Semi-OT: Planetary governments

[Fyron]

If that is true of X then it is true of X/2.

Sure, if you have a world that is half the size of Earth in one unified government, it is the same as if Earth had one unified government. Otherwise, this sort of division doesn't really apply... If Earth had 2 different nation states, each encompassing half of the world, it would not be _as bad_ as one single nation-state, but it would still be terrible. Divide it by 2 several more times, and it works out better. 200+ nations is much better than 6 (unified continents)... See Aiken's post below. No need to repeat what he said already.

[Captain Kwok]

In most sci-fi universes, we've got lots of colonies on many different worlds and/or occupy space with other alien species etc. So even though Earth is "unified" - we'd still be divided - but on a larger scale. i.e. Earth is a single nation with many states (i.e. our nations today) but itself is just a single state vs. Mars vs. Alpha Centauri etc.

[Aiken]

Let's divide this futures: Earth Hegemony (ala N.Spinrad's "Agent of Chaos") or State Earth (opposed to Mars Empire, Asteroid Confederacy, etc). It's very different social phenomenas.

First one is absolutely closed system with accumulative social enthropy, which will blow up state early or later. This state has 3 (I think you can find more) possibilities to survive in long term period: 1) convert population to mindless mass; 2) kill large amount of inconsistent people or remove them to a very distant places (hey, Australia ) and be at intensive brainwashing and freedom restriction for others; 3) create mighty artificial enemy (alternative evil state, aliens), but this is transient treat.

Which one do you like best of all?

Second one is just an expansion of current geopolitical structure, nothing new here, except some cultural alternations.

The biggest hangup on the subject of world government is the mine is best syndrome. The same one I find in many discussions. What is the "best" xxxxxx.

I haven't told than my vision is "best", I just "prefer" it Nobody can't be absolutely objective, especialy then speaking about such subjects as future world order

[Randallw]

First one is absolutely closed system with accumulative social enthropy, which will blow up state early or later. This state has 3 (I think you can find more) possibilities to survive in long term period: 1) convert population to mindless mass; 2) kill large amount of inconsistent people or remove them to a very distant places (hey, Australia ) and be at intensive brainwashing and freedom restriction for others; 3) create mighty artificial enemy (alternative evil state, aliens), but this is transient treat.

Which one do you like best of all?

As someone whose ancestor was shipped to Australia on the first fleet (Sort of like the Mayflower but without a choice ) I'm kind of fond of number 2

I would support a unified world government. Multiculturalism is a bit of a catchphrase in Australia, but I disagree with it. In my mind many different cultures all believing in different things cause conflict. They all believe their culture is superior and refuse to see anyone elses point of view. Better that everyone in the world be forced to all believe in the same thing. As for a space "Empire", it is dependant on a mode of travel fast enough to ensure communication between different planets. If the only means to travel is slow, such as a generational ark, then each planet will evolve its own culture.

[Gandalf Parker]

Imperator Fyron said:

Sure, if you have a world that is half the size of Earth in one unified government, it is the same as if Earth had one unified government. Otherwise, this sort of division doesn't really apply... If Earth had 2 different nation states, each encompassing half of the world, it would not be _as bad_ as one single nation-state, but it would still be terrible. Divide it by 2 several more times, and it works out better. 200+ nations is much better than 6 (unified continents)... See Aiken's post below. No need to repeat what he said already.

Right. But the question becomes.. why stop at national governments? Why arent you therefore in favor of each nation releasing its non-nationalized territorial holdings?

Or even as far as seperating the states/provinces? Counties? down to city-states? Those are all examples of merging governments into a larger government. If it works at one level , or doesnt work, then the pros and cons should carry downward as well as the upward (world government) which you were discussing.