World Government, good or bad idea and why?

[billvon 2,463]

>>I think it is preferable to things like 9/11, the Gulf War and our
>> upcoming War with Iraq.

>Uuummm....please explain how a WG would change any of that?

Negotiation would replace war as a method of resolving differences. Look at the number of wars we've had since, say 1800 througout the world - now look at the number of wars we've had between US states in that time. What's the difference? A government where inter-state issues can get resolved _before_ they turn into wars, 99% of the time (with one exception, of course.)

A world government would also help end this "support X so they overthrow Y and create government Z" nonsense. We created Al Quaeda in the 80's when we sent billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Mujahideen (I just know I spelled that wrong.) If there had been a world government to deal with the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, we would not have funded the Mujahideen, Al Quaeda would never have been more than a band of disgruntled drug smugglers, and Bin Laden would today be nothing more than a cranky anti-American Saudi Arabian.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

>Total bullshit statement .

Read the newspapers; there's another mothers-against-handguns group forming every week. And unlike some people on this board they vote.

>How many guns do you own Bill?

None!

> A one world government is a really bad idea .

I don't think so, and I think it is preferable to things like 9/11, the Gulf War and our upcoming War with Iraq.

The relative cheapness of jet fuel in the United States, and our relative affluence are directly related to the price of oil. War for oil = war for skydiving?

I'm not trolling. I can afford to air condition my house because of the price of oil. The price of oil is directly related to our standard of living, and I think its worth fighting for.

I was a gas station attendant when gas went over the $1 mark for the first time. Gas lines, odd and even days. (off topic, but many funny stories contained therein)

How would a world government have affected religious fanatics?

I spent most of today in the State Capitol listening to politicians plan stuff. Yick. No more government, less government.

Oh, and Clay, let's go shootin. I got one that's registered, and they haven't come for it yet. It would be easy to part with though, frickin mousegun.

[freeflir29 0]

Oh....just one other point. uuummm.....what makes you think the Arab countries, states like North Korea, and South Americans would EVER negotiate with the West? It's really tough for me to imagine that happening.....

[SBS 0]

I don't think so, and I think it is preferable to things like 9/11, the Gulf War and our upcoming War with Iraq.

-------------

I wonder, though, if the countries were more like states in a union if the wars would be avoided or just considered "civil wars"?

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[Scoby 0]

Quote

I'm really not. I think that there would always be enough jealousy/paranoia in the world to start wars. Then..you would have plenty of accusations of favoritism, bribery, whatever. What happens when one state gets jealous or paranoid of the other. Hmmm...sound kinda like how the Gulf War started?

This is certainly true. However, if the United States of the World ever happened, it would be much less likely. I certainly think that the European Union has made it significantly less probable that Germany will invade France again. I mean, with one rather large exception, our states don't invade each other. By reducing sovreignty, pooling resources, interlinking economies, and generally increasing interdependence, a world government certainly would reduce the chances of war.

[billvon 2,463]

>The relative cheapness of jet fuel in the United States, and our
> relative affluence are directly related to the price of oil.

Nonsense. We use oil because it's cheap. Coal is cheaper still, which is why it's used to generate power instead of oil. If oil prices went up we'd use natural gas for motor fuels, which we have an abundance of. (note that you can synthesize liquid fuels from natural gas, it just costs more than oil.)

>I'm not trolling. I can afford to air condition my house because of
> the price of oil.

Oil has almost nothing to do with the price of electric power. Less than 5% of the power in the US comes from oil burning plants. 56% from coal, 9% from hydro, 21% from nuclear, 9% from natural gas.

>The price of oil is directly related to our standard of living, and I
>think its worth fighting for.

I hope you honestly don't think that it is worth the lives of the men and women in our military to maintain your cheap gas. I place a far higher value on their lives than that. How cheap would gas have to be to make it OK that a child of yours died fighting for it?

>How would a world government have affected religious fanatics?

It doesn't, it just makes them less likely to want to kill large numbers of people. It provides an arena for Afghanistan (for example) to air grievances with the US.

[billvon 2,463]

>Oh....just one other point. uuummm.....what makes you think the
> Arab countries, states like North Korea, and South Americans would
> EVER negotiate with the West? It's really tough for me to imagine
>that happening.....

Not hard for me. They do it all the time. We just sold some nuclear reactors to North Korea; that was an interesting bit of negotiation. South America sells us a lot of oil, and we actually have pretty good relationships with some countries down there (Brazil, Argentina.) Saudi Arabia has retained good diplomatic ties with us. If we can negotiate with them - the country most of the 9/11 terrorists came from - we can negoitate with anyone.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Brazil, Argentina.) Saudi Arabia

3 countries where the people are often at GREAT odds with the government.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Saudi Arabia has retained good diplomatic ties with us.

That's where some of the hypocrisy of our leaders comes into play again. We have good ties with them because they help us get cheap oil and we give them hard cash. If it weren't for that they would be very high on our s-list. Monarchy, human rights issues, etc. It's hard for us to claim to be leaders and proponents of freedom for the world when our actions indicate that we only mean that for our own citizens. If we could actually stick to what we claim to be our moral highground in dealing with other nations of the world, we possibly could remain in a leadership position in a world government. I just don't think that's likely to happen any time soon. As stated above, people like their cheap oil too much.

[billvon 2,463]

>3 countries where the people are often at GREAT odds with the
> government.

Exactly - but the important part is that we talk to them and don't blow them to bits, despite provocation. We don't have to agree with everything they do, or vice versa - we just have to live with them. We have proven we _can_ do it. A world government that we both belonged to would make it easier still, since there'd be a formal process for mediation.

The idea of a world government is not to make the whole world the same. The attempt would fail miserably. It would, however, help reduce the number of wars we see, and help prevent genocide, both of which are extremely worthwhile things to try to prevent.

[billvon 2,463]

>We have good ties with them because they help us get cheap oil and
> we give them hard cash.

Of course.

>If it weren't for that they would be very high on our s-list. Monarchy,
> human rights issues, etc. It's hard for us to claim to be leaders and
> proponents of freedom for the world when our actions indicate that
> we only mean that for our own citizens.

We only mean that for our own citizens. Our constitution does not protect citizens of Saudi Arabia while they're in Saudi Arabia. We can encourage democracy if we want, and not trade with people who have mean n nasty governments, but we should not be a part of democracy's violent introduction. We've made that mistake a dozen times before, and it always blows up in our face.

>If we could actually stick to what we claim to be our moral highground
> in dealing with other nations of the world, we possibly could remain
> in a leadership position in a world government.

I think the opposite. We should treat other countries like we want to be treated - i.e. we should, for the most part, leave them alone. And if we want to be part of a world government, we better prove that we can negotiate for peace without trying to turn other countries into copies of the US.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

We should treat other countries like we want to be treated

Then you have an interesting new problem. Since military force would largely be taken out of the "New World Order" formula, money now becomes the standard of power. What happens when one country can't compete and perceives unfair practices....Yep!!! You guessed it. Someone starts shooting.....(Back to the Gulf War again)

[billvon 2,463]

>money now becomes the standard of power.

Sorta like in the US.

>What happens when one country can't compete and perceives unfair
> practices....Yep!!! You guessed it. Someone starts shooting.....(Back
> to the Gulf War again)

If that's the case, why doesn't this happen in the US? Money is power here, and often one state will be at a huge advantage/disadvantage to another in terms of natural resources etc (look at Alaska.) Why hasn't Oregon invaded it yet? Why hasn't California taken over Arizona?

[Deuce 1]

Bill!

There is no commercially available turbine aircraft that runs on coal. Is the fact that we can afford to skydive in this country a standard of living that you are willing to fight for?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

By reducing sovreignty, pooling resources, interlinking economies, and generally increasing interdependence, a world government certainly would reduce the chances of war.

This is a fairly good re-statement of the Manchester Creed, with one exception. It doesn't take a world government.

Pooling of resources, interlinking of economies, and generally increasing interdependence are all happening, and will continue to happen, whether or not there is an over-arching "world government".

Until the individual states making up the larger body "converge" in cultural and economic senses, I doubt that a central government will prove effective.

I do not believe, for example, that the European Union has caused war in continental Europe to be less likely. Rather, I believe that the European Union has come about due to the same cultural and economic convergence which made war in Europe less likely.

Attempting to impose a top-down world government on cultures and peoples with massive dissimilarities, is, in my opinion, doomed to failure.

People with cultural and economic similarities and interdependence, on the other hand, will have little need of a unifying government. Does anyone think that war between the U.S. and Canada is ever going to happen? Would a unified U.S.-Canada government make war less likely?

It is my belief that the world is moving toward a greater state of unification, interdependence and peace. I do not believe that the United Nations has much effect on this progress (some, but not much). The expansion of global trade, which brings people closer together in a way that counts (their pocketbooks), is a far more effective peacekeeper.

In case someone thinks I'm having an original thought here, I'm basically just paraphrasing a bunch of English economists from the early industrial period. I happen to think they're right. The development of common interest is a far more effect unifier than the imposition of common laws.

Ach! I've just realized this is supposed to be a skydiving board. We're supposed to be talking about boobies and beer! What weird alternate universe am I in?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Why hasn't California taken over Arizona?

I thought they had....along with Washington State, Northern Idaho, and parts of Western Montana. It's an insurgency. No shit....there I was...with my sister and her boyfriend in a bar in Lozeau, Montana. Smart guy decides to tell the bartender...."Hi, we're from California" My next words...."UUmmm.....They are from California." and "Would you PLEASE not say that!!!"

Seriously, It's because we are all "Americans" and share a commonality. Let's look at the same example in most of Southern and Central Africa. Fairly differen't story.

[billvon 2,463]

>There is no commercially available turbine aircraft that runs on coal.

Nope, but they have aircraft that run on hydrogen. (http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9809/FR9809k.htm) We can make that with no problem.

> Is the fact that we can afford to skydive in this country a standard of
> living that you are willing to fight for?

Is the question "would I trade cheap skydives for world peace?" Absolutely. If it meant no more war (even no more war bewteen the US and anyone else) I'd happily pay $50 a jump - or even go without and get back to BASE jumping.

[billvon 2,463]

>Pooling of resources, interlinking of economies, and generally
> increasing interdependence are all happening, and will continue to
> happen, whether or not there is an over-arching "world government".

I agree; this is pretty much inevitable.

>Attempting to impose a top-down world government on cultures and
> peoples with massive dissimilarities, is, in my opinion, doomed to
> failure.

I also agree - if that government attempts to impose its own cultures and laws on the countries under it. If it does not do that, and is used simply as a framework for negotiation and ajudication of war crimes, it's a lot more likely to succeed.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>Attempting to impose a top-down world government on cultures and
> peoples with massive dissimilarities, is, in my opinion, doomed to
> failure.

I also agree - if that government attempts to impose its own cultures and laws on the countries under it. If it does not do that, and is used simply as a framework for negotiation and ajudication of war crimes, it's a lot more likely to succeed.

What is your definition of government?

I tend to go with the George Washington definition. "Government is force". To me government is the thing recognized by society as having the power to force adult humans to obey it's wishes.

If it can't force those living under it to do things, it isn't a government, it's a forum for discussion. I'm not saying we shouldn't have forums for discussion--in general I believe that discussion is more valuable than government (that's my libertarianism talking).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Scoby 0]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. The one world system will be as a result of the globalization of our economic and ploitical systems. I think I said as much in one of the earlier replies. I certainly don't think that the UN in its current form will become the central world government or that any WG will be imposed from the top down. I simply expect that growing interdepenence will create a de facto unified world, that will eventually be formalized.

[billvon 2,463]

>I tend to go with the George Washington definition. "Government is
> force". To me government is the thing recognized by society as
> having the power to force adult humans to obey it's wishes.

Basically yes. But it's how that force is used that is the issue. We may have the strongest military in the world; yet paradoxically, we also have one of the freest societies in the world. Force must be available, but can be used judiciously.

The UN has peacekeeping forces even now, made up of "volunteer" military from member countries. They have been used in places like Kosovo. I hope that in the future we make more use of the UN's military (made up partly, of course, of our own) than purely US troops.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I hope that in the future we make more use of the UN's military (made up partly, of course, of our own) than purely US troops.

The use of "UN" military force has pretty much been a joke everywhere it has been sent. Lets see....Pretty much the ENTIRE Bosnian conflict, Every conflict in Africa (To include being mostly responsible for the Black Thursday Debacle in Somalia) , Uuummm...in fact I can't think of a single instance where "UN" forces have been effective.

[billvon 2,463]

>The use of "UN" military force has pretty much been a joke
> everywhere it has been sent.

So far, yes. I think we should support them to the point where they are no longer a joke.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I think we should support them to the point where they are no longer a joke

Well..in Somalia it was the fact that we were working "for" the UN that got us into trouble. The politicians didn't want a "UN" mission to seem "Too War Like" so they denied the repeated requests for Armored vehicle support before the operation. Then....as Rangers and assorted other Spec Ops guys were getting killed in the streets they DENIED REPEATED requests for Close Air Support. That entire battle might have been over in just a few minutes had an AC-130 been deployed. Instead, we lost 18 men. Forgive me if the UN tends to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[billvon 2,463]

>That entire battle might have been over in just a few minutes had
>an AC-130 been deployed.

And might never have happened had Somalians been willing to negotiate with the UN, and might never have happened if the US simply supported the UN's efforts rather than staging its own raids. When we raid foreign countries, we should expect deaths - and it's foolish to expect someone else to come in and save us when we do that, especially if we don't want to be a part of their planning.