One world government

[Rigsy]

do you know what your talking about?
infowars.com

[Senka]

This is what's called a Benevolent Dictatorship. Sure, it works in the most perfect and ideal of worlds where all people care about each other. That's why it can work for something much smaller like an online gaming guild. And technically I think it is the best form of government from this point of view.

But in the real world, people are not all equal and caring. There would be no way to transition into this to begin with. Not only that, but it's been proven by how dictatorships have worked in the past that it just can't work past a certain threshold of people and certainly not in a world of billions of people.

[aekya]

The terms we use nowadays are MDC's (more developed countries) and LDC's (less developed countries) and are determined by certain factors like whether or not they have 80% urbanization or not and other stuff like the HDI.

Indeed.
Also it also encompasses things such as civil liberties, quality of life, technological development and access to it, quality of education, healthcare type of government, updated/well maintained infrastructure, well educated population and so on.

Looking at the US right now, and many EU countries while taking what i said on top, can you truly say they are "first world"?

Middle class is vanishing, education is worst than ever, US healthcare, infrastructure is deteriorated or based on outdated tech and is not upgraded, civil liberties started disappearing since 2001 (in the case of the US) quality of life for most people (middle class) is quite poor, lots and lots of families are on minwage even though they have college degrees and deep in dept, there is poverty(!), US's and sadly a lot of current EU's "democracies" dont deserve to be called so, not when there are 2 parties and over 40% of voters abstaine and the list can go on (:
You can measure quality of life in a very simple way, income - life need expenses, US min wage is about 4 times higher than the poorest EU country (greece, portugal) but its prices for food, electric bill, internet and so on are also about 4 times higher, so you end up with the same quality of life as poorest EU countries.
US is rich as a country, but its middle class population is declining real fast.

A good example is Brazil, a very rich country and yet the majority of its population is in poverty, its most modern cities could be called 1st world, but one cannot call a whole country first world when most of it isnt

[Klutzington]

World gov't could still mean nuclear war. With relations being closer then ever, the threat of bombing a certain area could be bad.

[Adam Jensen]

Indeed.
Also it also encompasses things such as civil liberties, quality of life, technological development and access to it, quality of education, healthcare type of government, updated/well maintained infrastructure, well educated population and so on.

Looking at the US right now, and many EU countries while taking what i said on top, can you truly say they are "first world"?

Middle class is vanishing, education is worst than ever, US healthcare, infrastructure is deteriorated or based on outdated tech and is not upgraded, civil liberties started disappearing since 2001 (in the case of the US) quality of life for most people (middle class) is quite poor, lots and lots of families are on minwage even though they have college degrees and deep in dept, there is poverty(!), US's and sadly a lot of current EU's "democracies" dont deserve to be called so, not when there are 2 parties and over 40% of voters abstaine and the list can go on (:
You can measure quality of life in a very simple way, income - life need expenses, US min wage is about 4 times higher than the poorest EU country (greece, portugal) but its prices for food, electric bill, internet and so on are also about 4 times higher, so you end up with the same quality of life as poorest EU countries.
US is rich as a country, but its middle class population is declining real fast.

A good example is Brazil, a very rich country and yet the majority of its population is in poverty, its most modern cities could be called 1st world, but one cannot call a whole country first world when most of it isnt

Sure, we have our problems but if you look at the link I posted, we're still among the top 15 in many ways.

[Thetruth1400]

Why are you so greedy? All men should be treated the same and all have the same.

What a naive and childish view. If everyone was a contributing member of society and gave freely of themselves, a one world government, and more to the point, your view, might work.

In all honesty, there's no way for a world where everyone gets what they want to work. If I'm a doctor, saving lives every day, being stressed out, dealing with death on a constant basis, shouldn't I have a little more then the person on the street corner selling crack? According to you, no. A system like that only works if every member of society contributes in a meaningful and helpful way. If they're doing something that doesn't advance society, that system falls apart.

If anything, a system that rewards people that don't contribute is a poor system. The opposite system should be in place; anyone that contributes in a meaningful and social advancing way should be given equality, while those that do not wish to contribute are offered nothing, but the chance to become a contributing member of society.

I've dealt with a few people that were struggling to make ends meet. I've helped them with social security and welfare. Nothing is more infuriating then spending almost 2 years helping a person that's struggling to make ends meet and almost losing their home, family, and basic necessities only to sit in a room filled with drug addicts, prostitutes, and gang bangers who get a free handout because of their income level being way below the poverty level, while the person I am trying to help is only marginally below it.

I'll give you an example of how flawed the current system is; I was in there helping a person to get on disability. The had been trying for several years with no acceptance yet. Eventually they had to take it to court and get it approved. They had 2 judges, 4 doctors, and 7 therapists that had sent letters of recommendation saying this person needed to be on disability. It was fought, by the system, for 4 years. During that time, there was one visit I will never forget. While we were sitting there waiting for our turn to talk to someone at the building, there were two women talking. The conversation went as follows;

Girl 1: "Girl, I'm so glad they upped the amount of money I be gettin' so I can get that new iPhone that just came out."
Girl 2: "I know girl. I'm thinkin' of having another kid so I gets more money and food stamps."
Girl 1: "I hear ya. I sold some of my food stamps the other week to get this new bag."

Needless to say, the person I was helping broke down crying after hearing that discussion. I was trying to help someone with an actual concern, yet these two were collecting enough for luxury items. Those two clearly knew what they were doing, abusing a broken system. Eventually, the person I was helping was able to collect, but I'll never forget how those two, wastes of life for lack of a better term, were able to collect from a broken system while people that actually want to try struggle to collect.

[Gorlakand]

"It's fine if your life is shit, as long as everyone else's life is equally shit"

Well yeah, that would be much better. Right now I'm living an awesome life while some people are dying in Africa from not eating.

[aekya]

Dont think we are nearly ready for a world government at all.
A lot of mentality to change, a lot of education to be given and a lot of structural changes to be done.
Besides if it did happen would be the same as it is now, instead of countries vying for power/resources you would have "states" doing the same, while no direct war, there is still economical and political war, conflict of interests and so forth.

Our governmental system doesnt work with the amount of people we have, with the different cultures and ideologies we have.
Before starting a world government we would need to get rid of outdated systems such as monetary system for example, at least the way it is now, it was created during the medieval ages where there was a serious lack of resources and it was hard to get them, nowadays nothing justifies the prices, inflation and so forth, we create that artificially.

There are quotas to reduce production to maintain prices, the whole game is rigged and as long we cling to it we wont evolve at all.

[ciggy]

just look at what happen at the UN everytime they need to take a decision and you found the answer. Another good example is EU.

Took the words out of my mouth, or the typing from my fingers. The UN is so corrupt, and takes 6 months to decide if they are allowed to go take a piss.

[Deleted]

It would be pretty damn impressive for a government to reasonably represent the people of the world knowing that they utterly fail to do so in their respective countries...

[aekya]

In all honesty, there's no way for a world where everyone gets what they want to work. If I'm a doctor, saving lives every day, being stressed out, dealing with death on a constant basis, shouldn't I have a little more then the person on the street corner selling crack? According to you, no. A system like that only works if every member of society contributes in a meaningful and helpful way. If they're doing something that doesn't advance society, that system falls apart.

If anything, a system that rewards people that don't contribute is a poor system. The opposite system should be in place; anyone that contributes in a meaningful and social advancing way should be given equality, while those that do not wish to contribute are offered nothing, but the chance to become a contributing member of society.

This is true, there are plenty of ways to do so.
Also, if you are a doctor saving lives, why would you make less than Pop/rap star X? or less than a guy who kicks a ball for a living? sure is hard, but nothing compared, the world is unfair right now.

The example you gave, a doctor making less than a crack dealer, true, but have you considered that the guy only sells crack because the world is unfair and that is his way to get money to eat? and the doctor is only one because his family had the money to pay for his tuition and support him while he wasnt working? (many colleges in europe cost about 1000 to 2000 euros a YEAR tuition, what justifies 20k semester in the US?)

Also in that system a lot of parasite jobs would cease to exist (awesome).
I do agree, one should be rewarded for his job, but for that we need a basis where all people have the same opportunities, but... we dont.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0Fmuf-S54

[Foosha]

Only if it's the Emperor of Mankind from Warhammer who's in power

[Deleted]

Took the words out of my mouth, or the typing from my fingers. The UN is so corrupt, and takes 6 months to decide if they are allowed to go take a piss.

That doesn't indicate corruption though. It indicates horrendously poorly written rules that allow a member state disagreeing with an action to completely destroy numerous policies that would help millions of people.

If the legislation was actually written in a manner that would mean good work could not be vetoed then yes it would actually do some good. Unfortunately this is not the case.

See the occupation of Iraq as an example of how horribly the UN can fail. Although strangely enough in this case it serves to demonstrate how member states can just happily carry on doing things that the other key countries within the UN strongly disagree with.

Either way the UN doesn't really fulfill an adequate role in deciding international politics. Imagine how much worse this would become including all the countries in the world. Then saying that if even one country that is considered part of the core disagrees it means that the idea is cancelled and the action effectively becomes null and void.

[aekya]

Took the words out of my mouth, or the typing from my fingers. The UN is so corrupt, and takes 6 months to decide if they are allowed to go take a piss.

That is true, also with the ACTA is scandalous how badly it works.
Any big change done to a sovereign country should be done with a referendum, that is how most EU countries work.
I didnt see any referendum towards ACTA, yet it was signed what? yesterday?
Still needs approval later this year, but lol, not holding a candle on that one

[ChahDresh]

Forget for a moment uniting the world. Let's take a known case for unifying two nations under one government: Germany. In the aftermath of the Cold War, East Germany and West Germany reunited politically. The West was affluent, democratic, and boasted one of Europe's highest standards of living; the East was a powerhouse by Warsaw Pact standards but lagged far behind the West. The cost to unify Germany turned out to be staggering. Think of all the things that had to be done: Western firms had to buy out the Eastern equivalents as the Eastern ones were too unprofitable to compete in a market economy; infrastructure had to be built up in the East; the West had to subsidize a dramatic rise in the wages of the Eastern side to conform to Western law, which-- given the lesser education and qualifications of the East's workers-- resulted in considerable unemployment... money money money money money, and after two decades East Germany *still* lags behind the West in every metric.

Consider for a moment. Those two countries, East and West Germany, desired to unify. They wanted it badly. They had a common history, a common language, and a common sense of destiny; so they were willing to undergo the costs associated with it.

North and South Korea also have a common history and a common language; but even those in South Korea who have affinity for the North fear unification. North Korea and South Korea are incredibly far apart in standard of living, infrastructure, and socialization. They're much further apart than East and West Germany ever were. The costs would be egregious.

Given that, what makes you think for a moment that two peoples with NO common history, NO common language, NO common sense of destiny would desire to submit to a common government? And that's just two peoples-- and you're proposing all peoples!

In military circles, there's a phrase-- amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Forget talking about whether this is something we *should* do. Forget talking about what the ruling government would look like. The logistics of making all peoples of the world conform to a common set of laws are *impossible*.

Comparisons to Rome and Britain are unwarranted. Rome and Britain used force to add possessions to their empires, then allowed those possessions to maintain local governments (subject to their approval); the locals kept their own languages and laws, subject to certain additional responsibilities. However, the constituent peoples of their empires didn't consider themselves British or Roman. Imperial rule continued only by the threat of force, there were always restive provinces, and when the force was removed the empires disintegrated. While many parts of the empires benefited from being parts of those empires, it was not for their benefit that the British or Romans ruled; Britain and Rome ruled for the benefit of Britain and Rome. Does that sound like the sort of arrangement that people would voluntarily assent to?

[aekya]

In military circles, there's a phrase-- amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Forget talking about whether this is something we *should* do. Forget talking about what the ruling government would look like. The logistics of making all peoples of the world conform to a common set of laws are *impossible*.

It is not impossible, although you are right, taking in accord our reality and the desire to keep it that way, you are right.
The thing is, it is only impossible because the rich want to stay rich, the poor desire to be richer but ofc the rich wont allow that, it is possible to unify the whole world, but would require us to drop our current system, economical system, political system and so on, the only people with the power to do so, obviously dont want it.

With our current production capacity, we could feed the entire planet and have surplus, its just not profitable so we destroy millions of tons of food a year to keep prices high, we stop farmers from producing more, we stop technologies to be cheaper, we stop the attempts to get rid of oil dependency, we dont invest in existing techs that would do the job, we stop others from using technologies and keep them in the middle ages and so forth...
The problem isnt logistics, the problem is governments and current systems.
Another big problem is obviously cultures, but i think every single culture/religion in the world has a very important common rule, called the golden rule, dont do to others what you dont want done to yourself.... but people cling to things... oh well.

[igualitarist]

Indeed.
A good example is Brazil, a very rich country and yet the majority of its population is in poverty, its most modern cities could be called 1st world, but one cannot call a whole country first world when most of it isnt

Please, don't talk about what you don't know.

While the poverty in Brazil is big, the majority of the population is considered middle income. Last time i checked the poverty index in Brazil was around 15% (not sure about the exact number).

Also, 6% of brazilian population lives in Favelas, while 94% does not. Yeahh, i bet you thought the proportion was the opposite.

The poverty here is concentrated on the north and northeast regions, and in biggest cities, which are the regions/cities that receives tourists

[Toho]

the disaster in europe is proof that it will never work. ever. maybe a coalition to fight off aliens or go to space; sure that is likely but in terms of governing? highly doubt it.

[Aryl]

Why are you so greedy? All men should be treated the same and all have the same.

Well that will never happen. The world doesn't work like that.

It's a bad idea because there would be NOWHERE for anyone to go if they did not like the regimes.
It's a free world for a reason.

But in a way if you think outside the box and are religious you can say we are all living under one government, being God.

[vaeevictiss]

one world government is what the UN wants...and it goes against everything about the free willed human race.