Global State

[Imperial Glory]

Its strange is it not that there has'nt been a superpower that has taken over the world by now.Besides a little bit of oppression it would bring a huge amount of positives to the table: no inflation, huge development in the developing world because of the one currency with no inflation, huge public works so basicaly a guaranted job,free higher education and healthcare, and a substantial increase in global trade. So wy has'nt a global state been formed by now.

[ read it over and it sounds really communist but it will have to do ]

[Imperial]

Who would we fight if not ourselves?

[Macunaíma]

You said that it sounded a bit communist, right? Well, like communism, what you proposed is pratically impossible in real life (beautiful in theory, though).

People are just different from place to place. And the world has many places. And, by "Global State" you're suggesting that there would be some sort of central government, right? I wonder who would be the guy (or guys... or ladies...) who would be able to take care of all the worlds problems... Also, if there was going to be some kind of election. The mess would be unavoidable. Also, corruption is always there. Governors would favor their "countries" of origin, and civil war would not be a far reality.

Simplifying, get a country with its problems and obstacles, and multiply it until it reaches global scale.

Still, beautiful in theory .

[Stark of Winterfell]

Well no country has conquered the globe because that would be exceedingly difficult for the following reasons: 1) it's hard to hold together a huge nation, 2) it would require enormous logistical capabilities, and 3) would require military dominance on land, sea, and now air.

I don't think this will ever happen unless an alien civilization is encountered or there is some other direct and dire threat to the Earth as a whole that is recognized as such by all nations, in which case the U.N. might morph into some sort of world government. But currently people don't want to be part of a world government, and have too many local differences. Until such a time comes as people are forced to be seen as citizens of Earth, and not their countries, they will not want or accept such a world government.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

You said that it sounded a bit communist, right? Well, like communism, what you proposed is pratically impossible in real life (beautiful in theory, though).

People are just different from place to place. And the world has many places. And, by "Global State" you're suggesting that there would be some sort of central government, right? I wonder who would be the guy (or guys... or ladies...) who would be able to take care of all the worlds problems... Also, if there was going to be some kind of election. The mess would be unavoidable. Also, corruption is always there. Governors would favor their "countries" of origin, and civil war would not be a far reality.

Simplifying, get a country with its problems and obstacles, and multiply it until it reaches global scale.

Still, beautiful in theory .

It's nothing like the flawed economic system that is communinism. One world government is inevitable, but unfortunately not within my lifetime. It will be a great thing.

The world is already economically united. Culturally unification is happening incredibely fast. The developed world essentially shares one culture, and already we see developing countries such as Nigeria subscribing to it. It's simply the fate of a country to become a liberal democracy when it reaches a certain threshold of development.

Already political leaders are calling for more political cooperation between countries. Vladamir Putin wants to see an international union "from Vancouver to Vladiovostok", a sort of Northern Hemisphere Union. All political leaders predict this, even if they are not actively supporting it.

You claim there would be too many problems for one world government to deal with, by which I assume you refer to disasters. One world government would be far more effective at allocating resources to deal with disasters than limited government. Elections would be free and fair because only liberal democracies would be permitted to join this union, and by the time the entire world is part of it the whole world will be developed.

A country's problems don't multiply as it gets bigger; they divide, and a global country would be far more effective and resource-efficient than a mess of smaller ones.

I concede there is one problem with OWG, which is one reason it would be bad for it to happen within my lifetime. As Enemy of the State has pointed out, with only one government there is only one alternative. Bad or malevolant government policy is impossible to avoid or for another country to defeat.

So when will this happen? When humans have terraformed and colonized Mars and Venus, and similar global states exist there. That way there is always a political alternative. Hopefully large areas of those planets will be set aside for anarchists, so the state will become voluntary. But don't come complaining if they eventually become horrible or dangerous places to live.

If a world government comes you will find me and people like me up in the mountains somewhere while you can be slaves with iPods and iPads and whatever sort of gimmicky luxuries that are used to bribe people to give up themselves. Probably the global state would convince all of you that people who go away from it are a danger to society and persuade you all to call for my death. I'll be a regular Osama bin Laden screwing around in the forests of Siberia or the West Texas deserts. Yeah, sounds fun.

The political concept of a global state should not be confused with far-right American conspiracy theories.

[Macunaíma]

It's nothing like the flawed economic system that is communinism. One world government is inevitable, but unfortunately not within my lifetime. It will be a great thing.

Inevitable? You may be referring to globalization, which is far from being political. Most cultural and economic (but, still, not totally worldwide).

The world is already economically united. Culturally unification is happening incredibely fast. The developed world essentially shares one culture, and already we see developing countries such as Nigeria subscribing to it. It's simply the fate of a country to become a liberal democracy when it reaches a certain threshold of development.

The world is not economically united. There are still several economic barriers between a lot of countries (why do you think there were countries that were minimally affected by the recent crisis?). Cultural unification is indeed happening fast, but the assimilation isn't complete. Saying that all the developed world has the same culture is to overlook a lot of details. And the rest of the world might not be so easy to "convert" (am I the only one who thinks this cultural eugenics a bad thing?).

Already political leaders are calling for more political cooperation between countries. Vladamir Putin wants to see an international union "from Vancouver to Vladiovostok", a sort of Northern Hemisphere Union. All political leaders predict this, even if they are not actively supporting it.

Political cooperation is several steps behind being the same country. Alliances and cooperation treaties have always existed, but they didn't evolve into a "country fusion" (in theory they might, but I don't think most leaders want that). I agree that unions and economic blocks are appearing and growing, but we're talking about a global state here.

You claim there would be too many problems for one world government to deal with, by which I assume you refer to disasters. One world government would be far more effective at allocating resources to deal with disasters than limited government. Elections would be free and fair because only liberal democracies would be permitted to join this union, and by the time the entire world is part of it the whole world will be developed.

You're assuming that all the problems in the world are capable of solving when you have a huge amount of resources. In first place, since we live capitalism, the world's resources will not be equally divided. Second, there are problems more complicated than just reallocating money. Some problems are just... Cultural.

I concede there is one problem with OWG, which is one reason it would be bad for it to happen within my lifetime. As Enemy of the State has pointed out, with only one government there is only one alternative. Bad or malevolant government policy is impossible to avoid or for another country to defeat.

Yeah, and as I said, corruption will always be there, too. Large rebellions would happen, and probably in places where they have been happening for years (Central Africa, for example).

So when will this happen? When humans have terraformed and colonized Mars and Venus, and similar global states exist there. That way there is always a political alternative. Hopefully large areas of those planets will be set aside for anarchists, so the state will become voluntary. But don't come complaining if they eventually become horrible or dangerous places to live.

You're looking way into the future, aren't you .
When we do colonize Mars and Venus (somehow), what makes you think there will be global states there? I'm betting that each country that reaches them makes its own colony. The russians get there, they get a piece. Americans get another, and so on. It will be the New World thing, all over again.

And about anarchist parts of those planets... Don't you think that some people will se it as an opportunity to rob, rape, kill, etc. without being arrested? The true anarchists would not be able to live there. If we just leave some land aside and say "Ok, misfits, you can go live there, don't bother us anymore", it would just not work .

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Inevitable? You may be referring to globalization, which is far from being political. Most cultural and economic (but, still, not totally worldwide).

And a consequence of shared culture and economy is shared politics and eventually a shared state.

The world is not economically united. There are still several economic barriers between a lot of countries (why do you think there were countries that were minimally affected by the recent crisis?). Cultural unification is indeed happening fast, but the assimilation isn't complete.

Cultural and economic unification of the Earth will happen in the future, it's inevitable.

Political cooperation is several steps behind being the same country. Alliances and cooperation treaties have always existed, but they didn't evolve into a "country fusion" (in theory they might, but I don't think most leaders want that). I agree that unions and economic blocks are appearing and growing, but we're talking about a global state here.

Supernational unions intent on creating continental states (EU and every other union following its footsteps) are already in very advanced stages. Give it a few more centuries.

You're assuming that all the problems in the world are capable of solving when you have a huge amount of resources. In first place, since we live capitalism, the world's resources will not be equally divided.

Doesn't matter how they're divided, a global state can take them in tax. A global state will have a lot more money for disaster relief or whatever problems you're worrying about.

Second, there are problems more complicated than just reallocating money. Some problems are just... Cultural.

I can't imagine any countries that aren't western liberal democracies being allowed into this global state. Any countries to backward to join will simply be left out.

Yeah, and as I said, corruption will always be there, too. Large rebellions would happen, and probably in places where they have been happening for years (Central Africa, for example).

Nowhere should be forced to join and nowhere should be let in that isn't economically and culturally advanced enough. Hopefully by the time this unification starts to happen (and it will take centuries to cover the entire world even after developed countries first start the global state up), Congo and other places will have followed Nigeria's footsteps to becoming a prosperous liberal democracy.

You're looking way into the future, aren't you .
When we do colonize Mars and Venus (somehow), what makes you think there will be global states there? I'm betting that each country that reaches them makes its own colony. The russians get there, they get a piece. Americans get another, and so on. It will be the New World thing, all over again.

Well the expense required to make them habitable planets will ensure there is no land grabbing. It will cost tens of trillions of today's currency over at least a century per planet. The GDP of the entire Earth now is 50 trillion.

Western leaders these days are idealists. They will work in cooperation because competition is impossible. Once the international colonization gets big enough they will want their independence.

And about anarchist parts of those planets... Don't you think that some people will se it as an opportunity to rob, rape, kill, etc. without being arrested? The true anarchists would not be able to live there. If we just leave some land aside and say "Ok, misfits, you can go live there, don't bother us anymore", it would just not work .

Well they can deal with it themselves, not a state's problem. It would happen anywhere in an anarchy. Besides, criminal hideouts will only occur in the sparsely populated areas without swarms of gun-weilding libertarians.

[YuriVII]

The political concept of a global state should not be confused with far-right American conspiracy theories.

Well whole point of global state is total control of the world. One control...one peace. So if it becomes oppressive for a group of people there is nowhere for them to run (assuming we haven't colonized other worlds).

[AqD]

Who would we fight if not ourselves?

fight aliens and conquer the universe!

[hellheaven1987]

If Immortal Emperor of Mankind cannot achieve it I doubt any mortal can achieve that...

[Matthias]

If a one world government is to form, it will likely be through an organization like the EU, not through one power conquering the world.

[Inconsistent]

Needs more cultural imperialism.

[Enemy of the State]

No inflation? Quite the contrary, this global central bank would be able to print all the money it wanted without fear of people switching to another currency.

[Aanker]

I don't know. Based on the history of mankind it seems as though these larger organizations are more or less impossible without a common goal, or a common enemy (be it economic, diplomatic or military).

[NotYetRegistered]

Only going to happen if aliens start knocking on the door.

[Thorn777]

States, govts etc are evil and inefficient, remember? Wallstreet and The City call the shots, remember?

So what good is a global state?

When you have a global "free-trade" system to a chosen fews liking. Thats all that needs to be global.

[Tiberios]

Its strange is it not that there has'nt been a superpower that has taken over the world by now.

Not really no. Not a simple task.

[mattgoby]

Wouldn't work, different areas would still be different economically and some areas deprived with others being extremely wealthy meaning that on such a large scale rebellions would be constant.

Originally Posted by Imperial Glory
Its strange is it not that there has'nt been a superpower that has taken over the world by now.


Not really no. Not a simple task

Britain had the best crack at the height of it's empire, controlling 1/3rd of the earth, becoming extremely wealthy and owning most of the worlds resources. However they could not destroy and conquer their other European enemies and faced rebellions.

It is unlikely any country will ever reach that level of power again.

[hellheaven1987]

Britain had the best crack at the height of it's empire, controlling 1/3rd of the earth, becoming extremely wealthy and owning most of the worlds resources. However they could not destroy and conquer their other European enemies and faced rebellions.

That was because GB never intended to assimilate their conquered subjects - kindly British's own fault be honest.

[Condottiere 40K]

Alexander the Great would have been interesting to watch in this regard, assuming he had had enough time to establish a dynasty that would have continued and expanded his legacy, since he was quite keen to introducing Hellenistic culture in an imperialistic manner to the rest of the world.

The English seemed to regard with surprise the acquisition of their Empire, more as a result of mercantilistic pursuit and possibly to prevent the Russians and French from snapping up unoccupied territory, rather than a grand plan of conquest. Makes one think of how the Carthaginian Empire may have evolved eventually, if they hadn't met the Romans.

The Romans had the potential after Alexander of establishing a world state, but lacked the requisite communications technology and eventually the political stability to pull it off.