Nationalization of the World

[konerko14]

What are the chances the entire world gets nationalized and becomes one super large communist state at some point in the future? Is it possible? What would be the outcome if that happened?

[IAmMetaphysical]

If anything of that sort would happen it would probably happen so that there are various types of statists countries all warring with each other, not just communism or collectivism. It will resemble the dark ages, except for the thousands of square miles of radioactive earth.

[Inspector]

If the USA falls, then we're pretty much guaranteed a dark age of one kind or another.

Why do you ask?

[mweiss]

If the USA falls, then we're pretty much guaranteed a dark age of one kind or another.

Why do you ask?

This topic, as depressing as it is, does raise some practical quesitons of what do we do when the world becomes submerged in darkness?

Objectivists need to consider building a nation we can call our own, where our principles can be put to practical use. If we are so great, then we should have no trouble repidly forming the greatest nation on earth. We need only find John Galt, stop the motor of the world, and bring all those producers to our country. The rest of the world, lacking it's scientists and technical geniuses, will be helpless to do anything about it. If we take all their mechanics, engineers and scientists and bring them to our side of the table, it will paralize the world government and we might have a chance to rise to a world power.

[DavidOdden]

What are the chances the entire world gets nationalized and becomes one super large communist state at some point in the future?

I would also ask the question of what the chances are of the the entire world gets nationalized and becomes one super large capitalist state at some point in the future. Having just one government is one thing, having a proper government is another. It's good not to conflate the issues: global monopoly on force would be good, and communism is evil. Ergo global communism is evil (following the tablespoon of sewage rule).

[konerko14]

If the USA falls, then we're pretty much guaranteed a dark age of one kind or another.

Why do you ask?

It just seemed like a possibility considering how the majority of countries have an altruistic attitude towards life. And if the majority of the people in a country vote for their own country to be heavily governed, then why would they object against a universal altruistic world? And if most of the larger developed countries have accepted this "brotherhood" with one another, then they could probably force or bribe the other less developed countries to join them. And if a certain few countries decide not to join, they would probably receive an ultimatum: join or die. Their entire land would possibly get completely taken out with nuclear bombs, or like in North Korea, everybody would be forbidden to trade with them, or some other devious plan to wipe them out.

[konerko14]

I would also ask the question of what the chances are of the the entire world gets nationalized and becomes one super large capitalist state at some point in the future. Having just one government is one thing, having a proper government is another. It's good not to conflate the issues: global monopoly on force would be good, and communism is evil. Ergo global communism is evil (following the tablespoon of sewage rule).

I was thinking some type of universal statist government would be more of a possibility because those types of communist, power-seeking guys in charge would use as much force as possible to unite the entire world, if this was their plan. How would a universal free society be formed since improper force shouldnt be used by them?

[DavidOdden]

How would a universal free society be formed since improper force shouldnt be used by them?

The same way that any free society would be formed. There's nothing in the nature of being Canadian or English or even French that entails "hating freedom". So if the conditions could come about where US citizens want a free society and would elect such a government, then the same could happen in Canada. And if the US and Canada were to both form separate rational rights-protecting governments, they could as easily form a single government, and would see the merit of having one government. Same with Europe. The only problem (snort! "Only"!) with the EU is that it has regulations that prohibit people from acting according to their own judgment. Otherwise, it's not that hard to vote to merge countries.

I understand the probability argument: I'm just skeptical that Kim could succeed in ruling the world. I even doubt that space aliens could succeed in dominating the whole planet. Global anarchy seems more likely than global dictatorship.

[Time_Maker]

I always wanted a chance to give my opinion on a world government, and now that I found this thread, I will take this chance and seize it.

There is nothing wrong with a one world economy/ political system, insolong as its capitalistic in nature. In fact, a one world political system would be great. It will reduce the costs to do "international" business (because there would be no such thing as international business anymore). It would decrease the cost to convert money, because everyone would be using the same currency (ideally gold). It may even remove the cost of having to maintain a military resulting in a very cheap government.

How would such a political system get created? Only when other countries realize that its better to combine, then to be separate (out of many, comes one).

Now, sadly, it appears that the world is heading towards a one world communist/ islamic-fascist government. However, such a government would never really work in the long term. Communism and islamic-fascism requires collectivism. Once one group takes control, another group will attempt to overthrow the first group. Such a system will continue until the world Balkanize into competing groups (ala France, or England, or Germany, or the Roman Empire, until it was unified). Then the world would effectually be in the dark ages.

[BrassDragon]

Now, sadly, it appears that the world is heading towards a one world communist/ islamic-fascist government. ... Communism and islamic-fascism requires collectivism. Once one group takes control, another group will attempt to overthrow the first group. Such a system will continue until the world Balkanize into competing groups (ala France, or England, or Germany, or the Roman Empire, until it was unified).

I don't see any evidence that the world is heading towards a global government, as you claim. And it would seem highly unlikely that that would happen for exactly the reason you provided for it falling apart if it ever did happen.

[The Wrath]

I don't think a "government" in the way we think of it could possibly rule the entire world in anything resembling an efficient manner. I do think, however, that a supragovernmental organization like the UN could end up effectively being a one-world government, in that it would have the power to exert control over its constituent nations. The UN has been trying for decades to get the power to tax its constituent nations. If it ever got it, that would be a huge step toward it gaining power over the whole world.

[Time_Maker]

Hello Brass

There is some evidence that the world is heading towards a global government:

1. The increasing power of the United Nations.

For the most part of its history, the United Nations was a puppet organization. The United Nations had no say in such events as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or the Cuba Crisis of 1961. Only recently, starting with the Gulf War I, did the United Nations start playing an increasing role in the World's Affairs. This includes demanding education for everyone in the world (and the law-work to support it), Production Controls (Via the Kyoto Treaty), and demanding that everyone gets subsidized health care.

2. An increasing closeness to other governments, economically.

Over the last two decades, organizations like the European Union (with its unified currency) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) came up. Eventually, the EU will start holding elections for president, and, in lessor form, the United States, Mexico, and Canada may very well merge into one country (in the boarder states, the mexicans are clearly in the majority. Also, MEChA, a Mexican Student Organization, already made it clear that they want the southern states to be returned to Mexico).

It is a lot easier to get all the countries in the world to march in lockstep when there are fewer countries. The more countries there are, the harder it is to get each one to follow the leader's course.

Now, I did state the world is heading towards a one world government. However, just because one is heading towards something doesn't mean one can reach it. The dream to unified the world under collectivism or Communism will remain just that - a dream.

Please let me know if you disagree further.

[The Wrath]

Hello Brass

There is some evidence that the world is heading towards a global government:

1. The increasing power of the United Nations.

For the most part of its history, the United Nations was a puppet organization. The United Nations had no say in such events as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or the Cuba Crisis of 1961. Only recently, starting with the Gulf War I, did the United Nations start playing an increasing role in the World's Affairs. This includes demanding education for everyone in the world (and the law-work to support it), Production Controls (Via the Kyoto Treaty), and demanding that everyone gets subsidized health care.

2. An increasing closeness to other governments, economically.

Over the last two decades, organizations like the European Union (with its unified currency) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) came up. Eventually, the EU will start holding elections for president, and, in lessor form, the United States, Mexico, and Canada may very well merge into one country (in the boarder states, the mexicans are clearly in the majority. Also, MEChA, a Mexican Student Organization, already made it clear that they want the southern states to be returned to Mexico).

It is a lot easier to get all the countries in the world to march in lockstep when there are fewer countries. The more countries there are, the harder it is to get each one to follow the leader's course.

Now, I did state the world is heading towards a one world government. However, just because one is heading towards something doesn't mean one can reach it. The dream to unified the world under collectivism or Communism will remain just that - a dream.

Please let me know if you disagree further.

Good post. One point number one, I'd just like to point out that the reason the UN was stagnant for so long was because the Cold War had beeing going on for the entire lifespan of the UN, until the fall of the Soviet Union. The US and USSR balanced each other out and basically made it impossible for the UN to do anything. Given what the UN does nowadays, it almost makes you miss the Cold War.

[BrassDragon]

1. The increasing power of the United Nations.

For the most part of its history, the United Nations was a puppet organization. The United Nations had no say in such events as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or the Cuba Crisis of 1961. Only recently, starting with the Gulf War I, did the United Nations start playing an increasing role in the World's Affairs. This includes demanding education for everyone in the world (and the law-work to support it), Production Controls (Via the Kyoto Treaty), and demanding that everyone gets subsidized health care.

That's right - the UN makes a lot of demands these days. I can't see world powers like Russia, China, and (hopefully) the U.S. surrender their power (especially their military power) to this morally bankrupt and incompetent organization. I can't see the Islamic nations agreeing to be under the same government as Europe, or the Latin American nations agreeing to be under the same government as the U.S. (Can't you just see them crying 'foul' and saying it's a US hegemony - which it would be, in a sense, since inevitably the military would be disproportionally composed of forces from more militarily powerful countries?)

1. The increasing power of the United Nations. 2. An increasing closeness to other governments, economically.

Over the last two decades, organizations like the European Union (with its unified currency) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) came up. Eventually, the EU will start holding elections for president, and, in lessor form, the United States, Mexico, and Canada may very well merge into one country (in the boarder states, the mexicans are clearly in the majority. Also, MEChA, a Mexican Student Organization, already made it clear that they want the southern states to be returned to Mexico).

NATFA isn't an organization, it's a treaty - we need more free trade treaties. I can't see the people of the North American nations ever agreeing to merge into one. (The Quebecois are trying to get away from Canada, and certainly mainstream Canadians don't want to actually make Canada the 51st state, as we already joke about it being.) I'd love to see your evidence that Mexicans are in the majority in border states (I looked it up, and they're simply not.) They would be in the future if their population growth was to be sustained, but I don't know that it is sustainable (probably not if we stop giving out handouts). Furthermore, their population growth will stabilize if a significant proportion of them are able to fulfill the "American Dream" of being educated and above the poverty line (I'd say unlikely given our current education system, cultural values, and job market, but possible).

Anyway, given the facts, the Mexican population likely will become greater than the 'native' American population in the future, but it won't matter. And Mexican student organizations calling for the southern states to be "returned" to Mexico in this day and age has as much clout as PETA demanding that we destroy all dams since they make life harder for salmon.

Now, I did state the world is heading towards a one world government.

What you actually said is that the world is heading towards one "Communist/ islamic-fascist" government. I think that's like saying the world is turning into a jumbo shrimp.

Anyway, I'm not trying to blow you out of the water - you've made some good points and I think in the very long term, the prospects for a single system of global capitalism aren't too terribly bad. What it would require is a revolution of men's minds.

[utabintarbo]

The world will stay Balkanized to some extent until there is a reason for it to unite. The only reason I can foresee is a threat from outside (a la Independence Day).

Think about this: people will always want to maintain a "way out". If there is no "somewhere else", they will have nowhere to go. This need for an escape route cuts across all lines in society.

[Shading Inc.]

The world will stay Balkanized to some extent until there is a reason for it to unite. The only reason I can foresee is a threat from outside (a la Independence Day).

Think about this: people will always want to maintain a "way out". If there is no "somewhere else", they will have nowhere to go. This need for an escape route cuts across all lines in society.

How about a threat from the inside: Tectonic uproar, climatic catastrophes, a pandemic of some kind of really nasty disease, Matrix-become-real...

As if nowadays there's a way out of civilization. Hardly. However, one can always hide one's head in the sand. Internet, and computer games are excellent contemporary ways of doing so I think, especially in combination. And we're still only seeing the beginning of this new era of digitalization...

[softwareNerd]

... the United States, Mexico, and Canada may very well merge into one country.

More likely, at some stage, if all goes well, these three countries will open up their borders to the movement of people and trade. Completely open borders are unlikely, but a much easier flow is conceivable. The main requirements would be some type of agreement about entry requirements into all three countries, and information-sharing about people entering the three countries. Right now, the political mood in the country is against this. Today, Lou Dobbs -- forever socialist and xenophobic -- kept harping on the great dangers to the USA from such a pact. He's painting the so called "North American Partnership for Prosperity" as some kind of Bush conspiracy theory.