MikeC said:

your 1st point loks pretty much like circular logic invented to justify itself. What is the limit on the power of the US Govt over its own people? China? Russia? I suggest to you that it is the people – and I see no reason why a world Govt has to be any different.

The difference is that with a world government (before we get around to moving most of our population into space) you can’t get out of it (and it can be hard enough to escape oppressive government even if there is somewhere else to go), nor can you hope for another, slightly better government to surpass it (as you can with oppressive governments when there isn’t a world government).

Stagnation is probably the biggest danger of world government though, the competition between different nation-states means that ideas that don’t work get thrown out because to not do so would make a nation-state uncompetitive with others (and if they don’t throw it out they run the risk of losing the next war).

Not to mention that other, less oppressive governments can provide information to help in the destruction of the oppressors. The people need to know there’s a better way.

Give it enough time and repression and I think it could be done.

Probably require some mass starvation and a lot of executions, probably also the imposition of a religion but I think it could be done in a few generations.

Eventually the UN will probably eventually become a world government with real power and proper democratic elections although in that case it’ll probably be world federalism and it’ll probably in the era of space colonies (some of which hopefully will declare independence of the UN).

        MikeC said:

Why do you assume that a world Govt is going to be nasty and repressive?

I suppose it might not be, but if it is… oh hell, you’re up s*** creek, aren’t you? I mean, if there’s one government then there’s no escape from its power. You better hope that it is not even slightly oppressive to anyone or they’re just plain screwed glued and tattooed.

But it’s not even just that. A “world government” would be in nearly perpetual civil war because not all cultures and parts of the world would accept that kind of rule. Some like their sovereignty or just would not want to be part of it.

If you had one government that ruled North America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East, there are way too many areas that are hard-line Muslim and would refuse to be ruled by a government composed primarily of non-Muslims and non-Muslim laws.

That’s just one example. If you tried to place global standards for food preparation on how the French process their Cheese they’d just about go on the war path over it.

Many countries identify themselves as a distinct culture and people and have fought hard for their own self rule.

A single world government is a bit like Marx’s view of a completely communist utopia society: it works out great as long as 100% of people agree on 100% of things 100% of the time. Which they never will.

Uh… in what sense?

There’s definitely been some erosion of some rights in the US, especially regarding economic freedom and privacy.

You can, however, say just about anything you want (in person, on the internet, in publications or in any venue you have access to) so long as it is not a direct call to violence or a threat. You therefore can’t say “I am going to kill the president” but you actually can say “I hope the president drops dead” You can criticize military policy, foreign policy, you can call the US government a joke or incompetent or oppressive or say it’s run by aliens. You can call the president the N-word. Hell, you don’t even have to say “N-word” I could use the actually word if I wanted to. I’m not going to, but I could and it would be completely legal.

If the government does something you do not think is within its rights or is unfair you can sue them. We have many lawyers in the US who enjoy suing the government tremendously and are often successful. There are also numerous organizations that will sue for you if they think the government overstepped its bounds. These organizations are legal, by the way, and you can join one if you want, and you can’t be prosecuted for doing so.

If you are accused of a crime, you can’t be forced to confess or to testify against yourself. You’re entitled to presumption of innocence and to mounting a defense with legal representation. Your case will be heard in an open court and you can have a jury of your peers decide. If you do not get a completely fair trial you can appeal.

You can’t be arrested or have property seized without warrant or probable cause (depending on the circumstances) and if you are arrested, you must be charged with a crime within 72 hours or released.

If you are arrested under false pretense, prosecuted with unfounded charges or mistreated by law enforcement, you can sue. People do sue and they do win.

There is a narrow circumstance, which is fairly new where a person could have their rights revoked without full legal representation and complete ability to fight it. In the case of those who are captured directly in a military operation or in the execution of a federal operation against attacks or planned attacks on US assets you can be held for an indeterminate amount of time as an illegal combatant. You can sue now though. There was a Supreme Court decision on this and now you can actually file briefs to challenge your incarceration. You also are entitled to a trial at some point, but given there’s no schedule of this, there’s still some limits.

Many Americans are VERY VERY unhappy about this and have been highly critical of the US. there are legal appeals on this matter. And, also, it’s totally legal to oppose this and to sue to force trial. The courts have largely ruled against the practices and that has forced some major changes. Thankfully, it is legal to take this to court.

So yeah, I’m rather unhappy with a number of US policies, but thankfully it’s still legal for me to dislike them and openly oppose them.

Of course, in the end, if you really dislike a policy you can sponsor a political candidate and you can even personally run for office. There are a number of grass-roots political movements in the US and many have been extremely successful. They’re all completely legal too.

Nope, sounds great actually. But since we’re dealing with things that aren’t actually going to be in line with reality, do we have to stop at the 100% benevolent world government?

The utopia I want and not exercise and never get fat. I’d never age past the age of 25 and we’d all have the the ability to fly like superman.

As for your 2nd point – and yet Russia has changed its political system twice in the last 100 years – both times basically through “people power”, as have many other countries – perhaps Egypt is doing it as we speak. Myanmar and China are both changing……slowly..obviously too slowly for your tastes….but changing none-the-less.

There are no absolutes – sometimes it takes 100 years or more for people to get pissed off enough to take direct action – sometimes less.

But IMO what we have seen over the last 25 years is that as people get more affluent and more informed, they are less likely to take crap from their Govt. Hence it is national Govt’s that fear this that restrict access to information and wealth – so the Arab despots, the Myanmar junta, the Chinese Communists, Iranian theocrats, Taliban zealots – all do/did so when it suits them.

Other, less obviously despotic Govts take somewhat less extreme measures – but many sub-optimal “democracies” such as Thailand, Indonesia have been known to restrict information.

“My” NWO consists of people becoming more affluent and better informed over the next 100-200 years – sooner would be nice but I’m a pessimist – and refusing to tolerate repression in any form. It probably won’t happen everywhere, but there will be enough such states that the people will realise that their shared wish for freedom is more important than nationalism, and they will co-operate across national boundaries to the point where many such boundaries cease to have significant influence.

At the moment it is supra-national (UN and arms of it like WHO, UNESCO) and non-governmental organisations (eg NGO’s such as the Red Cross, other charities, some ultra-rich philanthropists) that are the ones making the effort for this to happen – not national governments – national governments are fighting tooth and nail to ensure their patch gets protected as much as possible and to hell with the rest!

So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one – although I’m sure you wouldn’t mind living in my utopia, and I do agree that your armageddon needs to be resisted at every turn!

        MikeC said:

Why do you assume that a world Govt is going to be nasty and repressive?

How “challengable” is the USA for its citizens at the moment??

To take your questions in order:

1. Because power ges to those who want it, and there is no effective limit on the power of a world gov’t

2. More so than almost the entire rest of the world (have fun chalenging the gov’t in Myanmar, China, or Russia).

How “challengable” is the USA for its citizens at the moment??

        MikeC said:

I hope so – the era of nation-states seems to be pretty useless now – they claim the right to brutally oppress all and sundry in the name of sovereignty, impose or restrict religion, and the ability to make billions by just exchanging currency has to be one of the most bizarre and obnoxious distortions of finance ever seen!

Given the alternative of a single unified world power that is unchallenged and capable of doing anything anywhere, I’ll take the nation-states thankyouverymuch. Yeah, some are better than others at protecting feedom and none of them seem to be absolutely perfect in that regard, but better than anyone getting a monopoly on ruling people. If that happened then all bets are off.

        MikeC said:

I hope so – the era of nation-states seems to be pretty useless now – they claim the right to brutally oppress all and sundry in the name of sovereignty, impose or restrict religion, and the ability to make billions by just exchanging currency has to be one of the most bizarre and obnoxious distortions of finance ever seen!

And yet they let you criticise them online.