Friday, July 20, 2007

Daily Deliberation #2

Is one-world government possible?


Blogger erp said...

Theoretically I suppose so, but practically, very doubtful.

July 20, 2007 11:16 AM  
Blogger Duck said...

That's my opinion too. I think that human nature favors exclusive group identities, or us vs them thinking. But I think that increasingly these identities will take on more a symbolic cultural role and allow closer economic and legal integration between states.

I guess the more meaningful question is whether the world's nations will ever achieve a political arrangement that will make war obsolete.

July 20, 2007 1:26 PM  
Blogger erp said...

War is already obsolete because the reasons for war no longer apply. Free trade and open communication bring prosperity, not enslaving people or stealing the king's treasure -- the current unpleasantness in pockets around the world, not withstanding.

Waging war is a barrier to trade. As this simple fact becomes evident among all the peoples of the world, we'll eventually come to some kind of an accommodation and agreement on the rules of civilized behavior, etc. I hope we'll retain lots of national and regional characteristics to make us interesting individuals and not just cogs in the machine.

Will the earth ever be a perfect paradise? No, but I'm optimistic for the future.

July 20, 2007 1:56 PM  
Blogger Susan's Husband said...

It might well depend on what you mean by "government". I wouldn't be surprised to see a world government that treats current nations the way the United States treated states before the Civil War, or even an Articles of Confederation style world government.

July 20, 2007 2:53 PM  
Blogger Bret said...

The UN is a one-world government. It's just rather ineffective.

If you mean that there would be only one government in the entire world (i.e. no local, state, or national governments) then, no.

Will war be obsolete? Not until humans have evolved into a different species. Crime will be obsolete then as well.

July 20, 2007 3:48 PM  
Blogger Duck said...

I don't think human nature has to evolve for war to become obsolete. We are essentially the same genetically now than we were 2000 years ago, but we've become steadily less violent over that timeframe, even given the horrific human cost of war in the 20th century. I think erp nailed it, in that war doesn't pay anymore. Nations can no longer enrich themselves by war, only impoverish themselves.

July 20, 2007 4:08 PM  
Blogger erp said...

Not evolve*, merely indulge in benign self interest.

*I hardly dare to type that word.

July 20, 2007 7:03 PM  
Blogger Harry Eagar said...

About half the people in the world haven't even organized halfway effective local governments, so I'd say the question in premature.

War isn't always fought over money, and money doesn't always trump every other consideration when people go to war.

In this respect, Clauswitz got it right when he pointed out that all coalitions fall apart when they approach success, because somebody will always figure he can do better by switching sides.

Game theorists have worked this out numerically, but Clauswitz had it all down in 1825. We haven't evolved since then.

July 20, 2007 7:19 PM  
Blogger Bret said...

If it were just a matter of money, then we'd get beyond war eventually. In my opinion, however, money is just one type of power and power is everything. I don't think money will ever be the sole type of power.

July 21, 2007 12:21 AM  
Blogger erp said...

Prosperity isn't only about money. In fact, that's only a small part of it. From the Preamble to the Constitution ...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...

I doubt human foibles will change and there'll always be crime and violence, it just won't be state sponsored. We, the people, won't tolerate it anymore.

July 21, 2007 4:24 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home