History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedGlobalism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Poll Question: Would you be in favor of a unified, global, state?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
6 [26.09%]
15 [65.22%]
2 [8.70%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
Post Options Post Options   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Globalism
    Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 22:29

One of the big patterns apparent to me through world history, and indeed the story of life on this earth, is a trend towards greater unity and organization. First, single-celled organisms without organelles arise; then, different cells with different talents become mutual partners and eventually merge into one cell with each part performing a certain function, leading to the rise of multicelled organisms of increasing complexity.

In human history, the story appears much the same. First, small family groups, tribes, and clans. Next we see in the neolithic era the formation of villages, towns, and even cities. Cities eventually become city-states, city-states are unified to form empires, etc. And today, steps (if feeble) are being made to the incorporation of all states into a greater global decision making body, the UN - and while this is far from global government, promising projects such as the EU hint that greater consolidation of unity is possible (just look at how much the Europeans have always hated eachother) if not entirely likely.
 
So, what do you think? Will it happen? Is it desirable? If not, why not? If so, what benefits will global unity bring, and what possible liabilities?
Back to Top
Donasin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
Post Options Post Options   Quote Donasin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 03:11
I would love to see a unified Earth/unified Humanity.

The right of a human is always greater than that of the state. However the state still has basic rights that it can and must assert in order to provide for justice/order/tranquility. A unified Earth with what are now nations acting as 'high states' would allow for both the human and states rights to be met. It would be a confederation which focuses very heavily on federalism. This government would then be split into four sections: Local, State, National, and Global. The Global section would have the final say in any legal or constitutional issue in which the whole of Earth is involved. This is help to provide unity and keep the union from becoming another HRE or UN. The form of government should also be republicanism in order to allow for extensive democracy while keeping minority rights. (Party or actual minority wise.) It would also be much wiser to gather reps of each nation to one place in order to discuss issues than to have appointees because that way everyone gets their voice heard which will lower unrest and keep Earth unified.

I will go more in depth once my theory is met with resistance.

Also if I may stray from the point a bit  I see it as humans destiny to colonize Space, as corny and sci-fi as that may sound it is a much better than destiny than us being destroyed at our hands. Of course doing this would be easiest (potentially only) with a unified planet.
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1232
Post Options Post Options   Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 04:33
I do not support a one world government. A one world government has the potential to be the most oppressive regime in history, with little to no chance to overthrow it, as there would be no other forces to aid those seeking freedom. Also, my mentality just does not agree with this. I view things with clan-like mentalities. Friends and family are my clan, and they  matter first and foremost. I simply do not view everyone as one giant family. I want my 'clan' to be left in peace.

Also, I don't think there should be any government, much less a single, massive, world-spanning government. People would be better off left on their own, without interference from parasitic organizations, like government.
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
Post Options Post Options   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 08:43
Just because something has the potential to be bad does not make it so. The mentality you advocate seems to me invalid because clearly government is not 'parasitic' as you say in all cases, otherwise governments would not have evolved in every civilization. Government, like a central nervous system, allows for the organization and direction of societies actions. Without it, nothing is concerted and discord spreads, and being left alone in 'peace' has no chance because harmony cannot exist without organization or unity of purpose. You don't have to view the entire world as your family, but placing those around you first and foremost over everyone else is human nature; it's the way things initially evolved, with family-groups, clans, and tribes warring against eachother and keeping to themselves. Obviously, that system is not as effective as a more unifying system, just as it would be foolish for the cells of one's liver to attack those of one's stomach because of abritrary boundaries of 'friendship' and 'family'. Biologically, all life is actually relative to one another if you go back far enough, and even the creationists acknowledge that human life has common ancestors. Therefore, any qualifications of 'family' are purely abritrary and hold no real meaning. So while it may be that a single world government has the potential to be 'oppressive',  it can also be set up in such a way, as Donasin began to lay out, that would allow for checks against government oppression such as those in many functioning governments today. It would also mean the end of war, the unification of humanity, etc.
 
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
Post Options Post Options   Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 09:37
I would like to see that, the unification of Earth.

In EU there are too few benefits for the people, it's an union of politicians not union of counties.
No, government is not 'parasitic', they are a leeches.
If there is potential that something will go bad: it will go bad. If there is potential that something will go good: it will end rotten.
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 01:38
From a realistic point of view, a world government is of course impossible (at least in the coming century).

But a global dealing of some issues may be a good idea. We saw that the problem of carbon emission could only be dwelt with at an international level (even though there is a difference between international, ie all countries together, and global, ie the Earth as the one and only polity).

Other sectors could benefit from a global government. Lower profile issues but very important ones such as some market regulation (for instance to set up rules to avoid the subprime disaster of 2007).

But overall one can consider that even if it was politically possible a world government may not be a good option. True, there would be significant advantages ranging from a greater equality amongst humans (for instance relatively to migrations) to lower defense spendings. But costs would be much higher as well and in my opinion would out-range the benefits (information would have problems traveling horizontally as well as vertically, besides micro-management by the president of the US is a problem, imagine by the president of the world…). The risks are also huge: if a given country makes a regulatory mistake (anything ranging from allowing private people to borrow too easily to forbidding them to consume alcohol) it may trigger, well, a global crisis instead of a national one.

Realistically, what we should crave for in our lifetime is some global governance. Allowing people and products to travel freely first between given countries (on the EU model) and then globally is something that seems to me essential. Some illogical matters (why a toy is deemed dangerous in Canada but not in Thailand? are Thai baby stronger and smarter?) ought as well to be addressed but so far it seems that diversity humanity's strongest asset and a world government may put this very asset at risk.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 02:15
Originally posted by Illirac



In EU there are too few benefits for the people,
 
I wouldn't call no more wwii's, wwi's, Napoleonic Wars a small benefit.
 
 
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
Post Options Post Options   Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 07:57
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by Illirac



In EU there are too few benefits for the people,
 
I wouldn't call no more wwii's, wwi's, Napoleonic Wars a small benefit.
 
 


If there is no EU we have to except ww3?...
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 14:37
I go with world cooperation on some issues, like Maharbbal said.

The problems with a true world government is not that it would be oppressive, it most likely won't, but that it is logistically very difficult. In fact, this is why it can't be too oppressive: it simply would not be able to be oppressive if it wanted. It could be oppressive in some places, but not everywhere at the same time.

Just imagine the problems of big countries and make them world wide. A single government cannot address the needs of everyone in a big country. Imagine how it would be for the whole world :)
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 14:59

A utopia; a "no place". You have restrictions going up, rather than down and you want a world government.

The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 00:53
I put maybe because I favor a decentralized monolithic state....what do I mean by this?

Well basically I think that all regional affairs should be agreed upon by that region alone without interference from any other organization. Such as if a county in Wisconsin wants to ban smoking they should be free to do so if a supermajority of the population agrees to. However they should not be able to drown out neighboring communities and impose their will on them.

However interregional affairs should be held up to an International Constitution of sorts. So I guess I'd support a One World State if it was based upon non-interventionist federalism.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 10:30
I go with JanusRook on this one. The important thing is diminishing the role of the nation-state, both through delegation of some powers to smaller regions, and through assumption of others by larger regions.
 
But I voted yes, since this would be a world 'state' of some kind. A state doesn't have to be a tyranny, or even oppressive.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8682
Post Options Post Options   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 14:29
One world government? Who's brand of implementation. Who calls the shots? Who get's left out. Would it be better than the numberous choices and diverse forms we have now?
Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
Post Options Post Options   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 17:34
Originally posted by Seko

One world government? Who's brand of implementation. Who calls the shots? Who get's left out. Would it be better than the numberous choices and diverse forms we have now?

 
Previous posters have outlined a federalist system that I would advocate too. Something like an international republic is what I'm thinking, a bicameral legislature, judicial system, and an executive coucil (so that no one person will be in charge). All weapons of mass destruction and professional military other than militia will be internationally-owned (obviously, due to a lessened need for a military the proportion of military expenditure, personnel, and weaponry will be rolled back significantly). In the international government, each former "nation-state" will have representation of perhaps one representative and that will be the higher house. In the lower house, regions shall have proportional representation. In this way, the system will retain enough sovereignty for the nation-state so that nationalists won't go extremist and start killing everyone, while their ability to obstruct rational interest and provoke warfare will be diminished significantly.
SPQR| Alea Iacta Est
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 95
Post Options Post Options   Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2008 at 16:15
I like the idea of a global govornment and such, but wouldn't people from the less-prosperous countries like many in Asia and Russia and the such flee towards the west for better living conditions? Maybe i'm just ignorant of how things really are, but i'm just talking about better streets, houses, ect... Then it'd have to even out hte living conditions of the world wouldn't it? If we're all citizens of a one-world govornment we'd all have equal rights, and everyone would want to have the same living conditions of the rest of the world (i.e. the US and EU and such) so massive amounts of money and manpower would have to be spent upping the conditions of the other places in the world.
 
I view these as some big problems for a one world govornment, maybe you guys dont, please comment! Smile
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
Post Options Post Options   Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2008 at 17:21
Originally posted by Scaevola

Something like an international republic is what I'm thinking,


Still, even if in a Federation, there will be always states, nations who wants more
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
Donasin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
Post Options Post Options   Quote Donasin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2008 at 23:39
Originally posted by Illirac

Originally posted by Scaevola

Something like an international republic is what I'm thinking,


Still, even if in a Federation, there will be always states, nations who wants more


Those states and nations can strive for prestige through economic strength, most civil rights etc. The main problem comes with getting Humanity to view itself as a species and not sects based on nationality. Once that happens nationalism will viewed as tribalism on a larger scale and will be treated as such. National pride can exist just like state pride exists in many nations today. No longer will, lets say, Iraq and Iran, fight for resources as Virginia and Georgia(US state) would not. 
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1232
Post Options Post Options   Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2008 at 03:07
Originally posted by Donasin

Originally posted by Illirac

Originally posted by Scaevola

Something like an international republic is what I'm thinking,


Still, even if in a Federation, there will be always states, nations who wants more


Those states and nations can strive for prestige through economic strength, most civil rights etc. The main problem comes with getting Humanity to view itself as a species and not sects based on nationality. Once that happens nationalism will viewed as tribalism on a larger scale and will be treated as such. National pride can exist just like state pride exists in many nations today. No longer will, lets say, Iraq and Iran, fight for resources as Virginia and Georgia(US state) would not. 


There's nothing wrong with tribalism. In fact, aren't people geared for tribal thinking anyway? I think people do view other people as people, and the same species, but people are not concerned with every member of the species. People are concerned with their own families, friends, and immediate areas first and foremost, and rightly so.

Also, do you really think nations will willingly give up their sovereignty anytime soon? Do you see China, Russia, the US and Iran all forming one big happy country? Never. It'd take warfare on a massive scale to force nations to give up their freedom and submit to a global government.
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
Scaevola View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jan-2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
Post Options Post Options   Quote Scaevola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2008 at 10:43
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Originally posted by Donasin

Originally posted by Illirac

Originally posted by Scaevola

Something like an international republic is what I'm thinking,


Still, even if in a Federation, there will be always states, nations who wants more


Those states and nations can strive for prestige through economic strength, most civil rights etc. The main problem comes with getting Humanity to view itself as a species and not sects based on nationality. Once that happens nationalism will viewed as tribalism on a larger scale and will be treated as such. National pride can exist just like state pride exists in many nations today. No longer will, lets say, Iraq and Iran, fight for resources as Virginia and Georgia(US state) would not. 


There's nothing wrong with tribalism. In fact, aren't people geared for tribal thinking anyway? I think people do view other people as people, and the same species, but people are not concerned with every member of the species. People are concerned with their own families, friends, and immediate areas first and foremost, and rightly so.

Also, do you really think nations will willingly give up their sovereignty anytime soon? Do you see China, Russia, the US and Iran all forming one big happy country? Never. It'd take warfare on a massive scale to force nations to give up their freedom and submit to a global government.
 
 
People are 'geared' for a lot of things. That doesn't mean it's not bad for them anyway. For example, we're biologically 'geared' to seak out things like sugars, fats, alcohol, and other things that are clearly bad for our health; the only reason that we like them so much is because over the 5 some million years of hominid evolution, most of it was spent with limited access to such things, and starvation was a far bigger problem than obesity. In the last century that trend has reversed in the developed world; clearly, we would now benefit to be 'geared' to enjoy fruits and vegetables as much as we now do fats and sugars. Similarly, just because the most basic organization of human groups is a familial-tribal one doesn't make it harmful or dangerous to the progress and continuation of the human species. In fact, if it weren't for the increasing unification of peoples then we would have some serious issues facing us simply arising from the fact that the more disunity exists the more conflicts will arise, and with 6 billion people on earth and nuclear arms technology such conflicts cannot be afforded.
 
No, I don't see states like Russia, China, and the U.S. or any other for that matter willingly giving up their sovereignty overnight. But I can see stages of unifications as these countries are forced to realized that cooperation benefits all and is the only remaining option in the nuclear age; real conflict and empire-building are out, the only thing left to do is cooperate.
 
But that's not the point. The question I'm asking is not if it's possible for there to be a unified, global state. I'm only asking if it's desirable. I think that clearly it is, but obviously many disagree... however, much of the time this is out of skepticism of such a thing actually happening rather than dislike of the idea.
 
 
SPQR| Alea Iacta Est
Back to Top
Voice of Reason View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 95
Post Options Post Options   Quote Voice of Reason Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2008 at 15:19
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Also, do you really think nations will willingly give up their sovereignty anytime soon? Do you see China, Russia, the US and Iran all forming one big happy country? Never. It'd take warfare on a massive scale to force nations to give up their freedom and submit to a global government.
 
On that note, it brings to my mind the state of the world in the novel 1984 With nations like these not wanting to give up themselves, but some others willing, something like the 3 super-states that emerged in that scenario could somehow arise. With an "everlasting war" that really isn't for gaining ground, because each state has so much that it can indefinetaly sustain itself, but to use up the recources that the people make. Although i dont think that those who have tasted democracy (Europeans and Americans and others) would give it up for a totalitarian regime like the one in Oceana.
 
For a true global organization to arise it'd take "Earthians" (lol) to become part of something bigger, like if we discover intelligent life (or if they discover us) and then becoming part of a galactic fold.
Einstein said, "God does not play dice." He was right. God plays Scrabble. - Philip Gold
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.