One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable F... - 8/2/2010 2:32:02 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

This has been a major theme in science fiction for some time, a centralized Earth Based government with either a socialized government and system, a true democracy or some theocratic religious based government in place.

However, there seems to be one universal problem with the idea. The common man would not go along with it, at least not now. The distrust of the United States by many countries on the planet.

Even to think that the UN could be a basis for such a government is implausible, considering how ineffective the UN is in its primary function which was to make it possible for countries to come to an understanding without war. The UN sure could not stop the US from invading Iraq, has been useless in stopping the Iranian uranium enrichment program, or stop North Korea from their nuclear ambitions.

One man, Gideon Rachman disagrees:

quote:

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

And now for a world government Registration is free by necessary to read the article.

However, there is the counterpoint by Mark C. Partridge:

quote:

Yet, I am skeptical that “global governance” could “come much sooner than that [200 years],” as Gideon posits. For one thing, nationalism—the natural counterpoint to global government—is rising. Some leaders and peoples around the world have resented Washington’s chiding and hubris over the past two decade of American unipolarity. Russia has been re-establishing itself as a “great power”; few could miss the national pride on display when China hosted the Beijing Olympics this summer; while Hugo Chavez and his ilk have stoked the national flames with their anti-American rhetoric. The departing of the Bush Administration could cause this nationalism to abate, but economic uncertainty usually has the opposite effect.

His points on the rise of nationalism among various countries are valid.

He also points out that every time the EU places a change in the EU constitution before the citizens, it is voted down.

What he fails to address is the basic religious factions in the world today. Extremism in all religions have made any agreement between them next to impossible. These groups alone would make a world government untenable. A world government would be more likely to bring these groups together just to fight it.

The polarization in American politics would be a hurdle that such a movement would have to overcome, conservatives and liberals cannot agree on even solutions to simple problems, how would one hope to get them to agree to joining a centralized world government?

The idea that a limited number of elite political and industrial members are controlling the world governments is also brought into question by the fact that the wars the US is currently involved in has not stimulated the economy as war has in the past, but has actually had a negative impact on the American economy in general and the World Economy as a whole.

Thus there is no profit motive to maintain the current level of conflicts. Industrialists who are looking for something that would benefit their bottom line would have ended the two wars long ago, if they were indeed in power.

Conclusions

While I think that a single world government is possible given the technology we have in the form of communications, transportation, the internet, the basic problem of human nature prevents this from happening.

I agree that a single world government would evolve in two hundred years is a more plausible outcome. It would happen sooner if, by some stroke of technological genius someone actually put Miguel Alcubierre's theory of Faster than Light travel into a workable drive system and created a practical starship with a workable form of artificial gravity.

Alcubierre drive

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI