Would you prefer a one world government, or total absence of authority?
I never said anything about the loss of order, or laws, but merely the figures who represent them.
Authority should only lie in the hands of those who have earned the mutual respect and allegiance of those whom they have direct authority over.
That said, I believe one world government would destroy culture. The diversity of our species is one that should be preserved and respected by all others, for diversity creates sub-culture breeding grounds of curiosity which in turn powers innovation in the human struggle towards the acceptance of the unfamiliar. One world government would destroy our multiculturalism because no single authority can have the respect and allegiance of everyone.
To answer your question--neither.
There are too many cultures to ever establish one unified governing authority.
To have an absence of government would lead to anarchy.
You have to find something in the middle. Maybe one day, Canada and Mexico will be states and we will have the United States of North America. South America could do the same, as could Europe, the far East and Middle East.
Now we just have to get past those barriers of not wanting illegal immigrants, having conflicting religious views in the middle east and having communism and capitalism co-exist as one government in the far east.
I don't think that the second option is even possible. Even when you have only two people together, one usually leads and the other follows. So, no matter the size of the group, someone will move to the front of the line and impose some type of order, even if it's brutal. A one world government would be the worst of possible worlds.
There is an appeal with a one world government. Policies governing human interaction can be coordinated and the efficient use of dwindling natural resources for the betterment of living standards among all planet inhabitants without regard to nationality. The flip side of the coin is the specter of an "Orwellian" totalitarian world. I would still prefer to live in a not so perfect world with it's diverse and chaotic political spectrum that still protect individual rights than one that demands total conformity in exchange for my daily bread.
"He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
That being said, we will eventually have a one world government with disastrous results...
And, if the other scenerio was implemented tomorrow we would shortly fall into some form of leadership and follower...it is our nature.
Reduction of sovereign diversity toward a single ruler is analogous to the progressive extermination of species in nature, and it leads to a similar result: insufficient resilience to withstand the unexpected. Whenever a social storm breaks on the world, some societies fall while others stand, and we are so bad at predicting the future we have no idea what the character of that storm may be or which cultures will survive to rebuild. The future of mankind lies in his endless capacity for difference and innovation.
All governments in their instinct to survive, strengthen and grow act to suppress dissent. It's inherent in them. A global government would not behave differently. To the extent it succeeded in playing out that compulsion, the viability of the human race would commensurately decline. There would be progressively fewer distinct cultures, and therefore progressively fewer options for the future when unanticipated disaster struck, as it always has and we may safely assume always will.
Between the two extremes posed in the question lie an infinite number of points along the scale. It is a black & white fallacy to argue we must choose between one world government or anarchy. We have neither now. We need not have either later.
In order to answer based on the stipulations of your question, I would prefer a one world government. That being said, I don't believe these are the only two options.
A one-world government would be tyrannical. Total absence of authority would result in chaos except when peoples do not interact with one another; that is, each to his/her own. U.S. President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Great Britain and Premier Joseph Stalin of Russia, leaders of the Allied Powers, constituted the form of almost one government of the world when they decided the fate of the world after WWII by summitry in 1945. read more
It really depends on the laws you are talking about. Laws created by some religions can have, for example, women being stoned to death in the street. Not the direction I would personally like to see government go in.
When government owns the law, as it does today in the western world, then the law is no regulator of government.
I am with the French when it comes to the separation of religion and state or government. The law may be no regulator of government but religion has done a terrible job of it in the past. Look to the fourth estate for a regulator.
Neither would be the obvious choice but if given only two choices and not the third option then a one world government. It can be changed from within for the better or one might hope that this is so.
Would you rather be shot or drowned? Would you rather be locked in a freezer or thrown in a fire? Both options are nightmarish. There can be no order without authority, and there can be no freedom without checks and balances against that authority.
Without figures to represent them, they would not exist. "Anarchy is not chaos, but order without control." A beautiful concept, that human nature can not and will not allow.
That being said, one central government...peoperly run (stay out our personal lives, resppect cultures and ways of life) is honestly the only way we have a good chance of existing for another century. We *need* to expand into the universe, and division holds us back.
I agree that concepts are one thing, the effective practice of them is another. Jeanihess is correct in saying that competition for leadership is part of human nature. Unfortunately, most want to defer problem solving to "those in charge."
This comment was hidden because of negative feedback. That strikes me as odd. I found it insightful.
I'm not really that surprised. While there are some brilliant people here, there is an abnormally large amount of dimwits in this community who are naive to science, logical reasoning, etc. It has improved over the years, but it's still pretty bad.
I'm having a hard time imagining "a total absence of authority w/o the loss of order and (enforcement of) laws." The two don't jive.
neither. due to human nature, we have to have a body of authority or we will end up being out of control.
You cannot have order or laws without some form of authority, it could not exist. A one world government, would be extremely difficult to over-see and enforce, even with major laws in place. This would take a great deal of time to develop and maintain around the world, with many cultures, religions, and such extreme variations in the ways of life in so many countries.This kind of governing has been a topic of much discussion lately and the tendency to move toward it may be seen by some, more than others, yet, it is such a flawed form of governing, lacking way too many safe guards and methods of enforcement. This type of government would lead us all into more of a communistic state or one that is ruled much like those under the thrones of Europe in early centuries of civilization. It would be a giant leap backwards in development of our civilization. May God prevent such a happenstance from ever coming about in our world.
One world government sound like a great idea, at least in theory. But I'm afraid this is an idea before its time. Many countries and cultures are just not ready for it. Especially since this will mean free movement of people which will make people in the developed world very jittery. As per total absence of authority, maybe thats how it should be... Are we ready for it? That's another question.
Both. It would take a complete shift in human thinking, but a cooperative that did not rely on others lording over us is my preferred ideal.
With four wars in progress, how do you propose to achieve this complete shift in human thinking? England is not going to give up its monarchy. The U.S. is not going to accept it. Now think how the warring countries will react--violently I think.
Ha! I just now saw this comment, Larry Wall.
I didn't say I have a proposition, just that humanity must shift it's thinking. Though, I should have said "It would take a complete shift in our values".
Larry, the question wasn't asking for a solution. It asked for an opinion.
It is Kwade's opinion (and I agree) that it would take a complete shift.
Nobody said anything about knowing how to do so.
by alexandriaruthk4 years ago
There should be no borders separating nations, agree or disagree?The fact that we have different nations, different interests, culture etc. Do you think that it is more better if we have no borders?
by sannyasinman4 years ago
Euro MP - “is the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group to bring about undemocratic World Government?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 0Dr96s34r0Why a meeting attended by the most...
by Ima Freeman6 years ago
There's no question that conspiracies exist to create a One World Government. The question is,..."why do most people want to be blind to the fact.?" Do people like being led like sheep? I think so.
by LewSethics6 years ago
Would a world government put an end to national friction? A world government could help stabilize resources, so that religious concerns would no longer control the economies of non believers.
by thirdmillenium23 months ago
And, will it be the US at the helm?
by aka-dj8 years ago
Here is a 4 min video. You (we) are about to give up our freedom(s).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40What do you think?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.