Forums → WEPR → One World Government

The King of Qin is seen as a merciless dictator trying to conquer China, with Nameless on the task of assassinating him. It is then realized the only way to achieve peace is through uniting under a common dynasty, which is the goal of the King of Qin.

Now, the King of Qin is considered evil by many, through his destructive wars, YET we must remember that he was merely the next in line of Qin Kings absorbed in the Wars with Seven other kingdoms. Don't mouth such assumptions! Many Chinese consider him important for trying to unite the whole of China after the weak Zhou Dynasty.


I'm going to shoot down your entire argument, I'm sorry. I know other mentioned it, but I'm going to elaborate.

Can one man rule the entire body of Earth in a proper manner? Absolute monarchy has proved in the past that it is possible for a single man to control a nation and lead it to greatness, yet it has not shown how this is possible for the entire Earth. Even the dictators themselves have had officials running the place for them, for more mundane issues. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, did you actually think all of them were wholly all powerful? They could not possibly zero in on every single detail of governance by themselves on a daily basis, even with the vast increase in technology.

With the rapid globalization of virtually everything, and messages being able to be sent in seconds and being able to travel abroad in short periods of time, the world is shrinking before our eyes, and sooner or later we will have to unite.

Why? Historically it has been shown that smaller entities tend to survive better than larger ones which gradually break down e.g the Mongol Empire. Also, consider the idea that China merge with Russia. Or that the North merges with South Korea. Or Mexico with the US. Is it not an absurd idea? Besides the considerations of hassle managing such a large territory, one must also consider the cultural differences. Man has always been in conflict with each other, it will always be so. Our cultures are fundamentally different, how could we coexist in a single country? There would also arise the issue of minority/majority issues. Suppose Mexico and the US merge. Perhaps Hispanics would now be the majority?

What would a one world government take to accomplish and when, if ever, do you foresee this happening?

I don't foresee this happening. Why? Simple, our Earth has been experimenting with world government or something like that for close to a century. The League of Nations, the UN, these are classic bodies, as close to world government as we have gotten. So has it brought us one step to unity? On the contrary it has highlighted our differences and spats, brought them out, and aggravated them to an international community. Has it shown to be successful? Not really, in some cases yet, but not all. So if we can't even agree in such a limited form of government, could we coexist peacefully in a united government?

World government is not attainable now, given the world's distribution of growth, development, wealth.

Suppose all of us merge. How would we elect a leader? Would we be a federation like the US or adopt a more centralized state structure? How do we pay our taxes? Would the African states fork out as much cash as the richer first world nations?

And our military? Would we merge them? Who would control them?

In conclusion, we have gone too long down our own separate paths as different nations to come together and unite. World government is not achievable.

the reason why the roman empire fell was because of it's size, and the then limited communication abilities. after all, if you send a letter by horse from Rome, all the way to the edges of the empire, it's going to take awhile.

That's just one of the factors. So why did the Eastern Empire survive another thousand years and not the Western one? It was also due to a top heavy bureaucracy that was inefficient and corrupt, and an increasing reliance on barbarian troops.

The uniform government on our planet will be unless when we will start to colonize other planets

Is this necessarily true? Why other planets? When the Europeans started colonizing the world it brought more problems than unite them.

For one, there would be a scramble for planets. So who would get to govern them and exploit the resources?

When the Europeans started colonizing the world it brought more problems than unite them.

true, but let's remember that in that period of time, the nobles and monarchy of the european kingdoms wanted either power by extending their lands, or making money off of their provinces. they were not interested (if they were, then not much) in the well being of everyone else.

For one, there would be a scramble for planets. So who would get to govern them and exploit the resources?

if you were to have a world or galactic (in this case) government, would you not send a minister or representative of the government to oversee/govern the other planets? as far as exploiting resources, i think that that should be determined by the government.

true, but let's remember that in that period of time, the nobles and monarchy of the european kingdoms wanted either power by extending their lands, or making money off of their provinces. they were not interested (if they were, then not much) in the well being of everyone else.

It's wholly different today, it's not about individuals, but every government wants the best for their own nation and people. Even the corrupt ones want it for themselves. So, I ask you, will it be different? Will a country step aside and gladly let it's rival grab hold of more resources?

And not to forget the Scramble of Africa happened a mere 100 years ago.

if you were to have a world or galactic (in this case) government, would you not send a minister or representative of the government to oversee/govern the other planets? as far as exploiting resources, i think that that should be determined by the government.

Yes. That is if there can ever be a world government in the first place.

just a thought that comes back to the original question, if you have a world government, would that mean that there is only one nation/country on the planet? if so, then who, or, which country would you be competing with?

There are close to two hundred countries with more breaking away most years. Hence my assumption that it would be a federation, just like the USA, which would definitely lead to disunity given that most nations nowadays have disagreements with one another.

ah, thank you for the clarification

Coincidence?

do you think oprah is behind this idea?

Nichodemus, you easily sidestep the point I try to make by missing the analogy I was trying to make. I never meant a single world dictator, that would be impossible with the expectations we have of our governments today, I was simply trying to say uniting can cause peace, and using an example from a movie.

Why? Historically it has been shown that smaller entities tend to survive better than larger ones which gradually break down e.g the Mongol Empire. Also, consider the idea that China merge with Russia. Or that the North merges with South Korea. Or Mexico with the US. Is it not an absurd idea? Besides the considerations of hassle managing such a large territory, one must also consider the cultural differences. Man has always been in conflict with each other, it will always be so. Our cultures are fundamentally different, how could we coexist in a single country? There would also arise the issue of minority/majority issues. Suppose Mexico and the US merge. Perhaps Hispanics would now be the majority?

I do find a few of these quite hilarious, such as the merging of South and North Korea, since there have been talks of that already. Is our culture really all that different? Back to my point of globalization, there has been a great mixing of cultures for the past 100 years, and while everyone will have their traditions and customs, I would never see an issue arise where we would try to stop their cultural process as long as it does not interfere with good order and discipline. Minority/Majority aside, we are all human beings, and while there will always be bigotry and hate in this world, we have gotten through it so far.

I don't foresee this happening. Why? Simple, our Earth has been experimenting with world government or something like that for close to a century. The League of Nations, the UN, these are classic bodies, as close to world government as we have gotten. So has it brought us one step to unity? On the contrary it has highlighted our differences and spats, brought them out, and aggravated them to an international community. Has it shown to be successful? Not really, in some cases yet, but not all. So if we can't even agree in such a limited form of government, could we coexist peacefully in a united government?

I would honestly like to see a link or something showing the "differences" that have caused "spats" in between the countries involved in the United Nations. While we may argue, many great things have been accomplished through United Nations missions, from foreign aid to developing countries to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That said, the United Nations is more of an alliance than a governmental entity, and it has still accomplished a lot with the power we give it. [url=http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/socialstudies/un_sh_background.pdf]

While a one world government ideal is a lofty goal, and may be many many years off, I believe if implemented correctly it could have major success and bring about many years of prosperity. While you "shot my entire argument down", I believe that you merely cast it in a different light, and that with a carefully implemented system of checks and balances it could be possible, and maybe even you would support it.

one world governement is what is in the works right now if any of you do your homework and can put some things together and no i am not insane

And what kind of 'homework' does one need to do, and where do we go to find this information? Would you mind citing your sources, or at least providing references so that we can see what it is you are talking about? It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion on such subjects when you make speculations such as this without providing anyone the means to see in detail what you are talking about.

and while everyone will have their traditions and customs, I would never see an issue arise where we would try to stop their cultural process as long as it does not interfere with good order and discipline.

Bosnia and Serbia. Spain and the Basque movement. Nigeria talking about splitting into two countries, one Christian and one Muslim. Turkey and Iraq having problems with the Kurds. Singapore getting kicked out of Malaysia for having a large number of Chinese people. Our cultural differences spawn spats.

I do find a few of these quite hilarious, such as the merging of South and North Korea, since there have been talks of that already.

Talk have been going on for years with no end in sight. Aside from cultural differences, let me show you why even two nations like the South and North would have trouble merging.

They have two totally different governments. If there's merger who would govern the nation? Will both governments be combined? Will their militaries be combined? Who would be the head of State? Will the South be the one driving economic growth forward while being held back by the North?

While we may argue, many great things have been accomplished through United Nations missions, from foreign aid to developing countries to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Many are woefully underfunded.

that with a carefully implemented system of checks and balances it could be possible, and maybe even you would support it.

If countries can't even resolve their own internal disputes, I hardly think they would be capable of or bother trying to take on more burden by coming under a large umbrella of states.

as long as it does not interfere with good order and discipline.

carefully implemented system of checks and balances it could be possible

We're humans. If it's anything history has shown us, it's that we're not to be trusted with promises. The League of Nations promised to arbitrate international issues, but failed in many of them. Checks and balances do not work, given that some states can throw their weight around.


While you try to bring states together, there are nations/groups who want their independence.

uniting can cause peace

The process will bring bloodshed.


Political Reasons: The world has always been dominated by a few superpowers. There have always been weaker Third World states. I hardly think the superpowers would want to give up this power to cater to the smaller nations. Nor do smaller nations wish to be drawn into a confederation or government which might be dominated by a few states, e.g USA, China, Russia, India. Plus, different states have different treaties with each other, meaning they treat different states differently. So if they merge, what would happen of these treaties? Will Russia continue to supply gas and oil at a cheaper price to it's neighbours? Or would the central government ban that? Would alliances be torn apart?


Economics: The purpose of a world government would be to bring better life to people, achieve peace right? In terms of economics it's tricky. Some states have embargoes against each other. Some states are isolated. Some states have much more resources than others. There's a huge disparity in terms of GDP, so how are you going to resolve this under a world government, which has to handle so many countries?

Social: Yes, our generation has shown the emergence of a somewhat similar culture. But, and here's a big but, there's always discrimination. The French, Belgiums discriminate against Muslim women wearing the Burqa in their own countries. Do you think they can tolerate a world government filled with Muslim states? Iran and many Muslim states would like to see sharia law implemented. Western nations will see red. So what will be the central governments plan? Which side to give in to?

Just to round off, here's a list in case you missed it, of cultural conflicts past and present. People are trying to separate, not merge. (Source below from Wiki)





Ethnic separatism is based more on cultural and linguistic differences than religious or racial differences, which also may exist. Notable ethnic separatist movements include:

1) The Kurdish people whose lands and peoples were divided between Turkey, Syria, Iraq after World War I. Also the Kurdish region in Iran.

2) The Tuareg separatists in Niger and Mali.

3) The Soviet Unionâs dissolution into its original ethnic groupings which formed their own nations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
Chechen separatism in the Caucasus, currently the Republic of Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation (Russian rule).
Silesian separatism in Poland and Czech Republic.

4) Armenian separatists of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia separatism in Georgia.

5) Italy's Venetian, Sardinian and Sicilian separatists and separatist movements of Northern Italy called Padania

6) Spainâs Basque, Galician and Catalan separatists.
Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Manx separatism in the United Kingdom.

7) France's Basque, Catalan, Corsican and Breton separatists,

8) Bavarian separatism in Germany, despite the Bavarian lander being referred to as the Bavarian Free State.

9) Czechoslovakiaâs split into ethnic Czech and Slovakian republics in 1993.

10) The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia dissolution into ethnic (and religious) based Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo.

11) Belgium granting Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia greater autonomy.

12) In the Netherlands some Frisians covet an autonomous country or area (Friese beweging)

13) Switzerlandâs division into cantons along geographical, religious and linguistic lines.

14) French-speaking Quebec debating and voting on separation from Canada over several decades.

15) Africaâs hundreds of ethnic groups are subsumed into 53 nation states, often leading to ethnic conflict and separatism, including in Angola, Algeria, Burundi, Congo and The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur in Sudan, Ethiopia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Uganda, Western Sahara and Zimbabwe.

16) The Nigerian civil war (also known as the Biafran war) during the 1960s among Igbos, Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba; todayâs ethnic and oil-related conflict in the Niger Delta of Nigeria.

17) Conflicts in Liberia between African-Liberians and Americo-Liberians, Africans who immigrated from the Americas after being freed from slavery.

18) Conflicts between Zulus and Xhosa in South Africa during and after apartheid.

19) Boer-Afrikaner separatists.

20) Anjouan's separatism in Union of Comoros as the island is a separate community from that of Comoros.

21) The Balochistan movement in Pakistan which alleges and propagates the view that the Baloch people are a separate nation. Also see Separatist movements of Pakistan.

22) Separatist movements of India including Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and Insurgent groups in Northeast India.

23) Sri Lanka's ethnic Tamil minority separatism in Tamil Eelam.

24) Burma (Union of Myanmar)âs ethnic Arakan, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Shan, Wa separatism.

25) Free Papua Movement in West Papua, Indonesia.

26) China's Tibet has a separatist government in exile.
Maori separatism in New Zealand.

27) The breakup of the Hapsburg Empire into ethnic-based states.

28) The breakup of the Ottomon Empire into ethnic based states.

29)Ethnic-based separatism among Turkic groups in Xinjiang (Uighurs and Kazakhs).

30) Chicano nationalism or the La Raza movement among some Mexican Americans call for the development of a new country of Aztlan in the Southwestern United States.