If a world government did come to power and it wasn’t cruel or evil, would it be a good or bad thing?
Unity is one thing that keeps a country going. We always clamour for peace and want peaceful coexistence among citizens. The simple reason is because without peace, there cannot be a country.
Being peaceful alone does not guarantee the growth of a country. A country needs good political and economical plans to survive and develop. There is no gainsaying in the fact that some countries are more 'developed' than the other.
If peaceful coexistence is the premise and development is the conclusion, is it not reasonable to think that a global government can end the apparent inequality in the world?
Most countries in Africa are underdeveloped (in progressive sense). This is partially due to the fact that these countries were earlier colonized. The colonial masters took all they got here to their countries to develop them (read Frantz Fanon: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa for more). It is true from my work (here) on development that no country is truly developed or underdeveloped (in static or degenerative sense). Every country is in the process of development. No country is static.
However, some countries are developing at a higher speed while others are crawling. This is responsible for the usage of the phrase 'more advanced countries' because some are more advanced than the other in terms of development.
It is a fact that a country like America is more advanced than Nigeria and this is why many people want to go there for a better life (this suggests their conditions here is very bad). This also explains why most of my people perish on the Mediterranean Sea on inflatable boat (rubber boat). Many have also died crossing the sahara desert by car in search for greener pastures. Sadly, this is coupled with the fact that African currencies are very inferior to their currencies (dollar, euro, pound).
From the aforementioned, it is obvious some countries are more advanced than the others. The question now is: can coming together to form a single government solve these inequalities? That is, can these countries come together and have a single head for the sole aim of developing other countries and solving their economic problems?
Do not forget that a similar 'marriage' once happened in Nigeria in 1914. This is called the Amalgamation of 1914 where the then Governor-General Frederick Lugard merged the Northern and Southern Nigeria together to form a single colony of Nigeria. It has been argued that this was done to help Northern protectorate who had a budget deficit with the budget surpluses of the Southern protectorate.
From that standpoint, economical factor was the reason behind that marriage. Some have however argued that the amalgamation is responsible for the problem we are facing now in Nigeria because there were no consultations before these two protectorates were merged together.
The argument here is what if the coming together of countries is done in a peaceful way without any bloodshed, would the world be better or bad?
It is also important to note that we still have racial bias, language barrier and cultural differences. How would the coming together be of benefit to the people? Remember also that it is for economical growth rather than political stability.
Your take on the topic would be appreciated.
Thanks for your time. Your boy @smyle the philosopher.
The issue of unity and it's effect on the growth and economy of a country can never be over-emphasized. The lack of unity is the reason for the chaos.
And the answer to your question/argument is
Yes the world will be better if the coming together of countries is done in a peaceful way.
And to the second question,
Despite having racial bias,if we can come together in unity, we will find common grounds on which we can build on to make life better both economically and even politically.
Nice one.. This is my kind of post.
My take on this is that marrying a number of countries together would have been a fantastic idea, if and only if, the people who'll lead the resulted mega-country are selfless and not greedy. Nigeria is where it is today ultimately because of greed, then sentiments and all others come afterwards. Most underdeveloped nations remained underdeveloped not because they lack resources for a speedy development but because their leaders lack the political will to develop those nations.
You mentioned America; America is driven by the will to be the most powerful state in the world at all times. Please what drives Nigeria?
In my opinion, the coming together of all countries of the world to form a big government will in no way bring economical development to all. This is so because of the following reasons.
The presence of language barrier will be seen to play a key role in such scenario. People of one language will always gravitate to each other. Thereby creating division in the big country. This could be clearly seen in the case of Nigeria.
Secondly, looking at the operations of United Nation Organization(which could be seen as a symbol of the "big" country), it is obvious that priorities are given to certain sections while other sections get lesser priority.
Thanks @smyle
@largerben
First, economic growth can only be sustained by political stability. Secondly, coming together of nations will certainly improve their economic growth but the biggest problem is "who will be in the helm of affairs of the new nation"? Political leaders of each nation for selfish gains will never allow others to lead them and the possibility of accommodating all the leaders of all nations involved will rubbish decision making process of such nation.
"Your take on the topic would be appreciated." I wonder in my case.... Anyhow... (testing the waters)
The simple answer to your headline, from my perspective is; no, but that does not help unless I clarify. And I will to the best of my ability keep, as you mentioned, language barier in mind. (being what it seems to me, was our last issue)
Let me start with pointing out my perspective on a large factor behind the situation in African countrys today. As from information ive heard, alot of the economical issues, was in effect created in African countrys by westers influance in the form of loands, that the countrys was unabel to pay back. Resulting in western banks claming resources for cheap as "payment".
This created a situation where, even though the countrys got some technological assistance, western influance gained control over the actual resourced there. So overall taking value away from the countrys in the form of natural resources. Correct me if im wrong.
But to answwer why a global gouvernment whould not be good, even if well intentioned, I whould refer to Larken Rose and 2 of his videos named: "the tiny dot" and "If you were king" as they presents it in relativly simple ways. There is no way, from my perspective, that a global gouvernment could work for all areas fo this world. Because the essence of a gouvernment is to have control structures in place that is the same for everyone and every area. And every individual thinks, acts and values are diferent. Also there is many diferences in the areas. Aswell as what is presented in Larkens videos, that for there to be a gouvernment, it needs funding, and the bigger it is the more funding it needs. And the higher % if the earnings from each individual needs to be payed to the gouvernment. As long as there is a monetery system as sutch in place.
Not to mention the responsability and power to place in 1 individual or even 1 organisations hands. They cannot even close to, keep an eye on everything that needs to be monitored, unless, that is, everything is connected up to a smartgrid. (oh isnt thats whats going on?)
Just saying.. Too large a subject to put detailed enough into 1 comment though. But Recomending Larken Rose's material on this, even though he can be a little too "black an white / 1's and 0's / left or right" on the subject.
It's only God that knows how you think about all this imaginative ideas
Its not possible not to be evil. That can only happen if God is the ruler of such goverment