One World Government

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by arthra

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.

Well, the borders between provinces in my country have faded a lot the last couple of decades. But the borders between my country and other countries haven't faded a bit. The reason is because with them, our cultural differences are too large. And accept for Holland, there's also the language issue.

Originally Posted by arthra

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...

Indeed. And that's what many Belgians fear. Some politicians swear not to let this happen, but can they, really?!

Originally Posted by arthra

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 long as South and Eastern Europe have lesser wages and a lower living standard then people in my country have today, it will only be negative for countries such as mine.

Originally Posted by arthra

... 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.

The poor countries may be able to profit, but the rich countries will definitely not.

Originally Posted by arthra

I suspect most nations have this today to some degree and that eventually a world culture will emerge.

In Europe, the rise of "multiculturalism" and the rise on groups oposing this go hand in hand. The Front National in France, and the Vlaams Blok in my country, Haider's FPO in Austria, ... are all examples of political parties that have gained a lot of popularity, because of social conflicts between (mostly muslem) immigrant people and the orriginal people.

The US doesn't really have a culture, and that's why culture clashes are not so common out there as they are in Europe. Black, White, Native American and other Americans all share large elements of their own sub-culture. Cultures who do not fit in this picture, usually stay low profile. Out here, the situation is very different.

Originally Posted by arthra

The US now wants a greater role of the UN in Iraq than in the beginning.

They've simply realized they can't fund it alone, and they need someone to clean up their mess.

Originally Posted by arthra

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.

And just like the EU seems to be heading towards a failure, so it the UN.

[arthra]

IlluSionS667 wrote:

And just like the EU seems to be heading towards a failure, so it the UN.

Reply:

What may appear to be "failure" I think should be seen in very broad historical terms...that we have the EU and the UN today is testimony that they are continuing to as institutions in process and transition...so there will be set-backs... What we should do is see what heppens in the next ten years or so... Will the EU be dissolved or be stronger than ever? And what of the UN?

I think international accords will be more binding on nations in the future than they are today... but time will tell!

Illusion... Regarding multiculturalism, I read the following article about a Bantu family in Tucson Arizona and thought you might enjoy it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/05/na...05SETT.html?th

Have a lovely day in Belgium!

- Art

[Vapour]

As of immigration issue here is something insightful.

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=walmart

Oh, and I'm econ graduate so if you want more articulate response, I can give you one?

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by arthra

I think international accords will be more binding on nations in the future than they are today... but time will tell!

Time will tell indeed. Maybe from an American point of view, it looks different than from a European point of view. Just accept my warning not too keep your hopes up too much

Originally Posted by arthra

Illusion... Regarding multiculturalism, I read the following article about a Bantu family in Tucson Arizona and thought you might enjoy it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/05/na...05SETT.html?th

I'm not really in the mood to subscribe to a website, just to read one arcticle. I already get way too much spam. Could you post the contents, or a summerary of it?

Originally Posted by arthra

Have a lovely day in Belgium!

That will not be a problem. How are things going in good ol' California, by the way? How's the governator doing?

[I, Brian]

There's actually a pretty big backlash developing in Europe against the EU as a governing body. Effectively, the national governments ontinue to sign over some part of their sovereignty to an elected body at Brussels - but the ordinary electorate has no real understanding of what this body is supposed to be doing - aside from the fact that it is alleged to be rampant with croneyism, and that the EU effectively looses a few billion every year - unaccounted for.

Recent EU elections across Europe saw the more Euro-sceptic right voted in to form a significant voting block. Tony Blair also blundered out that Britain should have a referendum on the EU constitution - after the No.10 press office denied that there would be. Now Tony Blair - who has lost immense popularity at home - is faced with trying to convince an electorate who does not trust him to trust him enough to vote to ratify for a European Constution we don;t know or understand anything about, and all in a referendum that is occuring due to a moment of spontaneity, rather than any real political planning.

Things are certainly going to get even more interesting in Europe.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by IlluSionS667

Time will tell indeed. Maybe from an American point of view, it looks different than from a European point of view. Just accept my warning not too keep your hopes up too much..

I don't necessarily represent the "American point of view" ....

It is from the Baha'i perspective that I have some hope for the future of the planet!

Here is a free website on the International Court that I'd like to offer to any interested in developements there:

http://www.un.org/law/

For years the Baha'is have advocate having an international court of arbitration and now we have what I think is something viable:

"....in one of His (Abdul-Baha) Paris talks in 1911, He said: --

A supreme tribunal shall be established by the peoples and governments of every nation, composed of members elected from each country and government. The members of this great council shall assemble in unity. All disputes of an international character shall be submitted to this court, its work being to arrange by arbitration everything which otherwise would be a cause of war. This mission of this tribunal would be to prevent war."

(From Baha'u'llah and the New Era Chapter 10)

- Art

[IlluSionS667]

Originally Posted by arthra

I don't necessarily represent the "American point of view" ....

It is from the Baha'i perspective that I have some hope for the future of the planet!

I had not heard of Baha'i, until I became a member of this community. From the information I've received, I deduct that it's pretty a naieve religion and just as superficial as wicca.

As long as you're happy and you don't hurt other humans nor animals, just believe what you want

[Kaspar]

The idea of unification is a complex one in itself. The fact that there are lots of different languages, cultures, law systems, countries and people, doesn't mean we have to unite them all so everything is fair and equal or, change them to create world-wide equality.

At the same time there is nothing unfair about creating an alternative universal government or language so everyone can communicate and deal with their troubles in the same way people on the other side of the world do.

I think the biggest progressions that have happened recently through globalisation, have been when alternatives have been made. Giving people choice lets them make more rational decisions and also gives them more responsibility of the choice they've taken. With no world governing body but lots of different bodies that...ok, might not have any power over countries, might not actually be able to force a country to do what it says can at least let the truth be public. Israel may have ignored countless security council resolutions but at least now, the rest of the world know Israels actions are universally disapproved of. Other countries will hopefully think twice before, for example; building a seperation barrier that cuts through another peoples land.

Also if a World Court has no power in terms of world police or world army then they are less likely to be corrupted by rich corporations.

Think about that then.

[Kaspar]

I'd just like to restate that the post above is my arguement for World Organizations that claim world credibilty but not world power.

I think this is a interesting thread so I reckon someone should reply and get it going again.

Thanks

[I, Brian]

World Government seems inevitable - but so does the scope for abuse of power.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

One World Government seems a future inevitability.

One goverment... Then these guys over here say... Fudge that... I don't agree with this and that and this... Come on guys lets go over here and make our own rules, and it will then keep going and going and going and oh... Look multipul goverments again

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

One World Government seems a future inevitability.

However, would it erally be an advantageious situation?

On the one hand, there is the idealism that the world would be united under a single force of democratic representation - but let's take into that perspective, for example, events in the USA over recent years.

Implicitly, isn't inviting the scenario of a one world government inviting not a world run by the likes of Kofi Annan, but of people like George W. Bush?

And wouldn't such a situation be extremely destabilising for the world, rather than a force for unification?

It seems that Gov't of the people, by the people, for the people has been rejected as a foreign and thus lesser concept.

The more singular that any Gov't on the planet is, the more de-stable, oppressive, and pronounced the destruction of the people. The mob criminals who rule a street corner dream of increasing monopolized power... who dreams of one world gov't?

No TAXation without repres... represe... represent... without friggen POWER. If a person goes door to door with a gun asking for your wealth and power, is the person called a beggar, a criminal, or the government? Gov't is a religion that takes the power of the people away at gun point. The collection plate is called a TAX and as a pretense the gun is called LAW.

[midnightsun]

Well I'm not sure about a One-World-Government, but the closest thing to that is what political scientist call Supra-National Powers, i.e. the EU (European Union) and the AU (African Union). These unions are what I see as a growth of whats to come in following years, regional-ization. This is a practical example of one aspect of the future of the notion of a One-World-Government.

Idealist may see this as an inevitable occurrence, but I personally see myself kissing Satan's arse before this occurs. A one world government would call for a fusing of all laws, and as we know many religions and cultures have their own laws. This is called cultural relativism, example being the Sharia laws and many rituals like cutting off a girls clitoris in Africa. For everyone to truly follow one government, we would all have to be of the same race and religion, which doesn't seem likely in this lifetime. Even then, people will always find a way to distinguish each other and create factions which lead to friction within the system. I'm going to stop here for now, too tired to make any sense, ^^^^ proof.

[wil]

Originally Posted by midnightsun

Well I'm not sure about a One-World-Government, but the closest thing to that is what political scientist call Supra-National Powers, i.e. the EU (European Union) and the AU (African Union). These unions are what I see as a growth of whats to come in following years, regional-ization.

Take a look at the UNITED states, that is what we were supposed to be, small federal gov't, no tariffs between states, little federal taxation...it didn't take long....what 50-100 years to cement the change for the UNITED states to become the US...the thirteen colonies were supposed to be sovereign entities working to the common good...EU, AU, once you signed....two, maybe three generations and the kids will never know you were once separate nations..

Take a look, we are now adding Canada and Mexico soon to be MexiCanUS aka UsMexiCan, and the Amero our new currency...You've got the Euro...I can't help it will the AU have the Afro?

[midnightsun]

Sorry to have mis-led you Wil with my favorite word from England "arse," but I am 100% unapproved imported Americana. New York City to be exact. Sorry for misleading you.
It is true that the thirteen colonies were supposed to be thirteen individual entities yet united under the same value system of "democracy" (plutocracy) and equality (refer back to plutocracy). But after receiving independence from its own people, England, the forefathers of the United States of America decided that the Articles of Confederation was a bad idea with its states acting more like individual entities that unified governments, the land owning white men decided they'd make the The Constitution which made the US into a federal form of government above any state.
Though much of Europe has followed the path of the EU, not all of it has done so in its entirety. Briton has yet to switch to the Euro, as well as Sweden and I believe a few others. The EU though considered a supra-national institution, has yet to fully become that. There are still many steps that need to be taken which most governments are finding to be too drastic at the moment. For instance the EU constitution has not been ratified by all members if I'm not mistaken. By doing so, each nation would be signing away its sovereignty, which is one of the greatest of travesties that can be done to a nation.