Staredit Network

And another reason why I say no is that a single centralized government would bee seen as similar to an imperial state. People living under imperialistic governing systems dislike them, because they are seen as illegitimate authority.

Legitimate authority is that which the governed consent to the governing. When people give their consent to be governed, it typically implies that the governing system will provide benefits to the governed peoples. When no benefits can be seen, or the costs of having such a government outweigh the prosperity created, then the people will not approve of the governing body.
In every case where one entity forms a position of authority that is without the consent of those to whom it applies, then that authority is an illegitimate authority. This sort of forced authority is one of the single greatest, if not the only, contributions to the proliferation of wars.

Some examples of forced authority would be:
1. British reign over India, as well as other less powerful nations. England, the head of an imperial beast, did not view the other regions under its control as equal to its own "central" region of governing. If we were to have a single center of government, it would be similar in that the central government would be held more important then the localized governments. When Britain maintained this centralized structure, however, it managed its resources as a single country, moving Indian textiles (cotton primarily) over to Europe, and more importantly, it moved these resources with minimal cost. By knocking down the ability for the Indian nation to sell textiles at the price it wished to, it effectively made the ability to produce wealth in the sub-nation much smaller. This loss in productivity, was the cost that outnumbered the benefits, thus rendering the British government an illegitimate authority, eventually leading to Indian independence.

2. Illegitimate authority does not have to be seen as imperialism though, if one nation imposes an act forcing another region to do something against their will, it to is seen as illegitimate authority. At the end of World War 1, Germany was held responsible for most of the damage created in Europe. (Read the treaty of Versailles) It was forced to pay for the war damages in Britain and France. This forced payment can be seen as the beginnings of World War 2. The authority imposed by the other allied nations upon the already war-torn economy of Germany created a hyperinflation, where to pay off the costs, the government simply printed off as much money as they could possibly print. This made German currency practically worthless, and dropped the entire country basically in poverty. These conditions are what the Nazi party played upon to unite the nation in a form of nationalism.

Given both of these cases, we can assume that illegitimate authority is created when one entity attempts to maintain power over another, when the other entity originally considered the two entities as being equal. (or even in reverse hierarchy)
That being as it is, how do you expect the countries of the world to give up their own authority?

Even putting all the other issues I have previously mentioned aside, a world government is wishing for a communist system applied to international relations.

Not yet, anyway.

Not stupid enough. Smart enough.

I mean, just look around and you'll see what a mess we humans have made of things. What better way to clean it up than take control away from stupid, greedy humans and into the hands of intelligent machines (or, for that matter, cyborgs)?

What about when someone forces them to?

You can't really apply the idea of communism to diplomacy. It's an economic system, and diplomacy isn't economics.

The the money drives both politics and diplomacy, no?

No. Communism is a economic system. Technically, the governments just ironically have a dictatorship.

Communism is more then simply an economic system. It is equality. It is treating everyone in a system with the same luxury and wishing for all to have equal responsibilities. By managing a peoples money supply, so one person cannot use their wealth in order to overpower workers, you distance the relationship between money and political power.


And the system of governing we currently employ is not a creation of man?

communist states technically do not exist. Like Kim Jung Il of North Korea and its 'loyal royalties' have much more money and luxury than the normal capital citizens. Then theres the difference between the capital citizens and the outlying regional citizens with money and food supplies.

on the second comment you made rantent, i did not mean it that way.

Not literally. Communism may go hand in hand with and even promote social equality, but in itself it is actually an economic system.

Any system proposed as a method to be used by mass numbers of people should not be taken word for word. At least I believe that any form of written doctrine cannot say all that it means. It is only a form of communicating purpose, and it is a job of both the messenger and receiver to decide upon what that message is.

According to Marxist theory, society is defined by its economic system. Therefore, you would be incorrect in assuming that the economic system and society are distinct entities.

1. It is because the idea of Imperialism views the colony as their own little 'puppets' for markets and selling goods. Why I base the World Government with the United States is because the Federal system is theoratically viable for ruling large areas. Maryland isn't considered above compared to any other states.

2. That is why the end of World War II did not make Germany pay all the war losses all over again. Sometimes these 'authorities' are required to keep peace in place. America partly did not want this.

And lastly, the World government isn't asking the governments all over the world to give up all of their local power 'now'. This isn't necessarily 'now'. If this is 'now' that a world government will take place; a wide scale war would emerge. This does take time for each governments to get together. And they wouldn't, they'd just lose power gradually in a multi-national organization.


This is highly controversial, since all communist governments through out the history have failed or is in poverty. Why would a world government want a communism system anyways? There is no world government, yet.

Karl Marx made a lot of mistakes. I highly suspect this is one of them.

Yes but it is considered under the federal government, which can make demands on it as it wishes.

Forget I said this, I was alluding to the fact that communism is a noncompetitive system. Whereas capitalism is differing entities competing over the same resources.

Yes, he did make mistakes, but I challenge you to refute the notion that the economy and society are independent of one another.

Correlation =/= dependancy. In other words, just because some kinds of social systems and some kinds of economic systems have historically gone together doesn't mean either is necessarily dependent on the other. Given the definition of communism (which is basically shared ownership of everything), it seems to me that you could make a number of types of societies under that economic system if you wanted.

However, I believe that in this case the burden of proof is technically on you.

Yes, but then a federal government wouldn't be stupid enough to demand too much on a state. Thats why there is a concept of Democratic Republic Federal Government. The federal government doesn't have all the power.

Or the state will...
Secede from the nation?
We saw how well that worked the first time.

As long as money creates political power there will be a direct dependance on money for political power.

Revolutions always take place. For the South, slaves were highly valuable for keeping their economy.

And money will always be the symbol of power as it has been since the beginnings of civilization.

When I have the time to come up with an argument (probably some time over the Christmas period when I don't have essays to do), I might answer this more fully, but it took Marx many volumes to do that, so I find the task rather daunting.

For now, however, I'll just point out that changes in the economic base of a state provoke societal change. The most obvious historical example is in the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe. You've mentioned Luddism in another topic so you probably know something about this. Rapid mechanisation and industrialisation, combined with some of the ideas that came out of the Enlightenment, led to several things.
First of all, it gave rise to Liberalism - a class was able to emerge which was wealthy (their wealth derived from economic change), educated and not aristocratical. The regimes of the day (excluding Britain) were autocratic and protectionist. Liberals wanted to have a constitution and for what they regarded as certain basic rights to be safeguarded (particularly property), and desired freer trade. The refusal of the autocratic regimes to accept this led to revolution and change in the governmental system, either by overthrow or forced reform.

A second effect of mechanisation was the collapse of the traditional cottage industries on which peasants relied as a secondary source of income by providing their skilled labour on a part-time basis. The centralisation of the means of production in the mill or factory led to the migration of many newly impoverished peasant-artisans to the cities, where they worked in the factories and suffered, amongst other things, alienation from the product of their labour, and the monotony of unskilled labour on a production line (this was frustrating for them because they came from a tradition of skilled labour). Over time, these new proletarians developed a class consciousness and their own culture. There you have an example of the dependance of society on economic change. Times of social unrest almost always coincide with periods of recession. The Great Depression provoked a change in how the US government worked - it became far more powerful and began to intervene more in the running and regulation of the economy. Also, the Depression was a major factor in the rise of authoritarianism in Germany and Italy.

I've rambled a lot and I haven't given the answer I would liked to have given, but
I don't think you can call the correlation between economic and societal change 'coincidental.'

I agree with CaptainWill partly. But economical problems do not always correspond with changing the government. However, the Great Depression is a good example of how the entire idea of capitalist governments changed.

Wouldn't you refer to mechanisation as more to Industrial Revolution? For the U.S., Industrial Revolution also made an end to slavery.

My belief on changing the government must be that there must be 3 factors in making huge changes to the government.
1. When there is a huge problem that cannot be solved by the society.
2. When there is a new effective method that the citizens support.
3. When there is a huge new developement in technology, system, and society. ( i.e: Industrial Revolution, Social Revolutions )

As long as the government does not see it as a problem... I suppose so. Although I can't think of any functional economic problem that has not been dealt with by a change in government policy. (Functional here meaning either creating long term job losses, or loopholes through which money is made or lost. As opposed to simply temperamental economic problems, which are basically short term job losses or you losing a bunch of money gambling or something.)

Those are serious problems in a nation. It will close banks, factories, companies and other stores. Not such a good idea to leave it there.
And for temperamental, if that becomes a societal problem; the government will make a law to outlaw it.

For some, manual metal-movable print is a monopoly in the U.S. So it costs a thousand dollars for each set. Those haven't been dealt by the government, yet.