One world government?

[jay gw]

I support the idea of the world having one world government, but with some qualifications. The government I imagine would look something like this:

* It would be democratic.
* It would be composed of all the nations that wanted to be part of it.
* It would allow for entry but also for exit if dissatisfaction set in.
* It would be composed of national representatives in a central body, and a leader/president.
* It would include national bodies/member nations would keep their legislatures.
* It would make laws on trade, foreign policy, law and order, other areas as agreed on by members.

People argue against 1 world government as if it's the worst idea ever. Here are a couple of benefits to it:

* Poorer nations would have access to the technology, expertise, and frankly, the honest governments they so desperately need. It's a fact that most of the world's poverty is created. Most of the poverty and human rights violations are NOT accidental. They're the policy of bad governments.

The example from Iraq is quite telling. The public KNEW they were getting the abuse from bad leaders. They KNEW they could have a different government. And when the opportunity came by, they took the opportunity.

What lesson is there? Everybody wants honesty in government, and to lead themselves. If you can find a group you know for a fact wants bad government, then please list them in your replies, and the links so we can see this for ourselves. You can't, but don't let it stop you.

One world government would also solve the inefficiences problem. Why should neighboring countries that are basically the same country (Canada and the United States, Sweden and Norway, Australia and New Zealand) have redundant governments? Is there any GOOD reason for it? What?

This is 2005, not 1805. The world is about free trade, and free migration. Why does every country need it's own set of separate laws, and it's own separate parliament? There's no good reason for it.

Objections - when people argue against 1 world government, they tend to say the following:

Objection - "What happens if a one world government falls into the hands of another Hitler?"

Answer - obviously there are many ways to prevent a tyrant type from taking power. How many stable democracies have been hijacked by tyrants? It doesn't happen when you design the safeguards in. There is zero probability that somehow a Bangladeshi tyrant would take the world over. It's a silly idea.
I've already mentioned that countries can, with notice, come and go. There's no danger to any individual state.

Objection - "Politics is a process of evolution. How do you know your government is the best type?"

Answer - You never get guarantees. I've already mentioned that membership would be somewhat voluntary, and that alone is enough to keep the form adapting to the changing world. Also, the constitution of the 1 world government would be very flexible. It would allow for changes.

There are no real objections to the idea of 1 world government. Any danger is far outweighed by the huge benefits most of the poorer countries in the world would immediately get by being part of a larger, richer, and better run governmental system.

It's one world.

It should be one government too.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do I pay taxes to this world government? If so, forget it. The farther my money goes from home, the less I have a clue what it's doing.

~~ Paul

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Do I pay taxes to this world government? If so, forget it. The farther my money goes from home, the less I have a clue what it's doing.

~~ Paul
You're missing the point Paul. He's saying that The World is your home and your nation and that the whole people of the world are your countrymen.
Your taxes don't leave your home if they work towards improving the World as a whole.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're missing the point Paul. He's saying that The World is your home and your nation and that the whole people of the world are your countrymen.
Your taxes don't leave your home if they work towards improving the World as a whole.

Oh, hush you. You don't even believe that those people, or indeed the world, are real. ;)

[Z]

It's another beautiful dream, and I wish it could happen, but the primary problem I see, as you present it, is that a voluntary global governing body is not an efficient means of bringing these things to the people that need them the most. The governments most in need of submission to a world government are aso the ones least likely to join, because such a government would (in theory) override those decisions the local government makes, if they are in disagreement. And those that belong being free to leave almost guarantees that they will, the moment a policy they want to apply to their people disgrees with the O.G.

On the other hand, a strictly mandatory singular government would be seen as intolerant and inconsiderate of the needs and desires of the peopes of local populaces.

Global laws are also somewhat difficult to make and enforce, since there are different considerations to every law from every area of the world. We Americans, for example, might have issues against hunting for fur or the deliberate breeding of fur animals, but what if that represents the sole income of some small nation (Not sure if it does, but it's an example)? What laws can be passed regarding 'illegal' drugs, for example, when some nations make most of their income growing said drugs? And how could a unified global government resolve the religious differences that arise, when multiple faiths claim the same land as sacred ground?

I highly doubt we will ever see an effective global government in our lifetimes, nor in the lifetimes of our children. A LOT of cultural homogenization has to occur first, and a LOT of bigotry and zealotry has to be dissolved - as well as greed and the ever-present superiority complex that many nations are built upon.

Still, I support the theory of OWG. I just wish there were a successful way of making a mandatory Global Council that wouldn't insult the self-esteem of many nations.

[chocolatepossum]

I support the idea of the world having one world government, but with some qualifications. The government I imagine would look something like this:

* It would be democratic.
* It would be composed of all the nations that wanted to be part of it.
* It would allow for entry but also for exit if dissatisfaction set in.
* It would be composed of national representatives in a central body, and a leader/president.
* It would include national bodies/member nations would keep their legislatures.
* It would make laws on trade, foreign policy, law and order, other areas as agreed on by members.


Sounds a bit like a future EU maybe, and I think you need only look at the British public's objections to that to see the problems with realising such a government. No democratic state would submit to a government with non democratic members. I voted in favour though.

Edit:sorry I really need to master this quote thing:D

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
* It would be democratic.

Pure, Republican, Federal- what kind of "democratic"?

Originally posted by jay gw
* It would be composed of all the nations that wanted to be part of it.
* It would allow for entry but also for exit if dissatisfaction set in.

If any country chose either of these options, then it's not a "one world government", is it?

Originally posted by jay gw
* It would be composed of national representatives in a central body, and a leader/president.
* It would include national bodies/member nations would keep their legislatures.
* It would make laws on trade, foreign policy, law and order, other areas as agreed on by members.

This is just adding another layer, a BIG layer of bureaucracy on top of an already bloated and impersonal apparatus. How is this going to result in anything but stagnation and inefficiency?

Originally posted by jay gw
Here are a couple of benefits to it:

:rolleyes: Speculation, but let's take it point-by-point:

Originally posted by jay gw
* Poorer nations would have access to the technology, expertise, and frankly, the honest governments they so desperately need.

How is this new layer of bureaucracy going to suddenly make people honest?

The tech gap between developed nations and underdeveloped ones is an issue, but does robbing Peter to pay P'takn'gai really sound equitable to you? How else are you going to give the poorer nations "access" to industrial technology, other than brute force?

Originally posted by jay gw
It's a fact that most of the world's poverty is created. Most of the poverty and human rights violations are NOT accidental. They're the policy of bad governments.

Do you have evidence to support this? How does this explain poverty in developed nations with "democratic" governments?

Originally posted by jay gw
The example from Iraq is quite telling. The public KNEW they were getting the abuse from bad leaders. They KNEW they could have a different government. And when the opportunity came by, they took the opportunity.

I'm not touching this one. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jay gw
What lesson is there? Everybody wants honesty in government,

If "everybody" wants it, why have we never seen it?
Oh, right. Humans lie, cheat, and steal.

Originally posted by jay gw
and to lead themselves.

Then why are there few (if any) anarchist or Pure democratic governments around?

Originally posted by jay gw
If you can find a group you know for a fact wants bad government, then please list them in your replies, and the links so we can see this for ourselves.

The Republican Party. It is based on cronyism and religious fundamentalism, neither of which make for "good government."

Same goes for Stalinism, Kim il Jong-ism, the Taliban, al-quaeda... seriously- do I have to go on? None of these people would join your NWO.

Originally posted by jay gw
One world government would also solve the inefficiences problem.

I disagree, it would make it exponentially worse.

Originally posted by jay gw
Why should neighboring countries that are basically the same country (Canada and the United States, Sweden and Norway, Australia and New Zealand) have redundant governments? Is there any GOOD reason for it? What?

Why should neighboring states (AZ & NM, NH & VT) have redundant governments? The larger the government, the more unresponsive it is towards the individual citizen, and different regions and different populations have concerns unique to themselves. Do I want to have to put an oilpan heater on my Arizona car because Canada sometimes gets too cold to start cars?

Originally posted by jay gw
This is 2005, not 1805. The world is about free trade, and free migration.

How are you going to have "trade" between a single entity? You will have to have sub-governments (or at least "regional departments of trade" or something)- as you said; and that just makes your "overgovernment" redundant and wastful.

Originally posted by jay gw
Why does every country need it's own set of separate laws, and it's own separate parliament? There's no good reason for it.

See above.

Originally posted by jay gw
Objections - when people argue against 1 world government, they tend to say the following:

Objection - "What happens if a one world government falls into the hands of another Hitler?"

Answer - obviously there are many ways to prevent a tyrant type from taking power. How many stable democracies have been hijacked by tyrants? It doesn't happen when you design the safeguards in. There is zero probability that somehow a Bangladeshi tyrant would take the world over. It's a silly idea.
I've already mentioned that countries can, with notice, come and go. There's no danger to any individual state.

Well, this is not one of my objections, but I will restate that if countries are "free to come and go" then it is not a "world government" at all, just some sort of bloated over-state.

Originally posted by jay gw
Objection - "Politics is a process of evolution. How do you know your government is the best type?"

Again, not one of my objections. Although I believe it to be true, I fail to see how it specifically objects to any government in particular. I fact, it objects to the idea of government itself.

Originally posted by jay gw
There are no real objections to the idea of 1 world government.

I just gave you several.

Originally posted by jay gw
Any danger is far outweighed by the huge benefits most of the poorer countries in the world would immediately get by being part of a larger, richer, and better run governmental system.

Everybody would benefit from any government that will be "richer" or "better run" than those we have now. You have not demonstrated, apart from assertion, how your world government will accomplish this.

Originally posted by jay gw
It's one world.

It should be one government too.

It could be argued that it is 6 billion+ "worlds." It is one planet- although I fail to see how this makes a single government preferable.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I highly doubt we will ever see an effective global government in our lifetimes, nor in the lifetimes of our children. A LOT of cultural homogenization has to occur first, and a LOT of bigotry and zealotry has to be dissolved - as well as greed and the ever-present superiority complex that many nations are built upon. Great post! There is too much that divides us as you eloquently point out. AIU tribalism is a significant human phenomenon. IMO it is unlikely that we are going to overcome our biases and differences anytime soon. Though it is not impossible.

If you consider the merging of East and West Germany and the plans to reunify North and South Korea I think you will have a good understanding of the problems. To merge governments the people must have similar enough economies not to mention cultures and values. The needs of the third world currently being led by dictators are quite different than the needs of Democratic societies with a relative good standard of living. If Germany had such difficulty with mutual cultures and South Korea realizes that there will be significant difficulties unless the standard of living is increased for the North Koreans even with similar culture then it is understandable that if you add to the mix differences in culture and values then you realize that you have a very difficult problem.

Edited to add: Wew that is a long sentence.

[Upchurch]

Question: Why is this in R&P and not politics?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Question: Why is this in R&P and not politics?

I wondered that too.

[Iamme]

jay gw--That's quite the um, what word any I looking for?, um, diatribe, idea, manifesto, rant, thesis...I give up. Anyway...did this come to you in a dream? Have you been giving this matter a lot of thought lately? I am just curious. It's quite the well thought out plan you have there. Not that it be entirely correct, but it's well thought out, nontheless.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
You're missing the point Paul. He's saying that The World is your home and your nation and that the whole people of the world are your countrymen.
Your taxes don't leave your home if they work towards improving the World as a whole.
He can say whatever he wants, but I'm going to have no idea what this OWG, headquartered in Brussels or wherever, is doing with my money. The potential for graft and corruption and waste is overwhelming.

Maybe the OWG could be a charitable organization.

~~ Paul

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Piscivore
The Republican Party. It is based on cronyism and religious fundamentalism, neither of which make for "good government."

Same goes for Stalinism, Kim il Jong-ism, the Taliban, al-quaeda... seriously- do I have to go on? None of these people would join your NWO.
Excellent response. I mean that in all seriousness.

You left out the democratic party which is based on cronyism and demagoguery, neither of which make for "good government".

Oh, and libertarians, they can't make up their mind which is probably the worst form of government. ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by RandFan
You left out the democratic party which is based on cronyism and demagoguery, neither of which make for "good government".

True that.

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh, and libertarians, they can't make up their mind which is probably the worst form of government. ;)

:D

[Iamme]

I have an idea. If we think a world government could work, then lets experiment first here at home and eliminate the states. Perhaps even the local governments as well.

[toddjh]

Another objection I don't think anybody has raised:

If joining the OWG is voluntary, then the most powerful countries won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. In fact, I would argue that the existence of superpowers such as the United States and (in the future) China will make the existence of a world government economically impossible. And thank goodness.

Jeremy

[jay gw]

Why should neighboring states (AZ & NM, NH & VT) have redundant governments? The larger the government, the more unresponsive it is towards the individual citizen, and different regions and different populations have concerns unique to themselves.

I didn't make my op clear enough - each nation that's part of the 1 world government would keep it's legislature/parliament.

The difference is that the parliaments would no longer have the same roles. They would have several functions:

1. To implement and administer the central governments policies.
2. To collect taxes/provide resources to the central government.
3. To make laws regarding certain local issues.

No country would give up their own policy makers. They would not be the only policy makers. There would be another level above them.

Remember, each nation must agree to join. The publics must agree by vote to join. They would want to become part of the 1 world government for several reasons:

* Transfers. Technology and capital are all concentrated in certain parts of the world. Many poorer nations have no electricity, others all have computers. Is this fair? Technology would be transferred freely from one to the other, and capital.

Do you know why certain countries cannot attract investment? It's because of their own laws. They create obstacles against investment for political reasons. The populations stay poor. What poor population would seriously say no to investment? Name one.

If the laws are identical, and the same leaders run both the rich and poor, capital will move freely.

* Corruption. Many governments are very corrupt. There is no honesty, and they work only for the rich. A 1 world government would be more honest, and would stop corruption in localities.

The reason that some governments are more corrupt is due to differences in economics. Some countries simply have no taxes to pay their state employees, and so they are forced to ask for bribes.

A 1 world government eliminates the differences in state employee pay scales between countries, meaning corruption comes almost completely to an end. There is very little corruption in rich countries. The reason is that their employees have money to pay their bills without demanding bribes.

Those are some reasons, out of many, why a 1 world government makes far more sense than tiny, isolated, scattered and poor countries.

Face the truth, many parts of the world will never develop unless they are aided by transfers. Anything else is just being foolish.

The world today is completely irrational. Wealth and technology are concentrated in 5 percent of the land, and the other has very little. And yet, there is "globalization" going on. Everything you're doing has impacts on others. And what they do will affect you.

It's time to put aside the old forms and redesign the world according to the practices, not keep old models and fit them on a new world. Globalization is already progressing towards this anyway, why try to continue with inflexible governments and arguments about "sovereignty"?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by jay gw
They would want to become part of the 1 world government for several reasons:

* Transfers. Technology and capital are all concentrated in certain parts of the world. Many poorer nations have no electricity, others all have computers. Is this fair? Technology would be transferred freely from one to the other, and capital.

Technology isn't an issue. Apart from certain military and industrial secrets, technology is readily available just about everywhere. The problem is building the infrastructure to exploit it. As you say, this requires investment of capital, which is exactly why your one-world government is impossible. What country is going to want to join, knowing their money will be forcibly taken away? If they wanted to invest in poorer countries, they could do that now.

* Corruption. Many governments are very corrupt. There is no honesty, and they work only for the rich. A 1 world government would be more honest, and would stop corruption in localities.

Another reason why the utopian ideal of peace, love, and flowers for everyone won't work. Corrupt governments (which is an awful lot of them, of course) will want no part of such a thing.

Jeremy

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
Face the truth, many parts of the world will never develop unless they are aided by transfers. Anything else is just being foolish. Could you make an argument to support this proposition?

[jay gw]

What country is going to want to join, knowing their money will be forcibly taken away? If they wanted to invest in poorer countries, they could do that now.

Nobody's money will be taken away. It is investment that will make poorer countries better, not welfare. Welfare is just handing money to someone who made mistakes. Why won't they just continue making mistakes?

It is about reform. Nations all must reform to allow for progress.

The world cannot exist any longer as isolated, scattered states. There must be an alignment of laws to allow for free movement.

Why negotiate treaties with 190 countries? Why not just make the same law apply in all places? Which one is better?

[crimresearch]

JayGW, what you are proposing isn't one world government, it is is just an additional layer of government.

And with any power that an additional layer of government garners, comes more corruption.

WHich in turn will lead to internal conlfict, and dissent..nations *will* leave/refuse to join.

And if nations are free to leave, then it isn't a one world government.

And as others have noted, it might be nice to have a single world government, with no nations, states, etc, just 'citizens of Earth'....but getting there is a whole 'nother story.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
Nobody's money will be taken away. It is investment that will make poorer countries better, not welfare. Welfare is just handing money to someone who made mistakes. Why won't they just continue making mistakes? But we are investing now. The money doesn't end up being used the way it is intended and money doesn't necessarily solve problems. How would OWG solve these problems?

It is about reform. Nations all must reform to allow for progress. Agreed, but how do we get people to reform?

The world cannot exist any longer as isolated, scattered states. There must be an alignment of laws to allow for free movement. Why?

Why negotiate treaties with 190 countries? Why not just make the same law apply in all places? Which one is better? And how do you do that? Isn't this what we are trying in part to do in Iraq? I think such an effort would be disastrous on such a large scale.

[LW]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Question: Why is this in R&P and not politics?

Isn't it simple? Anyone who thinks that a One World Government could work is a True Believer.

[jay gw]

But we are investing now. The money doesn't end up being used the way it is intended and money doesn't necessarily solve problems. How would OWG solve these problems?

Investing where? Africa? Then why are they still having famines and Aids epidemics? Where exactly is this "investment" going, toy stores?

You realize that most of the IMF and World Bank money does not actually end up being invested, don't you?

One world government would completely eliminate the need for any World Bank. Capital would simply flow naturally, exactly like it should be doing now. The reason capital and technology don't flow naturally is due to artificial barriers and technology problems - banking laws in poorer countries are something out of Alice in Wonderland.

All obstacles to the internal reform of the poorest nations would be instantly removed through a one world government.

[Z]

Well, it's a very nice, very impractical dream, Jay. Wouldn't it be nice if large governments were not corrupt, and everyone would cooperate and give what they can to those who have nothing?

Too bad the world isn't really like that.

One world government would lead to a body of entrenched politicians working to implement the greatest profit for themselves, period. We see this in the U.S. constantly. The top politicians, while supposedly working for their people, are really working towards maximizing income into their private investments.

Step one in creating your 'world gov' would be to somehow produce honest, selfless people. Unless you can do that, your OWG is just another pipe dream.

So... how about it? How do you produce selfless, honest people with power?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by jay gw
Nobody's money will be taken away. It is investment that will make poorer countries better, not welfare.

Then what do we need this one world government for? We can invest now. Adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of the mess we have today is going to make things worse, not better.

It is about reform. Nations all must reform to allow for progress.

:rolleyes:

The world cannot exist any longer as isolated, scattered states.

I don't think the world has existed as "isolated, scattered states" for a thousand years or more, if it ever did.

Why negotiate treaties with 190 countries? Why not just make the same law apply in all places? Which one is better?

Making lots of treaties is better. You have flexibility, some measure of competition to keep the economic juices flowing, and, most of all, each nation gets to decide for itself what best serves its own interests. One monolithic law not only consolidates power in a body that may not have the first clue what it's doing, but also tries to make one size fit all. Show me a law that can deal optimally with the specific needs of 190 counties, and I guarantee it'll be a thousands times more incomprehensible than the U.S. tax code. Better to let economics sort things out on its own.

Jeremy

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, it's a very nice, very impractical dream, Jay. Wouldn't it be nice if large governments were not corrupt, and everyone would cooperate and give what they can to those who have nothing?

Too bad the world isn't really like that.

<SNIP>
So... how about it? How do you produce selfless, honest people with power?

Or alternatively, how do you negate the corrupting effects of power?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
Investing where? Africa? Then why are they still having famines and Aids epidemics? Where exactly is this "investment" going, toy stores? THAT'S the problem. You prove my point.

You realize that most of the IMF and World Bank money does not actually end up being invested, don't you? Again, you are making my point.

One world government would completely eliminate the need for any World Bank. Capital would simply flow naturally, exactly like it should be doing now. The reason capital and technology don't flow naturally is due to artificial barriers and technology problems - banking laws in poorer countries are something out of Alice in Wonderland. You are simply stating conjecture. You don't state how the very real problems that are demonstrably inherent in the system would be solved by OWG. You simply state that it would. You ignore that there are still logistical and political problems and corruption. Adding a layer of beauracracy will not solve these problems.

All obstacles to the internal reform of the poorest nations would be instantly removed through a one world government. Again, this is only unsubstantiated conjecture and is belied by the very real problems of culture, tribalism and geography. The Soviet Union could not get everyone in their empire to act with one mind. The Chinese couldn't do it either. There are very real problems that you are ignoring thinking that waving a wand will solve.

You are going to have to address the issues raised that you have so far ignored before your proposition can be accepted.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Step one in creating your 'world gov' would be to somehow produce honest, selfless people. Unless you can do that, your OWG is just another pipe dream.

So... how about it? How do you produce selfless, honest people with power? The Cinese tried re-education with disasterous effects. It is hard to force people to accept that which is counter-intuitive to them.

[jay gw]

Making lots of treaties is better. You have flexibility, some measure of competition to keep the economic juices flowing, and, most of all, each nation gets to decide for itself what best serves its own interests. One monolithic law not only consolidates power in a body that may not have the first clue what it's doing, but also tries to make one size fit all.

No, treaties can be broken. The United States broke every one with the Native Americans they ever signed. Each nation will still have it's parliament to handle local issues, but will agree to be bound by what the central body, the one world government, decides on issue like international trade and perhaps defense.

Again, this is only unsubstantiated conjecture and is belied by the very real problems of culture, tribalism and geography

The only real problem you listed is geography, and it's becoming less of a problem each day. Culture and "tribalism" are completely socially manufactured and irrelevant.

Do you really think "culture" tribalism and geography are serious barriers to anything? You must not be familiar with this:

Kathmandu, Himalayan mountains, the Roof of the World

People in Kathmandu are powerfully aware of living in a radically new era. Whereas the grandparents (and even parents) in this wedding story grew up at a time when communications with the world outside the Kathmandu valley required weeks of grueling overland travel, the bride and groom grew up watching global media events like the Gulf War and the World Cup "live" on television.

People born since 1951 have witnessed the world arriving along the first motorable roads into the valley; through telephones and now satellite telecommunications; through electronic entertainment media (cinema, television, video, satellite TV); via air transportation, mass tourism, and a surge of global commodity imports; and through the logics of a new bureaucratic state apparatus, party politics, and large-scale foreign development aid.

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s7365.html

Everyone in the world recognizes that governments vary wildly in quality and everyone wants the best government they can get.

That's unless you name one group, anywhere in the world, and provide the link please, that has stated: "We want bad government! Give it to us now! Give us more corruption or we're going to start rioting!!!"

The Soviet Union could not get everyone in their empire to act with one mind. The Chinese couldn't do it either.

That's because the Soviet Union and China used force to get their way.

Do you not understand the difference between choices made at gunpoint and choices made by debate and voting? There is an incredibly large difference between those.

There is no way a one world government could become a tyranny. There are so many mechanisms available to prevent something like that from happening, it is not at all realistic as a probability.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by jay gw
No, treaties can be broken. The United States broke every one with the Native Americans they ever signed. Each nation will still have it's parliament to handle local issues, but will agree to be bound by what the central body, the one world government, decides on issue like international trade and perhaps defense.

So what happens when one of the "member states" breaks a law? Who is punished? How? Do troops invade? Are uncooperative governments taken out by the Uberreich? If so, it kinda flies in the face of what you said earlier about countries being free to leave, doesn't it? And if not, then it seems that your treaties can be broken pretty easily, too.

I'd still like to hear what's in it for the big, rich countries, besides that warm fuzzy feeling you get from indiscriminately redistributing your wealth to random nations. For that matter, you haven't said what's in it for the corrupt, poor countries, either -- they are corrupt and poor largely because those in power want it to stay that way.

If neither those who are able to help, nor those who need the help, want anything to do with your coalition, who's left? What purpose does it serve?

Jeremy

[crimresearch]

"....Do you not understand the difference between choices made at gunpoint and choices made by debate and voting? There is an incredibly large difference between those.
There is no way a one world government could become a tyranny. There are so many mechanisms available to prevent something like that from happening, it is not at all realistic as a probability.

The request has been made for evidence rebutting the axiom about power corrupting, and so far, I've seen nothing except more assertions...
What are these mechanisms, and exactly how will they work?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
The only real problem you listed is geography, and it's becoming less of a problem each day. Culture and "tribalism" are completely socially manufactured and irrelevant. Wow! Really? This is contradicted by all of the ethnic killing that has happened non stop for thousands of years.

Do you really think "culture" tribalism and geography are serious barriers to anything? It is hard to close my eyes to Rwanda, Northern Ireland, Israel, The Sudan, Bosnia, Nigeria, Kosovo, The slaughter of Armenians by the Turks, The struggle for civil rights in America, Cambodia, Native Americans following the arrival of the Europeans, Al Qaeda, The Taliban, etc.. This list is sadly long and unmistakable.

Kathmandu, Himalayan mountains, the Roof of the World. It's called an anecdote and the Muslims who beat women who show their face do not share the values of the peaceful people living in the Himalayas. This is a really bad and singular example to make your point.

That's because the Soviet Union and China used force to get their way. And how else do you get people to accept your methods?

Do you not understand the difference between choices made at gunpoint and choices made by debate and voting? There is an incredibly large difference between those. Do you not understand that choices made by voting never create a consensus? That there is always somebody pissed off and feeling that they got the shaft and wanting to blame someone for it? Where do you suppose wars come from?

There is no way a one world government could become a tyranny. There are so many mechanisms available to prevent something like that from happening, it is not at all realistic as a probability. This is just rhetoric. I do not at all accept this because history has shown you to be wrong. Completely wrong. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Governments do not scale well. The larger the government the more bloated the beauracracy. The greater the chance for corruption and tyranny.

Again, you will have to provide some reason to accept your proposition. So far all you offer is rhetoric and anecdote that is easily shown to be by far the exception and not the rule.

[LW]

Originally posted by RandFan
It's called an anecdote and the Muslims who beat women who show their face do not share the values of the peaceful people living in the Himalayas. This is a really bad and singular example to make your point.

And, of course, not all people living in the Himalayas are peaceful (http://www.south-asia.com/USA/secnote.htm).

[Kopji]

I don't have too many thoughts on this, kind of neutral I guess.

Countries would run better if we built all the cities the same way, and laid all the streets the same, had the same stores.

But would I want to live in such a world? Probably no.

I also agree that the further government is, the less responsive it is.

I mention the Bahai's every long-once-in-a while because I find them a fascinating study in religion. I can't let a discussion on 'one world government' go by without giving them a passing mention:

http://www.bahai.org

[Iacchus]

"Novus Ordo Seclorum." Hmm ... So, who would be set in charge -- secretly or otherwise -- of this New World Order?

[Kopji]

Zaphod Beeblebrox

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Kopji
Zaphod Beeblebrox Do you mean Zaphnathpaanea? ~ Genesis 41:39-45 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=41&version=9) That's very interesting, I was just watching that on TV yesterday. ;)

[Z]

No, he means that totally hoopy frood who really groks where his towel is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, he means that totally hoopy frood who really groks where his towel is. Well then, you'll have to forgive my ignorance and "bear" with me on the matter. What are you talking about?

[gnome]

It's a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy thing... in the books, a kook named Zaphod Beeblebrox (sort of an interstellar Howard Stern, as I see it) was set up as President of the Galaxy to distract attention away from the real power...

Now, regarding the OWG... a good idea, but unlikely. It cannot be pushed, or it will fall apart to civil war--it can only evolve. Or, to say it another way... a one-world government cannot create unity... unity can create a OWG.

We will begin to have more and more ties to other countries as global economies and international laws expand, but whether any formal handover of sovereignty will ever occur... I won't hold my breath.

Personally I think it would take something sci-fi-like to cause it... responding to an alien threat (low likelihood--if they are out there... how likely is it that our technological levels are similar enough that the outcome of a war would be in doubt?)... or perhaps more likely, a united Earth in response to extra-terrestrial colonies we made ourselves.

[username]

If you live in a nation where you have an above average standard of living this idea isn't likely to seem as appealing as if you live in a nation with a below average standard of living.

One collosal problem with a one world government is that most of the tax revenue would come from a handful of places and would go to a plethora of areas that have major issues. This would make it impossible for those prosperous areas to maintain their standard of living. Perhaps over time things would improve, but initially it would be a real bummer.

The closest thing we have to a one world government is the UN and it is a joke riddled with corruption and scandals. I can't even imagine giving that body any real power let alone giving any entity global political/legal power enforceable with a military apparatus.

The next problem would be the vastly different values of the many cultures on our planet. Undoubtedly a one world government would eventually feel the need to enforce the "right" morality and would make criminals out of peaceful people, like the US does with pot smokers.

I see value in a centralized government, but only one which is sharply limitted in it's areas of control. A world government would, by definition, have boundless control for the taking.

[Kopji]

Do you mean Zaphnathpaanea?
No sorry. Hitchhikers. I should try to be more serious.

The story of Joseph in the OT was always a favorite though. Sort of a 'hero dies and is resurrected to glory' theme that is repeated in many books?

I was surprised to see so many in the survey supporting OWG. This is a very evil idea in the US and mentioned almost always with with the coming of the antichrist, gun control, abortion, or whatever other nefarious thing is popular.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Kopji
Do you mean Zaphnathpaanea?
No sorry. Hitchhikers. I should try to be more serious.

The story of Joseph in the OT was always a favorite though. Sort of a 'hero dies and is resurrected to glory' theme that is repeated in many books?

I was surprised to see so many in the survey supporting OWG. This is a very evil idea in the US and mentioned almost always with with the coming of the antichrist, gun control, abortion, or whatever other nefarious thing is popular. Yes, but isn't it the least bit strange how similar the name is to Zaphod Beeblebrox? What do you think the odds are of the first four characters, in such an oddball name as Zaphod, being the same? But then again, maybe this is where of author of "A Hitchhiker's Guide ..." derived the name? I suppose anything's possible. Yet what do you think the odds are of me catching that movie yesterday and specifically trying to remember that name? Hmm ... Maybe it has something to do with ignorance theme that I started in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55857&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) which, by the way, was contingent upon the theme of Joseph in my book (http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html) ...

38 And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?

39 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:

40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.

41 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And here it is Joseph (Zaphnathpaanea) is being put in charge over everything.

[jay gw]

One collosal problem with a one world government is that most of the tax revenue would come from a handful of places and would go to a plethora of areas that have major issues. This would make it impossible for those prosperous areas to maintain their standard of living.

Here's why this fear is misguided: Have you ever heard the saying "The rising tide lifts all boats?"

Think back on the last 10, 20 plus years, and the number of jobs that have been created because of exports.

Those jobs didn't exist prior to other markets in other countries opening up.

The only reason that millions of Americans have jobs at all is because the publics around the world can afford to buy the products.

As the standard of living rises in poorer countries, won't they buy products from around the world?

Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones. If they could solve the problems, why do they still have them?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
Here's why this fear is misguided: Have you ever heard the saying "The rising tide lifts all boats?"

Think back on the last 10, 20 plus years, and the number of jobs that have been created because of exports.

Those jobs didn't exist prior to other markets in other countries opening up.

The only reason that millions of Americans have jobs at all is because the publics around the world can afford to buy the products.

As the standard of living rises in poorer countries, won't they buy products from around the world? The reunification of Germany is an excellent example of why this is very problematic. It is difficult to merge governments and economies when there is no parity because it creates instability. South Korea has studied the reunification of Germany and knows that before there can be a reunification of Korea the North must be stabilized and the economic conditions close to par first, before there can be a reunification.

Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones. If they could solve the problems, why do they still have them? One word, politics. It is demonstrable. And it is demonstrable that countries can overcome problems without transfers. You are simply claiming something as though it is fact when the truth is that there are plenty of examples that belie your claim.

[jay gw]

One word, politics. It is demonstrable. And it is demonstrable that countries can overcome problems without transfers. You are simply claiming something as though it is fact when the truth is that there are plenty of examples that belie your claim.

Please list some examples, from the last 100 years, of nations pulling themselves through solely and exclusively their own national efforts, from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world.

And links to your sources/or bibliography please.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
Please list some examples, from the last 100 years, of nations pulling themselves through solely and exclusively their own national efforts, from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world.

And links to your sources/or bibliography please. I will gladly take you up on that but first I need to point out that it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
Please list some examples, from the last 100 years, of nations pulling themselves through solely and exclusively their own national efforts, from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world.

And links to your sources/or bibliography please. I'm curious, why put any limits on the evidence? Why are you the arbiter to determine whether any inference can be drawn from other similar instances or ones that happened prior to the 20th century?

[Z]

He probably doesn't want America pointed out. From a few struggling colonies to the top superpower, with very little (any?) financial transfer from other nations.

[jay gw]

He probably doesn't want America pointed out. From a few struggling colonies to the top superpower, with very little (any?) financial transfer from other nations.

Oh my goodness. Another American historical revisionist!

Americans colonized from Europe, the most advanced society in the world at that time. Get real.

I'm setting the conditions for anyone here to demonstrate a nation rising from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world in the last 100 years solely and exclusively by their own national efforts.

If you're not up to the challenge, don't act silly and divert attention to my post 100 posts ago and other such nonsense.

Just grow up and say the idea that lesser developed cultures can rise through their own efforts is foolish.

That's why 1 world government is the only way that the world will become more rational and fair, and the weath will increase exponentially for all nations.

The rising tide lifts all boats.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
I'm setting the conditions for anyone here to demonstrate a nation rising from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world in the last 100 years solely and exclusively by their own national efforts. But you wont say why. This seems arbitrary. Why are you doing this? Isn't this a no true scotsman thing. You are limiting the variable to prove a point but it doesn't seem justified.

Again, it is your claim, why can't YOU support it? Saying prove me wrong is poor form.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RandFan
I will gladly take you up on that but first I need to point out that it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable? Jay,

Answer the question.

[jay gw]

But you wont say why. This seems arbitrary. Why are you doing this? Isn't this a no true scotsman thing. You are limiting the variable to prove a point but it doesn't seem justified.

A "no true Scotsman" would be something that is impossible to show because the definer keeps changing the definition so no example fits it.

The definition has not changed. I'm looking for you to describe a country that has risen from a 3rd world status to 1st world solely and exclusively by its own efforts. 100 years is enough time for you to investigate and find one, I'm not asking for a dissertation.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
The definition has not changed. I'm looking for you to describe a country that has risen from a 3rd world status to 1st world solely and exclusively by its own efforts. 100 years is enough time for you to investigate and find one, I'm not asking for a dissertation. I disagree with your requirements. I think it is wrong to assume that inference can only be drawn from an example that meets your requirements.

However, before we even get there.

Originally posted by RandFan
I will gladly take you up on that but first I need to point out that it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable? ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
A "no true Scotsman" would be something that is impossible to show because the definer keeps changing the definition so no example fits it. And you are already arbitrarly changing the rules assuming no infernece can be drawn. You give no reason why no inference can be drawn. Your requirements are arbitrary and it seems fair that we should be able to agree on them.

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS! Are you being obtuse? Why do you ignore the question?

it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable?

[jay gw]

I disagree with your requirements. I think it is wrong to assume that inference can only be drawn from an example that meets your requirements.

What inference? I didn't make any. I asked for an example of a poor country in the last 100 years that's gone from 3rd world to 1st world solely and exclusively by it's own efforts.

An example you still haven't provided.

I will gladly take you up on that but first I need to point out that it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Now who's obtuse. I just stated several times that there are no examples of a country going from 3rd world to 1st world without transfers from rich countries. Then I've asked you 5 times to counter it, and you keep printing in bold red letters, as if that means something.

The ball is in your court. If you can't answer the challenge, just say so.

[INRM]

I actually oppose.

The same reason I'm not fond of monopolies.

If you have one big government, and it goes sour... what do you do? Fly to Alpha Centauri???

I think having at least 3-nations would be a good idea.

That way you can run to another nation if the other goes sour.

-INRM

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by jay gw
What inference? I didn't make any. I asked for an example of a poor country in the last 100 years that's gone from 3rd world to 1st world solely and exclusively by it's own efforts.

An example you still haven't provided.

Now who's obtuse. I just stated several times that there are no examples of a country going from 3rd world to 1st world without transfers from rich countries. Then I've asked you 5 times to counter it, and you keep printing in bold red letters, as if that means something.

The ball is in your court. If you can't answer the challenge, just say so.

And how many times have you failed to answer the earlier questions about power corrupting?

Or did I miss your examples refuting that axiom?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
What inference? I didn't make any. I asked for an example of a poor country in the last 100 years that's gone from 3rd world to 1st world solely and exclusively by it's own efforts. {good grief} The inference that I am talking about is the infernence from the examples you refuse to accept. This is dishonest.

An example you still haven't provided. YOU MADE THE CLAIM FIRST! Why do you not get that?

Now who's obtuse. I just stated several times that there are no examples of a country going from 3rd world to 1st world without transfers from rich countries. Then I've asked you 5 times to counter it, and you keep printing in bold red letters, as if that means something. YOU made a claim before I did. I have not denied or ignored my claim. You are ignoring that you made a claim. YOU ARE BEING OBTUSE.

The ball is in your court. If you can't answer the challenge, just say so. I have not refused the challenge but the ball is in YOUR COURT!

Look ********* you made the following claim.

jay gw

Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones." You made it before mine. I'm not ignoring my claim. You however ARE ignoring your claim WHICH YOU MADE FIRST! it is YOUR claim that:

"Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones." Remember those words? You should they are yours.

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable?

Answer the question. It is your claim. If you withdraw the claim then my argument is moot isn't it? Are you ready to step up to the plate? It is demonstrable that you made the claim first. Look your post was the 5th post on the 2nd page. 04-24-2005 02:55 PM Mine was the next one 04-24-2005 03:04 PM.

So stop being a jerk and have a backbone and some honesty. Your claim WAS first. My claim WAS second. Are you getting this yet?

Jay's Claim: 04-24-2005 02:55 PM

Randfan's Claim: 04-24-2005 03:04 PM

Is there something about that you are not getting?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[Z]

Originally posted by jay gw
Oh my goodness. Another American historical revisionist!

Americans colonized from Europe, the most advanced society in the world at that time. Get real.

I'm setting the conditions for anyone here to demonstrate a nation rising from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world in the last 100 years solely and exclusively by their own national efforts.

If you're not up to the challenge, don't act silly and divert attention to my post 100 posts ago and other such nonsense.

Just grow up and say the idea that lesser developed cultures can rise through their own efforts is foolish.

That's why 1 world government is the only way that the world will become more rational and fair, and the weath will increase exponentially for all nations.

The rising tide lifts all boats.

Get real yourself, kid. The U.S. may have been colonized by England initially, but it remained a weak nation until after succession and independance. The U.S. rose to power without help from 'Mother England', without 'financial transfers' from other nations (aside from good business - hardly what you are referring to here, is it moron?) - in other words, the U.S. fulfilled your requirements.

If colonization negates those requirements, then in essence EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH is immune to your request, since every modern Nation has risen from some prior colonization from some other, superior country.

THAT would be the "No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Anyway, pull your head from your rectum for five minutes and answer the questions put to you... RandFan's and my own (how would you go about breeding honest and selfless people with power/how would you prevent absolute power from corrupting?)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
If colonization negates those requirements, then in essence EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH is immune to your request, since every modern Nation has risen from some prior colonization from some other, superior country.

THAT would be the "No True Scotsman' fallacy. That is why he is playing this little game. He is trying to make it impossible to even make an argument. Of course he was the one to make the claim first. Will he defend it? Will he even acknowledge that he made the claim? Depends on how honest the guy is. If he refuses to acknowledge that he made a claim and made it fisrt then he is dishonest.

[Z]

Let's face it - government sucks, period - no matter the type.

In the U.S., government has gotten more out-of-control, the larger it is. We've at least got a system by which we can reign it in, to a very small degree, but lawmaking on the National level rarely accurately reflects the needs and wants at the Local level.

Fortunately, much pertinent lawmaking occurs at State, City, and Town levels as well. Even then, though, there are imperfections.

Now, consider the U.S., Jay, as a small-scale version of your OWG. Has this Uber-government allowed every state to be equally wealthy? Every town, equally affluent? Is Arcadia, Florida as wealthy and modernized as San Francisco, California? Are folks in Deming, NM reaping the financial benefits of wealth being pulled into Alaska?

On some level, yes, there is a homogenization within the States. Health care is equally unaffordable everywhere, medicines and food supplies are just as available in nearly every major population center, and some form of education and police protection exists. However - there are still huge inequalities at work. The school system in Cincinnati, OH is a FAR cry from the adolescent penal system of South Florida. Road conditions in North Carolina are finally improving to match national standards, but in New Mexico, some fairly large areas are still paved in packed dirt.

Now expand this to a OWG that has to distribute everything globally. How many decades - centuries, perhaps - would this gov have to be operating at peak efficiency for remote parts of the Ukraine to have Montessori schools and socialized medicine? For African jungle dwellers to enjoy the benefits of grocery stores and DSL Internet access?

Again, a lovely - and utterly impractical - dream. As another poster pointed out - a OWG isn't going to bring about world unity, but world unity may bring about a OWG.

...

You know, even England qualifies for his request, minus the 100-year issue. Doesn't it?

In fact, name a superpower that became a superpower through financial contributions from other superpowers.

[jay gw]

The U.S. may have been colonized by England initially, but it remained a weak nation until after succession and independance. The U.S. rose to power without help from 'Mother England', without 'financial transfers' from other nations

Err...you do realize that the American Revolution was financed by France, don't you? Without France's help, the United States would still be a colony.

United States Department of the Interior
The American Revolution

As a result of the patriot victory at Saratoga and American diplomatic efforts, France allies itself with the new American government. French financial and military aid will prove critical in winning the war. The Continental Army will learn of the French Alliance in May.

http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/timeline_of_events_11_14.html

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
Err... So you are not going to answer the question? You are not going to support your claim? Will you withdraw it?

Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones. We are still waiting for proof.

[Z]

Originally posted by jay gw
Err...you do realize that the American Revolution was financed by France, don't you? Without France's help, the United States would still be a colony.

United States Department of the Interior
The American Revolution

As a result of the patriot victory at Saratoga and American diplomatic efforts, France allies itself with the new American government. French financial and military aid will prove critical in winning the war. The Continental Army will learn of the French Alliance in May.

http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/timeline_of_events_11_14.html

Again, you're referring to events far prior to America becoming a superpower. Again, you're setting a condition to make it impossible for any country to exist that meets your qualifications.

The United States did not become a superpower as a direct result of financial aid from France. The United States did not become a superpower as a direct result of financial aid from England.

The United States became a superpower because WWII left Europe in a terrible economic state, with Communists gaining a firm foothold in their governments; the U.S. had a strong post-war economy and a monopoly on nuclear weapons.

In no way was financial aide from a superior nation a factor. And that IS in the last 100 years.

So... about those questions...?

[jay gw]

Again, you're referring to events far prior to America becoming a superpower.

No, I'm referring to your posts claiming that Americans founded the country with no outside help. False. America would still be a colony of Britain had it not been for France's aid during the war.

The United States became a superpower because WWII left Europe in a terrible economic state, with Communists gaining a firm foothold in their governments; the U.S. had a strong post-war economy and a monopoly on nuclear weapons.

In no way was financial aide from a superior nation a factor. And that IS in the last 100 years.

Oh wow. Do you know who actually built America's atomic bombs?

Enrico Fermi - Italian
Robert Oppenheimer - German
Otto Frisch - German
Leo Szilard - Hungarian
George Kistiakowski - Russian
James Franck - German
Emilio Segrè - Italian
Eugene Wigner - Hungarian

http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/HF/hall_of_fame_gallery_1.htm

[crimresearch]

Jay...quit
http://www.advance-computer.com/shirley/tapdancing.gif

and answer the question.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Do I pay taxes to this world government? If so, forget it. The farther my money goes from home, the less I have a clue what it's doing.

~~ Paul
I agree. I've said it before and I'll say it again - keep your enemies close and your politicians closer.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Let's face it - government sucks, period - no matter the type.

I have to agree with that. And IMO, a monetarian based economy is idiotic. But thats the world.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by jay gw
I'm looking for you to describe a country that has risen from a 3rd world status to 1st world solely and exclusively by its own efforts. 100 years is enough time for you to investigate and find one, I'm not asking for a dissertation.

Taiwan

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
No, I'm referring to your posts claiming that Americans founded the country with no outside help. False. America would still be a colony of Britain had it not been for France's aid during the war. So, I guess your not going to answer the queston? Why not jay?

Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones. Can you support this claim?

Response so far. (http://simplythebest.net/sounds/WAV/sound_effects_WAV/sound_effect_WAV_files/crickets_1.wav)

[jay gw]

Taiwan

The History of Taiwan
http://www.taiwandc.org/hst-1624.htm

The Taiwanese didn't like the idea of incorporation into Japan, and on 25 May 1895 -- with the assistance of disenchanted Manchu officials -- the Taiwan Republic, the first independent republic in Asia was established.

However, a few days later, on 29 May 1895, a Japanese military force of over 12,000 soldiers landed in Northern Taiwan, and started to crush the movement. On 21 October 1895, Japanese imperial troops entered Tainan, the southern capital of the Taiwan Republic, ending its short life.

The Japanese Period

The Japanese occupation was harsh, but at least the Japanese were not corrupt. The educational system was built up to the same level as in Japan, infrastructure, trains, roads, industry etc. were developed extensively. An excellent academic work on the Japanese period is Mr. George Kerr's work on the "Formosan Home Rule Movement."

During the following 20 years, from 1952 to 1972, the Kuomintang was able to build up Taiwan economically, thanks to the hard work of the Taiwanese, and the sound infrastructure built up by the Japanese.

http://www.taiwan.com.au/Polieco/History/report04.html

Despite the Japanese success in transforming Taiwan into a society that, economically, was rather modern in comparison with its neighbors, resistance against alien rule never ceased on the island.
_____

The truth of the matter is that you will not find any stone age culture that has ever managed to lift itself into a more developed stage without direct interventions from major powers.

There's no way for the world to become more equitable and fair without the structure of a 1 world government.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
There's no way for the world to become more equitable and fair without the structure of a 1 world government. Another claim. I'm guessing your not going to prove that one either.

[SlippyToad]

Isaac Asimov said it somewhere in one of his excellent non-fiction books. Roughly quoted: "One day we will wake up and a world government will be in place. It won't be a matter of debate." Asimov's logic was, as usual, incontrovertible. The resources of the world are limited, and the necessity for cooperating with each other is far greater than any gain we would get from continuing our nationalism. If we can't manage a world government, we will probably regress back to the stone age. Every development of the last 200 years has been in the direction of greater cooperation internationally -- even the setbacks have ended up being two steps forward.

The main reason I strongly support a world government becomes harder to ignore every single day: as globalization of our economy occurs, our local governments' power to speak for us ordinary citizens diminishes. Corporations operate in the white space between national boundaries -- if they don't agree with the policies of one nation, they can simply ignore them and funnel product in and money out through intermediaries, or leave the nation entirely. Even wealthy nations with formerly strong social controls over corporations (such as the U.S.) now basically have no bargaining power, except to hysterically promise lower taxes and less regulation. In this race to the bottom, all of the advances made in standards of living, social mobility and security, and civil rights are being jettisoned in a perverse Darwinian logic. Free Market Weenies will simply shrug and tell us this is inevitable, and we can't do anything about it.

And I ask -- why should we tolerate it, then? In every social exchange there are compromises. But in the global economy, multinational corporations don't have to compromise anymore, because there is no central authority. They can play nations off each other like spoiled children against confused parents, and get whatever their bratty CEO's and shareholders want regardless of who they screw over. Outsourcing is often pointed to as the inexorable logic of globalization, and we are frequently told in the U.S. to expect a long period, maybe a permanent one, of crummy employment and declining standard of living. And I have to ask Free Market Weenies if they think Americans will tolerate that. Or if they have to.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been a great many small shifts in power, accumulating to a giant Powerquake, as it were. The faultline of that quake, now being eagerly dynamited by George W. Bush, is U.S. unilateralism. As long as we didn't try to actually use our immense strength as the only world's remaining superpower, we remained respectably in control, speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Bush, like a 4-year-old with no control, grabbed the stick and hit the first thing he saw, and the quake we're all feeling now is our power collapsing. It could not stand more than a single use, and maybe it's better that he went ahead and wasted it now, rather than allowing us to spend years rotting from the inside, but the fact is our unilateral hold over the world is gone. We have lost the world's respect and admiration. Historians will mark 2003 as the year the U.S. began to decline in real power.

When it's over, a globalized nation will stand, with shifting and uncertain alliances and a tremendous need for someone to take direction. No one will tolerate China as a world leader, even though they appear to be the most likely successor, because their credibility as a democratic state is rather frail. I don't know how it will happen, or if it will take a resource war over oil to engender the need, but at some point after the vacuum of power is left by our departure from the scene, the remaining credible democracies of the world will constitute the first world government, likely based on whatever remains of the U.N.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by jay gw
The History of Taiwan
http://www.taiwandc.org/hst-1624.htm

The Taiwanese didn't like the idea of incorporation into Japan, and on 25 May 1895 -- with the assistance of disenchanted Manchu officials -- the Taiwan Republic, the first independent republic in Asia was established.

However, a few days later, on 29 May 1895, a Japanese military force of over 12,000 soldiers landed in Northern Taiwan, and started to crush the movement. On 21 October 1895, Japanese imperial troops entered Tainan, the southern capital of the Taiwan Republic, ending its short life.

The Japanese Period

The Japanese occupation was harsh, but at least the Japanese were not corrupt. The educational system was built up to the same level as in Japan, infrastructure, trains, roads, industry etc. were developed extensively. An excellent academic work on the Japanese period is Mr. George Kerr's work on the "Formosan Home Rule Movement."

During the following 20 years, from 1952 to 1972, the Kuomintang was able to build up Taiwan economically, thanks to the hard work of the Taiwanese, and the sound infrastructure built up by the Japanese.

http://www.taiwan.com.au/Polieco/History/report04.html

Despite the Japanese success in transforming Taiwan into a society that, economically, was rather modern in comparison with its neighbors, resistance against alien rule never ceased on the island.
_____

The truth of the matter is that you will not find any stone age culture that has ever managed to lift itself into a more developed stage without direct interventions from major powers.

There's no way for the world to become more equitable and fair without the structure of a 1 world government.

Well Jay, which is it?

a 3rd world country, or a Stone Age culture?

Within the last 100 years, or back in 1895?

Without direct transfers or without any contact of any kind, or without trading with more advanced cultures?

And what about that 'power corrupts' thingy you were supposed to disprove?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by INRM
I actually oppose.

The same reason I'm not fond of monopolies.

If you have one big government, and it goes sour... what do you do? Fly to Alpha Centauri???

I think having at least 3-nations would be a good idea.


That way you can run to another nation if the other goes sour.

-INRM

Sounds like my position. (http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870508200&highlight=World+AND+Government#post1870508200)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been a great many small shifts in power, accumulating to a giant Powerquake, as it were. The faultline of that quake, now being eagerly dynamited by George W. Bush, is U.S. unilateralism. As long as we didn't try to actually use our immense strength as the only world's remaining superpower, we remained respectably in control, speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Bush, like a 4-year-old with no control, grabbed the stick and hit the first thing he saw, and the quake we're all feeling now is our power collapsing. It could not stand more than a single use, and maybe it's better that he went ahead and wasted it now, rather than allowing us to spend years rotting from the inside, but the fact is our unilateral hold over the world is gone. We have lost the world's respect and admiration. Historians will mark 2003 as the year the U.S. began to decline in real power. Rhetoric. I agree with scant little you have said. If you took the time to find the truth you would know that the French were screwing us long before Bush took office (see oil for food).

America: "Hey Francois, will you respect us in the morning?"

France: Morning? Hell, I don't respect you now.

If you knew history you would know that world governments long before Bush used the UN to attack and deride America. The notion that we were respected by the world is a myth. American policy in South America has been disastrous and not garnered any respect there. Our support of Israel has made us enemies of many Muslim countries. Our bases in Saudi Arabia also engendered lots of resentment from Muslim nations.

Open your eyes, find the truth and don't just consume the spoon fed propaganda of those who tell you what you want to hear.

[jay gw]

The notion that we were respected by the world is a myth.

Yes, I agree that the idea America was respected, ever, is a myth.

However, that's not what the one world government debate is about.

[Kopji]

A country that does reasonably well is Costa Rica. They do this without a standing army, or appreciable natural resources like oil or illegal drugs.

Devil's advocate:

Suppose for a moment, that instead of this one government being a political entity, it were a corporate one?

So what qualities do our current political systems have that a worldwide conglomeration of corporations could not do better?

Iacchus
This does not seem like much of a coincidence to me.
First letter is z, but that starts the sequence so why count it?
Rather than look at the other three letters separately, I would consider their frequency in English as "aph". This set is common, and even in google yields over 600,000 literal hits.

Even more convincing, :rolleyes: their Scrabble scores are quite different:

Z a p h o d B e e b l e b r o x
10+1+3+4+1+2+3+1+1+3+1+1+3+1+1+8

Score = 44

Z a p h n a t h p a a n e a
10+1+3+4+1+1+1+4+3+1+1+1+1+1

Score = 33

:D

[Giz]

Originally posted by jay gw
Please list some examples, from the last 100 years, of nations pulling themselves through solely and exclusively their own national efforts, from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world.



Japan. 1860-1960.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by jay gw
Yes, I agree that the idea America was respected, ever, is a myth.

However, that's not what the one world government debate is about.


You aren't having a debate about one world government...

You are refusing to answer legitimate questions.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
However, that's not what the one world government debate is about. Since you refuse to support your claims and respond in a meaningfull way then I'm not sure what the importance of this is?

[jay gw]

Since you refuse to support your claims and respond in a meaningfull way then I'm not sure what the importance of this is?

I've demonstrated that because no nation in the last 100 years has gone from 3rd world to 1st solely and exclusively through it's own national efforts, that in order to remedy poverty and create conditions of progress everywhere, not just in the developed world, a one world government is needed.

There is no other hope for the developing nations.

[crimresearch]

No.

You haven't.

Time for you to have a treat...maybe it will help you learn something.

http://www.clarkadspr.com/images/photo_shinola_large.jpg

[Earthborn]

I think the argument that a one world government would be impossible because cultures differ so much from eachother is bogus. If everyone was the same and everybody agreed with eachother, then governments would not be necessary. They would likely not even exist. Governments form when people are disagreeing with eachother and want an authority above them to settle their disputes. So if nations and cultures have disputes, they will form a government-like structure to settle them.

The UN is a good example of such a structure beginning to form. This happens because there are differences, because without differences there would be no point in forming something like that. Would there be a UN if there were never disputes and conflicts between nations? I don't think so. The more differences there are, the more likely it is that some sort of worldwide government will form.

The argument that a one world government will try to homogenise the world by forcing one particular morality on all nations is not much of an argument either. I even think having seperate nations encourages homogenisation more than a world government. Today there are lots of countries forming large unions. A good example is the European Union. There is also the beginning of an African Union.

Such unions tend to homogenise the countries within them, but this is caused to some degree because they are interacting with other blocks. A lot of changes in the EU are justified by claiming that the EU must 'speak with one voice' when it comes to foreign policy.

A world government doesn't have foreign relations (at least not until 'First Contact' with the Vulcans), so it does not need a consistent foreign policy and does not have to 'speak with one voice'. It can limit homogenisation to whatever is needed for some internal consistency for example on the issue of human rights. But it can also allow a great deal of diversity within itself.

The idea that several nations would be better, because if one becomes tyranical people can at least flee it and live in another country is also largely bogus, I think. We now have lots of different nations, but most of them restrict immigration, so most people have no choice but to stay in the country they don't like.

Having a world government means that everybody becomes a citizen of the world. Hopefully that will also mean that there will be free traffic of people. But at the very least the traffic of people can be regulated globally, so countries are not competing against eachother to try to have as few immigrants as possible, which just results in 'burdening' all the other countries even more.

A world government might mean more freedom to move across the globe, not less. Since a world government will probably not be able to regulate every aspect of life, there will still be more than enough difference between countries to chose between.

I think the biggest problem with a world government is that some countries will be more powerful in it and people within them might get the impression that it can do without the world government.

These countries will have such a strong influence on the world government that people will consider their own country's influence in the world as obvious, and only percieve the costs of the world government. Their impression will be that being part of the world government is a burden and they get nothing for it in return. We can see something similar happening in the way the UN is seen by many Americans, or how many Brits see the EU. Even in the way (to a lesser degree) many Texans view the United States government.

The idea that a world government or even the UN would be not be necessary because disputes can be solved with treaties is also bogus. A treaty is like a contract, it is a mutual agreement. If there is a dispute over the exact meaning of a contract, or whether one party fulfils its part of the bargain, or whether the contract is fair at all and not signed under duress, you have a independent judge (part of the government) look at it.

So what happens if there is no authority above nations and there is a dispute over a treaty? In the absence of an authority or consensus, the only way to settle a dispute is through violence. With nations, that means war. Few people want that, so most will try to avoid it by setting up systems to peacefully settle disagreements.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
I've demonstrated that because no nation in the last 100 years has gone from 3rd world to 1st solely and exclusively through it's own national efforts, that in order to remedy poverty and create conditions of progress everywhere, not just in the developed world, a one world government is needed.

There is no other hope for the developing nations. Sorry, you have done no such thing. This is fallacious reasoning. Besides, your proposition does not follow from your premise. This is a major non sequitur.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jay gw
I've demonstrated that because no nation in the last 100 years has gone from 3rd world to 1st solely and exclusively through it's own national efforts, that in order to remedy poverty and create conditions of progress everywhere, not just in the developed world, a one world government is needed.

There is no other hope for the developing nations. Also, the notion that the last 100 years has any bearing is without foundation. You can declare that you have done something but if you can't make a reasonable argument then it is a rather worthless claim, don't you think?

[Earthborn]

Culture and "tribalism" are completely socially manufactured and irrelevant.Just because it is socially manufactured does not make it irrelevant. I think it is easier to argue that it is relevant because it is socially manufactured. The few things that are not socially manufactured are considered not very relevant by most people.Everyone in the world recognizes that governments vary wildly in quality and everyone wants the best government they can get.But they don't exactly agree on what is best.There is no way a one world government could become a tyranny. There are so many mechanisms available to prevent something like that from happeningName a few.Please list some examples, from the last 100 years, of nations pulling themselves through solely and exclusively their own national efforts, from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world.Your question is vague, because it is unclear what you mean with 'their own national efforts' and what you mean with 'transfers from other countries'. It is obviously true that no country ever became a 1st world country by isolating itself from the rest of the world, and all 1st world countries became that way by trading extensively with other countries. So if your definition of 'transfers' includes ordinary trade relations and your definition of 'own national efforts' does not include trade, you are completely correct. I think though that most people will think 'transfers' means extensive inter-governmental development programs and think import and export still constitutes 'their own efforts' even if it makes them dependent on other countries' economic activities.