World Government

[Gnosis]

I read Einstein's "Einstein on Humanism".
Within its pages he writes about a 'world government'.
He thinks that if there was only one government in charge of all the world's military power, then the world would be a safer place.

How could the world possibly benefit from the existence of only one government?
What are the possible disadvantages of such a State?
What is the ideal form of government in this case?
What are the goels of such a government?

I think Einstein might be on to something, but I would take his idea further. I would say: "Yes, there should be one organisation in charge of all the worlds weapons and military power, and the only goel of that organisation should be to deconstruct all the militaries and destroy all the weapons."

I think the Earth and all of the people living on it would be better off if human militaries and human weapons didn't exist.

I think that once such a world government has destroyed all the weapons and dismantled all the militaries and done away with all Authority, it should then deconstruct itself and government as is popular should cease to exist.

[colonelguppy]

i guess einstien never heard of civil wars.

[TTe5]

I read Einstein's "Einstein on Humanism".

Within its pages he writes about a 'world government'.
He thinks that if there was only one government in charge of all the world's military power, then the world would be a safer place.

How could the world possibly benefit from the existence of only one government?
What are the possible disadvantages of such a State?
What is the ideal form of government in this case?
What are the goels of such a government?

I think Einstein might be on to something, but I would take his idea further. I would say: "Yes, there should be one organisation in charge of all the worlds weapons and military power, and the only goel of that organisation should be to deconstruct all the militaries and destroy all the weapons."

I think the Earth and all of the people living on it would be better off if human militaries and human weapons didn't exist.

I think that once such a world government has destroyed all the weapons and dismantled all the militaries and done away with all Authority, it should then deconstruct itself and government as is popular should cease to exist.

We would all live in a world-wide benevolent dictatorship which would quickly transform itself into a totalitarian dictatorship. The world-wide state would have a super-monopoly on force and it will not give it up.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Agreed - petty idealism. Einstein wasn't perfect, but he still was a strong communist.

[Gnosis]

We would all live in a world-wide benevolent dictatorship which would quickly transform itself into a totalitarian dictatorship. The world-wide state would have a super-monopoly on force and it will not give it up.

I agree that this is one probability. But if it had a monopoly on all force, then what would it do with that force beside hold on to it?

If it is using that force to suppress revolution against its organization, than it obviously does not have a monopoly on force...

It looks to me like the one-government world is actually a lot closer than it might appear to most others.
In any case, I believe that it should be decided now what the future of the military on this planet should be, what is ideal and what is practical.

I think the disintegration of all military, and the complete annihilation of all objects whose sole purpose in being produced by humans is to cause pain, suffering and/or death, is not only ideal but far more practically probable than any politician would ever willingly allow any one to perceive.

If there is an opportunity to make war between the humans a thing of the past, should it not be taken?

[t_wolves_fan]

Never going to happen, nor should it.

The global population cannot be ruled with one-size fits all policies. Hell the United States should have as few national policies as possible.

[Guerrilla22]

There should be no governments at all in the world.

[apathy maybe]

I have actually tried to write an essay on why there is no justification for states or governments in opposition to each other. Thus the solution is either no government (as an anarchist I of course support this option), or one (global) government.

If there is only one global government (could be federated) this would eliminate wars over resources as things would happen in a judicial/legal setting rather then the present method of going to war.

Anyway, fuck all government.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20 2006, 09:09 PM
I have actually tried to write an essay on why there is no justification for states or governments in opposition to each other. Thus the solution is either no government (as an anarchist I of course support this option), or one (global) government.

If there is only one global government (could be federated) this would eliminate wars over resources as things would happen in a judicial/legal setting rather then the present method of going to war.

Anyway, fuck all government.
it would probably lead to more war because people will suddenly feel more threatend by the influence of others.

[apathy maybe]

A federated world state would eliminate the war and violence of the present system. Rather then by violence, disputes would be resolved by legal/judicial means (just as they are in present day federated states, the USA, Australia, Germany are all examples).

I cannot see how a federated system would lead to more violence. It would be different if it was a single system, which had a single police force and enforced uniform laws, but how do the decisions of (say) Alaska affect Texas?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 21 2006, 02:09 AM
I have actually tried to write an essay on why there is no justification for states or governments in opposition to each other. Thus the solution is either no government (as an anarchist I of course support this option), or one (global) government.

If there is only one global government (could be federated) this would eliminate wars over resources as things would happen in a judicial/legal setting rather then the present method of going to war.

Anyway, fuck all government.
"No government!" is a childish utopian fantasy.

[apathy maybe]

Is that spam I see before me?

What makes government so necessary? Is it how they stop people from killing other people (wait no they don't), is it how they stop property "crimes" (it can't be, 'cause they don't), is it how they protect their citizens from external aggression (umm... can't say they succeed in this one either). Is it perhaps how they are so successful in stopping us from using some drugs but not others, how they prosecute us for being more then three metres away from our car without locking it (may not apply in your area), perhaps it is to save us from ourselves. What could it be that makes government such a necessary part of human life?

After all, I don't need saving from myself. I don't need another parent, I have two already, and they are not nearly as bad as the government in telling me what to do (note I am over 21 and thus an adult).

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 21 2006, 01:13 AM
A federated world state would eliminate the war and violence of the present system. Rather then by violence, disputes would be resolved by legal/judicial means (just as they are in present day federated states, the USA, Australia, Germany are all examples).

I cannot see how a federated system would lead to more violence. It would be different if it was a single system, which had a single police force and enforced uniform laws, but how do the decisions of (say) Alaska affect Texas?
the problem is that many people resent federated power and want national soveriegnty, so there would be many states that would be imposisble to control.

lets say alaska wants a tax increase and texas doesn't. alaska wins, and now texas citizens pay a higher income tax when the majority don't want to.

or lets say texas wants to drill in alaska for more oil, but alaska doens't want this. everyone else agrees that they would like to have access to alaskas oil, and alaska gets screwed, and becomes resentful. a world government would be like this except with even more diverse, divisive issues and without a single naitonal identity. war would ensue, i can garauntee it.

[Gnosis]

"Government" is not necessary, though politics can be a useful problem solving tool and has developed naturally as humans have evloved to be more complex, thereby being involved in more complex relationships and 'requiring' more complex ways of dealing with those relationships...

I think that there should be one organization which some how gains control over all of the world's military and governing "powers".
And then I think that organization should do two things, and in this order:
1. Deconstruct the military and all of its weapons, completely ridding this planet of weapons of mass destruction and the like.
2. Deconstruct itself.

Control by 'authority' is an illusion and that needs to be realised on a larger scale. All it takes is a little thought, a little analysis...
The only person who controls me is me, though all people and circumstances define "me". There is no need for violence or 'authority', simply by existing one influences the world through relationship.
Authority creates crime in this way. So one could even argue that not only is 'government' unnecessary, it is harmful to the world relationship, society.

the problem is that many people resent federated power and want national soveriegnty, so there would be many states that would be imposisble to control.


lets say alaska wants a tax increase and texas doesn't. alaska wins, and now texas citizens pay a higher income tax when the majority don't want to.

or lets say texas wants to drill in alaska for more oil, but alaska doens't want this. everyone else agrees that they would like to have access to alaskas oil, and alaska gets screwed, and becomes resentful. a world government would be like this except with even more diverse, divisive issues and without a single naitonal identity. war would ensue, i can garauntee it.

There would be no nationalism because there would be no seperation between 'countries' because there is no seperation any way, the lines are imaginary.
You would have to decide for yourself how to eat, sleep, feel, act, etc...
You would have to decide for yourself how to live your life and run your relationships. You do that any way, but the difference would be in who else exists and how every one is organized, the difference would be in what circumstances influence your decisions.

Why do you drive thirty miles per hour in a "thrity zone"? Is it because you feel best driving at that speed? Because you aren't in much of a hurry and would like to enjoy your drive? Or is it because there is a "police officer" in the car behind you?
You make the decision, not the government. The government can influence and define and judge your behaviour, but it cannot control you.

[colonelguppy]

governments don't define national/ethnic/cultural identity, replacing all of the governments with one won't do anything.

[Gnosis]

governments don't define national/ethnic/cultural identity, replacing all of the governments with one won't do anything.

The national/ethinic/cultural identity and the national government exist in realtion to each other, they define each other.

All the world's governments like they are is actually one government of different 'sections'. They all form the same realtionship, they all interact with each other and influence the State of the world's affairs.
There really is no seperation between states and countries and governments, they all exist in realtion to each other, they are all the same world, all the governments are the same government. This will eventually be realised on a mass scale, a realisation from which the 'world government' will naturally evolve.

It won't be a matter of replacing the governments with one, it will be more like realising that they are all one already and then just changing the individual perspective to fit.

[Dyst]

Governments make up a smaller part of society than what most members on this board seem to think.

Anyways, I do believe governments will wither away as a part of the evolution of mankind.

[Gnosis]

Anyways, I do believe governments will wither away as a part of the evolution of mankind.

I agree. But how this happens is very important and should be decided before it actually does.

I have already stated my views on this matter. I wonder what any one else has to say.

How should government die?