you should know my stance on this. Care to take a guess?

Global government is the only future. It's that or die in our own bodily fluids.

It is preferable for practical and moral reasons. Nations only divide people - one day the only nation will be humanity.

And obiwan... why do you stop at "western union"?

Do you not think that in the "time" it would take for that to happen, that "the west" will have ceased to be so important a political and cultural divider?

the globe is homogenizing.

Ideologically:

I prefer nation states. Globalization allows too much concentration of power (Power Corrupts) in a government, even if it is democratic.

Politically:

I do not believe globalization will take place. There are too many places that want to gain greater global dominance, such as the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, etc. Also, would Islam put up for long with foreign domination? Unless it were a Muslim government, I find it unlikely. They're very outspoken. Furthermore, there are so many places in the world that are disfunctional in the way that mideaval scotland or Japan or modern Afghanistan are. They do not consider themselves to be nations, just a collection of tribes with loyalty to one's subnational group being the highest priority. Can anyone imagine Africa uniting into one nation? It would need to be imposed from the outside, the individual "countries" are incredibly disunited! The only reason they're countries is that, when leaving, the European powers drew the lines like that.
As far as I can see, globalization is purely a western phenomenon, and given the

West's declining prominence and birthrates, I don't think it would be a very influential political force, by the time it would come to existence. All the other powers are interested in global influence/domination, not uniting with the rest of the world as equals.

Instead, I believe we will see the rise of a number of superpowers with global influence accompanied by a continued decline of western influence.

That's assuming, of course, assuming a nyan-cat resistant strain of zombies does not take over the world.

Now you're just in fantasy-land. There is nothing that can resist the power of nyan-cat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TQbDz6-4eM

Ideologically:
I prefer the city state doctrine. As stated in the past the 3 countries with the higest GDP, best corruption index have something in common, a population of under 5 million.

Smaller countries are statistically more sustainable, more economically and governmental sustainable.

Ideally no country should have more then 30 million people (and that includes Canada).

The fact is a world government would be to hard to govern and would require massive amounts of decentralization. And if decentralized the lack of unity would destroy us.

Also the EU has failed hard. look at the situation of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland.

Obi, you have said in the past that you were against massive governments due to easy corruption, why the change of heart?

Politically:
Thankfully, world government is no feasible. Who would unite us:
China? Would the west allow that?
America? Would the East allow that?
EU? Its falling apart with this financial crisis.

The fact there is no massive union of nations that has worked (besides UN which is hardly a union of nations) for anyone to want to risk this.

Big governments have and always will fail hard.

well this isn't a particullary interesting topic, given the lack of posts...

OK, sorry for the delay...

...I'm not even going to get into that.

@Thucy:

I was being conservative with "Western Union," as, yes, the globe is homeogenizing.

(Although I will admit that I think there's still a big enough culture gap that there would still be maybe four or five "large" conglomerate states...for instance, I can't really see China and Israel coming together in one united state, and the US is far off from unifying with most countries in South America or Africa, for instance...

So maybe there will be a world government someday--I hope so--but I will say I hope it's one in which the "World Nation" is made up of "National/Regional States," if that makes any sense...the same way California will vote differently and had different wants and needs and ideas than, say, Alabama or Texas or, to use another region, Alaska, I'd hope that a Canada-US-Europe "Super-State" could have a say in matters for their area, and then Mexico-Latin America-South America, Africa, and so on.)

@Fasces:

Globalization is, I think, inevitable, though.

And while it's true corruption increases with size, so, too, does the potential for benefits--and more unity means less war (at least theoretically.)

Why do you oppose this?

And do you oppose it more on grounds of theory or practicality (as for "who will unite us?" ...

We have yet to see, this won't happen, if it does, for many decades, or even centuries.

But if I were to guess, just from right now--the US and Canada, working with the EU, in some sort of agreement with the Arab states and China and--what's left of--southeast Asia...if those come together for economic or political reasons, someday, for large enough reasons, the rest of the world would have to follow suit.)

It could never be the East OR the West...

It'd have to be strong representatives from both, together...

For my part, citizen of the UK, I actually like the EU. The problems with Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, arent actually *EU* problems, but Eurozone problems. The UK is managing to avoid much of the Euro problem by not having joined the monetary union.

There are problems in the EU, the democratic deficit is often mentioned. However, its not a terrible problem and will no doubt be reformed before the EU claims anymore legislative power. The legislative power that it does hold doesnt terribly concern me either. Surely we are simply bringing together the best minds from across the continent... (or atleast in theory..)

On another issue, the EU chamber that is elected is voted for by proportional representation, which in my opinion is superior to my own nations first past the post.

So, overall, I approve of the union as it is currently, and approve of its possible expansion in the future...

Would that expansion ever reach across the Pond to Canada and America, if they/we ever asked, Fenris? ;)

(But then surely you'd need a name change if you weren't all Eruopean...but still, I think/hope Canada and the US join with Europe one day, they just seem to sort of belong together...)

(sorry in advanced, for the really poorly worded post)

globalization is not inevitable. However the US wants it to happen even though globalization is hurting not helping the US. (in the long term, short term it will temporarily benefit us)

The fact is its not just a culture gap.

Say there is 1 world government, ok? How is it run. Lets say its a democracy and to keep it simple, it is run like the US.

How many senators and Congressman would their be?
Who becomes president.

The fact is the USA has the 4th highest HDI, thats why your life is as nice as it is today. Cause the USA has money.

However think logically, if it is a democracy, the average person lives on a wage of 1/6 of the average American.

America imports more then it exports.

America consumes more oil and food then it produces.

If it was a 1 world government, would the president allow this?

Imagine one candidate, (call him the democrat cause hes left wing) promised no government spending on the rich Americans but pouring all the treasury into making sure the living conditions in Africa and India became on par with that of America.

They would loose the 300,000 votes in America
but they would gain 2,300,000 votes from India and Africa.

Now cause the GDP of America is higher then that of India and Africa combined, in theory anyway, taking the money of Americans and spreading it among the Africans would double the amount of money in Africa and India.

The problem with massive countries is you cannot have massive differences in regional GDP without pissing off voters.

In terms of stability for a democracy, China and India would be were the upper class would move, and NA being in the middle of nowhere and having no financial advantage will be a spec on the earth, near the bottom.

I can explain into more detail if you want. (basically spending by government in Europe and America in over 10 times as high, per person then in Asia and Africa, so government money would move Africa and Asia (where 2/3 of the world population lies) cause it will give populartity boosts to those who by it. that will leave a bankrupt state in North America or reduced spending which means no infrastructure.

US has a debt problem as it is. Now imagine if the debt ceiling was lowered to 1.4 trillion. That would be globalization.

Also benefits as size increases for countries is a myth:
HDIs are statistically higher in countries with smaller populations then larger
GDPs are statistically higher in countries with smaller populations then larger

Bigger states just mean bigger problems.

Also lets take a look at the cold war:
America had a good budget, low deficit
America was becoming more innovative, like the space race
The fact is history has taught us (I can use more examples, just used cold war since it was most recent) that progression happens quickest where there is fierce competition.

If we are all united there will be no need for progression.


Now back to why it isn't practical:
In 1901 there were 19 countries in Europe and 2 countries in Africa
In 2001 there were approx 45 in both...
Since then we have seen an addition country in africa and an additional country in Europe.

How many countries have joined together since then?

A one world government is getting further and further away...

So to summarize my view in 2 simple lines:
Theory: A world government is not ideal due to corruption, inefficiencies, uncompetitivism and equality problems that come with big countries.

Practical: A world government is not practical because the only ones who have the option of implementing it are the ones who are among those that globalization would hurt.

@Fenris: But one country would surely have to have one currency, which means the Eurozone is the EU.

To the UK the EU is effectively an alliance and a free trade agreement. Laws passed in by the EU can be veto'd by your PM and you don't have to worry about the money.

So the UK doesn't count as EU unless the EU is exactly like NAFTA, which doesn't say much for unity, as it is something I support.

@Obi: Europe and America do not belong together. The culture is more different then you think.

@Facses Long Post:

An interesting rebuttal...

But I think it's based upon the idea of a World Communism more than a World Democracy.

Even in a democracy, those centers of greater CAPITAL are still RICHER...

So, yes, the US would, in theory, still, I think, hold significant sway as a "state" in the same way that larger, more populous states with greater industry (NY, CA before the bust, MASS, TEX and FLA, although they might be slumping a bit now, too, but then these days, who doesn't?) often hold more saw than a Vermont or a Mississippi or a Wyoming and the like.

(Apologies to anyone in those states...nothing against you guys!) :)

Then there's the matter of the US' still-formidable political weight and military presence; since a world police--at least an exclusive one--is NOT one I think will happen for centuries, if EVER, the nation-states would all still have militaries, and a large US military speaks volumes at the table of democracy, the same way that a large corporation tends to have senatorial ears.

(It's both corruption and lobbying, it's just how democracy works.)

So despite your points, I don't think the US would be dstroyed/largely overshadowed as a "state" in this World Nation.

Would it maybe lose some prominance?

Yes...but, really, that's already happening anyway, and we'll get over it--Egypt and Rome and France and Britain and Germany the USSR and all the rest had to, anyway...



@Fasces small post:

How is the American culture so vastly different from Europe's?

Granted, there ARE definite differences, but I get the feeling that most Americans could conceivably walk through London or Paris or Prague or Berlin and--unless they're repulsed by the fact they're Americans because...Bush has caused the world to hate us, basically, or at least made that worse--for the most part get a feel for what life is like there, and not without totally being lost or losing their heads...

Same for most Europeans who might come here--they might have to get used to the fact our football invovles a brown egg we throw rather than kick most of the time and the propensity for people to say "it's the CHRISTIAN thing to do!" and utter prayers and listen to Evangelical blowhards on TV...

But I think most would adapt and learn to like it here, and vice versa.

(And yes, I know I just used like 6 different cliches for Europeans and Americans, all jokes, I'm NOT saying all of one side are like that and vice versa...but really, how would we have THAT big a culture gap?

Most--or at least still about 50%--of Americans, myself included, would be able to trace their history back to Europe a few centuries back, and so it's not as if it's an America/China culture gap, where everything from the letters in the language to the way we eat food to the knowledge of common histories and myths and figures would be a struggle...

USA, Canada, France, England, Germany, Itlay, I GUARANTEE YOU...

We all at least KNOW what the different languages are, and would be able to identify it and get a translator via a book or, in this techno-globalization age, an iPhone or Google app...

We'd know and share a somewhat similar WESTERN background, at least...

Chances are politically we'd have at least a general knowledge...I think most educated Americans could tell you who the Engpish PM is and most educated Europeans could say who teh American President is, and what wars we're in...unless we start a new one by morning, as I write this...only 36 minutes until the 12am, but hey, we've started wars quicker!

And that joke is one both Americans and Europeans would both be able to understand and laugh at as well...

It's not, again, like the East, where allm but the most infamous names are know, and the rest relatively obscure in the West, or at least in my Southern Californian neighborhood...

Ask an American about landmarks and dates and culture points for Europe, and I'd bet an educated American would do well...not ace it, sure, but well enough...

Same for a European--heck, I sometimes get the feeling they might know more about our past leaders and presidents than some who DO live here!



It's still a basic West-to-West culture, and, especially with England, thus traversing the language barrier, I think most Americans would be able to identify with Europeans culturally in more ways than you think, especially younger generations, with increased access to information and the increased exchange of culture across the Web...)

^I just realized...

All that effort--I sure hope a European now doesn't come along and totally reject that idea!

XD

Also, totally off topic, but this was jsut so funny I had to share it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-PNsQ0S3gY&feature=related

From about 00:20 to 2 minutes...

I have to admit, like him or not--and I like his ideas, his candor not so much, but substance counts more than style, so sayeth Aristotle--it IS funny to hear Richard Dawkins swear, even just reading that...

It's sort of like your granny--I could see Hitchens swearing, or some other great intellectual in the heat of the moment, but never Richard "Clipped, Proper, Logically-Intellectual and Intellectually-Logical" Dawkins!

XD

"Even in a democracy, those centers of greater CAPITAL are still RICHER..."
But have smaller populations. In a democracy, the bigger populations such as India and Aftrica, whos GDP are both barely at $1000/person have over half the world population.

If they were given the oppurtunity to elected a one world government that had intentions to spread the wealth between America and Africa and India, rather then just America, America would go bankrupt (causing 300,000,000 people to suffer) while Africa and India would flourish (and they have like 2,300,000,000 people). As a politician, taking the wealth from Americans and giving into Indians and Africans would secure 2,300,000,000 votes while cost you 300,000,000 votes. So would be considered a good idea.

That is one of the reasons why it wont work.

World Communist Government and World Democratic Government mean the same thing, since most people are extremely left wing.

"Then there's the matter of the US' still-formidable political weight and military presence; since a world police--at least an exclusive one--is NOT one I think will happen for centuries, if EVER, the nation-states would all still have militaries, and a large US military speaks volumes at the table of democracy, the same way that a large corporation tends to have senatorial ears."
So basically the American military would be influencing the political leaders of the one world government to preserve the self interest of Americans.

How is that any different then one of the dictatorships today such as Singapore, Russia etc?

"Yes...but, really, that's already happening anyway, and we'll get over it--Egypt and Rome and France and Britain and Germany the USSR and all the rest had to, anyway..."
When was Germany or Egypt ever world power???

"How is the American culture so vastly different from Europe's?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
The % of people who are Christian in Europe is 40%, while in America it is 70%.
America has never elected a non-christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control
US is the only country to have no gun control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Europe is entirely pro-choice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Obama's is hardly universal. And also sucks really badly.

The list could go on. America's culture is incredibly different from even Canada, and quite frankly I don't think any Canadian wants to be in a union with America (at least no Canadian I know).

"Same for a European--heck, I sometimes get the feeling they might know more about our past leaders and presidents than some who DO live here!"
Also 1 in 5 Americans can locate America on a map, so that's not saying much

"It's still a basic West-to-West culture, and, especially with England, thus traversing the language barrier, I think most Americans would be able to identify with Europeans culturally in more ways than you think, especially younger generations, with increased access to information and the increased exchange of culture across the Web...)"
Language barrier is a rather interesting point.

Its not like Quebec want to succeed from Canada. (this is the only example I can think of where a majority of people in a regions first language is not the dominant religion of the country.

I am a little confused, is that suppose to be Athiest propoganda or Christian?

The tittle made it sound Christian, but the movie suggest otherwise, at least the 3 minutes I have watched

Early European settlers in N. America shocked by the mosquitoes.
The mosquito on the Great Lakes islands in early summer - awful, still.
British Euroskeptics in power fostered by Murdoch publications over the years - what has or will have changed?
Population aspect: small cities are a choice, but what limits freedom of movement?
Prior to 1916 a "passport" was used by diplomats. Only. A person who had the means, could go freely from London to the Continent by boat train, and move about freely in Europe.
While this freedom of movement in the EU, with no customs/douane or border control felt o.k. it facilitated terrorist attacks.
Afghanistan, with artificial borders dating from the age of Imperialism, resembling India's make-up to a degree, would be an ideal location for mining iron ore etc., except for - security.
The police power of a state is the basis of real property laws. "Property is theft" is the historical/idealistic view.
So are nation-states obsolete? You want to be governed by Facebook/Big Oil Microsoft/Google. Or aren't we already?