Superpowers in 2103?

[plindboe]

Which superpowers(if any) do you think will exist in 2103? China seems to head that way, and a good chance that the EU will end up as one too.

What do you think?

Peter ;)

[aerocontrols]

India will do better than China or the EU.

[Samus]

X-Ray spectacles, ability to shoot lasers from one's eyes, ability to leap tall buildings with a single leap...

...oh, not those kinds of superpowers.

I think China, probably the U.S. and GB. That's about it.

[KelvinG]

Canada. We will have annexed the US by then.

[WildCat]

WildCatistan.
The world will tremble under the threat of my fangs and claws.
Dogs beware!
;)

Actually, the US under George Bush VI will be the only country left. :D

OK, in all seriousness I think the US and a much more Democratic China, I think the EU will have splintered into its' elemental parts again by then.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

USA, China, India.

And Costa Rica

[ImpyTimpy]

Planet X will destroy all so no super powers will exist... Then the galactic federation will come and peace will reign supreme...


The aliens told me so, so it's gotta be true.

[Shane Costello]

EU: Unlikely. Falling population. Already lacks technological and innovative edge. Can't even agree on a constitution. Run by very stupid people with big ideas. Most of the current EU budget goes on handouts to farmers. Cue sound of toilet flushing.

India and China: Could be the world's largest economies in another two decades. Whether they will be superpowers is another thing all together. The Chinese are particularly inward looking, and might not give a damn about the outside world. Maybe the "one child policy" will act as a brake on growth.

USA: Very good at attracting clever people from around the globe, which helps maintain it's technological lead on the rest of the globe.

Ireland: If current European birth rates stay the same, Ireland will be one of Europes biggest countries one hundred years from now.

[blackpriester]

Shane, do you think that growing birthrates are a POSITIVE thing (outside the "superpower question", to which it doubtlessly is related?). Just out of curiosity...

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
EU: Unlikely. Falling population. Already lacks technological and innovative edge. Can't even agree on a constitution. Run by very stupid people with big ideas. Most of the current EU budget goes on handouts to farmers. Cue sound of toilet flushing.

The EU is still growing, and will probably consist of many more countries in a hundred years time. Turkey might even have joined the club at that point. 67 million citizens and a growth rate of 1.2%. Other future EU members also have a positive growth rate.

On what have you judged that the EU already lacks technological and innovative edge? Any links?

Peter :)

[HarryKeogh]

Iraq, Afghanistan and the USA.

[BillyTK]

News Corp. Or maybe Microsoft.

But seriously, I really do doubt if there will be any countries left by our understanding of the word in a century's time, unless neo-lib. capitalism goes green or something.

[aerocontrols]

One candidate is noticably missing from everyone's response, which pleases me a great deal. I hope we're all right about that. ;)

Can anyone guess which it is that I'm talking about? (It's not Russia, if that's what you're thinking)

MattJ

[Underemployed]

Moon Base Alpha?

[DanishDynamite]

By 2103 hopefully all national states will have been absorbed into one common federal government and humans can get on with important things like building interstellar colony ships. ;)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
By 2103 hopefully all national states will have been absorbed into one common federal government

Awww... you guessed it :(

:D

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Awww... you guessed it :(

:D In your wet-dream! "Federal" does not imply "US". :)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
By 2103 hopefully all national states will have been absorbed into one common federal government...


Even if it is the United States federal government, DD?? :cool:

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
In your wet-dream! "Federal" does not imply "US". :)

Umm... Actually, I thought you were answering my question about which candidate was 'noticably missing' - World Government.

Until your response, I was pleased that no one had replied with that answer.

I would not approve of 'world government' even if the US was for whatever reason in control of it.

MattJ

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Umm... Actually, I thought you were answering my question about which candidate was 'noticably missing' - World Government.

Until your response, I was pleased that no one had replied with that answer.

I would not approve of 'world government' even if the US was for whatever reason in control of it.

MattJ Sorry to disappoint you.

Mind if I ask why you wouldn't approve of a world government even if it was the US?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sorry to disappoint you.

No problem, thus the smileys.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Mind if I ask why you wouldn't approve of a world government even if it was the US?

Sure.

1) I believe that competition is healthy.

more importantly...

2) I want to be 'free to leave' a government that I disapprove of. I consider it a fundamental human right, in fact, that people should be able to escape a government they consider oppressive.

MattJ

[DanishDynamite]

aerocontrols:No problem, thus the smileys. I know. I should have included one in my response.
1) I believe that competition is healthy.Are you saying there isn't tons of competition within the US or Germany or any other federal state?
more importantly...

2) I want to be 'free to leave' a government that I disapprove of. I consider it a fundamental human right, in fact, that people should be able to escape a government they consider oppressive.Firstly, do you find that there are some states in the US (or Germany) which are oppresive?

Secondly, you could buy a ticket on the first available stellar colony ship! :)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Are you saying there isn't tons of competition within the US or Germany or any other federal state?

I believe people say things like that all the time, actually.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Firstly, do you find that there are some states in the US (or Germany) which are oppresive?

No, I find that neither Germany nor the US are oppressive at the moment. However, that has not always been so, and I have no reason to think it will always be so. What I suspect, however, is that, much like Germany in 1939, if the worldwide federal government you describe does become oppressive, there will be no state within that government that I will be able to 'escape' to. (the Jews and homosexuals were safe in Bavaria, right?)

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Secondly, you could buy a ticket on the first available stellar colony ship! :)

:) No doubt these colonies would be independent of your federal government... After a tea party in New Boston, perhaps.

MattJ

[Frostbite]

I'd say Europe, Russia and Canada. Europe cause it's been there for a hell of a long time. Russia and Canada because I'm canadian and therefore biased, and because there's a lot of fresh water, glacier leftovers up here. Fresh water, the oil of the 22nd century!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Europe cause it's been there for a hell of a long time.

What does that mean?

[DanishDynamite]

aerocontrols:I believe people say things like that all the time, actually.This non-answer is unworthy of you, my friend. Where is the fire? :)
No, I find that neither Germany nor the US are oppressive at the moment. However, that has not always been so, and I have no reason to think it will always be so. What I suspect, however, is that, much like Germany in 1939, if the worldwide federal government you describe does become oppressive, there will be no state within that government that I will be able to 'escape' to. (the Jews and homosexuals were safe in Bavaria, right?)A worldwide federal government would be tenuous at best. I expect there would be a lot of "checks-and-balances" built in.

An aside: Seriously, how do you see the world in a hundred years? Must there always be nation states and the inevitable friction between them and hence the inevitable wars? It seems completely cavemanish! As far as we know, there is only one Earth and there is certainly only one rock where the human species is known to exist. It is a vast,vast universe. Why must we bicker endlessly?
:) No doubt these colonies would be independent of your federal government... After a tea party in New Boston, perhaps.
If you wish. As long as we get moving!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
An aside: Seriously, how do you see the world in a hundred years? Must there always be nation states and the inevitable friction between them and hence the inevitable wars? It seems completely cavemanish! As far as we know, there is only one Earth and there is certainly only one rock where the human species is known to exist. It is a vast,vast universe. Why must we bicker endlessly?

I do not agree with your assumption that nation-states make wars inevitable. You seem to have a corollary assumption that the lack of nation-states will stop wars, which I also disagree with.

I suspect any guess I may have about the structure of the world in 100 years would be as far off as any guess one might have made 100 years ago. Way off...

MattJ

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


What does that mean?

I dunno really. I've been to Europe twice and it had a feeling of stability. With the Euro and the fact you can take the train to practically anywhere in any country gives me the feeling they're gonna be around for a while. Then again, it only takes another Hitler to screw it all up.

[DanishDynamite]

aerocontrols:I do not agree with your assumption that nation-states make wars inevitable. You seem to have a corollary assumption that the lack of nation-states will stop wars, which I also disagree with.Firstly, you have not yet answered my query of your contention that there would be less competion in a World Federal Government.

Secondly, you have not made it clear that a state within the federal government would be able to become oppresive and that if this happend, you wouldn't just be able to move to another state.
I suspect any guess I may have about the structure of the world in 100 years would be as far off as any guess one might have made 100 years ago. Way off...Certainly, but from your remarks it is clear that any consequences of a World Federal Government are immaterial because you oppose such an entity from the very start.

[Mike B.]

DD,

This may sound crass, but in a one-world government what would stop the billions in the developing world saying to Denmark, "Well your guys per capita income is too high as compared to the rest of the world, we wish to take that wealth and redistribute it to the third world."?

and then with its large population outvoting Denmark...

The "First World" populations are pretty much stable or growing very slowly.

The "Developing World" has a much higher birthrate, in a one world government wouldn't they constantly raise the taxes, as it were on places like Japan, EU, Canada, Austrailia, USA, etc...

If that is fine, OK?
But I think a lot of people would balk at that...

I mean unless there was more equity in the GDP per capita of the world, it would probably be impossible.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols:Firstly, you have not yet answered my query of your contention that there would be less competion in a World Federal Government.

You didn't ask that question. You asked me if there was 'tons' of competition between states in a federal system. The answer to that, obviously, I thought, is that the states don't compete in matters where they don't participate. Wisconsin's space program is the same as Minnesota's. Whatever powers you give to the federal government will be largely monopolies, not subject to competition.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Secondly, you have not made it clear that a state within the federal government would be able to become oppresive and that if this happend, you wouldn't just be able to move to another state.

??? I don't see how the question is relevant to my point. My problem is with your proposed federal government becoming oppressive, not one or more of it's parts doing so. If the United States of the World becomes oppressive, where shall I move? If Georgia becomes oppressive, I can move to Tennessee or Spain, but that only benefits me if the government oppressing me in Georgia has no power in Tennessee or Spain.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Certainly, but from your remarks it is clear that any consequences of a World Federal Government are immaterial because you oppose such an entity from the very start.

I don't see how that comment is a reply to mine, to be honest. You asked me to predict the future, I politely declined. I oppose a world federal government because I believe the structure of it to be flawed, (because people in the world will not be able to choose not to be its citizens) not because I predict it will do such-and-such.

MattJ

[DanishDynamite]

Mike B.This may sound crass, but in a one-world government what would stop the billions in the developing world saying to Denmark, "Well your guys per capita income is too high as compared to the rest of the world, we wish to take that wealth and redistribute it to the third world."?

and then with its large population outvoting Denmark...Nothing, except for the One-World-Constitution. Said Constitution would presumably limit the interference of one federal state in the affairs of another. If it didn't, you would have multiple states trying to extract themselves.
The "First World" populations are pretty much stable or growing very slowly.

The "Developing World" has a much higher birthrate, in a one world government wouldn't they constantly raise the taxes, as it were on places like Japan, EU, Canada, Austrailia, USA, etc...

If that is fine, OK?
But I think a lot of people would balk at that... You seem to assume that there would still be vast differences in wealth among the federalist states. Clearly, such a situation would not be viable. Hence, the EU sets minimum standards for the candidate countries. And yet it expands.

[DanishDynamite]

aero, I've seen your post, but It is way past my bedtime here. Watch this space! :)

[athon]

All of this is based on the assumption that the structure of world politics will be the same in one hundred years.

It might be. But my 'sci-fi' mind ponders other scenarios.

The 'global village', as it is, is shrinking. In many ways nationality has less influence on world economics than it did even twenty years ago (IMHO). Multi-national conglomerates will slowly get more power, and could eventually run small nations. Look at the recent changes - it is more effective for one nation to control another's import and export laws through such things as trade sanctions than it is to annex it. Hence imperialism has died, as in my view nationalism will. Governments will slowly become little more than law-makers, with the real power sliding into the hands of the private sector.

Australians are seeing this already with Telstra, for instance.

This is more of a fantasizing than any real observation based on researched facts. Economics is not my field. Mind you, it is food for thought.

Athon

[uneasy]

The Basque were the first, and they shall be the last.

I'd say viva la Basque or something here, but Basque is so unpronounceable. :)

[Drifterman]

OK, with regards to Superpowers - I believe there are several candidates.

1) North America
2) Greater China
3) The Indian Federation
4) The Eurasian Union

Why Eurasian? - well, a recent survey of Russians has revealed that currently more than 70% of Russian respondents wished to join the EU at some point in the future. Only 11% were opposed. In addition, it seems likely that Turkey will attempt to join in the future. This would lead to a Union that would certainly be Eurasian in nature. If the EU can survive the next 20 years, than I believe that this is a plausible result. Of course there are important details to be hashed out - most important being what is to be done with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). I would be more than happy to see the role of national governments within the EU reduced - I believe that they are unnecessary and expensive relics of 19th and 20th century industrialisation. Real power should be divided between local governments (who decide the nitty gritty details) and a central EU body that amends the constitution and ensures that it is observed. Plenty of variation in culture/social system/religion could be maintained by the different regional governments. Checks and balances would of course be included - we have the wonderful 18th century example of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Outside the EU, I would still like to have some global body ensuring that justice could be obtained for crimes committed anywhere - thus, some form of International Criminal Court (with no special exemptions for arrogant nations) would be necessary to try criminals whose own governments were too cowardly or powerless to try them.

Without such a global body, how would I avoid the insidious potential abuses of metanational corporations - e.g. Microsoft, Mitsubishi, News International or any of a hundred others?

[crocodile deathroll]

One dark horse to consider would be Iran. Now considered as one of Bushy's "axis of evil" I suspect will of long dispensed with its current old theocratic regime and become a free and prosperous superpower.

Well ---- a nice thought at least.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by athon
All of this is based on the assumption that the structure of world politics will be the same in one hundred years.

It might be. But my 'sci-fi' mind ponders other scenarios.

The 'global village', as it is, is shrinking. In many ways nationality has less influence on world economics than it did even twenty years ago (IMHO). Multi-national conglomerates will slowly get more power, and could eventually run small nations. Look at the recent changes - it is more effective for one nation to control another's import and export laws through such things as trade sanctions than it is to annex it. Hence imperialism has died, as in my view nationalism will. Governments will slowly become little more than law-makers, with the real power sliding into the hands of the private sector.

Australians are seeing this already with Telstra, for instance.

This is more of a fantasizing than any real observation based on researched facts. Economics is not my field. Mind you, it is food for thought.

Athon

I agree, which was the point I was making above ;) :) Global capitalism undermines nation-state sovereignty, at least wrt the economy; in a century's time, democracy might well be a moot point for nostalgia-buffs and historians.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
One dark horse to consider would be Iran. Now considered as one of Bushy's "axis of evil" I suspect will of long dispensed with its current old theocratic regime and become a free and prosperous superpower.

Well ---- a nice thought at least.

I agree Iran does indeed have a lot of potential.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by blackpriester:
Shane, do you think that growing birthrates are a POSITIVE thing (outside the "superpower question", to which it doubtlessly is related?). Just out of curiosity...

If, like most European countries, you like the idea of generous pension entitlements and retirement in your fifties, then positive birthrates are vital. Otherwise you have an increased proportion of the population will be dependents, while the decreased numbers at work will have to shoulder the increased burden of supporting them. This is happening right now (not just in Europe).

Originally posted by plindboe:
The EU is still growing, and will probably consist of many more countries in a hundred years time. Turkey might even have joined the club at that point. 67 million citizens and a growth rate of 1.2%. Other future EU members also have a positive growth rate.

Only Poland is maintaining a healthy birthrate, AFAIK. The Eastern European countries are relatively much poorer than Ireland or the mediterannean countries were when they joined.


On what have you judged that the EU already lacks technological and innovative edge? Any links?

That the IT revolution emanated from the US is self evident. The vast majority of biotech companies are American. Attitudes towards GM food and technology are far more openminded in the US than in Europe.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Global capitalism undermines nation-state sovereignty, at least wrt the economy; in a century's time, democracy might well be a moot point for nostalgia-buffs and historians. Interesting point of view. I happen to the only way to check global capitalism would be to establish a world government. It seems inevitable; as power breaks international boundaries, and corporations can dictate the affairs of, and have more than the entire GDP of, nations whose laws they are not subject to, there will naturally be a movement to contain that power, or at least balance it out.

The EU is like a dress-rehearsal in my mind of what the next 50 or so years might be like. I will be very surprised if I come to the end of my life and we aren't at least partly on the path of something like that.

Aerocontrols' objection to world government on the basis that 'you can't leave' is kind of moot. If your government is unjust, leaving won't change it. If a government becomes unjust, they are likely to take as their first measure steps to prevent their subjects from leaving. Governments do not operate like markets. They don't lose power (marketshare) if they have fewer citizens (customers). I don't think, either, that a global government that was undemocratic would last very long. Larger and larger portions of the world's population have been exposed to democratic freedoms and the meme is well-established now. Serfs can only be serfs if they are at least partially satisfied with serfdom, and our consumer-driven culture is addicted to anti-serfdom. It would take a major, hardcore global disaster and severe population reduction to disconnect enough people from their freedoms to establish, not World Democracy, but World Tyrrany.

International commerce is becoming so entwined and complex that it also seems impossible to continue without establishing some sort of authority that is central. A mishmash of treaties that can be dismissed by a local political sea-change can really upset the large, global system we have now.

I subscribe to the belief of Issac Asimov, stated in a foreward to one of his books (that I can't recall the title of offhand) that at some point in the 21st century we will wake up and we'll have a world government. It won't be a matter of choice. It will simply happen. Recent events have done nothing to weaken my conviction.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Aerocontrols' objection to world government on the basis that 'you can't leave' is kind of moot. If your government is unjust, leaving won't change it. If a government becomes unjust, they are likely to take as their first measure steps to prevent their subjects from leaving. Governments do not operate like markets. They don't lose power (marketshare) if they have fewer citizens (customers).

Example: Einstein (and others) left Germany.

Result you focus on: The Nazis did not fall from power (immediately, anyways...)

Perhaps you might consider that there were other results? Perhaps even some results that may have contributed to changes in the balance of world power?

Shall we assume from your objection that you oppose laws granting people asylum? Perhaps you cannot think of any examples where fleeing a nation ever did anyone any good, or examples where people fled a nation despite laws against doing so.

If you were prime minister of Canada, you would have sent all those pesky draft-dodging Americans back home in the 60s-70s, perhaps? Did they accomplish nothing to change the US's policies? I could list more examples, but I rather think you don't need me to.

Your faith that world government would not be tyrranical is not comforting to me, I'm afraid. Nor is your faith that a world government will restrain corporate power. I might suggest that world government would merely give them more powerful officials to bribe.

MattJ

[Shane Costello]

A century from now the population explosion will be a distant memory. World population could well be in decline. (www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993444)

Population decline in Europe. (www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993558)

[DanishDynamite]

aerocontrols:You didn't ask that question. You asked me if there was 'tons' of competition between states in a federal system. The answer to that, obviously, I thought, is that the states don't compete in matters where they don't participate. Wisconsin's space program is the same as Minnesota's. Whatever powers you give to the federal government will be largely monopolies, not subject to competition.All states participate in the job market. If a preponderance of citizens decide to move from one state1 to another state2, state1 would have a problem. They would need to analyze why people are leaving and what can be done about it. Hence, competition.
??? I don't see how the question is relevant to my point. My problem is with your proposed federal government becoming oppressive, not one or more of it's parts doing so. If the United States of the World becomes oppressive, where shall I move? If Georgia becomes oppressive, I can move to Tennessee or Spain, but that only benefits me if the government oppressing me in Georgia has no power in Tennessee or Spain.Sorry, I misunderstood. If a constitutionally limited and democratically based government, despite whatever checks-and-balances exist, starts to become oppressive, the first instinct shouldn't be to run. It should be to fight the oppression.
I don't see how that comment is a reply to mine, to be honest. You asked me to predict the future, I politely declined. I oppose a world federal government because I believe the structure of it to be flawed, (because people in the world will not be able to choose not to be its citizens) not because I predict it will do such-and-such.I really don't understand your objection. The supposition is that the One-World-Government is as democratic and constitutionally based as any country in the West. I don't see citizens fleeing from these countries. In fact, I see the opposite. Why would you think your scenario would be a problem? And if you say "Germany anno 1939", I will remind you that in the One-World-Government, you could move to another, less economically depressed state, anytime you wanted.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols:All states participate in the job market. If a preponderance of citizens decide to move from one state1 to another state2, state1 would have a problem. They would need to analyze why people are leaving and what can be done about it. Hence, competition.

What powers will you give this hypothetical government? They will use those powers to set rules. Those rules will be the same in state1 and state2. State1 may be unable to change as it needs to. This shouldn't be hard to understand.


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sorry, I misunderstood. If a constitutionally limited and democratically based government, despite whatever checks-and-balances exist, starts to become oppressive, the first instinct shouldn't be to run. It should be to fight the oppression.

Who is talking about first instincts? Don't put words in my mouth. But since you brought up 'staying and fighting' - how long should Charles de Gaul have spent standing up to the tyrants of Vichy France?

How many scientists, persecuted by the Church, fled to where they could be free to espouse their ideas? Should they have stayed and faced the inquisition? Worse, should they have had nowhere at all to run?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I really don't understand your objection. The supposition is that the One-World-Government is as democratic and constitutionally based as any country in the West.

Your supposition is based on precious little history, DD, but I admire your faith in democracy and constitutions to overcome people's inner weaknesses. This is where we will never agree, it seems. What seems obviously true to you and eternal seems quite dubious to me. I see the majority making rules that the minority quite won't like, and the minority pushing back.

MattJ

[DanishDynamite]

aerocontrols:What powers will you give this hypothetical government? They will use those powers to set rules. Those rules will be the same in state1 and state2. State1 may be unable to change as it needs to. This shouldn't be hard to understand. I would give them at least rules similar to what applies in the US, for example.
Who is talking about first instincts? Don't put words in my mouth. But since you brought up 'staying and fighting' - how long should Charles de Gaul have spent standing up to the tyrants of Vichy France?

How many scientists, persecuted by the Church, fled to where they could be free to espouse their ideas? Should they have stayed and faced the inquisition? Worse, should they have had nowhere at all to run? The country of de Gaul was invaded by another country. Other countries won't exist in a One-World-Government.

The Pope and the Catholic Church have little power today and it is continuelly declining.
Your supposition is based on precious little history, DD, but I admire your faith in democracy and constitutions to overcome people's inner weaknesses. This is where we will never agree, it seems. What seems obviously true to you and eternal seems quite dubious to me. I see the majority making rules that the minority quite won't like, and the minority pushing back.The minority always pushes back. So what? That is exactly how a democracy should be. People, in the minority or not, will make their voices heard.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols:I would give them at least rules similar to what applies in the US, for example.

Then as I said, there will be no competition in the space race. (among MANY other things) In response to what they felt was persecution by the United States, many noncitizen Arabs left the US after 9/11. In your world, this will no longer be possible. Perhaps it will also no longer be possible that something like 9/11 will happen in your world. Is that what you believe?

By the way: your at least up there is noted.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The country of de Gaul was invaded by another country. Other countries won't exist in a One-World-Government.

I offered Slipperytoad the example of Einstein. His county wasn't invaded. Shall we discuss people fleeing the Soviet Union? (You might read their Constitution sometime if you never have...) I'm so astounded by your reply here that I'm having difficulty staying civil. My fingers want to type words that mock you.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The Pope and the Catholic Church have little power today and it is continuelly declining.

Fantastic! How about corporate power? Continually declining? Perhaps not? Again with the desire to type rude things...

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The minority always pushes back. So what? That is exactly how a democracy should be. People, in the minority or not, will make their voices heard.

I have to ask here... are you interpreting my words this way on purpose? People flee countries because they become tyrannical. It happens, even to democracies. (some are suggesting that the US is dangerously close now) It could even happen to a WORLD democracy. (your belief to the contrary notwithstanding) People sometimes make their voices heard with bombs (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/disaster/images/okcity.jpg)

Both Northern Ireland and Great Britain are free societies, with checks and balances, where, for some reason, people don't seem to get along without killing each other. Strange, isn't it?

You seem to think, axiomatically, that your world government could never evolve into a tyranny. I think you could well be wrong. We're pretty much stuck right there, aren't we?

Also, I rather think that the US and Europe, for instance, both benefit from being able to compare the results of our respective policies on health care, economics, space exploration, etc. When you give 'at least US-level' power to your World government, we'll lose those differences when we unite our space programs, institute a common monetary policy, (shudder) and take steps to ensure 'tax fairness'.

Why isn't there room in this world for me to run my country my way, and you to run yours your way? Must I have the same rules about guns, the death penalty, free speech, freedom of religion, etc as you? Especially if my people are free to move to your country, and vice versa?

MattJ

[DanishDynamite]

aero:Then as I said, there will be no competition in the space race. (among MANY other things) In response to what they felt was persecution by the United States, many noncitizen Arabs left the US after 9/11. In your world, this will no longer be possible. Perhaps it will also no longer be possible that something like 9/11 will happen in your world. Is that what you believe?In regard to the space race, you could have a point. On the other hand, the demand for launch capacity is so great that non-governmental companies are entering the business, despite the prohibitive start-up costs. And even in a One-World-Government (OWG) there would surely be regional rivalries. Remember, it is a loose federal setup.
By the way: your at least up there is noted. OK, but just in case I wasn't clear, I meant the "at least" as "at least as loosely federate".
I offered Slipperytoad the example of Einstein. His county wasn't invaded. Shall we discuss people fleeing the Soviet Union? (You might read their Constitution sometime if you never have...) I'm so astounded by your reply here that I'm having difficulty staying civil. My fingers want to type words that mock you.Sorry, if you were offended, but I really don't know where you are coming from. Could you explain? Re-reading my comment I don't see how it could result in such passion.

In regard to Einstein, he was living in a country which was in serious economic trouble, in large part by heavy economic burdens placed upon it by the winning side of WW1. Einstein moved to another country and in a OWG he could move to another state. Of course, in a OWG, war between federal states would be unlikely.
Fantastic! How about corporate power? Continually declining? Perhaps not? Again with the desire to type rude things...Corporate power is certainly not declining. But in a OWG international conglomorates would no longer be able to escape serious lawsuit damage or domestic laws simply because they were international. International would no longer be a relevant term.

In regard to your desire to write rude things, I am again at a loss as to why. And I mean that. What did I say wrong?
I have to ask here... are you interpreting my words this way on purpose? :confused:
People flee countries because they become tyrannical. It happens, even to democracies. (some are suggesting that the US is dangerously close now) It could even happen to a WORLD democracy. (your belief to the contrary notwithstanding) People sometimes make their voices heard with bombs (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/disaster/images/okcity.jpg) I think I see your point. However, for me, it seems that an awful lot of money is spent on national defense and a lot of time and money is spent by politicians and other organizations (intelligence gathering, for example) which would be seriously reduced in a OWG. The concept of "national states" is a very recent one in human history. There is no "God-given" reason that it must percist.
Both Northern Ireland and Great Britain are free societies, with checks and balances, where, for some reason, people don't seem to get along without killing each other. Strange, isn't it?The NI situation is a mixture of history, religion and economic disparity. In a OWG seperate statehood (in the sense of the US or Germany) would be easily attained.
You seem to think, axiomatically, that your world government could never evolve into a tyranny. I think you could well be wrong. We're pretty much stuck right there, aren't we?

Also, I rather think that the US and Europe, for instance, both benefit from being able to compare the results of our respective policies on health care, economics, space exploration, etc. When you give 'at least US-level' power to your World government, we'll lose those differences when we unite our space programs, institute a common monetary policy, (shudder) and take steps to ensure 'tax fairness'.

Why isn't there room in this world for me to run my country my way, and you to run yours your way? Must I have the same rules about guns, the death penalty, free speech, freedom of religion, etc as you? Especially if my people are free to move to your country, and vice versa?You ask good questions. ;)

I admit I don't have all the answers. I have just (simple-minded, perhaps) considered the fact that we are all hairless apes on the Pale Blue Dot and that much of written history has been about which country attacked which and why and that an awful lot of resources are expended in this regard. It seems so primitive. I would much rather these resources be spent on visional enterprises benefiting the whole human race (not least, it's long term surviveability).

[aerocontrols]

It's not anger, it is frustration at talking past each other. For instance, you keep saying things like this:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Remember, it is a loose federal setup.

after I say things like this:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
You seem to think, axiomatically, that your world government could never evolve into a tyranny. I think you could well be wrong. We're pretty much stuck right there, aren't we?

Which was an effort to clarify after you seemingly misunderstood this:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
??? I don't see how the question is relevant to my point. My problem is with your proposed federal government becoming oppressive, not one or more of it's parts doing so. If the United States of the World becomes oppressive, where shall I move? If Georgia becomes oppressive, I can move to Tennessee or Spain, but that only benefits me if the government oppressing me in Georgia has no power in Tennessee or Spain.

which was an effort to clarify the same point, only earlier... :mad: :confused:

To respond directly to your point above: I remember that you hypothesize limited, loosely federal government, and I do not require reminding of that. Perhaps, however, I have not caught something else you have said. Where we part ways is that you seem to believe it will stay that way, and I don't. You keep making responses that are based on the assumption that your one-world government cannot become tyrannical, and when I ask you about that possibility, you make statements like

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Einstein moved to another country and in a OWG he could move to another state. Of course, in a OWG, war between federal states would be unlikely.

which don't address my (I thought quite clearly) stated concern that if it is the world government that becomes tyrannical, there will be nowhere to flee, war or not.

Who cares whether I live in Germany or the US if it is the world government who is making my life miserable? Where will I flee to then?

Your response here, it seems to me, must be that you believe your proposed world government cannot morph into such an entity. I don't believe you.

If I was having difficulty writing a civil reply to you it was because I keep thinking that I have been clear and that you must be willfully misunderstanding me in order to avoid a response you don't want to give. (I don't know why, however, since we seem to have reached a point where a difference of opinion about the nature of man and government, not fact, separates our positions.) Knowing you, I don't truly believe that you would act like this, but the thought keeps crowding its way into my head, because I cannot see how you continue to respond as if you haven't understood.

MattJ