The journey from there to here
As the world reaches out for solutions to the problems that plague us, there are those who embrace the concept of a world government. Although they usually use euphemistic terms and refer to coalitions, the idea basically is that the world needs to become more pluralistic and more united.

It's my contention that not only would this not work, but it would backfire horribly. Far from being a bad thing, borders are what keep the world sane, what keep the world from totally failing. Borders are good and any attempt to dissolve them would be horribly misguided.

Let's imagine September 11, 2001 in such a light. Let's add in the terror suspects detained before 9/11 and the terror suspects from all over the globe who could have flocked to the United States with nothing more than a plane ticket. With no border to stop them, how unfathomable, how horrible could the damage have been? Instead of four planes hijacked, we could have had forty. Or for hundred. Instead of three thousand casualties, it could have been three million.

Even our own imperfect swiss cheese border does form some sort of deterrent to those who would do us harm.

But going further, let's imagine the corporate world. Corporates are all too often corrupt, bribing public officials at the expense of the people. The fewer public officials there are to corrupt, the greater the corporate influence. If some monopolistic madman set out to harm society it's a lot easier to do with one world council than it is with hundreds.

And of course there is the idea of disparate cultures. One of the mistakes of our own past was the idea of forced bussing. The truth is, there are some people who hate other people bad enough that they don't want to be near them. They don't want their kids near them. They don't want them in their churches, in their stores, in their work places. And as misguided as I believe those people are, they have a certain right to their belief. They have a right to live separately from those they hate. And, in fact, bringing them together not only doesn't create a feeling of peace, it often creates the opposite. And aall the "hate crimes" legislation in the world cannot bring back the dead bodies of the victims.

Let me be very clear, I'm not talking about segregation here. Public places are just that and everyone should have the right to them. The racists, the bigots can stay home. But they should be secure in their OWN homes and in PRIVATELY owned businesses against having to be around people they hate. And we can avoid those businesses like the plague, as well we should.

By bringing these people together in a "pluralistic" society we potentially create a powder keg that's bound to have bad consequences. Think the situation is bad in Israel and Palestine? Multiply that exponentially when you move cultures together that historically hate each other.

In a perfect world, of course, there would be no need for borders. But in an imperfect one, they're a mighty good idea.
Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 31, 2007
Per the Left Behind series, in the last days there will be a world government, and it will be a generally stupid, pathetic, bad idea. So, it very well might happen, and it will probably be very bad for believers. Borders are definitely keeping the world sane. If we got rid of the borders, who's to say that this new government will operate under the US Constitution, where people have rights? Nobody. We would actually lose rights in the compromise to create a world government.
on May 31, 2007
Given geopolitical history, basic human instinct, and the strong regional self interests of countries, I would wager that it’s much more likely that a meteor will wipe out the planet before a world government comes to fruition.
on May 31, 2007
Given geopolitical history, basic human instinct, and the strong regional self interests of countries, I would wager that it’s much more likely that a meteor will wipe out the planet before a world government comes to fruition.


LOL...possibly...but there is a push towards a world government.

And the fact that one Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband is one of the people who push for such a change gives me pause. As it should every sane American.
on May 31, 2007
Gideon the bl is removed, thanks for the heads up.

When people speak of world governments it brings to mind the movie Gattica (not that it was about world domination) but the principle behind the movie of breeding and superiority. Domination always brings with it "cleansing" and the superior race obsessions, for those reasons alone (for me) world government is a no no. Just think of the shenanigans they could get up to. It would be almost impossible to police and maintain a world government.

And as Jythier says what guarantee does one have of living under the constitution of your choice.

World government is also impractical when it comes to the different cultures, what a minefield to tread through. A powder keg as you say.

Better as you say to maintain the borders and different governments, though I have to disagree that they are anywhere near sane! heh

Look at the UK, since Europe opened up its borders, the UK has been flooded with Europeans looking for work and a better life. The local businesses employ them on minimum wage and the locals can't find work, it is creating a hotbed of dissatisfaction that is going to lead to some sort of a blow up between races, cultures and the locals, something has to give somewhere ( I am not by any means advocating people react and riot) I just feel that it will build up to a point where the dissatisfaction is going to rumble over. Britain is in trouble.
on Jun 01, 2007
But that's the problem with the Socialistic, Globalist liberal ideal; it's not workable in a perfect world. No matter; that's clearly why we need more overarching governmental control, and legislation and biased, propagandistic, agenda-driven public education, and of course higher taxes....whatever it takes, to make it work. That's all.
I don't know, but I keep hearing whispers about a planned North American Union; a "Mexamericanada", copying the EU system, which as we all know, works so incredibly well already. It would be a precursor to eventually uniting with the EU, taking another step toward one-world government.
Supposedly, there's even a huge super highway that's being built now in Mexico, running north, eventually to be linked with another in Texas, which will run into Canada. There's supposedly even talk of a common currency, and "Amero" and of a common government. This would redistribute the wealth of the US to the poor of Mexico, and into the Socialist system of Canada.
on Jun 01, 2007
In time, it will come about.  But not for any "good intention" idea.  It will come about due to acceptance of a new paradigm.  That paradigm has not come.  And we do not need a New Civil war to force it.
on Jun 04, 2007
I really don't see how a world government would be such a horrible idea. Obviously the process would have to be slow and meticulous but I think eventually it would be a very good idea. There would be less reason for war and more resources and ability to fight and prevent them. There would be more of any oppurtunity for people to see that everyone is more or less the same when their all united under the same flag (sorry for the cliche). I realize that it's a very optimistic, some might say naive, veiw of things, but I think eventually it's not only a possibility but a probability in the long run.

In my opinion, part of the problem is that people accept that prejudice and hate are always going to be around. Looking at history it's obvious to see that we are conquering those problems, however slowly. I think it's safe to assume that that trend will continue and people will eventually be able to live with people that historically they would have never wanted to be near.
on Jun 04, 2007
I think world government could work - but only if we found a common enemy that's not of this world. It's human nature to define identity in terms of what we're not, so I don't see global identity as particularly likely before we've got something to be earthlings against.

Without a global identity world government (in the way we understand government) is impossible. Of course there's an argument to be said we already have world government of a kind though anyway - the world market is a common one after all and internet has made for a global market in ideas as well.
on Jun 04, 2007
Looking at history it's obvious to see that we are conquering those problems, however slowly.


I hate to say it but I believe this is absolutely, utterly wrong. We AREN'T conquering these problems, stillkoontz, we're just suppressing them by banning talking about them in public places.

By making prejudice the evil noone speaks, we actually increase the chances of violence, because feelings that are pent up have a tendency to violently boil to the surface at inappropriate times.
on Jun 04, 2007
I think world government could work - but only if we found a common enemy that's not of this world.


World government can only work with genocide, cacto. There are people whose ideological culture wants to destroy the other culture, and the only way to deal with them is to destroy them.
on Jun 04, 2007
World government can only work with genocide, cacto. There are people whose ideological culture wants to destroy the other culture, and the only way to deal with them is to destroy them.


Huh? So in the US there has never been a culture anywhere which wanted to destroy another part of the citizenry?

I think you're oversimplifying things here. Destructive cultures can survive existence in the same space as their target culture. They just need to be kept separated.

And with a threat capable of uniting the world I don't think we'd have much trouble convincing Achmed to work with Jacob on beating the real enemy. They'd squabble, sure, but after a few generations I think they'd get over it.

After all, the South and the North in the US got over it and they even went to war! But in the face of more pressing threats - foreigners in general - they knew they had to work together in the end.

But I guess I have more faith in people than you do on this issue. Funny that - you're cynical about people's ability to get over their hate, I'm cynical about people's ability to get over their self-interest. All we need is a few bit players for the other human failings and we could have our very own Captain Planet!
on Jun 04, 2007
And with a threat capable of uniting the world I don't think we'd have much trouble convincing Achmed to work with Jacob on beating the real enemy. They'd squabble, sure, but after a few generations I think they'd get over it.

After all, the South and the North in the US got over it and they even went to war!


I am glad someone brought that up, as I also beleive that it is possible for the reason you state and that is the example I was thinking of. I do not believe it will come about soon, but it is possible. The external threat is the most obvious, but then less obvious is an internal threat that would have the same outcome.
on Jun 04, 2007
But I guess I have more faith in people than you do on this issue. Funny that - you're cynical about people's ability to get over their hate, I'm cynical about people's ability to get over their self-interest. All we need is a few bit players for the other human failings and we could have our very own Captain Planet!


You're absolutely right, cacto. Abolish religion entirely and abolish national identity and you would have an effective world government.

Only one way to do that, though. Genocide.
on Jun 04, 2007
I am glad someone brought that up, as I also beleive that it is possible for the reason you state and that is the example I was thinking of.


Come on, Doc. You live in the South, you know those wounds STILL are not completely healed. The ONLY thing that keeps us from reigniting a civil war is that states' rights still exist in some respect, enough to make us understand we can still keep an identity apart from each other. Erase states' rights entirely and watch the US explode.
on Jun 04, 2007


Come on, Doc. You live in the South, you know those wounds STILL are not completely healed. The ONLY thing that keeps us from reigniting a civil war is that states' rights still exist in some respect, enough to make us understand we can still keep an identity apart from each other. Erase states' rights entirely and watch the US explode.


Why would states have to disappear for a world government? For the sake of organisation it'd make sense for local, state/province and national governments to continue. There would still be the US. There would still be India. There would still be Kentucky.

You'd just have a layer over the top called planetary government. Depending on the external threat it would organise military forces and possibly resource shipments (although market forces would be more likely to handle that).

Now your idea of world government is unworkable, but that's because it's absurd. Why shouldn't world government use a republican or combined Westminster/republican model?
2 Pages1 2