TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

The World would be a better place with one government.

The World right now is struggling--different currencies, new ordeals within countries, and the fear of others is on our minds everyday.

With one government most of this would be abolished--

How is one government not better?

Topics: government

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 24 2012: Hi Misha,

    answer me this:

    why is it that people constantly think that without government, the world would just be utter chaos, when in fact that true nature of the world and universe do not abide by such human standards? The true nature of the world and universe is anarchistic (in the sense that it is free to do whatever it wants and that we actually do not understand it) but we have been conditioned by the modern world to think that without government or structure we would just plunge into nihilism (or meaningless chaos). I must note that in regards to power I'm not just talking about government but also other apparatuses of power such as the educational, medical and prisons systems just to name a few.

    The funny thing is, is that people are so critical of governmental establishments but are unwilling to do anything about it. To me this is quite odd..actually very odd and hard to understand because "WE THE PEOPLE" seem to put more trust into politicians and business leaders who really do not care about our interest as opposed to working together with our fellow man and what is more flabbergasting is that ,many people know all about this and yet still advocate "to maintain the order" (although there are few exceptions to this of course). Here in the U.S. people do not even want to get to know their neighbor, so there really seems to be a low sense of community. this works well for those who understands the nature of power.

    I honestly think there is a deeper issue here: Without some sort of social structure there only seems to be individuality. People are left to themselves to create their own values; there own meaning and this terrifies many people. So instead of doing this and facing meaninglessness they grasp on to anything that they can find until they have solid ground. The very act of self-creating and be responsible for ones own life is the hardest thing for one to do.

    the result: the establishment of government and religion.
    • May 24 2012: Hey =)

      "The true nature of the world and universe do not abide by such human standards" - The true nature of the world or universe are irrelevant here because we are not debating those. We are debating the best way to structure human society, surly we want societies for humans to "abide by such human standards"?

      I doubt anyone truly believes that a world without government would plunge into nihilism as you suggest. There was a time when no governments existed we know what happens, we would have feudal societies (historians generally agree these weren't so great). Our nature as humans encourages complex social relationships this helped us to naturally progress from feudal societies to the democratic governments we have today. You might even say it is the natural order of things.

      "People are so critical of governmental establishments but are unwilling to do anything about it... People do not even want to get to know their neighbour". - This sounds like a criticism of your community rather than of governments themselves. Surly the answer would be to get people more interested and involved in their communities and local government rather than encouraging them to retreat from or abandon them altogether...

      "Without some sort of social structure there only seems to be individuality. People are left to themselves to create their own values... Be responsible for ones own life" - You seem to be interested in a society were people create all their own food, shelter etc, people are fully responsible for theirs and their families lives and little trade occurs. This sounds to me like a hunter gatherer society. Sure a hunter gather society would probably maximize peoples individuality and allow them to be fully responsible for themselves and their values. But with 7 billion people on the planet there is simply not enough land for everyone to live like this. By advocating this you are condemning billions of people to death by starvation...
      • thumb
        May 25 2012: Hello Misha,

        most (if not all) governmental systems try to understand the nature of the world and people alike. By understanding these things they can understand how to control the public. This is really the basis of the public relations industry (at least here in the U.S.). Although the P.R.I. tries to understand public opinion, they have to have a deep understanding of everything else as well, that way they'll know how to set up their establishments and maintain their power. You mention the best way to structure human societies. The only way of understanding this is understanding the world and the human mind in relation to power and the environment.

        You'd be surprised as to how many people fear a world without government and structure. These sort of people have a tendency to link human suffering to human nature and for many, this is the true basis of human nature. What i think many people tend to forget is the many factors that contribute to human suffering and if you ask me most of it can be linked back to governmental problems as well as the global monetary system (this is not to say that all human suffering can be linked back to government and money being that religion amongst other things leads to this as well). Given the fact that there are many stateless societies, I would have to disagree that there was some sort of evolution of governmental systems as you suggest, leaving democracy to be the epitome of what governmental systems should be like.

        You are correct in stating that I am talking about a society in which people create their own values, food, shelter, etc but it is far from hunter gather societies and many societies like this exist til this day but are more community based. I appreciate the point you made. I have never heard that criticism before but it is far from condemning people to starve. I think starvation mainly occurs when you establish gov't since the most dominate ones take all the resources....

        My position may be a bit idealistic
        • May 25 2012: "Given the fact that there are many stateless societies... I am talking about a society in which people create their own values, food, shelter"

          How do these societies compare? Are they as "successful" (what ever that means lol) as democratic governments we have today? Do they have good healthcare, education and safety nets for the poorest? Do these societies allow for trade between communities? How about specialization or economies of scale? Do you find any meaningful science being done in these societies? I personally would not sacrifice scientific advancement for any kind of society at all. Science ensures life for everyone can always get better.

          "I think starvation mainly occurs when you establish gov't since the most dominate ones take all the resources...."

          This argument simply does not ring true. The nations where you find famine today are all net importers of food so you can't really claim the food is being stolen from out of their mouths. The problems are many but the biggest one I'd argue is that places ravaged by famine don't employ the best farming techniques. Why? Maybe because they don't have working democracies maybe they overvalue their existing farming techniques. They don't want to copy any one else farming techniques (after all they should be responsible for their own food right?). What ever the reasons, they have to deal with lower yealds because of it, and by extension famine. For a example research the green revolution and how Borlaug turned India from the brink of mass famine in 1961 into one of the worlds largest rice, poultry and beef exporters.

          I suspect you were probably thinking about other commodities like oil when you talk of dominant governments taking all the resources rather than food. In this case you make a valid point. This problem is exactly why we need to make the most dominate government responsible for everyone on the planet so no one looses out in this way. In other words to fix this we need a global government.
      • thumb
        May 25 2012: The issue with what you say, is that your assuming that people cannot have a sense of well-being without government. Also you mentioned "success". As you pointed out, I cannot really talk about that being success is relative. For you to understand such a society and where I'm coming from check out these two links for starters:


        these are just two examples. What you need to consider is that everything you mention from scientific knowledge to food requires human knowledge, human hard work, human innovation, etc. All this could be accomplished without government. The problem is we have not considered these things and I think the first link is a perfect example of that. It is far from paradise but what place is and the people that live there are generally satisfied with their life. If you doubt the science you need to explain not only how those people are healthy but how were their buildings manufactured without the aid of government and I believe money? This is just one of many examples of societies like this that many people do not know about.

        If you really want to understand my position you have to look and even consider a world and human experience without money and I believe that is something your not really accustomed to because our modern world dictates that such a life is absurd and nearly impossible because humans cannot live in peace with just "9 Laws" (when you check the links you'll see what I mean).

        your analysis is not entirely true. To state that for example, American imperialism do not have an influence on resources in other countries and therefore creating a failed state is completely wrong. Also the point I was trying to make, even the local governments withhold resources from their own people, so to state that government and power are not responsible for famine is really not true at all. Its not because of farming, its because of power and interest.
        • May 25 2012: "Your assuming that people cannot have a sense of well-being without government"

          I didn't say that at all!. At best I assumed that a structureless society wouldn't really support scientists who don't really contribute anything tangible until they make a discovery that can be used to create something new (which may not come in one lifetime).

          "I cannot really talk about that being success is relative"

          Sure we could shrug an say 'we can never say for sure if life is better with or without gov't because it's a matter of opinion' but this debate wouldn't get far. I did suggest some things that I thought could be used as a measuring stick if your not happy with those suggest your own.

          "You need to explain not only how those people are healthy but how were their buildings manufactured"

          How could they not be? If they weren't healthy they wouldn't be around for us to discuss. If I left on a dessert island the first thing I would do is find food and build shelter, just because it's possible to live like this doesn't make it the best way to live...

          "To state that for example, American imperialism do not have an influence on resources in other countries" - I never made that statement infact I argued against it in the case of oil. "Human experience without money" - Money is just a technology that is used to facilitate specialization. What's wrong with specialization?

          Your anarchic societies seem very easy to corrupt and control. As long as you allow private property (you seem to be someone who believes in private property if not please clarify your position) then you can have monopolies forming. If I am the only person in the society who can provide something that everyone else really wants then I can basicly control every one by only giving it to people that do things I like.

          If you truly value individualism then surly you wouldn't get rid of all gov't because people should be free to choose for themselves what kind of society they want to live in...
      • thumb
        May 26 2012: Hi Misha,

        This is fun!

        If you say that you weren't implying what I mentioned I cannot debate you being that I'm not you but your statements says it all. Thats actually not true, there is no reason to assume why they do not think on the same scale as most modern countries. They may not be as sophisticated but that's ok and it actually works for the inhabitants. Being stateless does not mean being primitive.

        I understand that you were using science, health and education as a measuring stick but this does not matter if these are not part of the functioning of that that particular societies. Many stateless societies function off their principles and values. If they are not concerned about global recognition then let them be because if their societies are not violent failed states, then we should allow for them to be autonomous and do what we can to protect them. and the environment.

        Since you are so concerned about scientific progress in stateless societies look up anarcho-syndicalism (libertarian-socialism).

        you really have much to learn about stateless societies because if your thinking that progress and success is contingent upon the amount of power and influence the dominate and more modernized countries have, then I would have to respectfully say that I disagree with that being that history and evidence shows the dangerous of such exceptionalism. (if this is not what your implying please do correct me).

        I'm not entirely sure if you are understanding what I'm saying. I first mentioned that I was using American imperialism as an example and I was using to as a way to show why I disagreed with your statement about famine and government. With that being said I am very happy to know that you know that you are against that type of behavior I was just show that the same apply for food as it does oil. And your type of specailiztion is the main reason for poverty so I wouldn't put much value into it.
        • May 26 2012: "This is fun!" - Certainly is, though I have exams next week and am not getting as much revision done as I should be lol.

          "Amount of power and influence the dominate and more modernized countries have" - But this is only a problem because there are more than one country so some will be dominated. This problem vanishes if you have a global government. All of a sudden countries can't dominate each other the same way different states in the US can't dominate/exploit each other. I truly believe government can work perfectly as long as there isn't another government nearby to fuck it up. The system works we just need to extend it to cover everyone.

          "You'd have to prove that governmental systems have a lower corruption rate" - Good point. I guess I'd say (democratic) governmental systems have built in mechanisms to stop corruption (elections). Anarchic ones though do not. You can't really piss off someone who is your only source of something in a anarchic society. There is no real way around this. Since governments have a built in mechanism to deal with corruption it kind of follows they'd have a lower corruption rate, no?

          "You didn't find the issue of private property in the links I showed you" - I certainly did but I felt the issue was kind of confused. In freetown the buildings all seem to belong to the collective but the article also goes on a bit about weed dealers living there, to be able to sell weed you have to own it don't you? I decided to do some extra reading; Googling Anarchy informed that there are different types including individualist anarchy that usually supports a free market and private property. I assumed you belonged to that school because you seem to value individuality quite a bit. I guess I just confused the issue.

          "Your type of specailiztion is the main reason for poverty" - interesting statement care to expand on that?
          "You really have much to learn about stateless societies" - no doubt recommend any books?
      • thumb
        May 28 2012: Hi Misha,

        no worries, I'm quite busy myself and usually only have time to go on here at least once but I just finished finals. glad your having fun and sorry for being a bit strident.

        I would have to kindly disagree with your statement about a one world, global government. For one the major players in the world political systems (I'm referring to ones that attend the G-8 and G-20 summits) are by far the most corrupted people on the planet. You can mention how dictators are bad but to be honest, these people are not different than dictators except for the fact that some are more systematic in their approach as opposed to the tyrants that are more direct. Secondly what would such a global system look like? Would it be a global democratic-capitalistic system? Would it be an oligarchy? Would the leaders from other dominate countries be willing to sacrifice some of their power and prestige? Would this get rid of poverty, famine, high unemployment and social classes?

        The reason why I honestly think governments exist is not because people are incapable of ruling themselves. I think its because a few individuals realized that not only are we social mammals but also that the human mind is impressionable and they figured out ways to convince people that they know what is in their best interest. I do not think governments are natural, I think they are socially constructed (not out of some imperative but of convenience)

        Very clever response about corruption rates but there are some things you should know: In theory, democracy is built to stop that but in practice (at least here in the U.S.) corruption is systematic. It happens through the media, educational system, health care, banks (hence the bailouts). Many anarchist societies have ways of dealing with this. Many anarchist societies have what are known as federations. Also you should look up the First International.

        I'll continue the last part of your response in a new thread since this one is getting long: agree?
    • May 24 2012: I kind of had to infer what you think a government less world would look like from what you said and may have completely misinterpreted your perspective. I would be very grateful if you could explain in detail how you imagine the world with no governments, it's sure to be an interesting read.
      • thumb
        May 25 2012: If your that interested I won't mind explaining it but I sort of want to see where our other conversation leads to before I decide to talk about that but I do have my own reasonable analysis of what such a world would look like..and thank you, I appreciate your interest.
        • May 25 2012: I had hoped it would help our conversation because I would be able to tailor my arguments to your perspective, rather than just offer generic arguments and hope some of them resonate with you. But we can do it this way if you like, just don't forget to explain your ideas when your ready.
      • thumb
        May 26 2012: I ran out of characters so I'll continue here:

        Well of course, any society can become corrupted depending on the individual(s) involved. This really isn't a good argument because you'd have to prove that governmental systems have a lower corruption rate.

        I'm surprised you didn't find the issue of private property in the links I showed you. true anarchist societies (those that function off anarchist principles) do not value private property. Private property is one of the most grotesque concepts to anarchist. The link about free-town should of showed you one way of how a anarchist society functions without private property.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.