• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A bit of a deeper topic on geo-politics

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
28,402
Reaction score
12,006
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm not sure about posting this when no one watched the video of Sen. Whitehouse's speech on the Supreme Court - seems to be a lack of interest in an important topic like that - but.

Here's a basic question on geo-politics: is the world better off with one 'world government' - whether actually just one or one dominant power - or multiple powers?

There are some pros and cons to each.

One risk on the 'one government' side is that tyrannical governments seem to tend to become quite powerfully entrenched, made unstable only by other powers, which wouldn't exist under that one government situation. Think about the tyrannies - the CCP, Hitler, the USSR, many smaller dictators and so on - and how many would fall without external pressures. They seem very able to hold power internally. So the 'one world government' seems all the riskier for becoming a 'permanent tyranny'.

With that happy note, let's look at the alternative a moment - the price for those external powers that can destabilize a regime, is war - and in a nuclear age. With multiple competing powers, whatever the attempts at peaceful co-existence like the UN, there will be ongoing conflicts where the 'bottom line' on resolving them is military force - as we're literally going through right now with Ukraine and threats of nuclear war.

So that, also, has ongoing problems with those multiple powers having ongoing conflicts, trying to increase power at others' expense.

That is one benefit to the 'one government' - preventing those conflicts and wars.

So are those the dark choices? Permanent tyranny or permanent threats of war?

We should note that as hard as it is to 'design' some structure that's good for people, that's not even how it's done - we have a haphazard situation that's the result of power and wars, not a 'designed' global governing structure.

As much as we might want to find a 'good' country to rule well, there's the truism that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

It's easy to find the world's greatest champion of 'freedom', the US, with a lot of history of being the enemy of freedom, of lies and support for tyranny and wrong war, for selfish and corrupted reasons at times.

We've found systems that function ok, in places, at times - fifty states get along well enough and don't seem close to war - but on the other hand that's under a federal government we're barely able to keep elected, with a lot of corruption, and which has been run by terrible governments.

We have the threat of nuclear war making it important to eliminate nuclear weapons before the destroy the human race, yet we're not close to doing to, even as there is nuclear sabre rattling going on now.

We've had a hard time even spreading 'enlightened civilization and governance' to places like Afghanistan with trillions of dollars spent. I don't think this has really been figured out, even if we think we've found some better things like democracy.
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
9,120
Reaction score
8,171
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm not sure about posting this when no one watched the video of Sen. Whitehouse's speech on the Supreme Court - seems to be a lack of interest in an important topic like that - but.

Here's a basic question on geo-politics: is the world better off with one 'world government' - whether actually just one or one dominant power - or multiple powers?
We're certainly better off with the latter. Multiple powers is more likely to ensure the survival of our species on the planet.
 

SkyChief

US Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
1,928
Reaction score
1,594
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A "World Government" could never happen, because at least some countries would dissent. Russia, North Korea, China, et.al. would never be on board.

And neither would the U.S., frankly.

If our leaders in Washington ever bowed to foreign rulers, we would immediately implement Revolution 2.0.

1776 would happen all over again. And like in 1776, we will prevail.

I shudder at the thought of a World Government - - rich European oligarchs making laws for Americans - - -

NO! 😠

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!" - Thomas Jefferson
 

Antiwar

Green Party progressive
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
20,659
Reaction score
3,865
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
We've had a hard time even spreading 'enlightened civilization and governance' to places like Afghanistan with trillions of dollars spent. I don't think this has really been figured out, even if we think we've found some better things like democracy.

With respect:

Bombing for "democracy" is conservative propaganda. The US war of terror wasn't a 20-year (and still counting?) campaign for spreading "democracy."

The US is spreading barbarism. Militarism is barbarism. There's nothing enlightened about starving, bombing, shooting, and dominating people.
 

Antiwar

Green Party progressive
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
20,659
Reaction score
3,865
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
With respect:

Of course there shouldn't be a "world government," but there should be an effective international justice system. And the US government should get the hell out of the way of it, help pay for it (consider it reparations), but have zero say in it because it has been the international injustice system for many decades.
 
Top Bottom