This conversation is closed.

Would you support the US government if it decided to take over the world?

Wars, gaps between countries, and the lack of human unity are holding us back. Would you support the US government if it took over the world? With one government to rule over the entire world we could put together an united human effort toward certain goals and accomplish them much faster. We could focus on increasing the quality of life for all humans on earth, space exploration, and other projects that are unable to occur today.

What do you think?

  • Nov 22 2011: Absolutely not.

    The U.S. government is currently badly corrupted by corporatism. What we have here in the U.S. is plutocracy, and plutocracy is bad for everyone. So why would we inflict it on the world? Even if our government were functioing properly, as designed, it does not suit every culture.

    There is an amazing book y Benjamin Barber by Jihad vs. McWorld that I recommend. He is correct about what happens when you try to create a one world governance you end up trying to create a one world culture (see both Roman and British Empires.)

    Impinging your dominant culture on any one else is similar to family dynamics. You can fight like cats and dogs with your own siblings but you will defend them against the neighbor down the block. Societies have the same bad habit. Even the most dysfunctional issue withint a society will be dfended if they are told to change it by an outsider.

    The U.S. atemtping to inflict their dominant ideology on the world would be met with WWIII. Besides they've done an excellent job through marketing. It was easier and many cultures fell without a shot or a grumble.
    • Nov 22 2011: I don't know any other country in the world that is as diverse as the united states. In the US you can find many different religions, cultures, etc all of which are living together in peace. Apparently the US's dominant ideology is one that sits well with many people. If the US does take over the world, it won't be the US government anymore but rather a world government where each country is a state and gets a say in what happens. I agree that there will have to be changes in how corporations are dealt with, but all the benefits that come with a one government system might outweigh the negatives.

      Of course this is all just thought, but its possible that if this takeover did happen it could work.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: I actually sometimes worry that the US will be the one voice against a global government. I think we might pull a league of nations on the world, once the people really understand what's happening. Everyone thinks it's our idea to lash all of our wagons to the same horse... and then congress and the people tell the world to go F it self.

        Even worse, when that time comes. I worry it may be the right thing to do... You can't govern something you're not a part of. You can't control something you don't understand. How would a world government know what to do in Uzbekistan? How do we know what to do in Afghanistan? Just, do everything the world governments way, or die? Doesn't sound like fun.

        To be fair, it's basically what we have now... That's why I don't think it sounds like fun. The "Global War on Terror", is the United States takeover of world security initiatives... I think it's a mistake.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: This will not happen because there are different religious cultures which can not be dominated by one culture. Another reason is that US is trying to work everything to its advantage only and not for everyone, so it would not be acceptable to dominate the world.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Sorry but the US IS the dominant hegemony of the world. It rules by military power (nuclear threat) and economic trade and market

    There are pros and cons for this - also depending on who is in leadership at the time and their impact on the rest of the world in that role.

    The one key benefit is that it is a 'benign' hegemony in the sense of an alternative such as the 1000 year plan conspired by Hitler.

    Perhaps what may really be asked is should we look at restructuring the United Nations to hold some form of global government - autonomous authority at global level - over and above a state regime. UN is the hallmark of realist school (e.g.Hedley Bull arguments on realist position that anarchy and war are necessary states to then bring order through state rule). UN is considered deficit as a true global peace function. Most agree the current hegemonic format of G5 security council who can veto anything (led by US) misses out in true democracy and human rights.

    Brian Urquhart who grew with UN since its formation as a war alliance has a lot to say about its failures in peace and security matters and need for serious restructure. But he highlights a key observation - that to set up a global governance body like the UN today with all our issues would be virtually impossible. While the UN shoes may no longer fit, we are lucky to have a blue print - and a blue print that arose as a necessary agreement to protect from a world threat to peace.

    We have become a global society and one government rule doesn't fit democratically (apart from one that holds no military might such as Phillips NZ suggestion - I propose also Tibetan government in exile - perhaps we could rotate world leading 'chair'). We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the blue print for peace and democracy.

    At international level we can respect individual rights by strengthening autonomy and power of intl legal justice to make peace security decisions and enforce accountability
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: we can pepper spray in the face every dissenters
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Dude... The US government was run by George Bush 3 years ago, and it's been running itself into bankruptcy for almost 30 years straight.. We have the highest incarceration rate of a first world country, and one of the most unfair wealth distributions. We're so lazy we don't even make our own clothing and furniture anymore. We won't pick our own fruit, so it literally spoils on the vine... Right now I wouldn't support the US Government trying to take over and run a 7-11. Sorry world, you're on your own.

    As far as the general idea of an evolving democratically governed capitalist society, being embraced by the whole world, and us chipping in on a United Nations of NASA or something... begining to share some common goals... sure, that's awesome.... but our government running the world? First it has to learn how to competently govern us, lol.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: No. I say this as an American too. I find it all the more interesting that you mention gaps between countries, offering invasion as a magical solution, when the US is fairly infamous for its rich/poor gap. Maybe, for proof of concept, it should start by bridging that gap. Honestly, if a country had to take over, I'd be more trusting of a earnestly secular country (like France, which also has great universal healthcare, another big lack in the US) rather than a country which constitutionally is secular but is, in practice, overbearingly devoutly Christian. I also find that there's a malicious condescension in thinking that the US would be better for the world than many other countries in the West. I certainly don't think so.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: "a united human effort toward CERTAIN GOALS. . . "?
    Didn't the pharaohs oversee a united human effort to build pyramids?
    Didn't Rome oversee a united human effort to support obscene excess?
    Didn't many others do the same? They all did it with SLAVES.
    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    I vote "NO" for world domination!
    • Nov 22 2011: These examples that you mentioned, the Pharaohs and Romans, both achieved incredible things. They also occur in a scenario where there is one person in power for life. I agree this is absolute power. With the system that the united states government has in place this is impossible. What I am talking about isn't world domination but rather world cooperation. With one government and every individual country as a "state" we will be able to accomplish the same caliber of projects without slavery.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2011: Quick fable:
        Biggest kid on playground is weary of turmoil so he takes charge. He is a decent, thoughtful kid free of malice. The playground ran smoothly under his oversight he acheived incredible things. Unfortunately the big kid did not like hop-scotch, red rover red rover or dodgeball, games which more than a few kids loved to play. Too bad, so sad, the big kid's preferences took precedence until he graduated and the next biggest kid took over. Kids felt dominated but were too fearful of retribution to do anything. Dominate: To rule or control by superior power. No Jungle Rules for me, thanks..
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: Pierre... I don't think there should be 1 world government or anything... but I think it's a bit funny to hear a French man, talk about how horrible it is that the US developed the bomb... Enjoy being governed by Germany again... I mean the EU.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Yes, I would.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: I just wanted to comment that no one would as I saw that you would.
      It's a bit short, maybe you tell us why you would the US to govern the world.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: I don't know exactly. I was actually in a hurry to get to work and I came upon this conversation and it felt right to say "yes". Why not?

        I believe in one world in every sense. I think human evolution will eventually erase borders and overcome barriers of language, religion, etc. I think the best kind of culture is multiculture. I believe in democracy and freedom and free enterprise

        I know full well the USA is far from perfect. But from what I know of other governments in this world and their relative success at giving people basic human rights, I'll take my chances with the USA.

        Btw, it's not going to happen. The US wiill be lucky to remain a world leader for much longer....
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: I'm a little surprised by that answer.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Einstein liked the idae of one Governing body. He thought it might lead to peace.
    as an Australian I'd be right behind the good old US of A. As our country's policy would probably dictate. As an individual I'd like to back New Zealand.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: In the world of human security, New Zealand has been able to position outside the 'norms' of state regime on a number of issues - my assumption on this is that New Zealand is such a small isolated and low populated country (heavy with self sustainable agricultural community) that she seemingly held the position of Utopia in the terms of democratic benevolence. Early settlement and acknowledgement to Indigenous rights, multi-cultural and yes even being able to instate an anti-nuclear sovereignty!

      But the reality is that the benefits of geographic isolation were soon overwhelmed by the global footprint of other countries and climate change beyond her control. As member of UN and democratic first world, New Zealand was "allowed" to do many things as any ant easily stepped on. As long as she didn't get too carried away and left her battles to the sports ground.

      That is she was 'allowed' to disband her army and reform it as a peace corp. This was not a display of non loyalty to democratic trade partners and alliances - in the past the small army support presented alongside others in the fight for democracy and to protect fellow man under threat - along side their friendly rival counterparts. And due to their smallness and tightness New Zealanders were better formed and operated as a 'crack team' of specialists. But then 911 happened and New Zealand didn't want to invade Iraq - wanted to stay with the 'peace keeper' role but was told she would be branded terrorist if she didn't.

      New Zealand protested against nuclear threat from allied tests Muraroa - destabilising the pacific rim & plates. But Rainbow Warrior was blown up as a grim warning to toe the line.

      As other nations sailed into her waters, harpooned and fished her seas - NZ didn't have much defence. Then the crunch came - she had to reform her futile army and purchase a bunch of second hand rusty warships that allied partners wanted to sell - or trade relations would be of the past

      Iconic - only Alone