We've seen it in the movies... in earth's (presumably utopic) distant future, instead of having multiple small nations the world will be led by a single large government and a single president.

What do you think? Could this actually work?

i like the concept of a utopian government but i can't see it happening in reality.
we only have to look at the dissent in the united nations etc. plus the fact that if we had one government everything would autocratically run (is that the correct word) as vf says many would try and opt out or rebel.

i do thin a world charity organisation could be possible. one that runs in tandem with local charities, supplying aid to where it's need throughout the world using one body or office.

i agree with vf,the big question being,what kind of world government?

the 1000 year reich wouldn't have been too jolly either

Goo point about having alternative governments.

One of the reaons I wondered about a world government is that a lot of our current ideas about national borders seems awfully feudal, and might be considered a quaint concept in the future.

(08-19-2010, 11:53 AM)velvetfog Wrote:  

(08-19-2010, 10:55 AM)billy Wrote:  i like the concept of a utopian government

If that is so, then you really need to read George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four.

i have done many times. and saw the film. a utopia doesn't have to be Orwellian does it? a utopia could also be a perfect thing. as opposed to the imperfect one you speak of. and though a good utopian gov would be almost impossible to achieve it could still happen.

------------------------------------------
i've just been slapped round the head by addy's intellect, she pointed out that orwell's utopia was in fact a dystopia, which is the opposite of utopia.

if done perfectly it would be perfect. if done imperfectly it wouldn't.
i submit it would be improbable but possible. of course it would need the co operation of the world public
but then again wouldn't any utopia?

and for point of reference, a utopia is not perfect persay it's a perfect ideal. an ideal that encompasses all things. people would be judged fairly and equally they could in an ideal world still be punished etc.

an example;

the metaphorical ideal of love thy neighbour is a perfect ideal

the actual loving thy neighbour whilst the husband is out isn't.

a utopia would have good and honest and fair competition wouldn't it?
and i'm def not on about communism. for me a real utopia where the majority are are for it would still have laws and freedoms. a real utopia for me, isn't about state run factories. it would be about empowering the people to achieve their goal (of course i don't mean the criminals ) it would be about acceptance of others opinion. it would i suppose be about loving and respecting ones neighbour. (not the wives of neighbours though )

(08-19-2010, 02:06 PM)velvetfog Wrote:  

(08-19-2010, 01:57 PM)billy Wrote:  if done perfectly it would be perfect. if done imperfectly it wouldn't.

That is the type of arguments that dedicated communists use.

They still believe that the communist idea is perfect, and deflect any criticism of all the mass-murders and dictatorships that resulted from it by stating that the Russians, the Chinese, the Cubans, etc. just didn't implement it correctly.

The simple reality is that competition is something that every ordinary person will benefit from.

When all there is, in any sphere of human endeavour, is a single monopolistic entity, then the quality of service drops dramatically.

the only thing wrong with the communist idea is that it needs people to implement it

ok then,any system that has no counter part somewhere else will run amok,and i don't mean some wishy washy second party,where behind the scenes everything is being sorted out anyway,as it may very well be we need an enemy[counterpart] to at least behave halfway decent ourselves

i wrote a big long post to this thread yesterday when my monitor blew up. so just a little one so as not to tempt fate.

after some thought i can't actually see how a utopia could be communist or totalitarian.
wouldn't utopia have to encompass everything, all politics, all religions. wouldn't it have to allow free unpunished egress and entry to any or all social levels and casts? wouldn'y it have ato have a justice system thats fair with fair sentencing? and more than anything would any utopia need the masses to have enlightened minds that don't hate their fellow men or think them less for believing or following a different, god, calling or socio (sp) economic path. doesn't a real utopia have to a jig-saw puzzle that every piece fits into perfectly?

fraid not vf.

u·to·pi·a (y-tp-)
n.
1. a. often Utopia An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
b. A work of fiction describing a utopia.
2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform.

we can discard b,

a perfect place would allow for all politics and religions to co exist together peacefully.
multi party democracy would be welcome as would islamic laws and even sharia (sp)
with no terror or jihads or any other kind of large scale wars. wouldn't that be the ultimate political reform?

everybody in our utopia can say what he wants,do what he wants is another matter and therein lays the problem

In a utopia, you'd have to have everyone be free to live the life he wanted and live by whatever ideal he/she wants... as long as it does not impugn on another person's freedom to live his/her own life.

Obviously that's tricky, and I don't know how it will work. Does that mean you're allowed to live a Taliban ideal, so long as you do not inflict that belief on others??? It's almost logistically impossible.

(08-22-2010, 03:10 PM)addy Wrote:  In a utopia, you'd have to have everyone be free to live the life he wanted and live by whatever ideal he/she wants... as long as it does not impugn on another person's freedom to live his/her own life.

Obviously that's tricky, and I don't know how it will work. Does that mean you're allowed to live a Taliban ideal, so long as you do not inflict that belief on others??? It's almost logistically impossible.

yes,but part of that ideal,as it is christians,is to convert people to your view,as long it's through blahblah,there's not much against that,and if you personally want to live without music etc.,go for it

yeah the right to preach should be a given as should the right to close the door or the right to not listen. if that could be achieved without violence we'd be partway there.

And there's the rub. If it's a hateful message that happens to gain momentum, how can it not lead to strife and violence?

I guess I agree that a world government can easily be oppressive as it provides no alternative... checks and balances have always been a good system. But personally, I can't see countries as we know them today not becoming defunct sooner or later.

colonel Khadaffi's one state solution in palestine

we only have to look as far as the usa to see the same can be said of them VF.

Try lying down on the floor and holding your breath (without any mechanical aids) until you pass out. You won't be able to do it. Intellectually, you know it would be perfectly safe--you would lose consciousness and automatically resume breathing before suffering any harm--but you cannot overcome your basic instincts.

Millions of years of evolution have conditioned us to naturally join groups and compete for resources. For us to form one group, one world government, and give up fighting and competing in favour of co-operation, is just as impossible for exactly the same reason.