Unified Planet

[interestedINitall]

On this week's show David mentioned a unified planet or one world government.

Why does this notion scare people?

I remember when I used to listen to Coast to Coast (I thought it was the only game in town and stopped listening when its monumental stupidity became evident.) the various hosts would constantly talk about how "they" (we never really learned who "they", the grand conspirators, are.) were using 9/11, oil prices and a host of other ills to engineer a One World Government and wouldn't that be awful!

To this day, I don't understand why a One World Government is an intrinsically bad thing.

Pro / Con?

 

[Rick Deckard]

One-world governments are fine in principal except when the people at the top serve only themselves - how would you overthrow an oppressive one-world government that has total control over the world's military forces? Imagine Hitler at the top of a one-world government...

 

[David Biedny]

A unified world is a place where we have evolved beyond the need for direct conflict, where the economic structure of the planet is based on rational, long term planetary planning and the type of society that many call a fantasy, but some of us have imagined in our wildest dreams.

The most powerful forces on the planet are obsessed with empire, greed, religion, and the idea that they can own all of us. Some of us believe that we can live in a world where balance is not only tolerated, but seen as the only workable solution to the problems we face as a species.

Decency seems to be in short supply these days. Integrity is seen as an avatar, ideals are the luxury of youth, we must all grab whatever we can, while the grabbing is good. There's no enough, everyone needs more. I mean, after 100 channels, what more do you need? What do you use? Think of the awesome computing power in front of you. How do you use it? How do you affect the world with it? What would you do with your time and life if you didn't have to rent yourself out to an employer?

I once took a class in Utopian Society in college, and got into huge arguments with the teacher, who claimed that technology would save us from destroying ourselves.

As if technology were enough. Jeez.

dB

 

[CapnG]

One world government is, I believe, inevitable. Whether or not that's a good thing will be left to the historians to decide (if they're allowed to that is).

Good show this week, a bit of a gang-bang on poor ol' Mr. Korff but apparently he had it coming.

In regards to your comment in this week's show David, as a card carrying member of what used to be refered to as Generation X, I can assure you cynicism is not limited by age. Most of the people I know my own age see no bright future ahead, have no trust in government, are disillusioned with organized religion and have been so for a good long time. Myself being 31, it's been that way for at least a decade and if anything my own cynicism has only become more entrenched with the passage of time.

 

[Rick Deckard]

One world government is, I believe, inevitable. Whether or not that's a good thing will be left to the historians to decide (if they're allowed to that is).

One man's Utopia is another man's Dystopia - who decides the rules? What do you do with the people who refuse to conform or don't fit your 'template' of a good 'citizen'? How do you 'please' everyone? You can't - you'll have to 're-educate' the population...

...how's it go again?

• WAR IS PEACE
• FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
• IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

...someone should write a book about that...

 

[interestedINitall]

I once took a class in Utopian Society in college, and got into huge arguments with the teacher, who claimed that technology would save us from destroying ourselves.

As if technology were enough. Jeez.

dB

Why on Earth would he think that technology would "save us?" How is that possible outside of robot takeover?

Really, what was his argument?

 

[DBTrek]

To this day, I don't understand why a One World Government is an intrinsically bad thing.

Because formalized government is an intrisically bad thing.

-DBTrek

 

[Tony2007]

I once took a class in Utopian Society in college, and got into huge arguments with the teacher, who claimed that technology would save us from destroying ourselves.

Did he mean that we would use technology to save ourselves, or sort of technology would become conscious and save us from ourselves?

Two entirely different modes there.

 

[David Biedny]

Did he mean that we would use technology to save ourselves, or sort of technology would become conscious and save us from ourselves?

Two entirely different modes there.

He felt that we'd use technology to do all the hard lifting, all needs provided, let's all sit around and talk about the beauty of nature, art and culture. And screw like bunnies.

Nice in theory, but not exactly practical.

And he never mentioned music, so what the hell was he thinking?

dB

 

[Tony2007]

He felt that we'd use technology to do all the hard lifting, all needs provided, let's all sit around and talk about the beauty of nature, art and culture. And screw like bunnies.

Nice in theory, but not exactly practical.

And he never mentioned music, so what the hell was he thinking?

dB

Computers would compose all our music for us. It was implied I guess.

Ever read Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil? I'm guessing you have. Kurzweil's website is fantastic; a real brain-expander I like to use when I get bogged down grading papers.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Technology can be used to save us in theory. We just don't put it to practice enough. We also use it in harmful ways. In order for humans to not go extinct, we will need to get off this planet some day. We can only do so via technological means. We also need to deflect doomsday impacts from comets and asteroids. Whether we smarten up before an impact or not, I do not know.

 

[interestedINitall]

Because formalized government is an intrisically bad thing.

-DBTrek

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[DBTrek]

I couldn't disagree more.

Fair enough. It's a matter of personal taste. Those who predominantly value personal freedom will tend toward despising government. Those who predominantly love communal participation and order will tend toward loving it.

I would prefer to have no one 'representing' me but myself in all matters. Nor do I want a group of strangers that have very little in common with me passing laws that carry the implicit threat of armed force behind them: citizen, you will behave as we say or be punished as we see fit.

I certainly don't want to see any one person, or collection of people weilding such power globally.

But hey . . . they could be a benevolent group of global dictators that always acted in our best interests right? I don't see any analog for such a government in existence today, but I suppose anything is possible. It begs the question though, is a forced utopia a true utopia?

-DBTrek

 

[CapnG]

I certainly don't want to see any one person, or collection of people weilding such power globally.

Now how could someone with an anarchy symbol in their avatar think like that?

Rest assured, whatever form of global government ultimately arrives, it will be what we have earned and deserve.

 

[interestedINitall]

Fair enough. It's a matter of personal taste. Those who predominantly value personal freedom will tend toward despising government. Those who predominantly love communal participation and order will tend toward loving it.

I would prefer to have no one 'representing' me but myself in all matters. Nor do I want a group of strangers that have very little in common with me passing laws that carry the implicit threat of armed force behind them: citizen, you will behave as we say or be punished as we see fit.

I certainly don't want to see any one person, or collection of people weilding such power globally.

But hey . . . they could be a benevolent group of global dictators that always acted in our best interests right? I don't see any analog for such a government in existence today, but I suppose anything is possible. It begs the question though, is a forced utopia a true utopia?

-DBTrek

Yes, how proud Ayn Rand would be. Does this mean that if someone were to break into your home at this very moment you wouldn't avail yourself of the services of your local police department? Suppose your computer just now burst into flames and you were unable to put it out? Would you call the fire department? Do you use the roads and/or public transportation? You're obviously using the internet so you're more than a little fond of "communal participation" I'd say.

This "Whatever, I'll do what I want!" approach isn't viable with a group comprised of two or more people.

Yes governments are corrupt because they're made up of people and people are generally weak, greedy, cruel, etc., etc., however, proposing that we throw the entire notion of government in the bin in favor of...

Well, I'm not even sure of what alternative to write in there because Anarchists and Libertarians (the real distinction is usually only in the age of the individual) never really propose a way to run things - or - they have an extremely myopic, completely implausible scenario in mind.

I remember having a conversation with a Libertarian. It reminds me very much of some of the things I've seen on this thread. He was from the sticks and was proudly touting the system of municipal "volunteerism" that allowed his little town to keep their taxes low, blah, blah, blah. He was bemoaning the fact that this "system" isn't put into effect on a larger scale nationwide. I said to him - "Okay, run New York City with it." His eyes glazed over and he responded, "Huh?" I reiterated, "Run the New York City Police and Fire Departments on a strictly volunteer basis - do you think that would fly - how long?" He just muttered something and slunk away. When we'd met again (as people at a party inevitably do sometimes despite their best efforts not to) I asked him about his stance on government involvement. "Oh, it should be minimal.", he said. I asked, "Does that mean that Blacks would still be forced to ride at the back of buses and drink from designated water fountains in certain states?" He said he didn't know what would happen with that. I suppose some people for whom the loss of basic rights isn't an immediate concern never even consider that facet of the issue.

Fine, if Anarchists and Libertarians want to keep their guns and be able to smoke pot legally - great. Just don't advocate the total collapse of civilization in the process.

Could it be that this is just a form of post traumatic depression? Are people giving up and allowing their government to "over grow" because they feel overwhelmed and disheartened by what they perceive as its constant victimization of them?

I'm no optimist but that just seems like defeatism.

 

[DBTrek]

Yes, how proud Ayn Rand would be. Does this mean that if someone were to break into your home at this very moment you wouldn't avail yourself of the services of your local police department?

Correct. I would shoot them square between the eyes. Would you cower in the corner with a cell phone in your hand desperately trying to reach the police and hoping that the intruder didn't do anything too terrible to you before the cops arrived? I find my solution more effective and viable given that situation.

Suppose your computer just now burst into flames and you were unable to put it out?

How would that happen?

Do you use the roads and/or public transportation?

Without government would I need to? Humans seemed to do ok for 100,000 years or so without them.

This "Whatever, I'll do what I want!" approach isn't viable with a group comprised of two or more people.

The Apache are evidence that the above statement is fallacious.

Well, I'm not even sure of what alternative to write in there because Anarchists and Libertarians (the real distinction is usually only in the age of the individual) never really propose a way to run things - or - they have an extremely myopic, completely implausible scenario in mind.

Not at all. Tribalism. Government based on natural law and community, not codified law enforced through arms.

"Okay, run New York City with it."

Screw New York City, don't need it.

I asked, "Does that mean that Blacks would still be forced to ride at the back of buses and drink from designated water fountains in certain states?"

It would take an armed government to force a race of people to do that, wouldn't it?

He said he didn't know what would happen with that. I suppose some people for whom the loss of basic rights isn't an immediate concern never even consider that facet of the issue.

Imagine there is no government to deprive people of their basic natural rights. That's where you and I differ, you seem to think the government bestows rights upon you. I claim my rights simply from being a sentient being on this planet and am wary of armed governments curtailing those rights through force.

You don't agree with me. You're more comfortable throwing away your personal sovereignty and letting a 'representative' decide how you will live, what you can and can not do, and how much of your wealth you will give them for the pleasure of dictating these rules to you. That's fine. You're in the majority. I simply disagree with your view on the matter.

-DBTrek

 

[Killraven]

The problem here is that we have had very large empires in the past and they all crumble. What about the Roman Empire? Beuller?

I'm just not so sure a one-world unified government is the answer. I also don't believe I'm an expert on it, either. Perhaps if human evolved to a higher state we would be ready, but currently it just seems we are still way too selfish to be able to coexist as one 'whole' people.

 

[interestedINitall]

Correct. I would shoot them square between the eyes. Would you cower in the corner with a cell phone in your hand desperately trying to reach the police and hoping that the intruder didn't do anything too terrible to you before the cops arrived? I find my solution more effective and viable given that situation.



How would that happen?



Without government would I need to? Humans seemed to do ok for 100,000 years or so without them.



The Apache are evidence that the above statement is fallacious.



Not at all. Tribalism. Government based on natural law and community, not codified law enforced through arms.



Screw New York City, don't need it.



It would take an armed government to force a race of people to do that, wouldn't it?



Imagine there is no government to deprive people of their basic natural rights. That's where you and I differ, you seem to think the government bestows rights upon you. I claim my rights simply from being a sentient being on this planet and am wary of armed governments curtailing those rights through force.

You don't agree with me. You're more comfortable throwing away your personal sovereignty and letting a 'representative' decide how you will live, what you can and can not do, and how much of your wealth you will give them for the pleasure of dictating these rules to you. That's fine. You're in the majority. I simply disagree with your view on the matter.

-DBTrek

Everything you've said amounts to juvenile ravings about not wanting to be told what to do in any way. I don't know where you've studied history but mankind didn't really do all that well without roads for "100,000 years." Speaking of history, maybe you should talk to someone who was Black in the American South of the 1950 before you make outlandish statements like it took an organized government to keep Blacks at the back of buses, etc. Ever heard of the Klu Klux Klan? They're hardly a government. Sure they were emboldened by racist legislation but they didn't need it. They acted with the knowledge that their deeds would be accepted by the populace; law seldom entered the equation. However, if we were to base things on your "whatever" system that sort of hate based mob that would have carte blanche and its victims would have no recourse whatsoever. It's a giant step backwards. You're basically advocating social Darwinism - Those who have the guns make the laws. That's patently absurd.

You can't really subscribe to this nonsense.

Oh and your qualifying language, implying that I go in for the herd mentality, doesn't work. I think the political "pot" should be stirred on a constant basis by troublemakers, vanguards and ordinary citizens through revolutionary ideas, subversion, etc. It's when the "stew" sits for too long that we get fetid, adolescent notions like Anarchism and Libertarianism. Unless the afore mentioned ideologies are some sort of performance pieces enacted to make us see how important government is and how we should do our best to take hold of it instead of the converse being true, they are of little use.

I won't even dignify the "New York City" comment with an actual response.

This whole "Leave me alone, let me have all my conveniences but not have to answer to anyone and not pay taxes!" tack is incredibly intellectually lazy and irresponsible.

As much as the Anarchists and Libertarians would like to fantasize about the world becoming a lawless, almost primordial landscape where all their baser instincts can surface and reclaim the masculinity they feel has been lost in trade for forks, shoes and indoor plumbing (one imagines this group is currently enamored with the film 300 for myriad reasons), social responsibility is an inextricable component of civilization.

 

[David Biedny]

Hot running water, good soap, Radiohead, the Internet and synthesizers/guitars/pedals/MIDI/audio toyz. And electricity. Sweet current.

These are the things I would not want to live without.

Oh, and women. Specifically, a sweet, intelligent, sexy and adorable woman named Susan.

I'll put up with the crap handed to me by society and government, if I can continue to enjoy these things.

Of course, this does little good for the rest of the world.

We're all children, we want to fulfill our desires, we're all self-centered, we want to blame someone else for our B.S.

This will be our downfall. All forms of social organization are artificial, but we need SOME sort of law, some sort of cooperative alliance, otherwise we're toast.

Learn from the ants, in a fair fight, they would beat us to dust.

dB

 

[interestedINitall]

Correct. I would shoot them square between the eyes. Would you cower in the corner with a cell phone in your hand desperately trying to reach the police and hoping that the intruder didn't do anything too terrible to you before the cops arrived? I find my solution more effective and viable given that situation.



How would that happen?



Without government would I need to? Humans seemed to do ok for 100,000 years or so without them.



The Apache are evidence that the above statement is fallacious.



Not at all. Tribalism. Government based on natural law and community, not codified law enforced through arms.



Screw New York City, don't need it.



It would take an armed government to force a race of people to do that, wouldn't it?



Imagine there is no government to deprive people of their basic natural rights. That's where you and I differ, you seem to think the government bestows rights upon you. I claim my rights simply from being a sentient being on this planet and am wary of armed governments curtailing those rights through force.

You don't agree with me. You're more comfortable throwing away your personal sovereignty and letting a 'representative' decide how you will live, what you can and can not do, and how much of your wealth you will give them for the pleasure of dictating these rules to you. That's fine. You're in the majority. I simply disagree with your view on the matter.

-DBTrek

Everything you've said amounts to juvenile ravings about not wanting to be told what to do in any way. I don't know where you've studied history but mankind didn't really do all that well without roads for "100,000 years." Speaking of history, maybe you should talk to a Black person who lived through the hell that was the American South of the 1950 before you make outlandish statements like it took an organized government to keep Blacks at the back of buses, etc. Ever heard of the Klu Klux Klan? They're hardly a government. Sure they were emboldened by racist legislation but they didn't need it. They acted with the knowledge that their deeds would be accepted by the populace; law seldom entered the equation. However, if we were to base things on your "every man for himself" system that sort of hate based mob that would have carte blanche and its victims would have no recourse whatsoever. It's a giant step backwards. You're basically advocating social Darwinism - Those who have the guns make the laws. That's patently absurd.

You can't really subscribe to this nonsense.

Oh and your qualifying language doesn't work. I think the political "pot" should be stirred on a constant basis by troublemakers, vanguards and ordinary citizens through revolutionary ideas, subversion, etc. It's when the "stew" sits for too long that we get fetid, adolescent notions like Anarchism and Libertarianism. Perhaps the afore mentioned ideologies serve some sort of cautionary function. Each through a shockingly childish, brutish ethos, is designed to stun us out of our complacency and take more control from our governments instead of the converse being true. If they're are instead meant to be far-reaching, as actual viable methods of comport then they are of very little value.

I won't even dignify the "New York City" comment with an actual response.

This whole "Leave me alone, let me have all my conveniences but not have to answer to anyone and not pay taxes!" tack is incredibly intellectually lazy and irresponsible.

As much as the Anarchists and Libertarians would like to fantasize about the world becoming a lawless, almost primordial landscape where all their baser instincts can surface and reclaim the masculinity they feel has been lost in trade for forks, shoes and indoor plumbing (one imagines that this group is currently enamored with the film 300 for myriad reasons), social responsibility is an inextricable component of civilization.