U.S.E.

It certainly would.

U.S.T would be more appropriate ( The United States of Torture )

That doesn't sound very nice at all.

Having a single world government might turn out to have very bad consequences. The first problem is how that government might be structured. Hitler wanted such a government dedicated to racial purity, and Stalin envisioned a world dominated by Bolsheviks. We are currently at "war" with a band of international religious zealots who would like the whole world to return to a 7th century style theocracy. A large part of Europe today is dedicated to Socialism, and some would like to see the world ruled by transnational corporations. The United States Constitution works well for us, but not for everyone.

How could such a Federation be brought together? Human societies have developed along lines of commonality for thousands of years while the earth was still so large as to provide a degree of isolation. Families and tribes banded together for mutual support in an often brutal competition for survival. "We" are the "People", and "Other" is an "enemy". The seeds of today's earthly divisions bloomed from shared cultural language, expectations, common religion, and the conditions of local survival. The most successful societies grew and expanded their territories at the expense of less successful communities. Defeat in war resulted in slavery and extinction of most of those societies, out of those reduced to slavery (as opposed to those eliminated by "ethnic cleansing") cultural sets grew to include "Others" who had to claw their way up from the bottom rungs of the social ladder to become "like us", become People.

Those ancient chauvinistic ways of looking at the world are with us still, though today in the West are considered non-P.C. Who will willingly surrender a survival strategy so ancient, and ingrained in people's hearts? The answer is no one. The idea of a world forum to protect the peace and security of all failed with the League of Nations unable to effectively control national and political rivalries. We tried again after the Second World War, with the U.N. and a series of international treaties that folks hoped would prevent future dictatorships and governmental mass murder. That also has been largely a failure. What does that leave ... war? That appears to be the strategy adopted by the Radical Islamic Movement, the only "One World, one government" group in the world today.

There are several historical examples of Empires that considered themselves Masters of the World. That which was not Rome was considered barbarian and not worthy of much consideration, and the Middle Kingdom also controlled everything worthy of being called "civilized". In Rome, anyone could be ordered to commit suicide by the Emperor. The alternative was either a gruesome death, or banishment outside of the empire. The Chinese built The Wall, but it was never totally successful at keeping the barbarians at bay. The Chinese Imperial System worked because the Chinese People completely bought into that scheme and way of looking at the world. There are many reasons for the so-called fall of Rome, but the inability of a series of Emperors incapable of governing was surely a major item. The Golden Age of Augustus might have lasted a few hundred years, but it was a house built upon sand. In the end the system failed, and Europe reverted to competing warlords who eventually became kings of smaller homogenic "nations". In China, the system worked far longer as the Dynastic Cycles resulted in renewal every few hundred years. China, on the other hand, came to believe that theirs was a perfect society and the only source of civilization in the world. China became so tradition bound that new ideas and explorations were discouraged. China's system failed when it was suddenly over a couple of hundred years confronted with changed circumstances that revealed the inner rottenness of the traditional system. Faced with the expanding colonial aspirations of well-armed, technological European nations, the old Dynastic system was shattered by the beginning of the 20th century.

These examples should make us very leery of too much centralization of government. They just don't seem to work very well over the long run, and while in power they can become terribly oppressive. Sorry Charley, no Utopias today.

I'm pressed for time right now Asherman, so I will have to read your whole post later. But a single world government might not be so bad. It would depend on how much power was centered in it. The Europeean Union, for instance, has more power over it's member countries than many think is beneficial, and a result is that the biggest members get the best benefits.
But a union of the whole world would be welcome in my book, replacing the anarchy that rules the global situation today.

Ok, now I've read it all, and I see your point.

Even in such a small country as norway (approx. 5 million inhabitants) the issue of sentralization is debated. Too much power in the central government easily leads to neglect of the more distant counties.

But there is the possiblity of decentralized goverment with cooperation. An international law that would apply to all nations is a good start, but in the end I guess it comes down to the intention of governments and people. In my utopia all nations would aspire to cooperate to the benefit of all. Guess I'll keep on dreaming...

UBR United Bearism Republic.... that's what we need....

United Beerism Republic?

USE excluding the USA ... it would be a peaceful place.

Why you hating on the US? I know you don't like Bush but that isn't reason enough to hate the whole country. The guy only has 1 1/2 years left to "ruin" the country so cut the rest of us a break.

For the last few years the US has been Bush, that being so, the US is responsible for most the strife in the world today and the sooner the US government stops interfering in the politics of other sovereign states the sooner the world will have peace but of course they must also stop the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians, which the US supports politically and militarily. The US is now trying to demonize China but they won't have it all their own way in that game, China is not Iraq!

and he is doing his best to do so; working harder, faster (millions of profit happy stockholders are depending on him!)

but yer right, obviously not everyone here loves the guy.

but apparently this guy does...





if your p.m. starts talking about clearing brush, "expectin'" and hanging out with a guy having a name like "channing" or "shaney" or wotnot, ya best waltz it out to the farthest billabong, pronto. :wink:

In Australia he is known as "The ar*e licker" and he's doin' a good job on Bush .... He'll be out of office at the next election, you can be sure of that!

Wasn't the same thing said before the last election? If I recall he won a majority of the votes and stayed in office. What makes this election any different?