posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:41 PM
I think the largest danger in an OWG type situation is the possible lack of diversity and conflict. This diversity and conflict is necessary to expose
flaws in governmental systems, some of which may lead to a detriment or a benefit to mankind. By having multiple competing nations rise and fall, we
can observe from the outside what works in those societies and what doesn't - then apply those lessons to our own societies.
I don't mean to be blasé about this, because you have to remember that by "conflict" - that means war. Torture. Economic collapse. Starvation. I
don't mean to sound like I support such horrific ends to a means, but this is how it HAS WORKED since the advent of civilization. I think we can do
better, but we really don't have the means of alleviating the suffering of political selection right now aside from charity and humanitarian aid. We
can definitely do better in that regard.
The problem with OWG type situations is that... evolution, either biological or ideological, find their greatest strength in diversity. You won't
have that in a OWG - because it will all be standardized to comply with the overlaying world government. Each component nation of the whole may be
able to form their own "flavor" of government - but that still breeds competition which is detrimental to the whole even if beneficial (in the long
run) to the individual. We're currently seeing that with the continual conformity our local state governments are showing to the federal government.
To embrace a One World Government, is to embrace a slow death of atrophy. While I do think we should consider moving towards a OWG, we should stop
short of a comprehensive singular government to run the world. Instead, we may elect to consolidate into super-states like the NAU or EU which would
keep competition a factor in political change, while still being powerful enough to effect real and lasting policy across a broad spectrum of
humanity. We shouldn't really consider One World Government until we either establish colonies in space or make contact with other civilizations.
Jefferson was exceedingly right when he stated that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Tis' it's natural manure." Perhaps he didn't envision the concept in the terms I have used, but at the core the concept is the same it shows his
innate insight into the nature of the competition of ideas. No surprise that he and other founding fathers heavily endorsed public education, the free
and open exchange of ideas, and revolution.