TheFlyingGreenMonkey
I agree with Puff. The world is too diverse to be able to be united. A main source of the problems would be nationalism and religon. To see the religous problems look to the Middle East. For nationalism problems look at America. America will never be willing to let go of its super power status for the forseeable furture atleast.

I can see the world slowly being unionfied but it will take a lot of time. I think America is slowly becoming more humbled and lirbal every genaration.

Read Ernest Gellner.

Nationalism is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

The exact opposite case has been made in Political Science for 60+ years where to unite the world you have to rid it of war and to rid the world of war you have to get rid of nationalism and nations. One would have to get humans to believe they are cultural groups in the greater whole of their species and not nations.

bravo1102
I agree with puff. A perfect example was Imperial Russia. (The USSR just adopted what had been already been done by the Tsars) Each ethnic group was bullied into becoming part of Russia and then forced to adapt the Russian language.

Most SF writers have only imagined a United Earth after a horrific series of wars and then there is that alien invasion...

Consider cultural pluralism in the United States. Imperial societies cannot effectively force people into homogenization, but financial incentive (i.e. industrialization) can and has. Globalization is creating a unified world culture and gradually spreading English as the unified world language--when the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese meet to negotiate economic or political matters, their meetings are held in English (not to mention they were suits and are driven in limos and drink coffee etc.etc.etc.).

World administration is possible, world government is a long ways off. Nationalisms can be transcended but it takes time. Eventually, I feel, the EU will federalize, but it will take time (though open borders, common currency, and common military, means all it's really lacking is that actual ruling administrative body).

bravo1102
The exact opposite case has been made in Political Science for 60+ years where to unite the world you have to rid it of war and to rid the world of war you have to get rid of nationalism and nations. One would have to get humans to believe they are cultural groups in the greater whole of their species and not nations.

False; we have not had a war between two first world powers in sixty years, and it is EXTREMELY unlikely we will have one in the future. We are in the post-industrial age when the strength of nations is no longer determined by land or colonial holdings, but by the productivity of its citizens. US military hegemony further guarantees that the era of destabilizing arms races is, at least for the foreseeable future, over, and the global market is where nations find their power.

Sorry for the triple post but this is addressing all the posters in this thread:

The television and internet age have redefined the notion of identity. An individual is no longer defined by the location where they are from because they are free to construct their own, intellectual, locations via tools of global communication--such as this one right here. In fact, I don't know who here is American, Canadian, British, or Australian--I imagine you're all native English speakers but that may very well be untrue. The internet is largely English based, all commercial planes communicate to their ground control in English, and as I mentioned before, the financial world operates in English. We are seeing a the transcendence of classical identity--nationalism, religion, etc.--and the simultaneous emergence of a greater global collective identity and a refined individual one.

The United States, a nation whose population is one of largest and most heterogeneous of any nation, functions, socially and politically—-as Ernest Gellner would argue—-because of the cooperative demands of capitalism. A constantly evolving market, of both technological concepts and philosophical ideas, demands a fluid workforce capable of exchanging information rapidly, a common functional culture, a call to a sort of Magyarization more effective than any violent purge. Cultural solidarity ceases to be relevant to financial and social stability and is therefore largely phased out in policy discussion—-given time, the same can be true for nationality. These basic principals that govern the functioning of individual industrial and post-industrial nations can, as the EU has demonstrated, be applied to international communities.

Polkster
The television and internet age have redefined the notion of identity. An individual is no longer defined by the location where they are from because they are free to construct their own, intellectual, locations via tools of global communication--such as this one right here.

.......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

the concept of online identity is an illusion generated by the lack of actual interaction in place of proxy and people's natural preference to lie like a rug when they can make themselves sound better than they really are.

also, quoting Ernest Gellner IS quoting a raving street lunatic. he treats culture and economy like a controllable, malliable thing rather than the dynamic maelstrom it is. lets not waste time on the "Value" of his garbage.

Polkster; ever hear of balance of power and proxy wars? The two super powers fought repeatedly from 1947 to 1997, there was no peace. Korea and Vietnam? All the soldiers on the other side didn't speak Russian but nearly everyone training them did (Russian or Chinese for Vietnam.)

And as for the Lingua Franca being english now, ever wonder why it's called Lingua Franca? Try some Jared Diamond. They speak English because that is the current agreed upon language of business, not because of any recent flowering of a universal human mindset.

Once another nation comes to the fore China? You'll find everyone speaking Mandarin and Cantonese. Just like French was displaced by English. And it won't unite the world.

Nationalism never has. It seperates people and gives them reason to kill each other, not bring them together. Yugoslavia, Imperial Russia, come together at the point of a sword or a gun. The USA being such a wonderful example of varied peoples coming together ignores most of US history.

bravo1102
Polkster; ever hear of balance of power and proxy wars? The two super powers fought repeatedly from 1947 to 1997, there was no peace. Korea and Vietnam? All the soldiers on the other side didn't speak Russian but nearly everyone training them did (Russian or Chinese for Vietnam.)

And as for the Lingua Franca being english now, ever wonder why it's called Lingua Franca? Try some Jared Diamond. They speak English because that is the current agreed upon language of business, not because of any recent flowering of a universal human mindset.

Once another nation comes to the fore China? You'll find everyone speaking Mandarin and Cantonese. Just like French was displaced by English. And it won't unite the world.

Nationalism never has. It separates people and gives them reason to kill each other, not bring them together. Yugoslavia, Imperial Russia, come together at the point of a sword or a gun. The USA being such a wonderful example of varied peoples coming together ignores most of US history.

Stop citing Russia or any other imperial or Communist nation, they clearly have no relevance to my point.

English became the lingua franca not through American military conquest, but through economic and technological domination and has therefore established a long lasting foundation for itself. The Chinese and Koreans use it communicate because they could not agree on any other language--it's universal AND neutral.

The United States may have had its problems in the past, but as a post-industrial society you can't tell me that being ethnically Italian or Greek or British or French or Russian has any bearing on your social status. The country still has its hangups, especially with race, but those have gradually been dissolving.

Yes I've heard of proxy wars, what the hell does that have to do with this point? The US wasn't installing AMERICAN (English speaking, hamburger eating) governments into the various nations involved, so it represents a completely different policy mindset. I don't see the relevance.

Orin J Master

Polkster
The television and internet age have redefined the notion of identity. An individual is no longer defined by the location where they are from because they are free to construct their own, intellectual, locations via tools of global communication--such as this one right here.

.......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

the concept of online identity is an illusion generated by the lack of actual interaction in place of proxy and people's natural preference to lie like a rug when they can make themselves sound better than they really are.

also, quoting Ernest Gellner IS quoting a raving street lunatic. he treats culture and economy like a controllable, malliable thing rather than the dynamic maelstrom it is. lets not waste time on the "Value" of his garbage.

1. Ernest Gellner is one of the most respected writers and historians when it comes to the discussion of nationalism.

2. Nowhere in this reply did you actually contradict any of his points; he does not treat culture as malleable, he treats it as dynamic and evolving, responding to the needs of a nation's people and their ability to compete economically. It's a very Darwinistic approach.

Polkster
1. Ernest Gellner is one of the most respected writers and historians when it comes to the discussion of nationalism.

2. Nowhere in this reply did you actually contradict any of his points; he does not treat culture as malleable, he treats it as dynamic and evolving, responding to the needs of a nation's people and their ability to compete economically. It's a very Darwinistic approach.

1: being respected on the discussion of nationalism is like being respected for your fresh breath in a crack den. all nationalism has ever been is propaganda.

2: you said it yourself. "responding to the needs of a nation's people". WRONG. culture and economy do not act "in accordance to the needs of a nations people" by any expectation, they react to entirely different stimuli. (also, darwinistic is pretty much the wrong word at the wrong time) culture changes in accordance to history and mob mentality, even when it's horribly destructive (look at the inquisition, or black slavery in early america) and economy reacts only to where the money goes.

find me a working example of nationalism that didn't involve going out and starting a war. ONE. i'll give you a hint, it doesn't exist. i happily respect your right to have an opinion, but i see nothing that says i have to show respect to it's content.

What are you talking about? Why can't a scholar be respected in his studies of the functionalist development of nationalism? Again, you haven't said anything to contradict his claims, all you've done is tried to discredit him via ad hominem.

It's difficult to provide you with an example of nationalism not shaped through war because every nation in the world has been influenced by warfare. But I think your problem is you're confusing nationalism with jingoism;

Nationalism is national identity, being able to identify one's self with a country--"I am American". I may have my own ethnic heritage, I wasn't even born in the United States, but I consider myself first and foremost to be American because I prescribe to the functional American culture:
- I speak English
- I obey the laws that define my citizenship
- I utilize the cultural and physical infrastructure of this nation--means of travel and communication, but also education, and I will utilize this system to find a job.

I am a functional member of American society and therefore I am intellectually intertwined with this idea of nationalism.

This cultural identity was not forged through warfare as I have never served in a war and the majority of people I know--be they American born, Asian, European, or Latin American--who identify themselves as American also have not.

Jingoism is different; yes, jingoism starts wars, jingoism is the "ra ra lets invade a nation!" attitude that is so looked down upon; I am not a jingoist, Gellner is not a jingoist either and that's not the phenomenon which he studies.

Honestly, you don't have to value my opinion, and I don't seek your validation because I don't need it. Someone who attacks rational, developed, academic views with "they're just idiots!" is an individual incapable of real intellectual discourse, and, ironically enough, I think that reflects the same sort of closed-mindedness that you seem to despise so much in your erroneous definition of "nationalism".

Edit: Common culture and economy respond to the functional needs of people, not necessarily spiritual or emotional ones--unless those are needed to function. Capitalism is, in essence, a collective human response to stimuli.

this is like pulling teeth from a duck, you know that?

nationalism is always going to be affected by conflict. it's DRIVEN BY CONFLICT. that's how it works. you can't tell people to be proud of their group without inherently insinuating that other groups are somehow worse then theirs.

no really, look up the word pride.

nationalism "Works" but exhorting the people to work harder for less to achieve their superiority, whether percieved of forced, over others. look at iran and israel. hells, look an the great empire of rome! it was the greatest power of it's age and nationalism killed it when they couldn't expand further! turmoil and bitterness and doubt picked away at it from within until is was a maggot-eaten shell for border savages to plunder!

also, jingoism IS nationalism, or at least it's final phase. trying to cite a difference is like differing the ignition and detonation of an bomb. they may, for technical purposes be different, but that's all a moment's flash before a horrific toll in lives either way.

and as an aside, if "culture and economy responded to the functional needs of people" the economy and culture wouldn't be nearly in the state it's in, and the middle east wouldn't have been a battleground for the past hundred years.

and do not insult scholars by tossing them in with ernest gellner's lot. he works backwards from his beliefs and neatly refuses anything that resembles negative reactions in his concepts. he knows nothing because he believes in what he wants in spite of reality and confuses his sophistry with practical work. "functionalist development of nationalism?" there's no such thing. nationalism is neither functional nor developed. it is constructed by an outside hand, every time.

Orin J Master
this is like pulling teeth from a duck, you know that?

nationalism is always going to be affected by conflict. it's DRIVEN BY CONFLICT. that's how it works. you can't tell people to be proud of their group without inherently insinuating that other groups are somehow worse then theirs.

no really, look up the word pride.

nationalism "Works" but exhorting the people to work harder for less to achieve their superiority, whether percieved of forced, over others. look at iran and israel. hells, look an the great empire of rome! it was the greatest power of it's age and nationalism killed it when they couldn't expand further! turmoil and bitterness and doubt picked away at it from within until is was a maggot-eaten shell for border savages to plunder!

also, jingoism IS nationalism, or at least it's final phase. trying to cite a difference is like differing the ignition and detonation of an bomb. they may, for technical purposes be different, but that's all a moment's flash before a horrific toll in lives either way.

and as an aside, if "culture and economy responded to the functional needs of people" the economy and culture wouldn't be nearly in the state it's in, and the middle east wouldn't have been a battleground for the past hundred years.

and do not insult scholars by tossing them in with ernest gellner's lot. he works backwards from his beliefs and neatly refuses anything that resembles negative reactions in his concepts. he knows nothing because he believes in what he wants in spite of reality and confuses his sophistry with practical work. "functionalist development of nationalism?" there's no such thing. nationalism is neither functional nor developed. it is constructed by an outside hand, every time.

You're still just attacking the man, not the concept.

Jingoism is a perversion of nationalism, not nationalism's final form. Functional nationalism does not revolve around superiority/inferiority. That may come into play--like that French head of state insulting the Czechs--but again, it's not a necessity. Many people who identify themselves as American are not jingoists and do not tout their Americanism as a sort of superiority; therefore it is not the case that nationalism is as such.

You can't really discuss nationalism in the pre-industrial context; but Rome did not fall because it stopped fighting. In fact, after Caesar Augustus initiated the Pax Romana, expansion of the empire was minimal. There are a LOT of reasons why Rome fell, and, to quote a professor of mine, "The mystery of Rome isn't why it fell when it did but how it was able to remain in power for so long." The system was inherently unstable as the Romans ruled largely by intimidation. It was the Soviet scenario; you can impose your culture but you can't make the locals forget their own.

What about Iran and Israel? Their conflict isn't "dur hur hur Israel is best!" "No, Iran best!" That's a completely ignorant view of global diplomacy; both states are just paranoid of their own survival and are unable to negotiate due to standing allegiances (though this can be changed and many people are hoping WILL be changed as the United States begins approaching Iran as an ally in stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq (which they've demonstrated they can do)). Iran's problems, particularly its conflict with its enemies over the last thirty years are, in some cases, such as with Saddam, based on nationalism (though Saddam's), but by and large, such as with Al Qaeda, based on the Sunni/Shia divide. Iran has not invaded any of its neighbors for a few hundred years, yet they are extremely nationalistic, how do you reconcile that?

What do you mean culture "wouldn't be in the state it's in"? I don't understand what's wrong with culture. Our economy is fucked because the system is imperfect; the foundation of Capitalism, the supply/demand mechanic is, essentially, a collective measure of human response to stimulus; problems arise because, first of all, not all humans respond alike, and second of all, humans may not know what's best for themselves, particularly on the individual level (and often panic or corrupt), and the system itself is imperfect. That's why the capitalism of today is vastly different from the capitalism of 1867, when Das Kapital was published.

What I meant in saying that culture serves the people was that capitalist societies progress in such a way where wealth generally becomes more fluid. People want wealth, people want to be competitive, people want some sort of a rule book so they can start playing that game. That's what culture is; it functions as the medium by which we can enter and play the game.

so your argument is that nationalism MUST work, and to handwave away anything negative us unrelated? i guess nationalism's the new creationism.

also, iran has been at constant war you dip. they've funded and trained militant groups for decades to destabilize the area to have enough plausible deniablity to ensure they're still negotiated with rather than attacked. they've argued since the end of the holocaust that the holocaust never happened for the sake of ousting the isrealies and preach not just out of their beliefs but out of their nationalism that the non-muslium world should burn.

mind, it's all moot, since the nationalist government is actually mostly a puppet of saudi arabia. what iranians i've met aren't nationalistic outside of the reflex their government instills in them out of fear. and if nationalism requires oppression......

you've made very, VERY weak claims the revolve around working from your conclusion to the information at hand and the belief you cannot be wrong. you show every hallmark of a evagelist preacher and nothing to show that you're actually considering the issue.

Orin J Master
so your argument is that nationalism MUST work, and to handwave away anything negative us unrelated? i guess nationalism's the new creationism.

also, iran has been at constant war you dip. they've funded and trained militant groups for decades to destabilize the area to have enough plausible deniablity to ensure they're still negotiated with rather than attacked. they've argued since the end of the holocaust that the holocaust never happened for the sake of ousting the isrealies and preach not just out of their beliefs but out of their nationalism that the non-muslium world should burn.

mind, it's all moot, since the nationalist government is actually mostly a puppet of saudi arabia. what iranians i've met aren't nationalistic outside of the reflex their government instills in them out of fear. and if nationalism requires oppression......

you've made very, VERY weak claims the revolve around working from your conclusion to the information at hand and the belief you cannot be wrong. you show every hallmark of a evagelist preacher and nothing to show that you're actually considering the issue.

1. uh... my argument is NOT nationalism must work and blah blah blah, I'm saying it can work to unite the world and has worked in the past to unite heterogeneous cultures. Globalization, I've even argued in this thread, is the infant form of this new nationalism. Don't even try to pull any strawman shit on me.

2. Yes, they do financially support some militant organizations, but that's like saying the proxy wars the US participated in during the Cold War somehow fed the nation's jingoist spirit; fact is, the Iranian military as is has not acted aggressively towards any of its neighbors for centuries. And as for that Israeli stuff, yeah yeah, that's the sort of stuff every Muslim leader in the region's been spouting, but fact is Iran has been in more conflict with EXTREMIST MUSLIM SECTS than it has been with Israel. Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel; I don't know how they're treated by and large, but they are guaranteed one seat in the Majilis and if it were a Rwanda-esque situation going on, the Israelis would've said something long ago.

3. The Iranian government is NOT a puppet government of Saudi Arabia. The Iranians and the Sauds are NOT aligned, especially after Iran's 1978 revolution. Again, don't buy into this Fox News they're-all-Muslims-what's-the-big-fucking-difference mentality, there are TREMENDOUS differences, cultural, political, and religious, between the Iranians and the Arab world. A little research would serve you well.

4. I've made very weak claims? You've demonstrated complete ignorance of foreign relations, history, and historiography. You haven't actually contradicted any of my assertions, you've just cited incorrect examples or have called me, or the scholars I cite, idiots.

What's sad is that I'm even trying to reason with you as if you're some sort of rational scholar of history and not... what are you? A comp sci major or something?

Polkster
1. uh... my argument is NOT nationalism must work and blah blah blah, I'm saying it can work to unite the world and has worked in the past to unite heterogeneous cultures. Globalization, I've even argued in this thread, is the infant form of this new nationalism.

whereas my argument was, before i got derailed with your....whatever that is, is that globalization can never happen because it would have to follow the same model as nationalism, and nationalism is inherently flawed. and you have yet to provide an EXAMPLE of it uniting heterogeneous cultures.

Don't even try to pull any strawman shit on me.

i think you're either confused, or unused to being on the defensive. but jsut for the sake of having the chance to use this quote, "How about a little fire, scarecrow!"

2. Yes, they {iran} do financially support some militant organizations, but that's like saying the proxy wars the US participated in during the Cold War somehow fed the nation's jingoist spirit;

the proxy wars were used in part to provide (largely false) examples of the "evils" they were claim the USSR practiced to justify further militaryt spending and oppressive practices in the US where possible. as such, i furthered the possibility of actual war. and stop using the word "jingoist" i hate sophistry, and that garbage is a perfect example of it.

fact is, the Iranian military as is has not acted aggressively towards any of its neighbors for centuries.

they train and arm militant terrorist with IRANIAN WEAPONS. they want, very much, for the terrorist targets to blame them, so they can in turn claim they're being unjustly attacked. indirect aggression is in many cases worse diplomaticly than direct attacks.

And as for that Israeli stuff, yeah yeah, that's the sort of stuff every Muslim leader in the region's been spouting, but fact is Iran has been in more conflict with EXTREMIST MUSLIM SECTS than it has been with Israel. Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel; I don't know how they're treated by and large,

poorly, according to what little info i've heard. (not that anyone fares well in there, really.) really, you can find sites dedicated to this kind of thing. i'd share a few of mine but we clearly have radically differing viewpoints so you would likely take them are having bias as opposed to simply trying to dredge out the few actual facts therein.

3. The Iranian government is NOT a puppet government of Saudi Arabia. The Iranians and the Sauds are NOT aligned, especially after Iran's 1978 revolution. Again, don't buy into this Fox News they're-all-Muslims-what's-the-big-fucking-difference mentality, there are TREMENDOUS differences, cultural, political, and religious, between the Iranians and the Arab world. A little research would serve you well.

iran, regardless of their people's primary faith is largely instigative in its stances both local and global. saudi arabia is more or less a tiny little boil of most everything they claim to hate. saudi arabia own them through the same yoke they do everything with. money. they try to pull something they won't have the resources to keep from collapsing, and when a governement requires someone else to prop it up to do it's basic tasks it's effectively slaved.
Also: really, fox news? isn't that like an obscure version of godwin's law by now?

4. I've made very weak claims? You've demonstrated complete ignorance of foreign relations, history, and historiography. You haven't actually contradicted any of my assertions, you've just cited incorrect examples or have called me, or the scholars I cite, idiots.

your assertions, and by proxy the assertions of the ONE "scholar" you've cited are based on a flawed plan. globalism cannot succeed for the same reason nationalism cannot succeed, because they cannot survive outside conflict! there will always be some group that believes their version of the new order, be it based on religion, politics, economics, or fucking self-importance will insist on "fixing" it! it will die, every time it will die and the death throes will be their suffering of the people that were supposed to benefit!

What's sad is that I'm even trying to reason with you as if you're some sort of rational scholar of history and not... what are you? A comp sci major or something?

if you're a scholar of anything, i fear for the education of anyone under you. i'd assumed you were just some schmuck, not someone with claims to any kind of importance. i'm quite done with this. it's rather clear you have no interest in proving your ideas work instead of regurgitating them same flawed points over again and being insulted that you show proof, and i sincerely doubt i'll bother posting again.

so hey, good for you, you win. you talked at me until i stopped caring enough to publicly disagree. please continue.

You're an idiot.

Edit:
No, I mean seriously, you're a moron. You've ignored everything I've said, you've ignored the points I've made, you just argue with undeserved bravado and an over-sized chip on your shoulder. You are what's wrong with internet discussion. You're a complete fucking idiot who, and I'm sure I've presumed correctly, has no academic background in any of this, else you would've known better. You would've known how Iran functions, culturally and monetarily, you would've known globalization is already taking hold as the new nationalism (though it is still in its infancy), and, if you still disagreed, you would've argued competently. You are, and I don't say this often (but I suppose I've had enough to drink at this point) a total piece of shit. You are what's wrong with America today.

Just my thoughts on the subject of a one-world government: I don't see the point. It may have made sense after WWII, given all the jitters people must have felt after the smoke cleared, but in today's world, armies seem to have more of a tendency to turn their guns on their own people than on other nations. Creating one big supergovernment to lord over everything would make it impossible for anyone to interfere if the global government went genocidal all of a sudden.

And also, just the idea of someone in Brussels or Iceland making laws to govern me in Texas sounds highly disagreeable, just as the idea of people in Kazakhstan or Sudan making laws for people in the UK probably sounds disagreeable to them there. The world is not overwhelmingly Western, not anymore, so I think we'd be making a huge mistake to assume that a one-world government would automatically favor liberal progressive interests. It's just a bad idea. Government should be as localized as is practical, in my opinion. The individual's control over his own life should be magnified, not diffused by ever-increasing layers of bureaucracy.

El Cid, the USA is a very big place with tons of people in it.
By your logic, would America function better if it was broken up into individual states that governed themselves separately?
That way, the government would be small, more local and would have lots of other powers that could get involved if it became tyrannical.
Surely under the one big American government (which is far away in Washington, a long way on the map from Texas, and culturally a lot more liberal) if it went tyrannical there would not be anyone to do anything about it?

Now I am taking the argument to its extremes here, but there is a serious point here.
If some onto in Alaska or California can be effectively governed from all the way over in Washington DC, it seems to suggest that if a government is fair and representative, it can function ragardless of geographical distance.

Sorry to double post, I just thought of something else.

I suspect that Americans are especially suspicious of the idea of a one world government because right now they are top dog.
To join a world government would mean accepting an authority higher then America, which effectively means giving themselves a demotion.
For weaker countries it would give them more of a say, but for the most powerful country, it would limit them, so strategically Americans are going to want to avoid such a unified world developing unless America suddenly becomes much weaker.

Americans also seem to view the UN with a lot more suspicion then other nations, which I suspect stems from the same thing.
It gives more say to weak countries, but attempts to put limits on big countries, so if you are the biggest country, you are not going to like it.

Of course I am making big generalisations for which I apologise.

Another important point I would like to make is there is a big difference between nations coming together willingly or when forced. Comparing the UN or EU to the Soviet Union or other past empires is silly.

Empires that force people to join and remain a member will ultimately have a limited life span and reach, but empires that make people want to join and participate are a totally different entity.
I think this is sort of what Polkster was getting at (before he degenerated into name calling.)

harkovast
El Cid, the USA is a very big place with tons of people in it.
By your logic, would America function better if it was broken up into individual states that governed themselves separately?
That way, the government would be small, more local and would have lots of other powers that could get involved if it became tyrannical.
Surely under the one big American government (which is far away in Washington, a long way on the map from Texas, and culturally a lot more liberal) if it went tyrannical there would not be anyone to do anything about it?

Now I am taking the argument to its extremes here, but there is a serious point here.
If some onto in Alaska or California can be effectively governed from all the way over in Washington DC, it seems to suggest that if a government is fair and representative, it can function ragardless of geographical distance.

I think you answered the question proposed in the first paragraph with your second paragraph. Forgive me for not using the precise term (I don't have any textbooks at hand), but extrapolating an argument to extremes in order to disprove it is a logical fallacy. Obviously some unification in a government is a good thing; I'd argue that a world government is quite a few steps too far. Californians and Alaskans can be governed by a central U.S. government because they are essentially Americans, with American values, and view their interests and those of the nation as a whole as being intertwined. They benefit from the arrangement. That's a big difference from, say, us trying to govern Uzbekistan or likewise them governing us. Wouldn't work. And for that matter, if California eventually turned into a Caliphate state that wanted theocratic rule and rejected American constitutional principles, then they might have to be let go. The states of the Union, at present, work well as a team, but you do have to be choosy who you let on that team. Lumping everybody together and then saying "Yay, now we're all pals" doesn't solve anything.

harkovast
I suspect that Americans are especially suspicious of the idea of a one world government because right now they are top dog.

Well, duhhhhh!

And Europeans love the idea because it rescues them from the brink of irrelevance.

El Cid
Europeans love the idea because it rescues them from the brink of irrelevance.

Now that's a mighty pompous statement. You really need to stop thinking that America is the greatest thing in this God given world.

EU was created in order to improve relations in the continent in order to minimize the changes of future conflicts akin to the world wars. Trust me that it wasn't so it could participate in a dick waving contest. In the last few decades, Asian countries have becoming increasingly more dominant in Global affairs as well. In a world that's focusing ever more on marketing strength rather then military, countries like Japan, China and India are becoming increasingly bigger players in the world. They're influence might soon enough start to outshine the states.

harkovast
By your logic, would America function better if it was broken up into individual states that governed themselves separately?

the irony there is that's how the USA is supposed to be run. "United states of america"? the general idea is that the states largely handle their own affairs, and the federal government only handles making sure they work together well, and international matter (to show a stronger front, obviously).

the federal government has just made a LOT of power grabs over the decades. but for a large part, the states still decide what they do, with the feds sometimes mucking up the works (like the matter of medical marijuana in california, the state doesn't enforce that rule but the DEA keeps coming in to make big, showy, useless drug busts to piss people off.)

Product Placement

El Cid
Europeans love the idea because it rescues them from the brink of irrelevance.

Now that's a mighty pompous statement. You really need to stop thinking that America is the greatest thing in this God given world.

Not America, Texas. Just as Orin was saying about the individual states having some autonomy, each state also has it's own identity. Much like the individual nations of the EU, each state, some much moreso than others, have very strong and individual identities. Being a resident of their immediate eastern neighbor, Louisiana, I can tell you for a fact that people who aren't from Texas are aware of of people who are. (It's not really THAT bad but it's a source of humor anyways).

The whole unified world government argument sounds remarkably similiar to the democrat v. republican issues that define the US. I'm no politician or poly sci major, so don't take my word as a creditable source, but generally speaking the US reminds me of the south and its many red states and Europe reminds me more of the north and it's many blue states; individualism with minimal government (especially federal) control versus the collective with much more government control.

Regardless of whether or not it's a good idea, you'll have flag waving nationalists up in arms because they're afraid to lose what identity they've become attatched to.

Product Placement

El Cid
Europeans love the idea because it rescues them from the brink of irrelevance.

Now that's a mighty pompous statement. You really need to stop thinking that America is the greatest thing in this God given world.

That's not pompous; it's a perfectly valid assessment of things. European influence is on the wane, and it's only natural for the weak to favor banding together to increase their bargaining power. I'd prefer you contest the assessment if you're taking issue with it (which you never did) rather than just calling names.

And also, I don't believe I said anything whatsoever about "America being the greatest thing in this God given world." If you've got some sort of inferiority complex, don't take it out on me. Maybe talk to a psychiatrist or something?

Hakoshen
Not America, Texas. Just as Orin was saying about the individual states having some autonomy, each state also has it's own identity. Much like the individual nations of the EU, each state, some much moreso than others, have very strong and individual identities. Being a resident of their immediate eastern neighbor, Louisiana, I can tell you for a fact that people who aren't from Texas are aware of of people who are. (It's not really THAT bad but it's a source of humor anyways).

Oh, please! You wish you were from Texas so you could be half as cool as me. ;)

El Cid
Name calling

Saying that a certain statement is pompous is not name calling. Although I guess you're right by saying that I'm putting words in your mouth by stating that you think that America is the greatest thing in the world.

El Cid
inferiority complex

Oh and I suppose that you're taking the high road then by making a claim that I need to see a psychiatrist? Here's a hint. When you claim that someone is using an immature methods of argument, don't stoop to that level at the same time.

Product Placement
Oh and I suppose that you're taking the high road then by making a claim that I need to see a psychiatrist? Here's a hint. When you claim that someone is using an immature methods of argument, don't stoop to that level at the same time.

Fair enough. Time for us to move on, eh?

El Cid
Oh, please! You wish you were from Texas so you could be half as cool as me. ;)

Is it that obvious? :(

Wow, I like the heated arguments people have had here. :)

Personally I see the USA on the wane as a great power, and that's been happening slowly for a long time now. China and India, as most people are aware, are on the rise, so in order for the US to retain "relevance" I predict it will eventually strive more towards the idea of world government, making efforts to strengthen the U.N. rather than undermine it.
Whether that will work or not, only time will tell, but I doubt the Chinese at least will want to be told what to do by anyone.

US power has been on the wane since Reagan. You figure the height of US power was the 1950s- early 1960s than it got a bloody nose in Vietnam and didn't recover until the 1980s. Now the USA is groping for it's place. Should the US really have a manifest destiny in mind for the world and remake everything in its image? There are some serious practical logistical problems with that.

Read Sun Tzu's Art of War and Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching.

Fighting war by proxy, fooling your enemy, getting them to adopt your thoughts and beliefs without them realizing it or even having the scholars seeing what is really happening. Scholars only have logic. They do not follow evidence. Using another to win your war without spilling your blood. There are no eternal friends only eternal interests.

One world government? Not enough people see a big enough picture. Once something happens to bring them together then you will see it happen. And we'll all end up speaking Mandarin and Cantonese.

As for exaggerating an argument to a ridiculous extreme... that is not a logical fallacy, the sage knows it is truth because holding so firmly to logic and debating points of view are in the end ridiculous. lol! Hense taking them to a ridiculous extreme points out the fallacy that is logic by itself. ;)

As for the United States of America the big change there happened when it went from the United States are to the United States is Subtle but telling.

And would everyone stop reading Poli sci and read more history? Pick and choose what you want to prove as opposed to seeing the actual results of the actual events? Poli sci also has a tendency to ignore military history. Everything is Tallyrand and Metternich, not Napoleon and Wellington and Scharnhorst. Could Bismarck have done anything without Moltke? Could Kissinger have done it without LeMay, Westmoreland, Abrams and Rickover?