One World Government

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by QueryGuy

You seem to be correct:

http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml

I remembered the basics of the internet started in the seventies, and I think I had some details correct about the overall research program. But yes, it was funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). I knew the NORAD network was too early to truly resemble the internet, though it certainly was a monumental undertaking in its day.

QG

That is indeed the case - but Darpa's funding wained over the years while Universities and research institutions picked it up. This spread widely and in parallel to home based networks like Fidonet and Rime and Wildnet. Then commercial options began to pick up and businesses have subtantially taken the ownership of the internet.

University development has shifted to Internet2 as it is sometimes called - basically the internet takes anyone connecting more or less any speed and does what it can. Internet2 forces a kind of floor of connection speed - 100mbps (way beyond DSL or cable modem.) The idea is massive transfers like high definition and video teleconferencing as well as cooperative data manipulation on a scale the internet cannot sustain.

I'm not aware DARPA is doing any funding on the internet at all now. Indeed the internet somewhat reflects the following quote written in 1939: "A mechanism of world intercommunication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvelous swiftness and perfect regularity." Not quite there but certainly well on it's way.

[QueryGuy]

Originally Posted by Marsh

No, optimism is not pride. Pride is looking at the past and saying, "Wow, we made a lot of mistakes in the past. Oh well, this time it will be different-- because of us. We are smart enough to do it right this time."

Ahh...then you haven't quite gotten a handle on my attitude. First of all, learning from the past isn't pride. It's wisdom. And I would expect new mistakes, alongside a few old ones. People are people, and people do stupid, cruel and spiteful things. It's just like the poisoning of the prawn field...that wasn't the government's fault, was it? There are certain variables no government can control completely.

The UN is not a world government; if it was, it would be able to govern.

The U.N. is a figurehead government. If its constituent nations (mainly the big five) would grant the U.N. more power, it could get more done. The basics are already there. And yes, I realize that's not a small thing to ask.

Right directions, by the way, are not defined with words; they are proven by results.

Goals are defined by words. Acting on goals produce results. You have to start somewhere.

what we're speaking of is perhaps the most revolutionary idea proposed so far in human history; it is far from little. But from what I've heard so far a lot of people in this forum truly think of it as little, or else put little thought into it.

You're right, it is a revolutionary concept. The roles that individuals can play is, in the grand scheme of things, very little. But does that mean the whole idea is "little?" Not in the least. Let's not forget that none of this could happen overnight, given the present day political climate in the world. Think decades or centuries.

I see two glaring examples of the effects of attempted world government in recent history: the colonial age of the 1800s, and the Cold War crusade to spread/stop communism

Colonialism was not an attempt at a world government. It was purely competitve nationalism, the antithesis of what I have been proposing. There was very little unity involved, despite the popular and very errant tendancy to portray all white people as being guided by a single, nebulous hive mind. The Cold War was not much different, though the focus was on ideology. In both periods you suggested, conquest and violence were the most common methods used to promote goals, which is again the antithesis of what I have been proposing.

"Personally, I think it is a huge mistake to cease development on a macrocosmic scale simply because things can't be worked out in every microcosm." Newton would roll around in his grave if he heard that. So would every African who died in the slave trade, and every Vietnamese farmer whose family was napalmed.

What I'm saying is, I think it would be a mistake to wait for world peace before we start working for world peace or a world government. Whether globally or on an individual level, it is totally illogical to avoid improving one's situation because not every problem currently in existance can be solved. And yes, that means that on a global level the world shouldn't (and won't) get emotionally entangled in regional conflicts to the point where all progress ceases. I'm not saying that regional conflicts shouldn't be dealt with...I'm saying that it is not the duty of every single individual to deal with far-off conflicts. We do not carry the whole world on our shoulders, only our own piece of it. We all have our own role, whether it is that of a globally reknown politician or an average laborer.

A world government would not, by any stretch of the imagination, solve every social probelm imaginable. That's not a travesty, it's a reality. It would seek to reduce large scale conflicts, such as warfare and international crime. Things such as poverty, localized crime, etc. would still need to be dealt with on a local level. If local poverty upsets you, then you are in a far better position to instigate local change than any global or national government. It all depends on how much you are willing to sacrifice to improve the lives of others.

QG

[Marsh]

Ok, I still don't agree with what you have said, but I can respect most of it. The one thing that I still have the most problems with is the idea that bigger is better; that our goal should be one single world government, rather than a plethora of smaller governments.

As I see it, here are some benefits of small countries over a united empire:

1. Less area means fewer differences among people, which means a better chance of unity. For example, if Nigeria had been established by the British as three smaller countries (one for each major tribe), rather than as one country containing three highly-competitive tribes, perhaps they wouldn't be constantly engaged in civil war.

2. More governments defuse the possibility of misgovernment. It's the simple principle of putting all of your eggs into one basket. If I live in a small country and my government becomes corrupt, I can emigrate to another country. If our one world government becomes corrupt, there will be no escape.

3. Groups allow for evolution to happen. Lets say that there are 200 sovereign countries in the world, all with a slightly (or largely) different form of government. Eventually, some of these governments are going to stumble into success as people in them think of new ideas. These ideas can be used by everyone else, built upon, and so on and so forth. In the end, the good ideas will live on, the out-of-date ones will die out, and evolution happens. It seems to me that a world government would evolve much more slowly because it would be based on one constitution, and as such would have limited opportunity to experiment.

When he started this thread, Brian said that one world government seems inevitable. The more I think about it, the more I disagree. I think that having one world goverment would put humankind in an unnatural state where the potential of ideas to evolve will be limited, where we'll have to put faith into the hands of a few people who will be an even more remote authority than exists today, and and where unity will be categorically impossible. Although it may seem that a world of small, sometimes fragmented governments may be equally bad, at the very least it has built-in safety features.

[Marsh]

Ok, I still don't agree with what you have said, but I can respect most of it. The one thing that I still have the most problems with is the idea that bigger is better; that our goal should be one single world government, rather than a plethora of smaller governments.

As I see it, here are some benefits of small countries over a united empire:

1. Less area means fewer differences among people, which means a better chance of unity. For example, if Nigeria had been established by the British as three smaller countries (one for each major tribe), rather than as one country containing three highly-competitive tribes, perhaps they wouldn't be constantly engaged in civil war.

2. More governments defuse the possibility of misgovernment. It's the simple principle of putting all of your eggs into one basket. If I live in a small country and my government becomes corrupt, I can emigrate to another country. If our one world government becomes corrupt, there will be no escape.

3. Groups allow for evolution to happen. Lets say that there are 200 sovereign countries in the world, all with a slightly (or largely) different form of government. Eventually, some of these governments are going to stumble into success as people in them think of new ideas. These ideas can be used by everyone else, built upon, and so on and so forth. In the end, the good ideas will live on, the out-of-date ones will die out, and evolution happens. It seems to me that a world government would evolve much more slowly because it would be based on one constitution, and as such would have limited opportunity to experiment.

When he started this thread, Brian said that one world government seems inevitable. The more I think about it, the more I disagree. I think that having one world goverment would put humankind in an unnatural state where the potential of ideas to evolve will be limited, where we'll have to put faith into the hands of a few people who will be an even more remote authority than exists today, and and where unity will be categorically impossible. Although it may seem that a world of small, sometimes fragmented governments may be equally bad, at the very least it has some built-in safety features.

[I, Brian]

I do still actually think that some form of One World Government is eventually inevitable - however, as even Europe still has extreme difficulty in federalising, I'd hate to imagine the complications involved in uniting whole continents in an acceptable form of government - the USA and China, for example, would be extremely indignant at having their national pride being compromised by dictates from such a government.

In fact, there's already a strong militant movement in the USA that vehemently opposes any form of One World Government - because of its threat to US sovereignty (I've frequently seen Christian Fundamentalists from the US pasting up attacks against the UN across other forums).

Perhaps the most problematic issue, though, is that the most militarily and economically powerful nations would seek to ensure that such a One World Government served - at least respected - their interests primarily. This scenario can clearly be seen in the UN today, where general UN Assembly Resolutions are politically worthless - it is the UN Security Council that holds that power. And, of course, the permanent members retain their veto - something the US has repeatedly used against resolutions put before the Security Council that are critical of Israel, for example.

At the end of the day, there are definite advantages to having a One World Government - but at the same time, very real potential for political abuse.

[Anzac]

I don't see where this need for government comes in? Nationalism is always half the problem in world crises. However, a world government would just make that into regionalism as countries vyed over the same issues as before. Would the US still be allowed to throw a thousand CIA agents throughout the world? How would it be stopped. To me having a global government just perpetuates all the issues we have today. People would always rebel against such an idea in my opinion (in the West at least, as they have the power). If it's just an enlarged UN then the legislation is worthless as people can disobey it on a whim and not be punished yet smaller nations disobey and larger nations group together and force them to conceed. Bloc voting in Western/Eastern nations could occur. You'd lose all elements of democracy as it becomes one hemisphere screwing the other one over because they can (but then again, isn't that party politics in the first place).

A political revolution - as ALWAYS categorically proves, continues the same problems under a different name. A social revolution makes lasting change. What we need is a social revolution and not a regime under a different name.

[arthra]

Anzac wrote:

I don't see where this need for government comes in? Nationalism is always half the problem in world crises. However, a world government would just make that into regionalism as countries vyed over the same issues as before.

Reply:

Personally I think, as the planet has a more unified conception of problems there will also be a broader base of response than hitherto.... For instance, multi-national corporations depend on the partial responses and lack of efficiency of some governments to enforce environmental and employment standards. With a world governmnet and court of international arbitration, these corporations are less likely to act in a way that ignores the standards set by international agreement..

Anzac:

Would the US still be allowed to throw a thousand CIA agents throughout the world? How would it be stopped.

Reply:

To me it would be less likely that the CIA would get away with throwing a thousand agents through out the world when there could be established a world system of information gathering and response to crises... Note that in the past the CIA could finance political movements they wanted to support but this has been without any international laws or regulations... which could deter a CIA type agency from attempting to meddle in the internal affairs of other states.

Anzac:


To me having a global government just perpetuates all the issues we have today. People would always rebel against such an idea in my opinion (in the West at least, as they have the power). If it's just an enlarged UN then the legislation is worthless as people can disobey it on a whim and not be punished yet smaller nations disobey and larger nations group together and force them to conceed. Bloc voting in Western/Eastern nations could occur. You'd lose all elements of democracy as it becomes one hemisphere screwing the other one over because they can (but then again, isn't that party politics in the first place).

Reply:

To me the way the world is now we're not able to deal with the issues that really cause major desatbilization of societies. A world governmnet based of a federal model would at least offer an alternative and a new direction for the energies of the planet...It's premature I think to claim "global government just perpetreates all the issues we have today" when there is nothing to compare it with today.... The UN is not a model of what a world government.

And until we embarke on that course we really can't foresee very well the problems we'll be facing... You could compare in some sense I think the loose nit "Articles of Conferation" that was a weak central government with what occurred later when a federal system was adopted in 1789 in the US and see how it has worked.

Baha'is see these developements as gradual but inevitable in time that a world government will eventually be established politically... not by us, but as conditions dictate and necessity requires economically and politically in the future... Will it be a perfect system?... more than likely there will be faults and false starts as there has been with every system developed such as the formation of the EU, but eventually, most will see the necessity for it.

- Art

[IlluSionS667]

Nationalism is too large in most countries for there to ever be one world government. The EU is already starting to earn the dislike of many of it's member states, and I have serious doubts whether is will ever replace it's confederal system by a federal one.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by IlluSionS667

Nationalism is too large in most countries for there to ever be one world government. The EU is already starting to earn the dislike of many of it's member states, and I have serious doubts whether is will ever replace it's confederal system by a federal one.

Fifty years or so ago even I might have agreed with you but today the forces of internationalism I think are becoming even more evident and inevitable... Our world has "shrank" in more ways than one. We have a world criminal court and international treaties...

The EU is getting along in bumps and starts and if you study history the USA went through a similar developement between it's founding ...the Articles of Confederation...The Constitution of 1789 and later the Civil War that resolved states rights issues... So this what we would expect.

- Art

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by arthra

Fifty years or so ago even I might have agreed with you but today the forces of internationalism I think are becoming even more evident and inevitable... Our world has "shrank" in more ways than one. We have a world criminal court and international treaties...

The EU is getting along in bumps and starts and if you study history the USA went through a similar developement between it's founding ...the Articles of Confederation...The Constitution of 1789 and later the Civil War that resolved states rights issues... So this what we would expect.

Obviously you do not live in Europe. The US was much easier to unite, because you guys are much more homogenous. Europe is divided between many cultural and linguistic barriers, which really keeps nations apart. Ten years ago, many Europeans believed there would ever be a European federal government, but as the anti-EU feelings in Europe is growing, the belief in this federal government is decreasing.

I'm not familiar with the situation in Asia, but I doubt it is much different. As far as I know, these guys do not even have something like an EU.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by IlluSionS667

Obviously you do not live in Europe. The US was much easier to unite, because you guys are much more homogenous. Europe is divided between many cultural and linguistic barriers, which really keeps nations apart. Ten years ago, many Europeans believed there would ever be a European federal government, but as the anti-EU feelings in Europe is growing, the belief in this federal government is decreasing.

I'm not familiar with the situation in Asia, but I doubt it is much different. As far as I know, these guys do not even have something like an EU.

Nice to hear from you again!

I wouldn't say the United States is that homogenous as you imply...at least anymore. The EU will proceed I think and along the way encounter obstacles but the social and economic benefits of union will eventually prevail... is my thought.

I also think what you've said underscores the importance of the United Nations as a future foundation for a world government....

- Art

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by arthra

I wouldn't say the United States is that homogenous as you imply...at least anymore.

It's still way more homogenous then Europe will ever be. You have no idea how strong cultural and linguistic barriers are around here.

Originally Posted by arthra

but the social and economic benefits of union will eventually prevail... is my thought.

EU has a negative effect of the welfare system and economy of my country. I still have to see one positive aspect.

Originally Posted by arthra

I also think what you've said underscores the importance of the United Nations as a future foundation for a world government....

As long as there are countries with veto rights, the UN does not have sufficient power to ever be taken seriously.

[arthra]

IlluSionS667 wrote:

It's still way more homogenous then Europe will ever be. You have no idea how strong cultural and linguistic barriers are around here.

Reply:

Since most of our cousins are from Europe i suppose that's evidence we can eventually get along...

Illusion wrote:

EU has a negative effect of the welfare system and economy of my country. I still have to see one positive aspect.

Reply:

I don't know which country you're alluding to ...maybe you could provide some detail on that... I think it would be inbteresting to hear from you!

Illusion:

As long as there are countries with veto rights, the UN does not have sufficient power to ever be taken seriously.

Reply:

That's why I think the situation will change or be modified... It still offers I think a good place for considering a world perspective... I think the World Court will also have a significant role to play in the future...

- Art

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by arthra

Since most of our cousins are from Europe i suppose that's evidence we can eventually get along...

Is Europe there are deeply rooted culture, which it's inhabitants don't want to give up for a shallow replacement 'culture' as you have in the US.

Europe is homogenous on a large scale and heterogenous on a large scale. With the US, it's the other way around. You have to look at it this way. In Europe, you have countries and in those countries there are provinces. Each province can be seen as a rather homogenous block with it's own mother culture, it's own dialect and it's own traditions. Sometimes seperate villages even are very different from the rest of the province. The cultural differences between several provinces in a country are not that much different though, because they share a large part of their history. In different countries however, the differences are much larger. These differences create frictions.

I don't think Canada would be willing to be absorbed by the US, even though the difference between Canadia and the US are much smaller than the differences between European countries.

Originally Posted by arthra

Illusion wrote:

EU has a negative effect of the welfare system and economy of my country. I still have to see one positive aspect.

Reply:

I don't know which country you're alluding to ...maybe you could provide some detail on that... I think it would be inbteresting to hear from you!

I'm from Belgium. Since the '60s (thanks to the Marshall plan) we'd become one of the best places to live in. We have an elaborate welfare system and poverty rates are very low. Practically every family has at least one car, one television, one cell phone, and several other kinds of luxury that are not considered luxury any more by many people here. Also, the majority of the people has their own brick home. The rise of the EU has not had any positive influence on this at all. Taxes went up, so we could become a part of the EU. Prices went up when the Euro got established. For the Belgian economy, it's much tougher to compete with other countries (where the same goods often can be produced cheaper). Then there is overregulation in some areas. And the greatest fear for Belgians now is that the EU will get its hands on our welfare system, when it will be more powerful on a social level.

Originally Posted by arthra

I think the World Court will also have a significant role to play in the future...

I wish you were right on that, but I fear that its power is too limited. Those nations who do most harm in the world, simply can ignore the court... the US being one of them. Have you heard of the “American Services Members’ Protection Act", also called the "the Hague Invasion Act" by critics?

[arthra]

Good to hear from you again!

IlluSion wrote:

Is Europe there are deeply rooted culture, which it's inhabitants don't want to give up for a shallow replacement 'culture' as you have in the US.

Europe is homogenous on a large scale and heterogenous on a large scale. With the US, it's the other way around. You have to look at it this way. In Europe, you have countries and in those countries there are provinces. Each province can be seen as a rather homogenous block with it's own mother culture, it's own dialect and it's own traditions. Sometimes seperate villages even are very different from the rest of the province.

Reply:

Thanks for your notes in this area it explains a lot... I'm sure in time even provincialism will subside...as you know modern society through trade, television and communications such as e-mail will probably generate a new culture mix.

Illusion:

I'm from Belgium. Since the '60s (thanks to the Marshall plan) we'd become one of the best places to live in. We have an elaborate welfare system and poverty rates are very low. Practically every family has at least one car, one television, one cell phone, and several other kinds of luxury that are not considered luxury any more by many people here. Also, the majority of the people has their own brick home. The rise of the EU has not had any positive influence on this at all. Taxes went up, so we could become a part of the EU. Prices went up when the Euro got established. For the Belgian economy, it's much tougher to compete with other countries (where the same goods often can be produced cheaper). Then there is overregulation in some areas. And the greatest fear for Belgians now is that the EU will get its hands on our welfare system, when it will be more powerful on a social level.

Reply:

I was reviewing the EU last nght and it's approach appears to be gradualist...It does have a social and economic sphere which will probably be implemented in the future from what I've read..so welfare will eventually be an issue... I would think that a system of welfare for Europe as a whole would be fueled by economic gains and prosperity and will eventually take hold... as Belgium is quite small I would think the benefits of a Europe wide system of welfare would be to the advantage of smaller nations.

Illusion:

Europe is homogenous on a large scale and heterogenous on a large scale. With the US, it's the other way around. You have to look at it this way.

Reply:

Interesting observation... Where I live the cultural diversity is greater than it's ever been... We have Mosques, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist Temples and a wide of choice of foods and cultures that were not there fifty years ago! Los Angeles has the largest groups of immigrants living outside their countries ...even more native American Indians live in LA... So from my view our society is much more heterogenous than when i grew up... I suspect most nations have this today to some degree and that eventually a world culture will emerge.

Illusion:

I wish you were right on that, but I fear that its power is too limited. Those nations who do most harm in the world, simply can ignore the court... the US being one of them. Have you heard of the “American Services Members’ Protection Act", also called the "the Hague Invasion Act" by critics?

Reply:

I think we have to take the long range view of developements in the United Nations... US administrations can change and more international conventions will likely be supported. The US now wants a greater role of the UN in Iraq than in the beginning. Just as Europe is going through a transition to the EU so the world is in transition to a stronger world body in my opinion.

- Art