Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
One-Worldism: Good Or Bad?  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2225 times:

In modern terms, beginning with FDR, Winston Churchill, and others in the post-World War II era, the idea of uniting the entire world under the flag of a single government gained legitimacy in the political realm. Previous attempts at one-worldism emphasized utopian ideals (philosophical eschatology), religious concepts (millenarianism), or even extra-legal means (e.g., Marx).

Despite the performance of the United Nations, do you think the vision of FDR, Churchill, and other Allies can be realized?

Further, there are larger issues even than the United Nations that may be relevant here.

I love the fact that the world has gotten "smaller" because of advances in technology. I think that the invention of the airplane has helped mankind bridge vital differences between countries.

As a conservative in some respects, I remain careful not to place too much faith in one-worldism, however. I believe that while we can all act for the common good, countries should remain sovereign until the time when all important differences between them have disappeared by choice.

What are your views regarding the possibilities of one-worldism in the future?

Will mankind inevitably unite -- through technology, for example -- as a planetary species? Or, will other factors, such as political differences, inevitably intervene? For example, if mankind achieves colonization of other planets, won't sovereignty issues arise in connection with relations between planets?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Edited 2006-06-14 03:23:12]

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

Like everything else important in the world, this needs to be done right, but there is simply no halfway desirable alternative to it in the long run.

User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

As long as there are individual thinking people, which I am convinced will be "forever", there will be no such thing as one world "ism".

People will never agree on hairstyles, types of vehicles or music, let alone a world government. I'll admit that I'll have to dig into a little research, but I'm not entirely sure your statement that FDR, Churchill, et al campaigned for a single flag world government. Regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
Like everything else important in the world, this needs to be done right,

I agree.

Personally, I think the world being one big country could turn out quite nicely, but it's the same as riding a bike at a high rate of speed between 2 trees close together and some loose rocks around them... can turn out great but you just gotta get it bang on first time around.



CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting Cptkrell (Reply 2):
People will never agree on hairstyles, types of vehicles or music, let alone a world government.

The same has been said as an argument against democracy on any level: Local, regional, national or continental. And yet communities, states, nations and even the European Union have learned to make it work.

Just remember: If it was easy, everybody could do it!


User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2196 times:

Klaus, I understand your thrust, but must disagree. And, I believe we all see it in perpetual progress. Local, regional, national and (inter)continental communities sometimes HAVE made "it" work, but I believe there is and will always be individualism on all levels of peoples and all international (let alone local) communities that will never succomb to a "one flag world" government.

True, certain common sense laws, ethics, rights, etc. may someday be recognised worldwide, but I don't think that a common flag government will ever appear, nor do I think it's a good idea, either. Regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting Cptkrell (Reply 5):
but I believe there is and will always be individualism on all levels of peoples and all international (let alone local) communities that will never succomb to a "one flag world" government.

That's what the subsidiarity principle is for. A good democracy leaves as much freedom as far down the ladder as possible.

We're still in the process of working it out in Europe, but the principle is very much valid. Germans and, for instance, french and greek people are still very different and will remain so, even though we're all europeans and are using some shared governmental structures and - most of us - a shared currency.

Yes, it's difficult to get right, but I wouldn't want the old splintered, (much more) dysfunctional and pointless chaos back for anything. It was just a waste of time, money and lives.


User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Klaus; I agree with and applaud particularly your last paragraph (Rep 6). Perhaps I'm understanding the term "one world flag government" in too much of a literal context.

In any event, I think that the current myriad of cultures worldwide will not be rationalised into any simblance of collective-thought by any international political agreement(s). Shared principals, as you state, are not only important but critical to peaceful progress on all levels, but my simple belief is that even if those lofty (at this juncture, anyway) goals realize success internationally, there will never be (and again, I don't think there SHOULD be) an international ruler supreme as alluded to in the thread starter. Gotta sign off...hope this thread is still alive tomorrow. Regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

I agree - a homgenization of cultures or points of view enforced from above cannot be allowed. But a democratic government cannot do that anyway.

If there is to be anything like a "world government", it would have to be restricted to exactly those issues which require supra-national structures, such as policing of vital treaties and enforcement of basic human and civil rights as decided by the member nations / populations and even then only if there should be blatant violations which are not prosecuted on the lower levels (which is, by the way, exactly the modus operandi of the ICC already).

Only as much power as necessary, as few areas of decision as necessary and full accountability to the populations it represents. That would have to be essential features of such a structure.


User currently offlineWaterpolodan From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1649 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
If there is to be anything like a "world government", it would have to be restricted to exactly those issues which require supra-national structures, such as policing of vital treaties and enforcement of basic human and civil rights as decided by the member nations / populations and even then only if there should be blatant violations which are not prosecuted on the lower levels (which is, by the way, exactly the modus operandi of the ICC already).

Exactly right, if a world government were to extend its influence beyond these bounds by even a smidgen, I imagine a beaurocratic disaster beyond anything in previous human history. The world is much too populous and diverse for any one governing body to ably determine sound regional economic and social policies. As it is, many national governments are hardly able to respond to the demands and needs of their own population, which does not bode well for the responsiveness of a supranational government.

For me, the only thing that supranational regimes should have any control over is regulation of international finance to prevent the sort of crisis that can result from unregulated capital movement, such as the bhat crisis in thailand, which led to the larger east asian economic downturn, and promote development (Think IMF and World Bank, but without the failures and ill-advised strategies). Beyond that, the ICC as you said is well intentioned, although it needs to gain legitimacy through more widespread acceptance.
Anyway, seperate nations and cultural differences are a thing of the past, present, and future, and I don't think we will ever be homogenized enough as a planet, no matter what the anti-globalization zealots may say about this process being a permeation of distinctly american values and thought, to have any sort of one-world government.


User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Will mankind inevitably unite -- through technology, for example -- as a planetary species?

Just take a look at the posts in the following thread:
English only at Philadelphia eatery
It says alot about the refusal of many to integrate cultural differences.


User currently offlineBHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2142 times:

One Worldism is an interesting concept, but only when there is a fair chance for Star Allianceism and Skyteamism.

Seriously though, I think we are seeing a change in attitudes particularly here in Europe with regards to a single government, whereby the only people pushing it are the politicians. The people are far less interested in projects like the EU constitution than they are in the economic state of their countries for example. There are still various movements for independence - Serbia and Montenegro just split, Kosova may be next, plus the various place like Catalunia in Spain. Rather than uniting under a single banner, I think the world is asserting it's independence - an independence that came at huge human cost for a lot of nations.



Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Will mankind inevitably unite -- through technology, for example -- as a planetary species?

Only if Aliens try to rape us.

This whole subject is IRRELEVANT. Sure the tree huggers are going to sit there and try to sing cumbaya while the MILITANT middle easterners are slicing their throats. The reality is unless something genuinely fantastic happens; this planet and the people on it are one day going to be an ancient and distant memory that NO ONE will discover. Trust me. we will be long gone before we are united. Even if there is life it will no longer be called homo erectus.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2129 times:

Quoting BHXFAOTIPYYC (Reply 11):
Seriously though, I think we are seeing a change in attitudes particularly here in Europe with regards to a single government, whereby the only people pushing it are the politicians.

No. There are populists who make their cut by pretending that the EU was about a replacement of the national governments, which is simply nonsense. It isn't and it cannot be that.

Quoting BHXFAOTIPYYC (Reply 11):
There are still various movements for independence - Serbia and Montenegro just split, Kosova may be next, plus the various place like Catalunia in Spain.

Independence from a nation state with massive legislative and executive powers is an entirely different matter than leaving a cooperative framework such as the EU which has very little actual power beyond cooperation issues.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 12):
This whole subject is IRRELEVANT. Sure the tree huggers are going to sit there and try to sing cumbaya while the MILITANT middle easterners are slicing their throats. The reality is unless something genuinely fantastic happens; this planet and the people on it are one day going to be an ancient and distant memory that NO ONE will discover. Trust me. we will be long gone before we are united. Even if there is life it will no longer be called homo erectus.

Exactly the same sentiment people had in Europe (with Germany or the respective villain nation du jour standing in for the "evil, evil middle east").

Whatever the bitching level about the EU may be at any given day, people tend to overlook that it has been spectacularly successful in making Europe a stable, peaceful and by and large cooperative Union.

The ones who never think that anything could change for the better are always the ones left behind in the end.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

It's happening already at a cultural level - culture is become more and more homogenized, and I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. As has been stated, one world cannot be enforced from above, it has to be an evolutionary progress as technology enables more and more communication, and scarcity of global resources forces us to cooperate more. There are already the first stirrings of supranational structures where cooperation is required, where global standards need to be enforced (ICAO is a classic example) - this is not global government, but it is a recognition of the need for universal standards in some areas in order to improve safety, for example. One good pandemic will see the setting up of a more executive style of WHO, able to give orders and set standards, rather than just recommend. And so it goes.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Smacking Kids - A Good Or Bad Thing? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 22:23:53 by BA757
Alternative Medicine Good Or Bad? posted Tue May 23 2006 11:37:35 by Oly720man
Pornography. Good Or Bad? posted Sun Nov 27 2005 18:06:34 by Cosec59
Having Sex Before Marriage, Good Or Bad? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 16:01:05 by UTA_flyinghigh
Steroids: Good Or Bad? posted Tue Aug 9 2005 00:45:49 by Alberchico
The Euro: Good Or Bad? posted Tue Mar 22 2005 19:39:05 by Matt27
2006 Dodge Charger 4 Doors Good Or Bad Ideal? posted Sat Feb 12 2005 20:44:09 by 747400sp
Frats...good Or Bad For University Life? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:21:02 by Pilottj
2003 A Good Or Bad? What Goals Do You Have For 04 posted Thu Dec 25 2003 02:09:04 by Bmi330
GM Foods - Good Or Bad? posted Thu Oct 16 2003 13:41:33 by Saintsman