Global Government

[John Paul]

Is it a goal to have one government that arches over the whole globe or am I confused in thinking this? @Leo Gura

[Opo]

Imagine instead of European union the World union. 

[John Paul]

Seen

[Tanz]

@John Paul Centralized power creates a lot of problems.  Right now China is buying over lots of places and big tech controls many elements in peoples lives.  America interjects a lot of its views on the world culturally, and politically.  

The people given power will cause more corruption. 

If you are talking about creating a world democracy that would work out but more people around the world need to be educated and close to the same level intellectually. 

What do you mean when you say one-world government?  

[DocWatts]

I can't see such a thing being even a remote possibility until humanity develops to the point where there's not vast differences in wealth, power, and more generally human development among different regions of the planet.

The only reason that something like the European Union works is because the center of gravity for that region is at world-centric (rather than an egocentric or sociocentric) worldview.

And it certainly wouldn't be possible under current global socio-economic conditions, where the world economy depends to a large degree wealthy regions of the planet using thier developmental advantages to exploit less developed regions.

Perhaps when the center of gravity for the entire world is at roughly SD-Green (rather than roughly SD-Blue/Orange, which is where it's at right now), something like a Federated World Government might be possible. 

But it almost certainly won't be in our lifetimes.

Edited June 21, 2021 by DocWatts

[Leo Gura]

19 hours ago, John Paul said:

Is it a goal

Of course

But it has to be respectful of local differences and allow autonomy for smaller holons.

It will happen whether you want it or not. No sub-holon can stop evolution.

[Karmadhi]

This has been going on for a long time now. We started from tribes, to city states, to small states, to bigger countries and now some bigger organisations are created like the EU for example. It will take a long time though for a global government, centuries in my opinion. Not happening anytime soon. Just uniting Europe which is one of the most developed regions in the world has proved to be extremly difficult and messy process. 

Globalization is arguably the biggest thing that will speed this process up.

@Leo Gura I have noticed a lot of people are against this idea of a global government even educated people from developed countries. They fear it will ruin diversity and different cultures and some also fear that the new global government will give too much power to a select few people (those that will govern it). Personally i think a global government might have some cons but also has a lot of pros in it. Just the amount of energy and issues created by wars, political tensions, trade wars, etc is huge and this is removed by a global government. Also (might be wrong about this), but global government will hopefully eliminate or greatly reduce the issues of racism and discrimination.

The idea of the concept of country being dissolved is scary for like 95 percent of the world population and therefore that is why i think it will take centuries for the global government to become a thing.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Karmadhi

[John Paul]

@Leo Gura

What about red and purple- should they just be allowed to do their own thing in your opinion?

And would you give an easy example of "local differences" that should be respected?

Edited June 21, 2021 by John Paul

[John Paul]

@DocWatts The idea isn't to have it happen in our lifetimes. The idea is to give our whole lives to make it more of a possibility in sooner generations (my vision, still need a lot of spiritual work but this is what I currently believe in.)

[John Paul]

@Tanz By world government I mean a Stage Yellow government that takes responsibility for the condition and development for all of humanity and the environment across the globe, brotha

[John Paul]

5 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

This has been going on for a long time now. We started from tribes, to city states, to small states, to bigger countries and now some bigger organisations are created like the EU for example. It will take a long time though for a global government, centuries in my opinion. Not happening anytime soon. Just uniting Europe which is one of the most developed regions in the world has proved to be extremly difficult and messy process. 

Globalization is arguably the biggest thing that will speed this process up.

@Leo Gura I have noticed a lot of people are against this idea of a global government even educated people from developed countries. They fear it will ruin diversity and different cultures and some also fear that the new global government will give too much power to a select few people (those that will govern it). Personally i think a global government might have some cons but also has a lot of pros in it. Just the amount of energy and issues created by wars, political tensions, trade wars, etc is huge and this is removed by a global government. Also (might be wrong about this), but global government will hopefully eliminate or greatly reduce the issues of racism and discrimination.

The idea of the concept of country being dissolved is scary for like 95 percent of the world population and therefore that is why i think it will take centuries for the global government to become a thing.

What are the obstacles that made it an extremely difficult and messy process? What similarities and differences do you see between the EU and USA? What makes you think it will take centuries for globalization to happen? 

We don't have to take away borders to become global. The 50 states are still a country and the EU exists. We could do the same thing except for the whole globe. But that is a much later step in the process. The step before that would be to have the most powerful countries in the world unite in the name of helping all of the less developed countries develop spirally I think to at least stage green; and in the name of protecting the environment for future generations (us).

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

 

@Leo Gura I have noticed a lot of people are against this idea of a global government even educated people from developed countries. They fear it will ruin diversity and different cultures and some also fear that the new global government will give too much power to a select few people (those that will govern it).

People have been bitching about gov limiting their autonomy for 10,000 years. Nothing new here.

It's like peoples' fave thing go bitch about.

42 minutes ago, John Paul said:

@Leo Gura

What about red and purple- should they just be allowed to do their own thing in your opinion?

Everyome should be allowed to do what they please as long as it isn't toxic and damaging to the rest of mankind and the planet.

42 minutes ago, John Paul said:

And would you give an easy example of "local differences" that should be respected?

Local laws like we have in the states.

[John Paul]

43 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Everyome should be allowed to do what they please as long as it isn't toxic and damaging to the rest of mankind and the planet.

Who or what should Red (or any stage) be allowed to conquer, slaughter, inflict pain and torture on? What about wars? Do we just let purple and red sort itself out into blue? What about red trying to destroy higher societies (if even possible)? Have red societies accepted the building of infrastructure and free resources from outside sources in the past? How fast could purple and red get into blue with large and spiral educated intervention or am I making a false connection about the speed of development matching survival needs being met?

 

[trenton]

What would a rough sketch of this government look like and how would it come about?

First, there should be a single military funded and shared by all nations to intervene in the event of a genocide.  This would also prevent arms races with each other while banning nuclear weapons.  This would be very useful for preventing water wars by properly distributing our resources, but the water wars are coming much faster than the global government. 

Today's world may not be the one that will create the government and the one that does may need to follow massive global conflicts over water.  The United States will probably try to hoard water to the dismay of billions.  Whatever the world ends up looking like after that is where it looks like the global government might begin.  I don't know how many will survive, but the global government could start as a massive humanitarian effort to get everyone the resources they need post water wars.

I would think that I world government would be run by all nations democratically.  There would probably be a constitution about human rights including the right to life and protection from cruel punishment.  Cruel punishment would have to be universal to be enforced because different nations have different standards.  For the most part power would be decentralized, allowing every federal government to function like local governments.

Should there even be an executive branch?  I don't know how other branches of this government might work.  We definitely should not have an emperor.  I don't even think we should have a President.  I think the collection of world leaders would be like Congress on a global scale.

How would the branches of this government work?

[John Paul]

4 minutes ago, trenton said:

What would a rough sketch of this government look like and how would it come about?

First, there should be a single military funded and shared by all nations to intervene in the event of a genocide.  This would also prevent arms races with each other while banning nuclear weapons.  This would be very useful for preventing water wars by properly distributing our resources, but the water wars are coming much faster than the global government. 

Today's world may not be the one that will create the government and the one that does may need to follow massive global conflicts over water.  The United States will probably try to hoard water to the dismay of billions.  Whatever the world ends up looking like after that is where it looks like the global government might begin.  I don't know how many will survive, but the global government could start as a massive humanitarian effort to get everyone the resources they need post water wars.

I would think that I world government would be run by all nations democratically.  There would probably be a constitution about human rights including the right to life and protection from cruel punishment.  Cruel punishment would have to be universal to be enforced because different nations have different standards.  For the most part power would be decentralized, allowing every federal government to function like local governments.

Should there even be an executive branch?  I don't know how other branches of this government might work.  We definitely should not have an emperor.  I don't even think we should have a President.  I think the collection of world leaders would be like Congress on a global scale.

How would the branches of this government work?

Systems thinking and advanced models like Spiral Dynamics and our clear understanding of them will basically be the Emperor of the world and those who have been seen to have a deep understanding of it (by a group that has already been acknowledged by each other as clearly having a deep understanding of it coupled with deep compassion and decent ego/spiritual development) will become a very large group just known as "Tier 2" or some stupid name lol. But actually how I think it must happen is that the most powerful military and/or most developed countries in the world must come together and in order for this to truly happen we need those countries that say yes to the global Tier 2 government to BE tier 2 already and in order for those countries/forces to be yellow it's people must be mostly tier 2 OR at LEAST a shitload percentage green.

In order for this to happen you should get to work in your personal life to make this happen if you are in one of the most powerful/developed countries in the world before some sort of global collapse happens like you're talking about. We don't have to wait for a crisis to Unite. Fuck that.

 

What are the water wars? Got any sources you can link that are trustworthy/proven/honest? 

[John Paul]

10 minutes ago, trenton said:

What would a rough sketch of this government look like and how would it come about?

First, there should be a single military funded and shared by all nations to intervene in the event of a genocide.  This would also prevent arms races with each other while banning nuclear weapons.  This would be very useful for preventing water wars by properly distributing our resources, but the water wars are coming much faster than the global government. 

Today's world may not be the one that will create the government and the one that does may need to follow massive global conflicts over water.  The United States will probably try to hoard water to the dismay of billions.  Whatever the world ends up looking like after that is where it looks like the global government might begin.  I don't know how many will survive, but the global government could start as a massive humanitarian effort to get everyone the resources they need post water wars.

I would think that I world government would be run by all nations democratically.  There would probably be a constitution about human rights including the right to life and protection from cruel punishment.  Cruel punishment would have to be universal to be enforced because different nations have different standards.  For the most part power would be decentralized, allowing every federal government to function like local governments.

Should there even be an executive branch?  I don't know how other branches of this government might work.  We definitely should not have an emperor.  I don't even think we should have a President.  I think the collection of world leaders would be like Congress on a global scale.

How would the branches of this government work?

Look at orange and how it's getting in the way of my previous post's vision and look at green and how it's basically doing nothing to actually oppose orange and it's just crying and losing. Now think about how to actually overcome orange and get to green (and then finally and more easily but hopefully without sabotage of another country yellow). Check out my post on here called homesteads and communes or whatever. This is the only way I see possible to overcome orange and green. To inspire green/yellow leaders to be homestead leaders who teach green/yellow people how to fight the system correctly and then we will have the power to boycott business and government agencies and take political power into green and hopefully yellow shortly after. Thanks!

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, John Paul said:

Who or what should Red (or any stage) be allowed to conquer, slaughter, inflict pain and torture on? What about wars? Do we just let purple and red sort itself out into blue? What about red trying to destroy higher societies (if even possible)? Have red societies accepted the building of infrastructure and free resources from outside sources in the past? How fast could purple and red get into blue with large and spiral educated intervention or am I making a false connection about the speed of development matching survival needs being met?

As I said above, the toxic aspects of the lower stages will be prohibited by the higher stages.

A terrorist will not be allowed to get his hands on a nuclear weapon to destroy the Infidels. And so forth. But he will be encouraged to explore the healthy aspects of the lower stages.

The crucial distinction here is healthy vs toxic manifestations of any stage. Toxicity will not be allowed to run amok because the majority of people don't want to live in a toxic world.

[Willie]

The UN and the EU are the closest we have right now. Would either of them be here without WWII happening first? Selfishness and fighting come before selflessness and cooperation. And the UK still left the EU for selfish reasons anyhow!

[Milos Uzelac]

11 hours ago, trenton said:

First, there should be a single military funded and shared by all nations to intervene in the event of a genocide. 

This sounds awfully familiar like it came straight out of a NATO Charter or from the mouth of Tony Blair (no hard feelings the association was too hard to resist not to mention). How would you define and would it be an acceptable intervention for every nation to agree on? For that matter what would constitute and would be defined as genocide to get every nation to agree that a military intervention or occupation is necessary. These are very delicate matters. Also what kind of intervention is acceptable? The bombing of critical strategic and military infrastructure? Using experimental weapons to increase the efficiency of an operation - for instance, depleted uranium in some cases in the instance of 1999's bombing of Yugoslavia. A full-on land invasion of troops? This is as well very delicate in order to reduce civilian casualties and the harming of critical infrastructure in order not to cripple the whole country economically and send it backward. For example, NATO obfuscated UN vetoes when it decided to bomb Yugoslavia in 1999, and likewise, the occupation of Iraq in 2003 by Coalition Forces of Western countries was considered illegal under international law.

11 hours ago, trenton said:

This would also prevent arms races with each other while banning nuclear weapons.

Some argue that Libya wouldn't be intervened by NATO in 2011 had it had nuclear weapons. North Korean leadership uses that argument for the reason why it will never willingly partake away with its nuclear weapons and Iran thought in these terms as to ensure it wouldn't be intervened by others (either by NATO or a coalition led by the U.S.) if the regime there started to crumble.

11 hours ago, John Paul said:

But actually how I think it must happen is that the most powerful military and/or most developed countries in the world must come together and in order for this to truly happen

Are you including China and Russia in your reasoning? Since the former would be just global institutions (World Bank, IMF, etc.) led primarily by interests of U.S. economic policy and acting as an extended arm of U.S. foreign policy by extension.

On the topic of this subject, I wouldn't use the word global since I associate closely with the economic ideology of globalism developed by neoliberal economists in the West that excludes, rather implicitly, internationalism i.e. international cooperation and consensus among different countries and nations in favor of a set of policies (from economic to legal to political) imposed upon by the world's most developed regions and countries and most powerful institutions on the rest of the world. Left-wing theorists today actually use world internationalism as a world order that's the next in the developmental phase and an order that would transcend the current globalism economic order characterized by the unequal influence and power that the U.S., namely its military and economy, and of the other developed Western nations and international economic bodies that pursue policies in favor of firstly and foremostly of the interests of those nations have in shaping and dictating affairs among and in different nations across the world. 

World government, in my opinion, in order for it to be truly unbiased and equal in representing the interests of every nation fairly, must not come from a single source or pole (namely Western also Northern in the sphere of economic development) in the world but must first build true internationalism and integrate the other pole (namely the East and the South in this equation which the West has been in conflict and competition with since European colonization and whose current relationships with are built on top of that legacy and can still be understood in that framework), which means true cooperation and aid (To each according to his need, to each according to his abilities)  among different nations and not exclusive favoritism if you align with my interests and long-term goals for world domination of my imposed order, on which on top of it can grow and flourish as a truly Planet Earth institution and not fracture into schisms and blocs and/or degenerate into corruption favoring firstly and foremostly the interests of the most developed and powerful nations.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Milos Uzelac

[Leo Gura]

But this is not gonna happen in our lifetimes, so don't worry about it.