03 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI find it most unlikely that local conditions will even out to the extent that a world government will be able to satisfy most of the people even some of the time. The future of the euro is far from decisively settled, and the the EU has plenty of severe critics. Local nationalisms in, say, Scotland, Flanders and the Basque Country are also still potent - and arguably have been bolstered by the centralising priorities of the EU.
The enormous diversity of opinions, values and preferences around the globe is declining, and it's declining fast. English being adopted as the world's lingua franca is the first step. The EU and the euro are a blueprint of what will happen next - a slow, gradual change to further integration of economies and governments, despite petty nationalist senti ...[text shortened]... Texas be able to agree on national tax policy? Probably not. Will they in 100 years? Probably.
I don't see what's wrong with a world of numerous small states, with their governments able to respond flexibly and precisely to the priorities of their constituents, but with basic rights guaranteed across the board and common interests promoted by supranational structures such as the EU and the UN.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeKind of like what we had in 1938 with the League of Nations...hmmm?
I find it most unlikely that local conditions will even out to the extent that a world government will be able to satisfy most of the people even some of the time. The future of the euro is far from decisively settled, and the the EU has plenty of severe critics. Local nationalisms in, say, Scotland, Flanders and the Basque Country are also still potent - ...[text shortened]... the board and common interests promoted by supranational structures such as the EU and the UN.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat were women's and gay rights like in 1900 in the western world? Has it remained so forever?
I agree. I see no way how this large segment of the worlds population could ever be assimilated into a one world government.
That is only one example of why it is a pipe dream to have a unified world.
You speak of "petty nationalist sentiments". There are nations for a reason and they are far from petty. Many of these separate nations have extr ...[text shortened]... eligion, etc.
IMO there could never be a unified world today, tomorrow or 100 years from now.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo. But there is really no comparison that can made between the U.S. in 1900 ( or any year for that matter) and the fundamental Islamo Arab world. In current times or going back 1500 years.
What were women's and gay rights like in 1900 in the western world? Has it remained so forever?
Apples and oranges really.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonSo why can these sort of things change in the western world, but not in the "Islamo Arab" world (FYI: they have)?
No. But there is really no comparison that can made between the U.S. in 1900 ( or any year for that matter) and the fundamental Islamo Arab world. In current times or going back 1500 years.
Apples and oranges really.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAs I said , they are apples and oranges. There is no parallel between fundamental Islamic Arab states and 1900 U.S. in its treatment of woman for one example.
So why can these sort of things change in the western world, but not in the "Islamo Arab" world (FYI: they have)?
03 Jan 12
World government is a pie-in-the-sky unrealistic idea.
I would never presume myself capable of dictating the rules that govern the lives of African shepards or Indian factory workers and I sure as heck don't want African shepards or Indian factory workers making the rules that are going to govern my life. I can't possibly know what's best for them and they can't possibly know what's best for me.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76But you're fine with trailer trash having a say about the rules you have to live by? Or dictating the rules of Amish?
World government is a pie-in-the-sky unrealistic idea.
I would never presume myself capable of dictating the rules that govern the lives of African shepards or Indian factory workers and I sure as heck don't want African shepards or Indian factory workers making the rules that are going to govern my life. I can't possibly know what's best for them and they can't possibly know what's best for me.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76World government will happen the moment I am allowed to elect my UN representative.
World government is a pie-in-the-sky unrealistic idea.
I would never presume myself capable of dictating the rules that govern the lives of African shepards or Indian factory workers and I sure as heck don't want African shepards or Indian factory workers making the rules that are going to govern my life. I can't possibly know what's best for them and they can't possibly know what's best for me.
That's not a very high hurdle.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by spruce112358This whole notion of a one world government with all nations merging is absurd and a very sophomoric idea.
World government will happen the moment I am allowed to elect my UN representative.
That's not a very high hurdle.
We already know the arab situation. Could you see the Russians, China,or N.Korea fitting into this scenario ?
The bottom line is we are always going to have separate nations and we are always going to have wars with one nation trying to impose their will or desires onto another one.