The Benefits and Drawbacks of One-World Government?

Hi all,

It may appear I am trying to pour gasoline on a fire with this thread...please trust that I am doing with the best of intentions and genuine curiosity!

Statements of Opinion
1. It seems to me that in many popular depictions of Utopian futures, the Earth is governed as one global entity (e.g. Star Trek). This implies a desire for unity in government in a percentage of the general populace (else there would be no popularity)
2. A lot of energy and wealth are currently expended in the service of preserving and expanding the control held by nation-states.
3. A commonly-heard refrain is that world hunger, disease, and education problems could be addressed with a fraction of the cost of many developed nations' defense budgets.
4. With the exception of military conflict, due to the need to protect national interests it is exceedingly difficult to achieve momentum in global/multi-national endeavors (e.g. climate change).

I fully admit these are my opinions; I guarantee you they are held without all of the facts! But that said, it seems to me that a global government/NWO, with proper stewardship, would have many beneficial results for humanity.

I have no doubt that there would be downsides to something as epoch-changing as the adoption of one-world government...
- Theocratic-styled nations (e.g. Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc) and countries wracked by civil war (e.g. Central Africa) would likely face the most disruption and probable military intervention,
- Powerful nations like the US, China, and Russia would never agree to something that wasn't in their best interests (then again, the best interests of a powerful country have often resulted in misery for others).
- In all likelihood a system like this would require governance similar to the Imperial Roman Empire, with individual provinces under the control of an 'Emperor' and Senate. Arguably the more consolidated power becomes, the greater the opportunity for misuse.

All that said, it's not as though things are working right now. Consider the accomplishments humanity could achieve if we could focus the world's energies as one.

I would like to know what ATS thinks about this! I am hoping we can have an respectful, open discussion about this topic as a concept, rather than as an exploration of the current conspiracy theories around the NWO and the Illuminati, etc.

To start off the discussion I freely offer that I am probably painting a far-too-rosy picture here. : )

Thanks!

Consider the accomplishments humanity could achieve if we could focus the world's energies as one.

First corporations have to be able to get rich from making a better world. Right now they are getting rich by exploiting it and its people. How would you reverse this and make it profitable to create instead of destroying?

Besides, governments are insignificant in a world where global corporations exists. Having a global capitalistic world government would only make it easier to put McDonalds everywhere and increase profits while the planets population work for nothing.

Not exactly the accomplishments you had in mind, I know, but thats whats coming if nothing changes. Global capitalism. Global slavery where the few have a lot but most have almost nothing.

You see, ordinary people may not want that world, but its the corporations that are the kings. We are pawns with no power at all.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

I guess I can really only see four ways that a global government could be created.

1. Military Conquest - The Roman Empire is one of the greatest in human history with regards to technology, standard of living, and growth in knowledge. It was also created by force on the backs of captured slaves. Not so rosy, but one country could 'go it alone'...Germany tried to do it 70 years ago.

2. Revolution - A popular uprising/global 'jihad' that wipes out the existing ruling structure and creates a new one. Odds are this would be a temporary solution...the USSR lasted less than 100 years.

3. Global Threat - If something threatened the entire planet (asteroid impact, plague, supervolcano, etc), a united effort would be required to avert/survive it. The UK and France almost formally united early in WW2 in the effort to defend against Germany.

4. Entropy - The system we have just falls apart, leaving whatever nucleus of cohesive governance to accrue satellite communities under their umbrella (e.g. if the US is the only country to survive a period of chaos, other countries may appeal for support/aid/inclusion).

I can see how a one world government would be beneficial, that is if everyone cooperated and didn't have individual ideas. A one world government simply would never work, for many reasons:

1.) How would we have elections? I don't think we would. Just as in a communist state, one leader would be appointed and given supreme power, either that or a committee of the super-elite who do not have your best interests at heart.

2.) If such a government existed, all progress be it scientific, literary, artistic would grind to a halt. The system they have is good enough. When all you care about is power everything else falls by the way side.

3.) There would be three classes: Poor, Police, Mega-Rich. In world like this before too long people in various parts of the world will not stand for such a thing. There will be endless war.

4.) Education would only be reserved for those born into the super-elite. Eventually, all your books will be burned, with only a few exceptions like this passage from the bible.

Romans 13 1-7:

vs1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

vs2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

vs3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same;

vs4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

vs5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake."

vs6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

vs7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

5.) Eugenics, concentration camps and senseless exterminations will ensue. Remember, these people own you now, we're not people, we are animals:

It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

- Charles Darwin

These are just some things to think about. They are my opinions of what I think would happen if under a one world government.

It's never about peace. It's always about power.

Thanks for your reply...really well thought out!

I hope you're wrong though, because for some reason I just can't see the Earth existing 500 years from now with nation-states and or corporate states. It all feels too dysfunctional.

Hell, in 500 years we're just as likely to not even be here anymore!

Originally posted by Copernicus
First corporations have to be able to get rich from making a better world. Right now they are getting rich by exploiting it and its people. How would you reverse this and make it profitable to create instead of destroying?

The Australian Emissions Trading Scheme goes some way towards this. Those that pollute get taxed. Those that can provide a negative carbon footprint get carbon credits that they can sell. As long as the scheme accounts for a net gain for the planet, then its a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by Shamrock87
1.) How would we have elections? I don't think we would. Just as in a communist state, one leader would be appointed and given supreme power, either that or a committee of the super-elite who do not have your best interests at heart.

I always thought this would work like the EU. Member states hold democratic elections as usual. Each state has its turn at presidency.

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability


You do have an interesting point, the world is getting smaller every day. What happens when there are too many people and not enough land? I mean really think about it.

Originally posted by beta.services
I always thought this would work like the EU. Member states hold democratic elections as usual. Each state has its turn at presidency.

In my eyes, that's still not a true democracy. That is if I'm interpreting this right. Do you mean to say that each individual nation has an election and depending on which nation's turn it is to lead, that nation's elected official gets to lead?

If that's what they do it seems kind of lopsided. It's like having the state of Texas elect the leader one term and then have Alaska pick the other and all other states don't have a say?

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability

1. It seems to me that in many popular depictions of Utopian futures, the Earth is governed as one global entity (e.g. Star Trek). This implies a desire for unity in government in a percentage of the general populace (else there would be no popularity)

Comments - In this particular fiction, we must assume that the one world government (OWG from here out) is both prosperous and benevolent. In other words, what's not to like?

2. A lot of energy and wealth are currently expended in the service of preserving and expanding the control held by nation-states.

Comments - It has always been so. The human race has no common frame of reference except nation-states. We don't have a roadmap to unify humanity. It would probably be easier, if not wiser, to try and create regional confederations first, allowing rights to be expanded to those places where they do not exist, rather than try and curtail them where they do, to bring the confederation into balance.

3. A commonly-heard refrain is that world hunger, disease, and education problems could be addressed with a fraction of the cost of many developed nations' defense budgets.

Comments - Probably true. It costs far less to feed a world than it does to build the devices to destroy it. But try and convince the Pentagon that they should be packaging butter and cheese and not building tanks and nukes... and see how fat you get lol.

4. With the exception of military conflict, due to the need to protect national interests it is exceedingly difficult to achieve momentum in global/multi-national endeavors (e.g. climate change).

Comments - We simply do not trust our current crop of leaders and bereaucrats to pull off a OWG that doesn't, in some way, rob us of our most cherished ideals and liberties. That distrust, earned or not, will undoubtedly prevent us from truting them to do anything in a global way... including agreements to reduce global warming.

reply to post by redoubt

It would probably be easier, if not wiser, to try and create regional confederations first, allowing rights to be expanded to those places where they do not exist, rather than try and curtail them where they do, to bring the confederation into balance.

Sounds logical. We've gone from city-states to nation-states, arguably we are moving into a post-nation-state world of regional authority (like the EU or even the phantom NAU). That seems a logical next step that I hadn't fully considered.

reply to post by Shamrock87

Presidency of the Council of the European Union (commonly referred to as presidency of the European Union) is the responsibility for the functioning of the Council of the European Union which is rotated between European Union member states every six months. There is no single president but rather the task is undertaken by an entire national government, hence that state influences the direction of European Union policy during its term. Although it rotates every six months, since 2007 the current presidency has worked with the last and next one on a common political programme.
en.wikipedia.org...

It has two effects.

1. It ensures that all states are pulling their weight.
2. It helps to make sure that its not just a popularity contents, returning the focus to governance. (As opposed to a year long media circus that some in the USA seem to enjoy)

Just imagine how long a global election campaign would take.

A one world government would be very good if I were the ruler of it for the duration of my life!

A one world government would be very bad if I were not the ruler of it for my entire life.

I would have to fight tirelessly and endlessly agaisnt this one world government if I were not it's ruler and well...I will end up screwing it up for the rest of you...rest assured.

So having said that, should there be a one world government insist that I Protoplasmic Traveler rule it for life, accept no substitutes or immitations or you'll be sorry!

Originally posted by Copernicus

Consider the accomplishments humanity could achieve if we could focus the world's energies as one.

First corporations have to be able to get rich from making a better world. Right now they are getting rich by exploiting it and its people. How would you reverse this and make it profitable to create instead of destroying?

Besides, governments are insignificant in a world where global corporations exists. Having a global capitalistic world government would only make it easier to put McDonalds everywhere and increase profits while the planets population work for nothing.

Not exactly the accomplishments you had in mind, I know, but thats whats coming if nothing changes. Global capitalism. Global slavery where the few have a lot but most have almost nothing.

You see, ordinary people may not want that world, but its the corporations that are the kings. We are pawns with no power at all.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by Copernicus]

its very simple, we cant have a system of money.

star trek was a utopia because they didnt have artificial scarcity. abundance thanks to their replicator technology made money pointless.

if we want a global goverment that isnt exploiting us we have to get rid of money and stop surpressing advancements in energy.