Okay, it’s been a while since I’ve read 1984, but from what I remember, the gist is, “Big brother is bad.”
That being said, I think the general reaction for many when world government is mentioned is to recoil in disgust and horror. But this knee-jerk reaction, to me, seems reminiscent of the Communist fear-mongering of the 1960’s(?), with little rhyme or reason.
Why are people so afraid of a world government? Would it be that bad? Are there any versions of a world government that would work? I’m sure most countries can agree on laws such as murder being wrong. Why couldn’t a world government be modeled after the U.S., in that individual countries would decide most laws, but a world government would enforce a few agreed upon laws?
Aren’t most human needs the same? Maslow’s hierarchy comes to mind, and although it might not be factual, I’m sure most needs can be agreed upon. If most human needs are the same, why wouldn’t a world government work?
I certainly don’t think a world government is necessarily bad, but as far as Orwellian fear mongering in general, I’d say that if you give all the power to a single entity, then you have no recourse should it go bad. So if you have a world government, make sure it’s power is limited.
At this moment in history, I think there a too many cultural distinctions to overcome before you could have any kind of real world government. Our needs may be the same, but we wrap them in different clothes, which causes a lot of conflict.
I agree. My beef with Orwell is that he arguably planted the seeds that said that’s the only way big government would turn out. Maybe it was more of a warning, but I think the impact has been widespread. As usual, I have no facts to back up my beliefs here.
I agree too that there are too many different cultural distinctions to be united under one banner, per se, but that’s why I wonder if there is a breed of world government that would effectively keep a country’s culture intact while at the same time helping it grow and thrive, and giving people a voice on the world stage, and a choice in how they want their life to be.
Indeed, and NATO has further ambitions in that direction
and how about that North American Union that’s supposedly in the works? it certainly wouldn’t surprise me, especially if the U.S. sinks itself
I empathize with Orwell here though, as one can see the dangers of such immense power being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer… a single governing body overseeing the world will not be interested in limiting its own power and authority, rather human nature would have it quite the opposite.
But isn’t that why the 2nd amendment exists? Wasn’t it Jefferson that said something along the lines of…“A well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny?”
I don’t think any world government would dare start a war with their own people if those people were well armed. But then again, that would be another cultural difference between us and other nations that they probably would have beef with.
A month or two ago I found a great speech by Isaac Asimov on this very subject. He said that the government of the world today can be compared to the United States of America under the articles of confederation, and also claimed that certain issues affecting us all, like global warming or space exploration, would necessitate a global government more similar to the current American government (under the Constitution). I thought it was a brilliant comparison, but I’m naive, so who cares what I think. Watch the speech for yourself here:
a people can be tyrannized in many ways without their cognizance, as Orwell illustrated with liberal hyperbole and imagination… but how far removed was Winston from some conceivable future? the masses can still easily be frightened, and thus manipulated
thankfully the internet is what it is, an information superhighway accessible to nearly everyone – this is perhaps humanity’s saving grace from a very Orwellian scenario
nevertheless, I think some clever men in power could devise a militaristic means to effectively nullify the fact that random individuals/groups of civilians are armed with some pistols and deer hunting rifles, granted with an occasional militia wielding military weaponry and equipment
but perhaps a very conceivable real-world scenario is even uglier than Orwell’s? depends on one’s perspective i guess: i do know there are a lot of very poor people in the world–Latin and South America for instance–that one can imagine for the right price and storyline would stomp all over American soil and arrest, detain, and kill Americans on command. their poverty restricts their access to information, and thus could potentially be informed toward a “cause” in much the same way the Nazis were
does such an outcome sound that outrageous?
time will tell… but i do believe we’re bearing witness to a very significant point in human history
I guess that’d do the trick in a democracy, but what about a democratic republic? I’m a dunce with politics, but isn’t the U.S. set up in such a way that larger population doesn’t equal more power? Could we do the same on a global scale?
Well, actually, the electoral college in the U.S. is set up such that each state is granted electoral votes in proportion its population, so applied globally China and India would have overwhelming influence on the outcome of global elections
But the electoral college only chooses the president, no? When laws are made and bills are passed, isn’t it two representatives from each state in the senate? Couldn’t we have two representatives from each country on the global senate?
That is true… but in any case, I have profound mistrust of man and his lust for power, and a single governing body atop all other governing bodies, despite masks and pretenses of limitation, checks and balances and what have you, is not something i would not want to see… they can and would eventually be eliminated.
And rightfully so. Obviously man has had a long history of abusing power. I wonder how we would’ve turned out if our track record showed a better history of using power responsibly. Live and learn.
No, it’s set up so that larger population equals more power, but not so much power that the rights of the individuals or the minority as a whole are unduly infringed upon.
Only sometimes they are, like with income tax, wiretapping, Guantanamo and so on.
Yes, but since those creating global government are tyrants, it won’t happen that way.
You’d be happy with your country have the same global power as Montenegro or Wales? You think China would be happy with the same global power as Qatar or Andorra? You think Russia would be happy with the same global power as Barbados or Lichtenstein?
