New World Order or Isolationism?

[mactavish]

Given some of the discussions here, I am curious what the consensus is regarding a world that is unified vs. a world that is factionalized. Where do you all sit on that particular issue?

Should there be a single all-encompassing world government? If so, what does that look like?

Or are you in favor of independent nation-states that answer to no higher authority than themselves? If that's the case, is the current world model to your liking? If not, how would you like to see it changed?

I know many people that believe the United States should withdraw from the world scene and let everybody else destory themselves. They push for morei nternal reliance in terms of energy and economics, taking away military, monetary, and political support for folks in Europe, Africa, South America, and Asia.

I am of the opinion that a united world government would be a good idea, but only if it was based on an American hegemony. I have a great deal of discomfort with allowing nations ruled by brutal dictators making decisions for the rest of the world.

Of course I think this way because I am a citizen of the United States. On the other hand, I have traveled across Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa (no, I'll never go THERE again), and I must say that I now know why many nations are envious of the US.

In any case, what is your opinion on this topic? Unified world government, independent states that sometimes work together, or individual nations that take care of themselves?

mactavish out.

[C5]

Well I for one think an unified governement is the only way to go - but we're still a looooong way for it.
Such a system could start like the European Union, with some central power taking decisions every coutry member should comply with, and evolve with the creation of a common currency, then of social laws, army, etc.
The next step could be something akin to the USA, every country federated under a single government, but with still some power of decision at their level.
The final stage would be a fusion of every country into one big world country, without any notion of separate country left.

I'm perfectly aware this won't happen before some centuries, maybe even millenia, and that of course the possibility of a worldwide conflagration knocking humanity along the dinosaurs as estinguished species still remains. I'm also aware that such a view is not very popular around here and I expect some remarks about the utter impossibility of such a world governement.
But after all this is how the world has evolved so far (with small tribes evolving into counties evolving into kingdoms evolving into countries), so I keep hoping this could happen... in a few dozen of generations.

Oh, and of course I'd like this world governement not to be too much based on an American hegemony... even though I know this'd currently be the easiest thing to do.

Héhéhé... post #666... watch out for the horny guy (what d'you mean, horny doesn't mean "with horns"??? )

[Dan Stack]

Actually C5, you described the course the US followed... After the Revolution, it was practically 13 separate countries. Up until the Civil War, the union wasn't that tight, with both New England and the South considering secession from the Union. (And as all know, the South gave it a try and it took a lot of dead Americans to decide the issue...)

I think the problem is there are some countries - a lot of them - just not ready for a world government. I mean, despite "family squabbles" the US likes and trusts most European nations - not as much as we trust ourselves, but when it comes down to it, we're not worried about war with the UK, France, Germany, etc. Heck, there's squabbles here between cities and states.

The problem is there are a lot of countries that really have no place in a world government, at least not yet. I know I've used the example before, but Syria being on the UN Human Rights Commission is a perfect example of the problems with the current world government. I think the smaller alliances growing into bigger ones is the way to go.

Let the EU grow. Then let the EU and USA grow closer together. US will probably get bigger too - if Quebec ever breaks away from Canada, conventional wisdom has those Provinces east of it joining the US. If the ties are meant to be, they will be. It took decades for people from Massachusetts and Virginia to really feel like they were from the same country. And they had the common experience of fighting in the Revolution.

What do Americans worry about? I think it is not a country like France or Germany bringing a US soldier up on war crimes, it is the idea that a country like Syria will move to bring a US soldier up on warcrimes - for "wanton destruction of the environment" or for the accidental bombing of a Mosque. And those in the US have seen how anti-American motions can be popular in the UN.

[qerlin]

I think a one-world government is a massive mistake. Having worked for the US federal government, I can tell you that the larger the political entity, the more unresponsive and unweildy it is. Corruption is inevitable in a single system and self-policing will not happen; the powerful protect each other. Bureaucracies of that scale will inevitably lead to massive corruption and inefficiency

Also, there is a very real problem with one system -- a single system, with no alternatives and no competition, stagnates. A massive, global system would inevitably draw self-proclaimed elite -- whether 'technocrats' or wealthy masquerading as populists -- who would quirk the system to their personal betterment. They would have power without real opposition, since there would be no other national power to act against it, should it become (and I think this is inevitable) tyrranical. AS Lord Acton said, power corrupts.

When people bring up the one-world government idea, I see Orwell's bland world of forced equality, endlessly working for the basic necessities, but never gaining any kind of further benefits. This may be fine for some people, but with no possibility of social, financial, or other advancement, this would be a crushing existence for most.

Utopian ideas always sound good. They are never really workable. Despite problems in the international, state-based system, it does provide a dynamism that is essential to continued growth in various cultures. It also provides a choice: don't like the capitalist, individualist system (at least, that's what it's supposed to be) of the US? Plenty of socialist countries out there. Think socialism and the crush of taxes is too much? There's the US. Want a more free-wheelin', wish-I-could-machette-people-who-don't-believe-what-I-do lifestyle? There's Algeria...hell, there's Africa.

I prefer the national system, though I'd rather see a decentralization, confederation of power inside the major nations, as well, to make them more responsive to regional needs. (What you need in New York in the way of laws and services is not what we need in New Mexico.) The UN has it's place -- as a forum to resolve conflict -- but it is as an alternative to direct conflict. The desperation shown by the UN over the ICC should alert people to the true motives behind it...power.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
What do Americans worry about? I think it is not a country like France or Germany bringing a US soldier up on war crimes, it is the idea that a country like Syria will move to bring a US soldier up on warcrimes - for "wanton destruction of the environment" or for the accidental bombing of a Mosque. And those in the US have seen how anti-American motions can be popular in the UN.

Actually, there's a risk even from these countries. If, at some point, it becomes expedient or profitable for them to try and come after US soldiers, politcians, etc. they will.

Case in point, they're already trying to supeona Clinton and his national security advisor, amongst others, over the actions in Croatia.

The UN is an America-bashing group. They are jealous and scared of our success and power, both economically and militarily. The freedoms we have are an anathema to many of the tyrannies out there ...'cause we provide an alternative.

The president is right to fight this 'court'. I just can't believe how many Europeans are wiling to just put their lives in the hands of bureaucrats -- foreign or domestic.

[C5]

Originally posted by qerlin

The UN is an America-bashing group. They are jealous and scared of our success and power, both economically and militarily.

As a supporter of the UN (not for its America bashing actions, but for what it stands for in my eyes) and one of those Europeans... allow me one hypothetical question, qerlin :

Suppose some block suddenly emerges, with a economical and military power far beyond any other country on Earth. This block is so strong that it can pacify a war anywhere on the globe almost by itself. Also, its economy allows it to inundate the world with its products; every local brand slowly disappears, people end up knowing more about this block than their own country thanks to its hyperactive movies and press industry. Mind, this country seems genuinely to be doing its best to maintain peace in the world, and claim to have nothing but the world's best interests at hand (and, by the way, to be unaware of any economical "invasion").
How would you react then (supposing of course you're not from the block in question) ? Would you approve any attempt from other countries to set up some sort of world organisation, or decide that this block is really the world's providence, since it claims to be so, and be left alone whatever it does ?

Please understand I don't want here to offend you or any American citizen. I'm just stating here my (somehow exagerated, granted) view of the situation, and asking you to think like some Europeans could. Trying to think like the other side can help a lot to understand others... I've tried to do the same when reading posts from Americans on this forum.

Originally posted by qerlin
The president is right to fight this 'court'. I just can't believe how many Europeans are wiling to just put their lives in the hands of bureaucrats -- foreign or domestic.

Well because in my view, at least, our lives are already in the hands of bureacrats (economical or political), and there's not much we can do about it. So at least if we can choose them to be above countries, that's some small step...

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
US will probably get bigger too - if Quebec ever breaks away from Canada, conventional wisdom has those Provinces east of it joining the US. If the ties are meant to be, they will be.[/B]

Quite some time ago, IIRC during the push for the first Quebec referendum, an American economist and political scientist studied the Quebec situation. Their theories were:

1) Quebec would be the first of the Canadian provinces to join the US. I don't recall all the reasons that they gave but it was interesting when the CBC reporter asked about Quebec's language laws. They said that although the US does not have an official language Quebec would be subly forced into accepting English. The other thing of note was the time frame. In their opinion Quebec would petition joining the US in 5 - 15 years from separating from Canada.

2) Atlantic Canada would risk becoming a third world country on their own as the US would not want a welfare state. I remember a lot of anger over this statement.

3) Western Canada would be the last to join the US. At the time they assumed that Western Canada would have sufficient natural resources to be the most financially stable of the new nations.

I don't remember what they said about Ontario. I don't think they included Ontario with Western Canada.

This was the same year that The Canadian Civil War wargame came out. I think it was in the early 80s.

[toadkiller]

What - no poll?

A little something to add to the mix from a resident public health guy.

Like it or not we are all ruled by the laws of physics already. Our population is growing quickly, overly quickly in my mind. Just like bacteria in a culture we'll continue to increase until our population crashes - which it will do based upon those physics rules mentioned above. It may be disease, lack of food, climate change, or aggression brought on by uneven distribution of remaining resources (i.e. terrorism and war) but it will be something.

The only hope we have is to overcome our biology to a significant extent and slow, then stop, then gradually lower our population. The only way I see THAT happening is if we have some sort of system that will allocate resources in a sane way, promote sensible family planning, and do a myriad of other things that the "freedom or death" folks aren't going to like very much.

I'm actually a fairly libertarian sort of guy who doesn't appreciate being told what to do by faceless organizations (which is ironic given my job, actually) but I am also a realist. The "death" side of the freedom/death decision tree is something that will happen if we don't change our way of doing business.

Since I'm being ironic about my job - it is actually in great part us public health folks that are responsible for this. Our vaccination programs, sanitation efforts, etc. have allowed hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of people to survive far past "natural" levels.

Which always makes me smile when I hear someone talking about wanting to get back to a more "natural" way of living - but that's just me being ironic again.....

I'm going to go have a drink now.

[qerlin]

"Well because in my view, at least, our lives are already in the hands of bureacrats (economical or political), and there's not much we can do about it. So at least if we can choose them to be above countries, that's some small step..."

There are alternatives to that. Read Thomas Jefferson.

[Cybrludite]

Say, Toadkiller, you might want to take a look at where all this population growth is coming from. Western Europe mostly has zero or negative population growth. The US & Australia are increasing in population mainly due to imigration. It's the places with the "more natural" ways of living that have the population explosions. Only stands to reason. After all, if more kids mean more hands to bring in the crops when you get old, you have more kids. If having more kids means you have to pay for more college, you're going to want less of them. At any rate, we had the same sort of massive increases during the Industrial Revolution. The Malthusians/Club of Rome types keep making the mistake of thinking current trends are permanent, and that no new resources will be found. (Or that existing resources won't be used more efficently) A few years back, writer P.J. O'Rorke pointed out that if you moved the current population of the Earth so we had a population density similar to that of New York City, we'd fit in a space about equal to Yugoslavia prior to the breakup.

[toadkiller]

Less money, fewer appliances, and poor living conditions doesn't equal "more natural" to me.

In fact in a way it is less so - many of those areas exisit because they are artificially supported from outside. So is the US/western countires but at least they pay for (most) of the imports.

Agreed that it is in the "developing" world that most of the population growth is occuring. Typically because: they have little control over conception and the women have less, they feel having kids gives them more hands to work,....

Basically the developing world is, well, trying to develop into the same resource sucking entities as the western countries. The role of a world government, or other process leader, would be to try to balence increases in standard of living with long term sustainability for everyone.

Which is likely possible with a world population of 4 billion or less and likely impossible for a population of >8....

IM(NS)HO

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by toadkiller
Less money, fewer appliances, and poor living conditions doesn't equal "more natural" to me.

But outside of the SCA, that's what a more natural life means. I've actually done farm work before. Being close to that land and all that sucks! All pastoralists should have to actually live the lifestyle before recommending it to everyone else. I'll be magnaminous enough to grant you modern tools. Even with a Roto-Tiller or a chainsaw, planting a veggie garden or turning a tree into firewood is hard mind-numbing work.

In fact in a way it is less so - many of those areas exisit because they are artificially supported from outside. So is the US/western countires but at least they pay for (most) of the imports.

You're saying we should let them die? Actually, the problem is we've been giving them fish, and whenever a local catches a fish on their own, the local thugs mug him for it. A case in point would be Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe...

Basically the developing world is, well, trying to develop into the same resource sucking entities as the western countries. The role of a world government, or other process leader, would be to try to balence increases in standard of living with long term sustainability for everyone.
Which is likely possible with a world population of 4 billion or less and likely impossible for a population of >8....
IM(NS)HO

But it's the weathy countries that can afford to find ways around resource limitations. As someone pointed out in a similar discussion on another page, after WWII increased communications were expected to cause a copper shortage from all the phone & telegraph lines that would be needed. Then along came Authur C. Clarke & the telecommunication satelite, with a few dozen feet of wires inside, instead of thousands of miles of the stuff. Likewise, there's enough metals in the asteroid belt to keep us going for a loooooong time. Worried about energy? Build solar power-sats in orbit & microwave the power down to antenna arrays on Earth. Bake lunar regolith to get Helium-3 to fuse with deutierium. (once they figure out a safe wat to do it, that is. 3He-De needs a higer temp to start fusing, but it does so cleaner than Deutierium-Tritium) Pollution your big bugaboo? Move the offending industry into high orbit or the Lagrange points. Just as it's not the rich countries that have the high birth rate, it's also not the rich countries that have the really bad polution problems. They're the ones that can afford to clean things up and to figure out new ways of doing things that don't cause pollution.

[Morticutor_UK]

"Should there be a single all-encompassing world government? If so, what does that look like?"

Hmm. I like the idea that a world organisation could redirect resources and food, and what not, harmonise trade law and basically take a holistic interest in the world, but I can't believe that it would work for the following reasons.

I would say that the the world needs to get smaller, and people start taking interest in what goes on next door, as it were. Any UN-style order would need fairness in representation, but how do you do that? I've seen too many Newsnight articles recently on how the US is trying to dominate and collect positions, and how other nations use their vetos and influence not to achieve a general 'good', but rather play political games of power.

Consider this: Britain signed up to Kyoto and has saved something like 12 million tons of carbon, well within limits. A department of the DTI has spent a cool billion or so building coal-fired power stations around the developing world which will produce a total of 40 milllion tons. This makes Kyoto a complete waste of time, but it looked good for Teflon Tony.

"I know many people that believe the United States should withdraw from the world scene and let everybody else destory themselves. They push for morei nternal reliance in terms of energy and economics, taking away military, monetary, and political support for folks in Europe, Africa, South America, and Asia."

Internal reliance is good, but waste is profitable - I mean, what the hell does someone need an SUV's for? reduced fast food is good, but in rainy Carlisle we're getting a new KFC - one more to add to the gods knows how many food shops we have here - I personally don't know how they survive, but I reckon it's something to do with all the fat bastards wandering round here.

Not only that, but would America's removal encourage smaller nations to grow up, or just fall upon one another? I personally feel that nations like Africa learned the wrong lessons from the rest of the world - there was a great one about Mugabe a while ago - someone told him about what Dubya thought on the legality of his adminstration. Mugabe's response was audible right down the corridor.

"I am of the opinion that a united world government would be a good idea, but only if it was based on an American hegemony. I have a great deal of discomfort with allowing nations ruled by brutal dictators making decisions for the rest of the world."

Enron. Dubya. Anderson. Worldcom. Oil. Saudi Arabia. Cheney. MacDonalds. OK, so they're brief in terms of the history of the nation, but I really can't see how it would be good for the world for one culture to dominate. I've studied business for 5 years now, and everything I've learnt tells me that business is a necessary evil and should NEVER be allowed to operate freely with minimal outside intervention, but America and Britain have very lax economic controls, and apart from controlling the economy and providing services, how can a governemtn jutify its growth?

I agree thoroughly that dictators should be squished, but how who is a dictator? someone who wins rigged elections? Someone who snuggles up with business and plunders the 'average man's' resources? someone who can't tell a straight truth to the public he is 'accountable' to? Someone who buries important data relevant to the public interest?

I'd say that you could pin at least one on a Western leader...

"Of course I think this way because I am a citizen of the United States. On the other hand, I have traveled across Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa (no, I'll never go THERE again), and I must say that I now know why many nations are envious of the US."

Aye. And I'm British with an appropriate slant. Who's right? I agree with the comments onsome of the other nations, but what do you do with them?

"In any case, what is your opinion on this topic? Unified world government, independent states that sometimes work together, or individual nations that take care of themselves?"

NOT anything that supports a political elite {yeah, I know, but I've been thinking a lot about the role of the state recently}. Otherwise, I'd say that a federal way is best, with 'national/international' issues resolved by an international body and local government given the appropriate and accountable powers. Something that promoted transparency and encouraged efficiency, but I'd say that it requires attitude adjustment as much as anything else, which is why I had hopes for the EU.

[qerlin]

Who needs an SUV? There's an argument I'm sick of hearing. Yeah, they're worthles in the city. But if live out in the boonies in New Mexico, or anywhere in the wilderness. (Contrary to what people who've never been to the country might think, there's a whole lot of wilderness in the US, Canada, and Russia where there are few people and no real roads.) Try driving some dirt track through the Rockies sometime in your Mustang...not a good idea. Try it in the snow. And hope you have a lot of blankets and a cell phone to call for help. SUV's -- as much as I hate them blocking my view -- have a purpose.

If people want to spend $40k on what is essentially a 4x4 station wagon, so be it. If they want to blow huge amounts of money on gas, etc., so be it. Not everyone is content to ride a Buell around town, like me.

As for the one world government...maybe you guys should reread your Orwell. That's what your going to get.

[calguard66]

Not going to re-post and quote that long piece by Mort.

I will say that he very clearly demonstrates why I will likely never support a world government.

"Who needs and SUV"?

Better question is:
"Who do you want to decide what you need or don't need"?



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Morticutor_UK