As far as I can see it, this would eliminate most of the problems in the world. A country wouldn't attack itself. We would not have any trade issues or wars. We would not have any currency exchange issues.

What's the downside here, folks?

7/27/2010 11:28:23 AM

freedom

7/27/2010 11:30:13 AM

In general

whenever you seem to be behind an idea, I can safely label it fucking stupid and ignore it.

7/27/2010 11:30:40 AM

It is a sign of the coming of the anti-christ.

7/27/2010 11:32:35 AM

Quote :

"As far as I can see it, this would eliminate most of the problems in the world. A country wouldn't attack itself. We would not have any trade issues or wars. We would not have any currency exchange issues. What's the downside here, folks?"

countries attack themselves all the time - see afghan tribes, african tribes, eastern europe, etc...

people are always wary of those who 'arent like them.'

your idealism severely clouds your judgment.

7/27/2010 11:34:31 AM

^^^^ but how is your freedom any different than living in a country in general? there are rules and laws here.

I mean, let's say, for example, that the unified world government was basically like the United States, with it's constitution as the rule of law. Would you still be opposed?

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ]

7/27/2010 11:35:05 AM

I don't really feel well represented in our current government. If you made it even bigger I think this feeling would get worse.

7/27/2010 11:36:55 AM

no, but it won't be. And even if it started out like that, it would quickly shift away from freedom because people who love liberty are surprisingly in the minority.

7/27/2010 11:37:53 AM

^^ That's only because our house of representatives hasn't increased as our population has increased. We need to increase the size of them.

7/27/2010 11:39:53 AM

Quote :

"A country wouldn't attack itself."

This is news that the citizens of Sudan would be thrilled to hear. A few years ago it would have been great comfort to the Rwandans as well.

Also, to any country that has ever had a civil war, ever.

Quote :

"We would not have any currency exchange issues."

There are those of us who are quite fond of these issues, like me when I visit South America.

Quote :

"As far as I can see it, this would eliminate most of the problems in the world."

This assumes a perfect government with perfect people in it, and the next one of those will be the first. It also assumes, erroneously, that everybody in the world wants the same form of government, or even remotely similar forms of government.

7/27/2010 11:40:53 AM

What are we going to do when aliens visit the Earth?

7/27/2010 11:41:48 AM

Didn't you watch Independence Day? Jesus F Christ....

7/27/2010 11:42:22 AM

If we're ever going to found Starfleet, we gotta get a one world government in place.

7/27/2010 11:48:15 AM

as long as there are different cultures and different religions and people are still mostly idiots, there wont be nor should there be a unified world government.

7/27/2010 11:51:41 AM

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

7/27/2010 11:54:08 AM

Quote :

""A country wouldn't attack itself.""

Nobody said the key word: Civil War.


oh grump said it but he doesn't really count

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2010 3:00:22 PM

God, how come you are so opposed to the US going into Iraq and telling them how to run their country, for example, yet you are advocating something here that would eliminate every state in the world's sovereignty?

7/27/2010 3:54:38 PM

^
I'm pretty sure he's implying that a unified world government would include willful participants.

7/27/2010 4:06:37 PM

Because this is not Star Trek.

7/27/2010 4:22:47 PM

Quote :

"I mean, let's say, for example, that the unified world government was basically like the United States, with it's constitution as the rule of law. Would you still be opposed?"

That's a VERY big if right there. I don't oppose world government per say if done correctly, but to dream that you can implement western style, constitutional government across the entire planet is a huge stretch at this point. We have parts of the world that are in near anarchy or so riddled with corruption and abuse that any hope of rule of law is hard to imagine at this point. Even if we could stabilize those areas, the sheer differences in culture would completely cripple any governmental body, especially if social or economic (wealth redistribution) issues start creeping up to the global stage.

7/27/2010 4:43:28 PM

Quote :

"whenever you seem to be behind an idea, I can safely label it fucking stupid and ignore it."

Quote :

"your idealism severely clouds your judgment."

Pretty much.

I think God is getting dumber. This thread is bad even by mambagrl standards.

7/27/2010 4:47:11 PM

I'd be in favor of a unified world government, but not one that resembles the US government.

7/27/2010 4:52:32 PM

7/27/2010 5:25:49 PM

We already have a world government. It is called the United Nations. Now, I admit, it is a weak sort of government, not having the right to levy taxes or raise an army. But, as most forms of government go, I wish more governments were like it: toothless and indecisive.

So, the correct question is, Why isn't God satisfied with the current unified world government?

7/27/2010 6:57:01 PM

^
The number one reason why the UN is a joke is the security council veto power. Members should be able to override a veto with some kind of majority.

7/27/2010 7:54:49 PM

A world government is a bad idea for the same reason that a federal government is a bad idea: if they decide to make a fucked up law, you have nowhere to go.

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM. Reason : In before "but they wouldn't make a fucked up law!"]

7/27/2010 8:25:27 PM

We do have a thing called space travel. Anyone who stays down here has no excuse to complain.

7/27/2010 8:31:31 PM

There should only be one world that anyone is able to move throughout. That is FREEDOM.

Basically the reason this wouldn't work is because then there would be nobody outside of the world government for the world government to exploit, oppress and use as a stepping stone.

Quote :

" no, but it won't be. And even if it started out like that, it would quickly shift away from freedom because people who love liberty are surprisingly in the minority."

well put

TRANSLATION: greedy people who want to keep everything to themselves would eventually be prevented from doing so thus robbed of their "liberty"

Keep in mind solinaris idea of freedom is freedom to stack resources and prevent others from having any.

Behind every great country there are 10 poor countries paying the cost.

A united world government won't happen until there are resources/poeple beyond this planet for it to exploit.

7/27/2010 8:55:34 PM

this could work

but only if everyone in the world, simultaneously and knowingly, participated in a see-god level mushroom trip

7/27/2010 9:34:43 PM

God is busy googlin' up a response

7/27/2010 10:25:26 PM

fellow Earthicans!

7/27/2010 10:25:51 PM

/message_topic.aspx?topic=599455

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 10:26 PM. Reason : g]

7/27/2010 10:26:11 PM

^^^ The Economist hasn't written on this yet.

7/27/2010 10:57:29 PM

Quote :

"Behind every great country there are 10 poor countries paying the cost."

By what mechanism? Short of military occupation, naval blockade, or aerial bombardment, I know of no mechanism for one country to keep another impoverished. Whatever it is, it seems to be broken, as China no longer classifies as a poor country "paying the cost."

[Edited on July 28, 2010 at 12:30 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/28/2010 12:28:02 AM

Capitalism

7/28/2010 12:46:05 AM

How does one country being capitalist prevent another country from becoming capitalist?

7/28/2010 12:53:02 AM

7/28/2010 6:18:01 AM

Quote :

"Nothing to kill or die for"

Look where that got him. The insane will always find a reason to kill.

7/28/2010 10:28:39 AM

Quote :

"A world government is a bad idea for the same reason that a federal government is a bad idea: if they decide to make a fucked up law, you have nowhere to go."

That is an argument against having any top. Remove the feds, then the state gov is bad, remove the state then the county gov is bad, remove the county then the city gov is bad. There are many reasons why a world gov is impractical at this point, but arguing that the only good ladders are ones with out a top rung will leave you ladderless.

7/28/2010 10:52:03 AM

I'm saying federal is better than world, state is better than federal, and local is better than state. The government that governs best is the government that is closest to the people. If you accept that morals are subjective, and the values vary greatly over cultures, then you should understand that having a single government entity telling the whole world how they should live is not particularly viable. We should also maximize people's ability to leave (vote with their feet) when the laws become unjust in an area.

7/28/2010 11:08:18 AM

Oh wow God is talking about the NWO, how ironic.

7/28/2010 5:21:53 PM

Quote :

"How does one country being capitalist prevent another country from becoming capitalist?"

because capitalist systems funnel opportunities, resources and wealth to small groups of people. The greediest most exploitative people will end up with those things. Due to taxes, people who live in countries alongside said people live better lives in general (trickle down) and people who live in countries without lots of those people live in shit. Now any country can become capitalist but that doesn't prevent the effect of capitalism. Poor countries in Africa still have a few insanely rich people who exploit others.

If the world had one large government, a capitalist economy with socialist redistribution principles (progressive tax and welfare), then everyone would essentially be sharing with the entire world. Since most of the world is dirt poor, this wouldn't sit well with people who already have it well.

It all comes down to selfishness.

7/28/2010 7:35:30 PM

+1 point for not saying "white privilege" yet.

7/28/2010 7:52:33 PM

I mean socialism works.... just look at Greece.

7/28/2010 8:05:28 PM

islam

7/28/2010 8:44:19 PM

Quote :

"because capitalist systems funnel opportunities, resources and wealth to small groups of people"

despite all the fundamental differences in systems on paper, all systems funnel opportunities, resources and wealth to small groups of people in practice

i mean communism on paper supposedly yields the most equality...that was a great idea to get rid of the monarchy rule in Russia, and take the royalty down a notch with their over extravagant faberge eggs...but in reality, the massive amounts of power that the royal family had was basically just shifted to the KGB and their cronies, while the majority of the population remained lower class

7/28/2010 9:18:39 PM

Quote :

"Due to taxes, people who live in countries alongside said people live better lives in general (trickle down) and people who live in countries without lots of those people live in shit."

Most of us don't work for the government. In fact, the government doesn't even participate in the poorest labor markets, due to union hire rules. As such, how does the rich paying taxes make a friend of mine earn $9 an hour stocking shelves at Walmart when the minimum wage was $5.15? Either you are skipping steps, or your understanding of how the world works is nothing but talking points.

Americans are not poor because employers must compete against each other to employ us. It is this competition for resources which identifies a capitalist country. 3rd world poor-ass nations do not suffer competition, as the men with guns just set up cartels for everything including labor, either legal or illegal (if you want a job in mexico, you usually need mob permission).

There is nothing the capitalists in American can do to cause the men with guns in Mexico to cartellize their local economy. As China and Mexico have adopted a more capitalist system of resource competition in recent history, by breaking up the local cartels, living standards have improved.

7/28/2010 11:24:28 PM

Quote :

"It is a sign of the coming of the anti-christ."

7/28/2010 11:59:42 PM

Quote :

"but in reality, the massive amounts of power that the royal family had was basically just shifted to the KGB and their cronies, while the majority of the population remained lower class"

That was russia. Just because it happened in Russia cuba vietnam and everywhere else of that era, doesn't mean its something that has to happen under communism. These were all broken poor countries at the onset and there was bound to be corruption no matter what system was used. It has nothing to do with communism on paper like you said.

But like I said, a global capitalism with socialist tax and give systemwould obviously work the best (as it does in all of the most successful nations)

Quote :

"As such, how does the rich paying taxes make a friend of mine earn $9 an hour stocking shelves at Walmart when the minimum wage was $5.15? Either you are skipping steps, or your understanding of how the world works is nothing but talking points. "

Rich paying taxes empowers the government to do a better job at opening up opportunities for its citezens to further exploit the rest of the planet, and for the rich to become even richer. When the rich pays taxes, the government is now able to build canals that open up shipping routes, use its military to secure oil and drive down oil prices, protect the resources of domestic companies abroad, build infrastructure like highways that allow companies to run even bigger operations. All of these things make our lives "better" and allow the companies to rake in more money. Then you have a lesser version of reganomics "trickle down" where the rich being rich benefits everyone around them.

7/29/2010 1:34:19 AM

Quote :

"When the rich pays taxes, the government is now able to build canals that open up shipping routes, use its military to secure oil and drive down oil prices, protect the resources of domestic companies abroad, build infrastructure like highways that allow companies to run even bigger operations."

All things that make everyones life better, not just Americans. Open shipping routes, cheap oil, secure property rights, and infrastructure such as highways reduce the cost of production and drive down the world price for goods and services for everyone, not just Americans. And I still don't see how one country making itself productive harms anyone else. China has made manufactured goods ridiculously cheap, this has been a boon to Americans and Europeans alike, because we now get far more stuff in exchange for whatever we make (food, raw resources, technology, etc).

Not to mention, all the things you mention are things that capitalism is perfectly capable of providing. The vast majority of canals were built privately. Highways in the form of plank roads predate government road building. And not to mention all the ways that the government conspires to curtail capitalism through regulatory cartels and restraints on trade, driving up the costs of production and therefore prices, making the whole world poorer. And if anything, the U.S. government has used its military to drive up the price of oil, since if all we wanted was cheap oil, we could have just lifted the embargo on Iraq. Instead, we embargoed and bombed the place into the ground, devastating Iraq's ability to produce enough oil for itself, never-mind export.

So, again, you have yet to explain any mechanism for one country's adoption of capitalism to make another country poor. Especially given history, where all countries started out poor and have always been poor, only a few countries escaped poverty, they just happened to be ones that also adopted capitalism.

Quote :

"Then you have a lesser version of reganomics "trickle down" where the rich being rich benefits everyone around them."

How? I know of no such mechanism. It is true, capitalism tends to produce concentrated wealth, but it is not from the existence of concentrated wealth that we all prosper, but from capitalism itself. Fidel Castro is one of the 500 wealthiest men in the world, but if anything the people of Cuba are dramatically harmed by his presence on the island. Similarly, there is no rule that capitalism produce concentrated wealth, just as there is no rule that capitalism produce steam locomotives. The outcome of capitalism is the product of circumstance, technology, and individual choices. It is entirely possible for the economy to advance in such a way to nearly equalize all classes (although I recognize it is unlikely in the near to medium term) just as the economy eliminated the use for nearly all steam driven trains. Technology could eliminate the use of education, the use of capital, etc.

7/29/2010 2:33:03 AM