World Government

After the recent history of the euro, is the concept of world government dead? Should it be?

I don't think so. I think there are some things that concern us all as a unit and we would do well to communicate and tackle those things on a global scale. Climate change comes to mind as one, education is another.

I'm not sure the idea of separating ourselves politically as we have done with states is the plan most conducive to progress. These are artificial boundaries that make things harder. Accepting that we are all in the same boat so to speak is the first step to realizing that no matter how much we try to separate ourselves with language, culture, and borders we are in the end tied to one another and will rise or fall as a group.

The Euro Zone is a regional quasi-government, not at all in the same league as a world government. I initially thought it was an excellent idea for these closely-related countries to have a common currency, but the lack of coordination between the economies doomed it to failure.

I'm reading George Dyson's "Turing's Cathedral," all about the early development of the computer arising partly out of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where George's dad Freeman worked. The first couple computers were funded by the military, initially to aid in computing artillary trajectory charts for shooting down German bombers, and later to compute shock wave propagations in the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb and the development of computers are inextricably linked.

But many of the scientists working at IAS, particularly after the war when all the German scientists found refuge there, were also world government proponents. There was a huge effort to make the world less prone to another world war, and the thinking was fewer goverments meant less war.

Myself I'm not persuaded. I suspect, if anything -- based on recent history -- that a feeling that "your government" is not serving your needs leads to a disaffection with political power to the point that you get a major breakup. Something to be said for state's rights, for instance, over federal control.

And international control would be even worse -- look at the rather universal rebellion of the British Empire against overseas rule.

I think that we are well into the path to a form of de facto world government. Unfortunately, it won't be a government based on democracy, but on capitalism. The power exerted by massive corporations is, I think, very much underrated.

True. We are being ruled by McDonalds, Starbucks, Nike, Coca-Cola, Shell, BP, and Apple.

Well, I'm not to sure about Starbucks.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I'm reading George Dyson's "Turing's Cathedral," all about the early development of the computer arising partly out of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where George's dad Freeman worked. The first couple computers were funded by the military, initially to aid in computing artillary trajectory charts for shooting down German bombers, and later to compute shock wave propagations in the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb and the development of computers are inextricably linked.

But many of the scientists working at IAS, particularly after the war when all the German scientists found refuge there, were also world government proponents. There was a huge effort to make the world less prone to another world war, and the thinking was fewer goverments meant less war.

Myself I'm not persuaded. I suspect, if anything -- based on recent history -- that a feeling that "your government" is not serving your needs leads to a disaffection with political power to the point that you get a major breakup. Something to be said for state's rights, for instance, over federal control.

And international control would be even worse -- look at the rather universal rebellion of the British Empire against overseas rule.

That is very interesting. I think the British Empire though had issues because they weren't interested in real governing, they were there to strip resources and get slave labor. I think if we make government the servant of the people then we may have an easier time of it. While I can see some areas that benefit from being local, too many times it becomes an every state for itself kind of mentality. Like what happened at the Kyoto treaty. No one wanted to sign on in case others didn't and they ended up at a disadvantage. Also, wouldn't it be nice to not have the whole issue of illegal immigration? People can cross borders as they need to and trade and do the things they need to do without as much trouble as we have now.

Although I also agree with Howard that we are quickly getting to a place where nations are not the ruling deal but corporations are. I think even now at this point corporations are more powerful in a lot of ways and perhaps it will take a world government to combat that. And I do think it needs combating. I think corporations are buying up things that are not any one entity's to sell. Like water and land.

Jenni wrote:

I think corporations are buying up things that are not any one entity's to sell. Like water and land.

And politicians.