The OP makes the claim that a One World Government would result in the following,
Originally posted by depmode21
1) War Would End
2) Poverty & Disease Would End
3) Over-Population Would End
4) Violence Would End
5) Religious Extremism Would End
I think that this represents a very simplistic view of the world and one that is dangerous. I will take these one at a time and point out the flaw in
1.) War would end. War has been a part of the human race since the very beginning. In fact the oldest written records that we have are accounts about
wars between this group vs that group. Marx made the point that all of human history is the result of "struggles" between different groups. How
would a unified government end all of this? This assumes that all wars are teh result of political differences, and this is not the case.
There have been many wars fought over cultural differences, economic differences, racial differences, and some that were fought for no real reason at
all. How would a different politic change this?
Even the short history of the US shows that a unified government of a diverse population is no guarantee that peace will prevail. Case in point, the
Civil War, the Indian Wars, the Civil Rights struggle, and dozens of smaller disputes.
I also find it interesting that when the OP was challenged with the likelihood of corruption existing in the One World Government, his response was to
say that 6 billion people would be able to depose a corrupt government. I have to assume that such a move would result in violence, hence war.
2.) Disease and poverty would disappear. First let me say that these are two different things that are not necessarily connected. Millions of rich
people die from disease each year. So, let me handle these separately.
Disease is caused by bacteria, viruses, genetic flaws, age, malnutrition, and parasites. With the exception of the malnutrition issue there is little
that a unified government can do that is not all ready being done.
I guess that the government could impose a quarantine on all people who have some sort of disease. Isolation could reduce the chance of spreading
certain diseases, that is true. However, where would you house the hundreds of millions of people with some sort of disease? Concentration camps?
What would you do about genetic flaws? Prevent these people from reproducing? Maybe forced sterilization or abortion? That would be just lovely.
What about diseases caused by age? Maybe we could impose an "expiration date" for people, like we do for milk? That would be great.
I am sure that the OP actually meant that we could force the pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines that they have been reluctant to develop.
OK, but why does the benefit from a One World Government always have to come from the use of force? How does that work when we are trying to reduce
OK, what about poverty? How would a One World Government reduce poverty? The OP specifically mentions redistribution of wealth. This shows a
fundamental lack of understanding of economics. You can not eliminate poverty by enriching the poor while empoverishing the rich. It simply does not
work. The rich are usually a result of education, hard work, better ideas, and a certain degree of luck. The worlds economy is constantly in flux with
rich and poor people being made every day and some rich become poor and some poor become rich.
The GDP of the US (the largest in the world) is about 14 trillion dollars give or take a few trillion. That sounds like a lot of money but divide that
number by 6 billion people worldwide and you get a little over 2 thousand dollars for everyone on the planet. A person in India might be able to live
on 2 thousand dollars a year but a person in the US cannot.
Not to mention the fact that once you suck all the money out of the US economy through redistribution, the GDP will drop very rapidly and soon you
will have less than 200 dollars per year to redistribute, because that "wealth" in the US GDP is used to create more jobs, more money, and more
goods. Once you kill the golden goose, you get no more golden eggs.
What happens to the world GDP of 40 trillion dollars when you redistribute it worldwide? It becomes 4 trillion and we all starve together. That is the
exact opposite of eliminating poverty, that is the redistribution of poverty worldwide.
3.) Over population would end. Well, the world is not "over populated" and so this is a strawman argument. But since the OP went there, let's
explore this for a moment. You can take every family on the planet and move them to Australia, give them each an acre of land and still have land to
spare. If you did this, then you would have the rest of the planet, to farm, mine, and forest. So, as I said, the world is not over populated not by a
This line of thinking comes from the writtings of Dr. Paul Erlich who wrote, "The Population Bomb" during the late 1960's. Dr. Erlich wrongly
predicted that the earth's population would be 20 billion people by now. It's not obviously and most sociologist agree that the earth's population
has peaked and will actually begin to decline over the next century. Some areas like North America, Russia, Europe, and China, will have less than
half their current populations one hundred years from now.
How would a unified government regulate population anyway? Are we talking about forced abortions, sterilizations, and exterminations? These are the
only effective means to control population. These are very violent means and are usually enforced at the point of a gun. So much for the elimination
4.) Violence would end. As I have already pointed out, the solution to the first three points requires violence or at least the threat of violence
from the government to the people. So, I think that this one has already been debunked.
On the other hand, let's explore this a bit further. Is the OP trying to put forward the idea that domestic violence would end? What about violence
arrising from crime? What about school yard bullies giving the other kids a bloody nose? Surely the OP does not mean that the human race would be so
fundamentally changed that nobody would strike another human in anger ever again? I hope that he is not saying that because that would be
5.) Religious extremism would end. How would a political solution resolve centuries old religious disputes? I fail to see the connection between
radical religious ideas and a new world order. Unless, the OP is suggesting that religion would be "unified" at the same time as the world's
How would this be achieved without violence? Without enforcement at the point of a gun? How would this be achieved without quarantining those of
opposing views in prisons or concentration camps? It can't be done. Religion is at the very center of many cultures identity, they will not give ths
up without a fight.
In conclusion, the OPs arguments are very simplistic and childish and show a lack of understanding of history. It is dangerous for anyone to assume
that thousands of years of human history can be easily undone, or that a governmental solution would be accepted without resistance. If we pursued
this course, billions would die. This "solution" would make the final solution look like a dress rehersal.