called for in the mistaken belief that it will prevent further accidents. The Russian government controlled every aspect of nuclear power and yet - Chernobyl. So much for government control being the answer.

BTW, I checked out that forum at Yahoo site...what a dog. People are rambling... babling...energy solution runs off to UFOs...The law of conservation of matter/energy is out the window...

The forum in not moderated - this is one thread introduced by one person - try viewing some of the earlier ones.

I'm going to say it only once ... and slowly:

The ... 'government' ... is ... you ... and ... I!

We ... are ... the ... ones ... who ... elect ... those ... who ... are ... to ... act ... in ... our ... best ... interests!

I voted for Nader and was chagrinned by how few of my fellow Americans did likewise. But then, this is a democracy and the voters get what they deserve.

So much for government control being the answer.

What are you babling now? All I asked is "What do you think?"

I'm going to say it only once ... and slowly: The ... 'government' ... is ... you ... and ... I!
We ... are ... the ... ones ... who ... elect ... those...<snip>

I'll say this as many times as need be:

You have an awful lot of faith in the majority and elected officials. The majority could vote in communism - would that be okay with you? The majority could vote in slavery - would THAT be okay with you? The majority could decide that all people named Chagur should be put to death - would that be alright with you?

I'm GLAD more people didn't vote for Nader... his platform is mainly FLUFF and it is based upon EMOTION rather than anything useful. It all sounds so nice, but it isn't. I voted for Harry Browne, and while he may not be the best Libertarian candidate, he is far better than anyone else who ran. One of the best house reps is Ron Paul. Check out his website:

http://www.house.gov/paul/

What are you babling now? All I asked is "What do you think?"

I'm confused?? I was responding to Chagur, I thought. When did you ask?? I missed something.

I'm confused?? I was responding to Chagur, I thought. When did you ask?? I missed something.

Finally I got your attention! (with a rude comment...wow!)

First of all, it is my topic. So always read the topic first, then if you want to join in, answer to the topic. You can answer to fellow members comments to explain your stand if they do not get it. But always stay on the topic unless the topic starter allowed you to take off on a tangent. Otherwise members will be trashing each others interest and the moderator has to step in.

If you read the whole posting, you will find that you took exception to my comment, then you ignored my comment. It is OK to answer two or three members in the same post.

I understand it takes time to get used to this forum. Note that this is much more organized than that Yahoo site you reffered me to.

kmguru
Don't be so possessive! Yeah, you started the thread and wanted it to be directed toward the question of World Government, but what the heck - Threads have a way of going off topic every so often.

iszlq
Checked out the link to Ron Paul's web site and all I can say is, If that's the best Texas has to offer ... God help the poor Texans! Talk about FLUFF! Did a quick scan of the bills he either sponsored or cosponsored ... Yikes!

At least Nader had the guts to buck Corporate America at a time when 'What was good for GM, was good for America'. Sorry, but I still would vote for him again even though it's like tossing my vote in the waste paper basket. At least I wouldn't feel that I voted for a sleazy corporate ass-kisser because he was 'the lesser of two evils'!

Some feel that globalization will spawn a new world empire with fading borders and diminished state sovereignty. Here is an interesting book by Duke University literature professor Michael Hardt and Italian Philosopher Antonio Negri called "Empire".

Some excerpts and links follow.

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's "Empire" is best understood as a *turn*
within the ideological/political current known as "post-Marxism". Although
this movement has been closely identified with protests against
globalization--albeit not within classical Marxist parameters--Hardt and
Negri will have nothing to do with any movement that makes concessions to
the idea that "Local differences preexist the present scene and must be
defended or protected against the intrusion of globalization." (Empire, p. 45)

Before turning to part one of "Empire", it would be useful to say a few
words about the emergence of post-Marxism. As a theory, it tries to
reconcile Marx with postmodernism. From Marx it borrows the idea that
capitalism is an unjust system. From postmodernism it borrows the idea that
"grand narratives" lead to disaster. While postmodernism had been around
since the mid-80s (Lyotard's "Postmodern Condition" was published in 1984),
the disenchantment with the traditional Marxist project reached a crescendo
after 1990, when the Soviet bloc began to collapse and after the Central
American revolution had been defeated.


http://www.bookzen.com/newbooks/0674251210.html