Future government

@SummyF,

I've heard of the Amero. Thats the currency right that the North American Union is planning to incorporate. The truth is that the world is actually slowly become a world nation. Some people would disagree but if you look at the world right now how could it not be slowly becoming like that. There is the North American, South American, European union and many more. In fact there is one for every continent I think.

I think that it would actually be a good thing to have one government or a world nation but I think that we have a thread on this world nation thing already.

1 Reply

@MITech,

Totally agreed,

Star trek did give me the dream in the first place. I think peoples concern are not really with have a universal system of morals ( which equal into laws) but worried in the power structure that might be created when some thing that big takes place

Yet again, humanity is a very weird thing and what we might see as oppressive today maybe be something acceptable in future generations

1 Reply

@SummyF,

Just because nations join together in areas of mutual interests does not mean that said governments are forming a single government.

Remember the Cold War? The fears about a Communist Vietnam? The part Americans missed was that the Vietnamese were fiercely independent. Sure, they would take aid from other communist nations, but they would have opposed Chinese attempts at intervention just as fiercely as they opposed French and American attempts.

Nations can join together in alliances for any number of reasons. But do not underestimate the independent nature of these nations.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;25778 wrote:

Just because nations join together in areas of mutual interests does not mean that said governments are forming a single government.

Remember the Cold War? The fears about a Communist Vietnam? The part Americans missed was that the Vietnamese were fiercely independent. Sure, they would take aid from other communist nations, but they would have opposed Chinese attempts at intervention just as fiercely as they opposed French and American attempts.

Nations can join together in alliances for any number of reasons. But do not underestimate the independent nature of these nations.

See countries, that depend on each other economically it less prone to go to war. At this point of time countries that are connected with each other do not get into conflict. The creation of the Amero(North american union), is a big sign that nations that are next to each other, and trade with each other should have one currency. this idea is backed up by the Euro (european union) and African union.
When you talked about the bipolar segment in world history( communism, vs capitalism) the issue that was important was that there was nothing that would bring nations together besides there ideology. They didn't need each other. This goes for both china / u.s.s.r. and the u.s.

"Just because nations join together in areas of mutual interests does not mean that said governments are forming a single government."

Depends on how you define intrest.

the interest between Iran and syria is different than the interest between opec nations and china.

Nations can join together in alliances for any number of reasons. But do not underestimate the independent nature of these nations

If it was before our technology and economy has joined us, then these alliances would have been diffrent, but it diffrent now adays

The big issue that stop us is the abrhamic fantics in the middle east, and in this country, which involve us in one of the last ideological battles

1 Reply

@SummyF,

I am fully committed to the belief that someday people will have self-government through agorist counter-economics and peaceful trades.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I am fully committed to the belief that someday people will have self-government through agorist counter-economics and peaceful trades.

Boy wouldn't that be nice. I'd like to think so, but I fear that *if* it's ever to happen, we've one very... long... road to hoe.

:whistling:

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Boy wouldn't that be nice. I'd like to think so, but I fear that *if* it's ever to happen, we've one very... long... road to hoe.

:whistling:

All political tides are driven by economic undercurrents, and as time and technology progresses it creates more economic value within each and every person, strengthening their powers of negotiation and self-defense.

From this I can only conclude that aggression will slowly and naturally slip away as becomes less and less profitable for anyone. Eventually its excessive costs will cause only the most unreasonable of actors to resort to anything other than peaceful acquisition.

It will be a long row, but it won't be one that we particularly have to hoe.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

War with flesh eating space aliens is probably a necessary precondition to the creation of a world government.

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Quote:

See countries, that depend on each other economically it less prone to go to war. At this point of time countries that are connected with each other do not get into conflict. The creation of the Amero(North american union), is a big sign that nations that are next to each other, and trade with each other should have one currency. this idea is backed up by the Euro (european union) and African union.

But an alliance based on economic interest does not suggest that the nations involved will dissolve into one larger government.

This only means that the individual nations hope to mutually benefit from some economic arrangement.

Quote:

When you talked about the bipolar segment in world history( communism, vs capitalism) the issue that was important was that there was nothing that would bring nations together besides there ideology. They didn't need each other. This goes for both china / u.s.s.r. and the u.s.

Actually, nations like Vietnam were in dire need of economic and military assistance from the larger Communist states. Ideology had little to do with the alliance; the Vietnamese even appealed to the US for aid, military, economic, and diplomatic aid to help Vietnam develop a stable democracy. The US preferred to support the French and the rest is history.

Quote:

The big issue that stop us is the abrhamic fantics in the middle east, and in this country, which involve us in one of the last ideological battles

There are religious fundamentalists in every nation of every faith. I'm affraid ideological disputes are unending.

Quote:

I am fully committed to the belief that someday people will have self-government through agorist counter-economics and peaceful trades.

Eh, I'm hopeful, but not optimistic.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I don't know whether or not the responders in this particular discussion are a representative group, but it nice to see much hope and even some optimism that nationalism is on the way out and world government is on its way in.

Look at what's happening in Europe. At each other's throats for centuries, the nations there have tamped down their nationalistic fervor and are feeling their way towards a combined government. Already they have gone beyond economic matters and are into discussions about unified legislatures and courts.

The world is quickly getting smaller. Those distant strangers are becoming our next door neighbors -- and, lo, their cultures are not all that different from ours.
We have the vehicle for drawing together, the United Nations. Let's board it and really escape this international anarchy we're mired in!

1 Reply

@Dewey phil,

Dewey wrote:

... but it nice to see much hope and even some optimism that nationalism is on the way out and world government is on its way in.

Agree completely.

Nationalism breeds an us-and-them perspective, which leads to hate and scapegoating, which leads to discrimination, persecution and violence.

It's always struck me as logical - this progression of thought.

We're concerned with human beings
At their most basic level, humans have similar basic needs, similar basic desires
Human beings thrive considerably more in cooperation
Humans are all over this planet
Therefore, its in the best interests of all people that a defined, planet-wide human community to facilitate our common goals should exist

Generally, when I toss something like this out I receive replies that equate me to a "traitor" to my country[1]. What I speak of are common human bonds, needs in a world government scenario and there's no reason why such a thing should be viewed as obliterating individual cultures, languages and traditions. The world government need only be concerned with issues all humans have a common vested interest in: keeping the peace, combating the worst of crimes, facilitating the flow of resources, resolving disputes between individual nations, etc. Those aspects which differ (as a result of culture and tradition) should be left to individual nation-states.

---------
[1] I served my people for 20 years while keeping faith in them; no one has permission to place such a disparagement.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Isn't the "Free Market" movement something of a philosophical dilemma? One must examine the question that is basic to the movement "Can/do markets regulate themselves?" If they do - "To whose benefit?" obviously not the spectators but perhaps the players and thus we might see the whole market as one giant playing field with the (highly) paid athletes amusing themselves at a game that they can't ever really lose.
The only real losers are the spectators, the "fans"
Ergo, the Bailout and maybe the Populists are right for once.

0 Replies

Future government

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know