New World Order

[UltraViolence83]

I was thinking more along the lines of an international military, "Sardaukar" for the real world. Anyone who uses nukes or shit like that on someone else would be hit by massive retaliation by every other member nation. Of course, we could just structure the world into a massive feudalistic bureacracy; it appears that democracy tends to fail while systems related to feudalism tend to strengthen.

[Enforcer Talen]

Sounds like a strengthened U.N. But who decides what deserves retaliation? The world comittee of today?

[Stuart Mackey]

To watch evil be performed and do nothing is to be evil - that is a long standing facet of justice. In that manner, it is evil to watch evil done by tyrants in the middle east and let them go on. Let us instead do what is right, instead of convenien. I propose a cleaning out of the pestilence that holds much of the world in its grip - that of tyranny and genocidal self righteousness.
Britian failed because they formed colonies, where they ruled over others. This did not work because the hunger for independence, that is, self government, is essential to humanity. Forget the old, failed colonialism, and build a new imperialism - where countries, whether beginning humane or brought to it, are allowed to Congress, and every man can vote for his view in rulership.

Do you also go by the name Azeron?
Quite honestly if you think that America could do this you are being somewhat foolish. Where once Britain opposed the the most powerfull nation in Europe {France or Germany} so the world would oppose America.

[Enforcer Talen]

nah, but I liked some of his comments.

america vs the world? even Im not that confident.

[UltraViolence83]

Sounds like a strengthened U.N. But who decides what deserves retaliation? The world comittee of today?

Yes. Of course, this can easily lead up to a new WWI, so there would have to be many more rules and spitulations regarding this policy.

[Enforcer Talen]

Rules are just loopholes -shrugs-. You can always bend them and make it look like your doing legal things. . . or just ignore them in secret.

[Stuart Mackey]

nah, but I liked some of his comments.

america vs the world? even Im not that confident.

So why are you posting similar drivel?
It would end up as US vs The Rest, no one likes a hegemon.

[Enforcer Talen]

nah, but I liked some of his comments.

america vs the world? even Im not that confident.

So why are you posting similar drivel?
It would end up as US vs The Rest, no one likes a hegemon.

It is this petty nationalism that drives me to do this. Humanity divided and scattered, with a thousand tinderboxes awaiting the light of atomic fire - Iwant to leave behind the lines and borders behind us. I want to cause a paradigm shift - not hegemony, but true unity.

A hegemony is the "Predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others." How can you have that when we are all American, all human? Nationalism is only a tool for unification, but it's use is over. Let us move beyond it, to the unification of world and species. "The domination of one state over its allies"? How can it be so when they will have as much say in the future of the world as the homeplace of this ideal?

[Stuart Mackey]

nah, but I liked some of his comments.

america vs the world? even Im not that confident.

So why are you posting similar drivel?
It would end up as US vs The Rest, no one likes a hegemon.

It is this petty nationalism that drives me to do this. Humanity divided and scattered, with a thousand tinderboxes awaiting the light of atomic fire - Iwant to leave behind the lines and borders behind us. I want to cause a paradigm shift - not hegemony, but true unity.

A hegemony is the "Predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others." How can you have that when we are all American, all human? Nationalism is only a tool for unification, but it's use is over. Let us move beyond it, to the unification of world and species. "The domination of one state over its allies"? How can it be so when they will have as much say in the future of the world as the homeplace of this ideal?

Christ, you do soud similar to Azeron.
"Forget the old, failed colonialism, and build a new imperialism - where countries, whether beginning humane or brought to it, are allowed to Congress, and every man can vote for his view in rulership. "

What you have posted is America effectivly conquoring the world and enforcing its veiw on others, this is no different to the old colonialism ! . Nations want freedom to choose what is best for them by there own desition, not forced on them by other nations.
If there is to be a world government it must be the free choice of nations in equel partnership, not imposed from without or you will have nothing but continual warfare.

[Enforcer Talen]

Obviously. Sending the panzers forth across the world would end in the holocaust I want least of all. I am proposing the unification of Humanity, and for the assorted democracries of the world to be inducted into the current superpower - with the same voting powers as any here. This can be done peacefully - Canada and the USA have both done it, and I'm sure there are others. Colonialism is one country dictating it's terms to it's colonies, who can say little. Imperialism is the forging of one country, where all have a say.

[HemlockGrey]

A one world government is a bad idea anyway. There's no competitive power to check it's hold and it's political ideals.

[Enforcer Talen]

Thats why you put checks and balances in the government itself.

[Thirdfain]

Thats why you put checks and balances in the government itself.

And how do you ensure that those checks nd balances remain in place? America has changed drastically since it's founding, and the government has bent and outright ignored the Constitution. The system of checks and balances originally planned by the founding fathers is certainly still in existance today, but for how much longer?
The world changes, in ways which are completely unpredictable. Any worldwide government, regardless of how well formed at the start, would eventually decay. Greedy politicians, "special interests," and the economic and social changes that are a natural part of societal evolution all conspire to ensure that any government eventually looses sight of the original goals.

I am proposing the unification of Humanity, and for the assorted democracries of the world to be inducted into the current superpower - with the same voting powers as any here. This can be done peacefully - Canada and the USA have both done it, and I'm sure there are others.

Competition is one of the central tenets of the capitalist system which has proved so succesful for the Western world. Free enterprise and natural selection go hand in hand, and all you "netizens" reap the benefits every time you spend an hour logged on to SD.net. In a world where everyone belongs to the same nation, and lives under the same government, and fears no foreign competition, there are no computers. Computers are never invented. In a world without conflict between nations, there is no World War 2, and no American agents need a calculating device to crack the German Enigma code. Indeed, a world without competition has no America, because there are no ships designed well enough to cross the Atlantic. Why flee your homeland, when there is no persecution to flee? You live in a daub-and-wattle hut, because masonry was never invented. Why tool around with building stone walls when there is no-one to keep out? If you are female, you are probably pregnant- this world has no medicines, and it is necessary to keep up the birth-rate to stave off extinction from disease.

Is that a world you want to live in? Certainly, having a single, all-powerful world government won't reduce us to daub-and-wattle huts immediatly. After all, we've had thousands of years of competitive growth and developement, and an excellent infrastructure already in place. But what future innovations are we missing out on? What earth-shaking new developements await us? How many years of convoluted, frightening, horrific, beautiful history await us? What will be lost if we give up the violent global competition which has gotten us this far?

The modern world is dangerous, yes. We hold the ability to eradicate all complex terrestrial life. Hundreds of thousands starve, yes. War rips through the third world, with devastating results- but at least things are happening. At least change is occuring, and often for the better.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've done pretty well so far.

Competition is vital to human life. Even if a single government utopia were to come into existance, it would soon stagnate and self-destruct.

[Lord_Xerxes]

Heh. nWo 4 Life.

(I know, I know. OT. But I couldn't resist with the name of the thread.)

Let's just vote the Hulkster in as Prez. Then the nWo can "run wild" all over the world.

"Whatcha gonna do, brotha?!"

[Stuart Mackey]

A one world government is a bad idea anyway. There's no competitive power to check it's hold and it's political ideals.

A world government would not have that kind of power, simply because of the various cultures on the planet. I would also expect that the world government would not have such millitary power to do as it wants without the coperation of its consituant states, allthough the power of individual states would be limited.

[Enforcer Talen]

Thats why you put checks and balances in the government itself.

And how do you ensure that those checks nd balances remain in place? America has changed drastically since it's founding, and the government has bent and outright ignored the Constitution. The system of checks and balances originally planned by the founding fathers is certainly still in existance today, but for how much longer?
The world changes, in ways which are completely unpredictable. Any worldwide government, regardless of how well formed at the start, would eventually decay. Greedy politicians, "special interests," and the economic and social changes that are a natural part of societal evolution all conspire to ensure that any government eventually looses sight of the original goals.

Indeed. Even Rome fell - I dont beleive a everlasting government can be constructed, ever. But Rome had two centuries of peace before it died, and I wish to create the same. A few generations of world peace, before the entropy sets in once again.

I am proposing the unification of Humanity, and for the assorted democracries of the world to be inducted into the current superpower - with the same voting powers as any here. This can be done peacefully - Canada and the USA have both done it, and I'm sure there are others.

Competition is one of the central tenets of the capitalist system which has proved so succesful for the Western world. Free enterprise and natural selection go hand in hand, and all you "netizens" reap the benefits every time you spend an hour logged on to SD.net. In a world where everyone belongs to the same nation, and lives under the same government, and fears no foreign competition, there are no computers. Computers are never invented. In a world without conflict between nations, there is no World War 2, and no American agents need a calculating device to crack the German Enigma code. Indeed, a world without competition has no America, because there are no ships designed well enough to cross the Atlantic. Why flee your homeland, when there is no persecution to flee? You live in a daub-and-wattle hut, because masonry was never invented. Why tool around with building stone walls when there is no-one to keep out? If you are female, you are probably pregnant- this world has no medicines, and it is necessary to keep up the birth-rate to stave off extinction from disease.

Is that a world you want to live in? Certainly, having a single, all-powerful world government won't reduce us to daub-and-wattle huts immediatly. After all, we've had thousands of years of competitive growth and developement, and an excellent infrastructure already in place. But what future innovations are we missing out on? What earth-shaking new developements await us? How many years of convoluted, frightening, horrific, beautiful history await us? What will be lost if we give up the violent global competition which has gotten us this far?

The modern world is dangerous, yes. We hold the ability to eradicate all complex terrestrial life. Hundreds of thousands starve, yes. War rips through the third world, with devastating results- but at least things are happening. At least change is occuring, and often for the better.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've done pretty well so far.

Competition is vital to human life. Even if a single government utopia were to come into existance, it would soon stagnate and self-destruct.

If it isn't broken, dont fix it, to be sure. But I would say it is broken and decaying quickly. Hundreds of thousands starve, yes. War rips through the third world, with devastating results. We have two hundred divisions of humanity, each with the knowledge, if not the means, of human extinction. The choice we have at this point is unification or annhilation - not today, perhaps not in my lifetime - but if the natural entropy is not fought, extinction is assured. We have the means and opportunity - and humanity has long been supplying itself with motives.

Competition is vital to human life, and assured. Whatever government you build or none, people will compete. If you erase the lines of borders, people will compete through corporaitons, trying to earn the dollar sign. Tech will advance that way.

[Thirdfain]

But Rome had two centuries of peace before it died, and I wish to create the same. A few generations of world peace, before the entropy sets in once again.

Rome had two centuries of continuous border wars and rebellions. It also had a century of all-out, violent, genocidal war as it tamed it's empire. Have you ever visited the sparkling metropolis of Carthage? I didn't think so. In addition, the Roman Empire's fall lead to another hundred years of vicious wars of consolidation and collapse, which turned Europe into a barbarian backwater when compared the great civilizations of Arabia and India, the repercussions of which we are still feeling today.

The problems with a "New World Order" are threefold.

First, there is the problem of creating the "New World Order." That will require war, and lots of it. Blood will flow like water through the rivers of the world, and fading powers will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction.

Second, there is the problem of centraliztion- The end of conflict, both social and military, and the formation of a monoculture. In my last post, I outlined the huge danger this presents to human progress. War is bad, but stasis is worse.

Finally, there is the problem of decay. The world order WILL Fall. How long until the Republic becomes an Empire? and how long, after that, does the Empire become a thousand warring states, headed by a thousand devious claimants to the throne? each one weilding all the ricin, VX, and plutonium they can get their hands on?

The path of Empire doesn't eliminate deadly world conflict- it only compresses it into shorter, more intense periods. Periods which our world may not survive.

Today, things aren't too bad. No-one with nukes wants to use them. The major powers are generally friendly with eachother. Cultures, for the first time in history, stand side by side. A village will have a mosque and a synagogue. Protestants will go to the same schools as Catholics. A white man will marry a black woman. This is not true the world over, but it is spreading. The great American cultural hegemony blurs borders, but does not destroy them. The age of military conflict between industrialised powers is nearing an end, as nations find that doing business is better than making war. It is happening slowly, but more people are becoming richer the world over. The tasks of spreading the free market and human rights are daunting ones, but they are happening! It's a long shot, but for once it looks like we may eventually reach the utopia. Peaceful competition, cultural contact, and advancing technology puts our species in the best position it has been in, ever.

Now our final challenge has come. We need to follow this path to it's conclusion, and ensure a good life for the next thousand generations. I don't know how to ensure that future, but I do know that a horrific war of consolidation followed by a few centuries of decadance will dash all hopes of global panacea.

[Enforcer Talen]

This utopia you speak of is beautiful – indeed, I find myself partly persuaded by it. Just sit back, relax, and someday, why, we’ll have a world peace. We’re headed that way anyway, and with a bit of time, the barbarians will join civilization. It will be a good life for everyone, for a thousand generations.

But the question remains: how long will this take? Is it to be expected that for the next two hundred years, the leaders of the major powers will, all, everyone, be rationally minded? I think your comments were made at the beginning of the twentieth century – almost certainly after World War One. We have had our great war, our war to end all wars. With this in memory, no nation will fight each other. Civilization is expanding, and everyone is becoming richer. War is outlawed.

Sadly, this is not the case.

For the moment, the major powers are rational. But I see no reason why this will remain. There is, as you said, the problem of decay. Nations will change, and falter, and harden, and police states will rise with the new rabid demagogues. Peace in our time? I think the description of science fiction is more apt – this is the age of war. Blood is spilt for the laughter of thirsting gods.

I can think of no time in human history where, for the two hundred years, or how many you imagine, there has been peace. Hatred is all too easily called up, swimming in our blood. As long as borders exist, there will be a war to fight over them, and will only not happen in a utopia – which cannot be reached while borders remain.

And even if, in the long odds there is peace for these next few centuries, with the rationally minded people patiently waiting for civilization to spread – what of the people who live without civilization? Are we to expect those uncounted millions to just nod understandingly when we say so nicely, oh, don’t worry – your grandchildren may experience the easy lives we hold, where food is available and no wars occur? Don’t worry about the hobnailed boots of the secret police beating down your door – civilization is headed your way *sometime* this century.

Why on earth should we allow these atrocities to happen, these police states to occur and genocidal maniacs to run rampage, while we sit back, drinking tea and saying, “don’t worry, utopia is someday.”? It beggars the imagination to think of it, when we have the power to stop it – and will almost certainly won’t in the time you wait.

America is new Rome – but it is not Rome itself. We do not lead bloodthirsty invasions and bring back tens of thousands of slaves to be sold. Our influence in our world is similar, but the flaws are different. The territories we hold have never rebelled save once, and the world I propose will have no borders to bleed over.

The Utopia you speak of is possible, but only if we ensure now, when we have the power, that the flaws it holds will not break it. Borders will ensure we never have utopia, because peoples pride in them is strong. Erase them, and Humanity’s Paradise can occur. It need not be done with weapons – indeed, unification in some places has occurred without it – but it must be done.

Finally, there is the problem of decay. The world order WILL Fall. The one you propose has no insurance against the ricin, VX, and plutonium they will use when it does – for all nations will hold them, just in case. A one world nation, on the other hand, will have the omnipresence it needs to disarm the vast majority of these weapons. How long before the Republic turns into an Empire? Perhaps the thousand generations you speak of. The path of Empire doesn't eliminate deadly world conflict- it only compresses it into shorter, more intense periods. The chances of survival are higher there, with one nation since time immemorial, and only the bare minimum of WMDs left behind.

[Enforcer Talen]

Humanity stands on the brink.

One looks in the news today, what do they see? North Korea threatening a nuclear war with America, Arab nations demanding Hussein’s exile, and Al Queda saying they are as strong as over, and will continue bringing down the Great Satan. America continues its work against Iraq, gathering more forces – war is gathering, as it has across the globe for as long as history is recorded.

The lethal bickering of nationalism continues.

Nationalism is a powerful, and terrible, tool of our species. Developed mostly in the last two centuries, it forms a unified whole of people, based on location and common language. It allows the millions of people who live next to each other to work together and strive for the success of their imagined nations.

In areas hundreds, and sometimes thousands of miles across, people live and fight and die for each other, for people they’ve never met, to continue their *nation*. It is the place you are born to, the concept that raises you and shapes your ideas and motivations – and persuades you that you are in the best place in the world, no matter what others say.

Obviously, this has a downside – with ten score nations, the divided parties of the world, squabbling amongst themselves while convinced of their own superiority, blood will be shed. Nationalism is an excellent tool – it has brought the thought of unification to the next level, so that people may work together for families they have never met.

This is, of course, the continuation of a long standing trait of our species. The search for unity, and the concept of family beyond blood ties, is as old as history. At first, in the barely remembered dawn of civilization, we stood as extended families, lost in the dark – but it developed into tribes, of humans living together but not of direct blood, working to the good of the *tribe*.

The concept of family was able to spread, and expand. From villages, it went to cities, and city states. As population increased, so did the willingness of accepting strangers as families. Many in Athens and Sparta died for each other, but they knew each other not. Over the passage of time, with new territories added to a strong city by diplomacy or war, new cities considered themselves the same group as the original city.

It continued on, to the eighteenth century, where territories it would take months or years to walk considered themselves one whole – the origin of nations. Instead of serving this or that lord, they served the mother country. It adopted new people into the concept of family as nation, and hundreds of thousands began to work together in mutual support.

In time, every inch of the globe was explored, and brought to one nation or another - which brings us to our dilemma.


The technology that made us able to see the globe, and connect once isolated territories, also allowed us to better war making capabilities. Population increased – so did the methods of cutting it down. This was shown in World War One, where the millions of soldiers, devoted to their country and utterly sure of their righteous cause, bled to death in the no-man’s land.

Technology continued, and in some countries, population doubled, or trebled. The world flared again, and five times as many people died, and the concept of our own extinction edged forward. The third, cold, war began, and, if it had sparked, humanity would have vanished under the mushroom clouds.

Nationalism is a grand thing, the continuation of our interest for unification – and it has served its purpose. It has finished uniting, and now only threatens the extinction of the species. The current situation does not look lethal for Humanity – but the framework does, where the ten score divisions hold themselves highest, and the weapons available ensure destruction. The concept behind atomic weapons is public knowledge, and it is utterly plausible for a fifth of Humanity to hold them, in only a few short decades. Then, it will only take one spark.

My friends, the time has come to shift the paradigm.

Nationalism continues on its own momentum – but if we continue on this route, annihilation is assured. It is time to continue our innermost desire, that of unity, and bring it into being. Our history has shown that to be the innate philosophy, stops and goes that it may travel. The time has come for the last unification, where the family we connect to is the planet.

[UltraViolence83]

It's not all just nationalism. Like I said earlier, erase the borders and you only get civil war instead. Travel though a large country, you'll see that the cultural lines tend to blur after a certain distance. World unity under one nation is a bad idea; as you said, it will corrupt, and there would be no one to check it. With all these nations (ever rogue ones) we have now, a little bit of checks and balances can be done.Most countries have always been united through commerce and trade, there's no need to bring them all under one flag.

World unity under the supervision of every member nation, on the other hand, is far better in my opinion. Also in my opinion, as a whole we need war. It, aside from a swift coup, is the fastest way for change to happen. Let hostilities boil to a fever pitch (look at Ireland and Israel/Palestine) and you'll get thier problems, such as terrorism. A minor war moderated by the other nations would cause faster bloodshed, but it may cool things off in the long run. After all, does Germany hate the US's guts since 1945? Japan? Imagine if we didn't war with them! War's like a fistfight between countries instead of people. You're bound to get angry people for one reason or another (even bad reasons), might as well let them have at each other.

[UltraViolence83]

By the way Enforcer, I like your skill at minor thread necromancy.

[His Divine Shadow]

We are New Rome.

*snip*

OK, so we're orks, waaagh!

[His Divine Shadow]

What you have posted is America effectivly conquoring the world and enforcing its veiw on others, this is no different to the old colonialism

I wouldn't mind that, as long as it was me who did all the conquering.

[Stuart Mackey]

What you have posted is America effectivly conquoring the world and enforcing its veiw on others, this is no different to the old colonialism

I wouldn't mind that, as long as it was me who did all the conquering.

Now that idea can sympathise with..so long as I am the World Dictator and supreme boffer of pretty girls

[UltraViolence83]

I am the American Overlord! Hail Ultra! Hail Hail Hail!!