[Karl Speer]

Hi,

I am new to this forum and really, your discussion are making me happy. I did not know there where people that saw beyond their noses and tough about what is surrounding them.

But this is not the point. I tough a lot about politics and there is the same problem that always comes up. Why don't we, humans, make some kind of ''unification'' around the globe? Isn't the different political games and different ways of doing things that sets us all apart?

Do you think it could be possible to create one global State? Does this concept already has a name? A global good dictator that works for the good of the people?

I don't understand why humans couldn't live in a more peaceful way if the considered themselves as ''humans'' instead of ''american, canadian, etc.''

Can't we be just proud of being human? Global nationalism? I don't know...

KS

[starman2003]

Hi,

I am new to this forum

Welcome.

Do you think it could be possible to create one global State?

A daunting challenge but possible IMO.

A global good dictator that works for the good of the people?

Ultimately in the good of the people but the raisen d'etre of a global State would be to ensure stability, in the manner of the Pax Romana, (in part to better focus global energies on real achievement in space) and address environmental etc problems of global extent. The raisen d'etre of an authoritarian system would be to accomplish things democracy can't by suppressing many people.

I don't understand why humans couldn't live in a more peaceful way if the considered themselves as ''humans'' instead of ''american, canadian, etc.''

Can't we be just proud of being human? Global nationalism? I don't know...

KS

I agree that national distinctions based on race or ethnicity are archaic even silly. Still, others here still think in nationalistic terms.

[Karl Speer]

Thank you

I strongly believe that the ultimate goal in a human life is to help providing a better life for future generations. So a global State focused toward accumulating knowledge is to me the perfect society... Where working is acquiring knowledge and knowledge is rewarded by how much it is providing for a better future or how much it is improving on our present life.

The example of the Pax Romana was great, and I thank you for it. But is there a way to build a One State world without war?

Imagine if the concepts or guidelines of a global state were SO good that people would just follow and go with the flow and be part of it. If something was really great, wouldn't people just follow it? Not something like elections, putsch, etc... Just people turning more and more to the Global State and rejecting the powers in place, all in peace.

Just like saying: Hey, this is better for me, let's be part of this!

Ahhhh utopia...

KS

[starman2003]

The example of the Pax Romana was great, and I thank you for it. But is there a way to build a One State world without war?

I think inevitably some force will be necessary. Face it not everybody is an enlightened visionary utopian. But resistance could be minimized after a few more decades of mass communication, globalization of economics, mass immigration and end to ethnically homogeneous states, the basis of much nationalism etc.

[Karl Speer]

It's just that I can't understand why people want to obviously create inequalities by pretending to be superior to the ''others'' surrounding us. People are attached to their immediate origins instead of the real and right one. We are of the same species, period.

Global state, world leader that proposes his ideas to the people, who vote in return.

The people can destitute him at any time, maybe with some kind of real-time voting tracking. Let's say people are not satisfied for 6 months in a row, the leader as to step away and give his place.

I also think there need to be some kind of ''referee'' for the world leader. He would have the power to overturn every concept or ideas the leader proposes if it is not considered ''good'' for the people of the State. People would have to vote again to approve the decision of the leader's ''referee''.

***Let's say the technology to do real-time vote tracking and population approval exists. Streamlined format questions sent to the people who approve or not***

What we call ''the government'' wouldn't have any power. They would just have the power to ''propose'' and not ''do''. Power corrupts people, if you give them no power maybe they will stay ''good'' and act in favor of the people. You just give them the right to propose ideas.

------------

And as I am writing this, it's like if I strongly disagree with myself... The only thing the world needs is a total dictator that is ''good'', someone who is fundamentally ''good''. Unlimited power dictator within a global State. I would love to see that happen. That is when we will really see if the human species is fundamentally good or bad... haha

-----------

Sorry if what I say doesn't really makes sense, I just love to write what's crossing my mind It feels good.

KS

[starman2003]

The only thing the world needs is a total dictator that is ''good'', someone who is fundamentally ''good''. Unlimited power dictator within a global State. I would love to see that happen.

And it's hardly consistent with voting rights for the hoi polloi.

[Karl Speer]

And it's hardly consistent with voting rights for the hoi polloi.

Yep! I can't really decide if I want to give voting power to the population. Mass movements have the potential to be marvellous or absolutely stupid.. well, like a human!

I just can't decide if people are ''good'' enough and deserve voting power. It's just that it seems to me that there are just enough stupid people to offset the real progress of our world..

Can we trust people? Do we want to trust them? Do they deserve trust?

That is the source of conflict of my recent post

[Travesty]

Given the socio/economic/political inequality in the world a World government can only be a Communist dictatorship. In a democracy the global South will vastly out vote the global North and redistribute the resources so Communist dictatorship. Don't see how a Fascist world government would work.

[starman2003]

I just can't decide if people are ''good'' enough and deserve voting power. It's just that it seems to me that there are just enough stupid people to offset the real progress of our world..

"Just enough"? Plenty I'm afraid. Evidence of this is all around us. If people were generally smart, or responsible, there wouldn't be overpopulation or overconsumption, causing environmental strain, nor such huge deficits. In a system where the masses get their way, far more is spent on tobacco than space. An openly "fascist" World government wouldn't be a great idea since fascism, besides being 20th centuryish, has been associated with racism. (Likewise communism is passe.) But an authoritarian World government would work just like many past empires.

[Amanita]

You only need to look at world history to conclude that a world state would merely lead to more stagnation.

The Pax Romana led to Decadentism, slave religions and to the dismemberment of the Imperium.

China's early modern isolationism transformed it from a superpower to the schoolyard victim.

The Pax Americana gave the world McDonalds, iPads and unpayable debts, not the most useful things for the advancement of the human species.

Compare humans going to the moon during the Cold War with the current pathetic state of space exploration.

[Social_Critic]

Mr Speer that unification idea of yours is terrible. We can't ever allow a single world government to emerge. Ths would mean the end of freedom. I'm so serious about this I consider world government advocates more dangerous than communists. We might as well send radar signals out inviting an invasion by super intelligent cannibals from Procyon B 6 a