March 5, 2003 3:01 AM GMT
World government won't happen anytime soon. It will probably take thousands of years, if it happens at all. If the situation were right, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole world operate the way the USA operates now, with a federal system. Constitutionally recognized local governments administer local laws, and various levels of government exist between that and world government. In the USA, we don't have to worry about Nebraska attacking Vermont, etc., and states don't even need to defend their border against one another. We're united under a common authority (that of the people through the Constitution) which every citizens, state, and the federal government recognize.
However, we got where we are because our people were more or less on the same page when we founded this country, and even so, things still haven't been easy. We've had Western expansion, slavery, civil rights movements, world wars, wars with the American Indian tribes, and a civil war. A lot of people want to think the USA is evil because of the negative things that have happened in our past, but this is the modern country that tried to force human beings to live together under self-rule and actually pulled it off. Consider how far we advanced in our first two hundred years. Around the world, slavery was common place, females were second class citizens (at best), social class systems made economic mobility impossible, imperialism and colonization were the order of the day, and life generally sucked. We came from that period, so we started off with the same faults the rest of the world had. In a very short time, we got rid of slavery, recognized females as full citizens, brought industrialism and technology to the world, and set an example for other nations.
Compared to where we will be in Sarah's 1500 years (at our current pace), we (the USA) are still a very uncivilized society. However, compared to where we were in 1776, the USA is Utopia today. Unfortunately, many countries today are still where we were 200 years ago, culturally, socially, economically, and technologically, if they are even that far advanced. Because of our unique situation in history, we've never had a dictatorship as a nation, and we've never known anything but democracy, as a federal republic. That has allowed us to grow up faster than other countries, and that's why we came out of nowhere to be the most powerful nation the world has ever known.
Fortunately, we are just civilized enough to be the first nation with this much power that did not want to conquer the world, and we could've done it more easily than any other nation before us. We want to exist as one nation in the world, as each of our states is one part of our country. I'm not talking about world government, but peaceful coexistence with other civilized sovereign nations, who aren't hell-bent on conquering each other. There are still some aggressive nations out there, which means there will still be wars, but most nations do want to move forward and live in relative peace.
What we have to remember as the oldest child of democracy (if I may call us that), is that the other children are still much younger and immature. Until they catch up to us and share our appreciation for democracy and human rights, world government can't even be a consideration. Besides, we still have some growing up to do ourselves.
The 50 states in the USA are all peers, as far as being culturally on the same page. If that were not the case, our country wouldn't be stable. Our civil war represented the time in our history when we were the most divided, and we were fortunate to survive that era. In order for world government to exist, we'll all have to be on the same page, or pretty close to it. That's why I think it might take thousands of years. There's no way we American citizens will allow citizens in third world nations to have votes in determining our way of life. Likewise, we shouldn't expect them to want our values imposed on them. We're at very different stages of development. As Douglas Adams illustrated in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the three phases of civilization are survival, inquiry, and sophistication, and they can be characterized by the questions 1) How can we eat?, 2) Why do we eat?, and 3) Where shall we have lunch? Until all nations are in the sophistication phase, we won't be able to agree on a world constitution.
What might happen is that, over centuries, groups of countries will form, which some of you girls have already mentioned seems to be a pattern in history. The USA is already a collection of 50 smaller states, and Europe could be location of the next major union. Economically, Europe is taking the first step, which never would've occurred to anyone 40 years ago. Perhaps a central European government could exist within the next couple of centuries. Eventually, perhaps Africa, Arabia, the Orient, etc. will spawn similar unions and those groups might come together to form the basis of the first world government. Then again, maybe the many sovereign nations will individually decide to join something like the UN, but with authority. Personally, I think the gradual groupings, slowly reducing the number of sovereign nations seems more likely, but as I said, it's a daydream at this point.
Don't pay any attention... I'm just thinking out loud again.
March 4, 2003 1:23 AM GMT
I just had to add this: my father makes more money now that he's retired than he did before, so the dream is still alive.
February 23, 2003 1:48 PM GMT
The UK has long been seen as a soft touch for immigrants. Unfortunately,this is often to the detriment of it's own people.The benefits and welfare system are becoming overloaded,and our elderly and low-paid citizens are suffering as a result.I live in a low-pay,high cost part of the country,and many people I know,myself included,are trapped in an almost hand-to-mouth existence.I realise this is not completely the fault of immigration,we have few locally,but I believe it to be a contributory factor.
I have no objection to genuine cases,refugees etc.provided they learn the language and laws,and pull their weight.Yes,I agree with Stevie! Otherwise,no thanks,we have enough problems without adding more.
I read once that in Canada,an immigrant was only allowed in and to take a job if there was no Canadian suitable or available to do so.I don't if it is/was true,or still holds, but it sounds like a good idea,in principle.
Skilled and professional people can nearly always be placed,perhaps with a crash course in the language? (I have been attended by a doctor,undoubtedly qualified,but communication was hard.Some improvised signing helped!). I don't like the sound of the sponsorship scheme.Buy the skills,by all means,but not the person.
Further down the scale,when someone on benefit starts to bring in,by right,their immediate family,then parents et al,you have to draw a line.
Less money could be better spent educating those in poorer countries how to live within their means,and if that has to include birth control,so be it.China please note,that does not mean killing or abandoning girls at birth.
I feel that the UK takes more than it's fair share,partly because of our more relaxed rules,partly because many already have English as their second language,so it is the easiest place to go.There are also some 'colonials' who have the right to come.
Trouble is,we are only a small,overcrowded island,and could soon sink under the weight.
We need to keep things in proportion and perspective. Enough is enough.No more please.
Sue.
February 23, 2003 4:28 AM GMT
As long as immigrants come to the USA legally and learn English, I welcome them. Otherwise, I don't want them. Tennessee has a serious problem with illegal immigrants because our idiotic legislature changed the laws and made it too easy to get a driver's license here. You don't have to prove anything or even speak English, which made our state a heaven for felons (illegal aliens).
March 3, 2003 6:30 AM GMT
LOL
March 2, 2003 9:58 AM GMT
Sorry Heather
I have to take issue with you on one point
but that should be seen as a short-term solution. We must work towards a goal of bringing our own citizens into these careers.
I think your approach is short-term as well. The whole history of humanity shows us that "countries", or what people think of as countries, grow larger and become fewer. I don't just mean countries as we have known them for the last 100 years or so. The UN currently recognises 200+ countries, go back 1500 years and the UK probably had the equivalent of those 200 "countries" in terms of local war lords and the economic power they wielded (Nowadays, of course, we call them Football Clubs ;D).
So where will we be in another 1500 years or even 100 years? Well, in my view we are moving inexhorably towards world government and the diminishment of nation states. They'll probably still exist but only so that we can have the World Cup rather than the Champions League (Sorry, football joke there). In my view that's generally a good thing because nations foster "us and them" and it's always "us" that's at war with "them" (or vice-versa if you're Bush or Blair). I know civil wars exist and they can be bloodier and more disruptive but they are much fewer.
So, back to the point, if you share that vision then the concept of "our own citizens" is short-term. Educate those who want to be educated and when the balance is drawn in the ledger of the education system it will be in surplus.
Sarah
December 14, 2004 1:07 AM GMT
Oh, I think we have enough sense not to vote for pro-world government maniacs.
March 29, 2003 8:59 AM GMT
Hi Girls
Sorry to leave this thread for so long, but now that the move has settled down we can get back to it.
All the discussions about world government have omitted one factor; corporate power. The economic power of the multi-nationals is huge and transcends national borders. I'm sure we've all seen national governments scrambling to attract huge inward investment, or respond to the threats of "moving production elsewhere".
The point I'm making is that Corporations are starting to exert significant economic power that is outside the ability of individual nations to control, even the US. We are recognising that nations have to act in concert to defend some of our common interests. The League of Nations and the UN are, somewhat pathetic, examples of World Government. Perhaps, more significantly, the World Trade Organisation is an organ of "World Government". Interestingly it seems to be Bin Laden's prime target.
We already have a European Government. It is the Council Of Ministers. It agrees laws which all member states enact.
Now, none of these "governments" are quite what we think of in national terms, nor are they democratic, but they do make laws for their constituents.
As to when? Well I think sooner rather than later. Amongst other things history shows us that the pace of change is accelerating. I worry about that because things can't keep accelerating so perhaps we will ultimately implode and a new dark age follow. Another topic perhaps.
Stevie
There's hope for you yet, if you are a disciple of the great Adams (Douglas not Henry).
Don't panic
Sarah
April 27, 2003 9:10 AM BST
Stevie
I always like to read the last page first.
"consumers are more powerful", that's just a myth put about by the large corporations. Unquestionably 1 million people acting in concert is an awesome force, but when does it actually happen? apart from conscription that is
Sarah
April 27, 2003 9:29 AM BST
Alice
Denise
We've always been a multi-cultural society.
There's a Saxon up the street, he's really a miserable git; those Jutes across the road, up all hours partying; and what about the Vikings, roaring up and down the street on their motorcycles, chopping people's heads off; and what can you say about those bloody Normans.
Whatever else we are we are a product of multi-culturalism, long may it continue I say.
Sarah
April 22, 2003 12:56 AM BST
Nice flame icon (flamicon?), Jayne.
Sarah, I didn't think anyone read my posts far enough to get to the Adams reference. LOL
Corporations might be powerful, but consumers are more powerful, assuming they are aware of their own power. Corporations, like governmnets, can't do anything that the people don't allow them to do. We have to be active and aware, both as citizens and consumers. At the absolute minimum, we should exercise the power we have at the polls and the cash registers.
P.S. Thanks for all the fish.
April 29, 2003 3:56 AM BST
Sarah, I don't think you give consumers enough credit (cute play on words, huh?).
Also, who owns most corporations (in the USA, anyway)? We the people, through our investments and retirement funds. In addition to refusing to buy their products, we can dump their stocks anytime we want.
To answer you question (with my opinion), I do think consumers act together, but not always as a conscious decision. Individually, we each decide what to do, and if a given corporation does something unpopular enough, then enough individuals will have similar reactions to produce the same effect as though they had consciously acted together. However, if the consumers decide not to "punish" corporations, that's their choice. It's the same relationship we see between voters and politicians. If voters and consumers are apathetic, then apathy rules the day. In a free society, we get what we ask for, good or bad.