One World Government V Individual Governments

[Ryan Ludovic]

This is a debate aimed at the proving grounds to discuss both the benefits of a One World Government, and the Drawbacks of a One World Government versus the system we have already. Which would benefit humanity more? If you have strong views relating to one side or the other, be ready to back up your reasons!

In Favor of a One World Government




Through a One World Government, the possibility of the deconstruction of the dollar, and former currency tender manifests. Through the removal of flawed, unregulated, unbacked fiat money, we can shift ourselves to a global resource based economy. What is a resource based economy?

A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. -The Venus Project

I. The abolishment of money would further our advancements through technology. It is money that holds some our best minds back from researching or inventing; Likewise, it is money that keeps the inadequate releasing studies, and faulty inventions. It is money that is to blame for competing markets where it is more cost efficient to make a crummy product that will break to save money in labour and offer more money in repairs or repurchases of the item or product. Because of the price, quality foods and better crops are kept for the very wealthy, while you see grocery stores full of rotting fruits and inedible vegetables. Through the technology currently being suppressed, could we not advance ourselves to simplify the process of harvesting of foods to increase the quality of living for every one? Imagine if when the discovery of irrigation was being made. If money got in the way of researching and experimenting with irrigation, our civilization would not exist at all, we would be very primitive. This applies to all sectors of life.

We work jobs for low pay that would be unnecessary without money. I work 10 hours a day on the tech side at a bank. The pay is not that great, and the work is tiresome. This job would not exist if money was abolished. In a resource based economy, I would be provided with what is necessary to survive at a far greater level than what I have now. I will also have that time spent driving / working [roughly 12-14 hours] back to productively further our society and partake in my passions in life.

Simple, unnecessary jobs will disappear, and be replaced by technology. While currently, and in the past, this is viewed as negative because people need jobs to provide money for survival . . . In a resource based economy, this would be viewed as positive, as to reduce the number of jobs that are labor based.

II. The standards of life raised because of a resource based economy would generally reduce the depression, stress, and tension between people. Being provided with what is needed for living will greatly stabilize the mental health of the entire population. This will greatly reduce crime in several ways. No longer would you need to steal anything in most cases, and the mental state provided by these raised standards could prevent you from considering it in the first place. No longer will people require war, since there would be a single world government.

When resources are available to everyone without a price tag and not rationed, human values undergo considerable change. Most of us have been indoctrinated in civilization immersed in scarcity – artificially generated with planned obsolescence. I am highly suspicious of those whose incentive is motivated by money. I also believe in the incentive system but not the shallow, self-centered incentives perpetuated by our monetary-based institutions.

There would be no need for any high stressed jobs; there could be a large enough rotation of personnel to practically eliminate any high stress jobs until they can be phased out by innovative technology.

Money is spent on War, Advertising, and Competing with one another. Had that money been spent on other things, we could have an entirely green energy grid. With a resource based economy, this research would be done without cost, and not held back. This technology once correctly and successfully researched will raise the standard of living greatly!

 

[Sucumbio]

Though I share your enthusiasm there are too many greedy people on Earth to allow for this type of change without there first being a global devastation. Even Gene Roddenberry's idealistic world required WWIII AND a visit from aliens before Earth's problems were abated. While I think the latter can be missed, the former is almost assuredly necessary. We need a unifying event in which in does not benefit anyone to profit in any way. With this type of event in play, then we could start to see a deconstruction of monetary worth, and a shift to resources. However, you also have to remember that the world's resources are scattered all over the place. To assume, the US for example would just be willing to hand out crude oil from the barren planes of Texas to the rest of the world, is well... really optimistic. No government is truly philanthropic... only in the political sense, never the real sense.

Now WWIII or something like 12/21/2012 or whatever COULD unify us, but at the same time, would breed a new heightened sense of ownership (of what's left) and bartering would be even less likely for countries like the US, and impossible for countries with no real resources of note, like, Mongolia. Well, ok I may trade 100 barrels of oil for a true Tibetan monk... ok prolly not. But yeah, this is really hard to achieve in any light, post WWIII, definitely pre WWIII... if at all possible.

NOW if you want a way to make money less important, well the first step is to automate all the **** jobs that laborers, etc work, for money. I mean honestly, the only reason why a day-trader who makes a million bucks a year even needs that money, is so they can afford a mansion, a boat, *****es, coke maybe, I mean... it's all for Stuff. The acquisition of stuff. If all these things could be replicated through technology, and maintained with robots, or whatever, then yeah, he doesn't need money anymore!

But until these giant leaps in technology are realized, there will always be a need for someone to scrub your toilets, dish your food, pump the gas, whatever it is... and that type of work... can only be compensated for with Money. (Unless you are a true communist, but true communism doesn't work because Men are greedy.)

Now take ALL this, and plug into the One-world governemnt model. You have 1 leadship body, trying to control all the areas of the world. Civil wars would be abundant, because that idea of "this is mine" is SO fundamental in human nature, that to wish it away with a doctrine change is just frankly impossible.

Nah, there's no way to even implement what you're suggesting, but one day we may find out we're not alone in the universe. If this ends up being the case, then maybe... maybe I can see the People of Earth seeing -themselves- that way, instead of people of Newark, NJ, US, Planet Earth. But there will still be money around.

 

[Ryan Ludovic]

Unfortunately this isn't really along the lines of the debate that I was expecting.

I'm aiming more towards 'which is better' not 'which is possible'

though since the proving grounds is kinda dead, I'll shift the debate in a week or so if I see little response :]

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

Yeah your flaw is the mind not your mind pre say but the human mind logic and reason only works half of the time. But you would have to make it leaderless because all that power would drive someone mad or to do the evil they are fighting. But if it is leaderless people will be afriad of being controled by an invisble force. I think the best route would be to find the perfect leader one who only cares about others and never really understands the power they have and use, then we clone him forever in a horrible slavely that lasts for ever with him haveing no freedom of choose.


Which it's reall yimpossible with our minds. But yeah what the guy said everyone only has some many resoures and you can't trade with people with nothing. Robots are a bad answer bec ause it could end the free world of the mind If there is a machine for everything ever needed why do we need people? everything becomes pointless and repaetes. A reason why I don't like technology a lot because I perfectly happy now but to have things taken away that's kindof scary Also I will most likly lose it if they make it to mars because I couldn't stand the idea of people infecting other worlds.

 

[Sucumbio]

Unfortunately this isn't really along the lines of the debate that I was expecting.

I'm aiming more towards 'which is better' not 'which is possible'

though since the proving grounds is kinda dead, I'll shift the debate in a week or so if I see little response :]

Heh, well that was implied, but ok. Because a one-world government (OWG) is so far fetched, it's automatically a worse idea than national governments. Only in a totally idealistic (and summarily fictitious) scenario could one even consider a OWG.

That said, I'll play along for the sake of proof why it's a bad idea, while simultaneously ignoring the obvious reason, that it's impossible.

1.) Nationalism: A single body cannot govern such a largely diverse populous without first deconstructing Nationalism. There are so many people on Earth, most of whom identifying themselves FIRST as say, Americans, THEN as Earthlings. Sure there is a minority of super-idealists who do NOT identify themselves first as Nationals, but rather Global Citizens, however, there is technically no such thing as a Global Citizen... yet. This makes that minority not even really count, as they are technically living a lie. Unless one plans on forcefully eradicating the majority's sense of Nationalism, you cannot achieve true Global Citizenry.

2.) Laws of the Land: As diverse a population as Earth has, so too are the laws by which segments of the populous are governed. As is recently happening in Uganda (and already in several other nations) Gays are facing a tough time, as there is legislation being debated to make homosexuality a capital offense, punishable by death. Abortion. Gay Rights. Right to bear Arms. Taxes. Free Speech, etc., etc., etc. ALL these different things are treated somewhat differently around the globe. And some of these things are treated at such polar opposites, that a comprise is literally impossible. A OWG would have to assume a standard constitution for ALL citizens of Earth, and would have to devise ways to govern all the peoples of Earth in the same way, and fairly. This is however, impossible until all the people of the world see these issues the same way.

3.) Religion: Relgion plays a heavy role in the governing of peoples in various parts of the world, and yet in other parts, is entirely separate. The two cannot be merged, nor a compromise be met, because you either allow the Church and State to be separate, or not. This would pose a serious problem for any country that doesn't fit the model that is chosen for the OWG.

4.) Welfare States become Barren Wastelands: As it sits there are dozens of 3rd and 2nd World countries on Earth. By uniting all the peoples of Earth under one governmental body, you suddenly thrust all the Rich with all the poor. Imagine for a moment Mexico and the US and Canada all being part of N America suddenly ALL being under the US Constitution. All of sudden all the rules and regulations of the US become the rules and regulations of Mexico and Canada also. Can-of-worms this is. You're talking 3 countries trying to merge, let alone all the countries of the world, and you can see right off the problems. Canada has nationalized health, we do not, but because the US is picked for the model, Canadians suddenly lose national health care. This is just an example, but it goes to show that lumping nations together causes more problems than it fixes.

5.) Resources: The Earth does NOT have enough resources for everyone on it. Cold hard fact of life. This would be why starving nations, are starving. This would be why so many wars were fought between 4000 BC right up until even now, we have war. Because control of resources is of utmost importance to any single nation. With control of resources, one can expand its population without harm, expand education, wealth, trade, technology, etc. Without resources, you are dead in the water. You're 3rd world, with nothing to offer anyone, and nothing to sustain yourself. A OWG would basically have to lump this, and start housing/providing for the starving millions on Earth, from the coffers of the former nations of prosperity. The median quality of life on Earth would suddenly downgrade for some, upgrade for others, stay the same for the rest. Now we see we're back to Communism, which again, is bad, because it's idealistic, and isn't actually plausible, or possible. We Americans in particular are especially wasteful. Why should I give up buying a new car every 5 years, just so someone w/no shoes and no future can own ONE car for their WHOLE FAMILY. This mentality is at the heart of why nationalism > OWG.

6.) Darwinism: The survival of the fittest. Without it, our world's populous would grow to unstable levels. True it's already there in many parts of the world, but thanks to Nationalism, we here in America don't starve necessarily, despite the people of Ethiopia being a starving nation. When they die out from starvation, others will come in to take their place, but the world's balance will be kept. Harsh, sure, but a necessary reality.

There could be other reasons, but this is enough reasons against a OWG.

Now in support of a OWG-type thing, just not a TOTAL government, the UN is actually a decent idea, in practice and in theory. Global Peacekeepers. Global Summits. The UN allows for us an architecture by which we may see just how a OWG would even work. However, the issues I've relayed above are not problems for the UN because the UN does not involve itself at such a deep level. Extradition, sure, but that's where it ends... extradition hearings, and trade disputes. Something like a local crime, is still handled by local authorities, and up through the Supreme Court of that particular nation. Trade, also is not governed globally. There are trade-guilds of sorts, markets and whatnot, but these are not all-encompassing, and for good reason. A single body controlling commodities and resource trading would lead to severe problems, such as issue 5 above.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah your flaw is the mind not your mind pre say but the human mind logic and reason only works half of the time. But you would have to make it leaderless because all that power would drive someone mad or to do the evil they are fighting. But if it is leaderless people will be afriad of being controled by an invisble force. I think the best route would be to find the perfect leader one who only cares about others and never really understands the power they have and use, then we clone him forever in a horrible slavely that lasts for ever with him haveing no freedom of choose.


Which it's reall yimpossible with our minds. But yeah what the guy said everyone only has some many resoures and you can't trade with people with nothing. Robots are a bad answer bec ause it could end the free world of the mind If there is a machine for everything ever needed why do we need people? everything becomes pointless and repaetes. A reason why I don't like technology a lot because I perfectly happy now but to have things taken away that's kindof scary Also I will most likly lose it if they make it to mars because I couldn't stand the idea of people infecting other worlds.

I think the best way to do this is get a great leader who doesn't know his leading. Then have a figure-head who thinks he's the leader but who actually isn't. His job is to direct attention away from power and towards himself. The system is exactly the same the Galactic Government in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy of 6 books.

Also the abolishment of money is a double-edged sword, without it what would we use to trade with? Barter is extremely inefficient, and doesn't really work on a large scale. Sure, money has it's problems, but it's integral to our system.

Additionally the population entire human population on Earth of 6 Billion people is extremely hard to manage, especially from one place. The leaders may not know what's going on elsewhere and thus will be out of touch with a whole number of people. This problem can be abated by direct democracy, but on such a large scale, direct democracy would be extremely hard to manage.

 

[Sucumbio]

I wish Ryan hadn't gone away he was good.