Skip to the content
Reply

One world government

by Nephihaha, October 26, 2014

Messages: 95

Language: English

Nephihaha (User's profile) October 26, 2014, 6:28:20 PM

I am quite interested in Esperanto, but not in one world/global government. This is mainly because I think the form of such a government would lead to too much power concentrated in too few hands (and I think the situation is bad enough already). I also favour localism in politics.

What do other people think? Is global government a necessary part of supporting Esperanto?

* I've only been learning for a matter of days, so I can't say much. Correlatives are puzzling me just now.

p.s. World peace? Yes, well I DO support that! I think few people don't.

Citronujo (User's profile) October 26, 2014, 6:40:50 PM

Nephihaha:Is global government a necessary part of supporting Esperanto?
really?
Of course not! Who the hell would think that!

P.S : Welcome aboard (even though I'm new here too...)

RiotNrrd (User's profile) October 26, 2014, 7:29:31 PM

Supporting a global government is not a part of Esperanto at all. Esperanto is a language, not a political movement*.

Which is not to say you won't find some who do support it, of course. You also get complete anarchists, as well as everything in between. In other words, with Esperanto, just as with most everything else, you get all kinds.

-------------------
* There are also those who will claim that waitjustaminute, it totally IS a political movement. Like I said (or am about to say, if you jumped down here before reading the second paragraph), you get all kinds.

Nephihaha (User's profile) October 26, 2014, 7:41:12 PM

?Dankon por viajn respondojn?

Thanks for the responses.

I can "dig" world peace, and like international co-operation on certain issues, such as disease/pollution control, fisheries etc. But I really don't trust most politicians!!! (I think most people who support a global government may find out it turns a bit different from what they hoped for. Although not necessarily the horror portrayed in some conspiracy theories.)

As for internationalism, I guess it takes many forms. From what I know of Dr Zamenhof and his background, I completely understand why he invented Esperanto.

p.s. I hope folk didn't think this was a troll - not my intention!

Bemused (User's profile) October 28, 2014, 8:49:54 AM

There is already a world government.
It is called the G8.
If you dare to disagree with them this is what waits for you.

Leke (User's profile) October 28, 2014, 5:04:32 PM

I voted no, because if you don't like your government, your choices are somewhat limited -- especially if you don't like any of the elected candidates.

Christa627 (User's profile) October 28, 2014, 7:32:41 PM

Bemused:There is already a world government.
It is called the G8.
If you dare to disagree with them this is what waits for you.
They must not be much of a world government; they haven't done anything to me or anyone else I know. Though it'd be a pretty lame government even just for one place!

kaŝperanto (User's profile) October 28, 2014, 8:49:45 PM

I say in the abstract I absolutely support one world government. In reality at the present time I can't, but it is an inevitability in the long term (unless we cease to progress). Once we get to the point where there are few-to-no uneducated people left in the world I'd say it would be a very important step in the right direction. Until then the uneducated, ignorant, or otherwise gullible masses will be used politically for the will of the ruling class (or, even more terrifying, for their own misguided will). I'm as apprehensive of a powerful central authority as the next guy, but I'm even more afraid of allowing some nations or individual people to do whatever the bleep they want because it is their "right" to do/think/act as they do.

I suppose it is similar to how social/communism could potentially work if everyone is "on-board" (i.e. not selfish/corrupt/other impossible things). I wouldn't see this happening until we have solved energy and food problems, and reconciled the vast disparity in wealth between 1st world countries and the rest of the world's population. We are still too much of an "infana raso" to fully realize most great things (Esperanto/another universal language included).

One world government does not mean one authoritarian government. Why can we not have a "federal" type system like exists between the states and the central government in the US? There certainly exists now enough people who could place the whole world above their own national interests, but there is no way they could stand being politicians.

As for correlatives, they just take time to master. I recommend separately mastering the beginnings (ki-, ti-, cxi-, neni-, i-, etc.) and the endings (-u, -o, -el, etc.). That way you can always figure out what a correlative means, but it might take you some time to just hear "iel" and think "somehow" right away.

antoniomoya (User's profile) October 28, 2014, 9:17:34 PM

You like it or not, one day this world will have a world government. It is the tendency of the ages. See Europe: Who would think 100 years ago, that one day there would exist the European Union?

In the past, the families gave way to the tribes, tribes to the regions, regions to the nations, nations to the supernations, and supernations will one day join in a world government.

You cannot stop the progress. Feliĉe. ridulo.gif

Amike.

kaŝperanto (User's profile) October 29, 2014, 2:54:51 PM

ĉevino:Progreso al mi sonas religiece... Gxi dependas de iluzia nicio pri tempo kaj subalmetas ke la mondo estas komdamnita al plibonigxo, kio tute ne konstatigxas en la realo...
Manko da progreso sonas al mi religiece...gxi dependas de iluzia nocio ke sxangxo ne ekzistas aux dezirindas, kaj ke iu lando povas fari ion ajn al la tero aux la popolo cxar "estas ilia lando".

Kaj cxar vi tiom malgxentilas, mi tradukas:

----

ĉevino:Progress sounds religious to me... It depends on the illusory notion about time and puts under that the world is condemned to progress, which is totally not established in reality...
A lack of progress sounds religious to me... It depends on the illusory notion that change doesn't exist or is not desirable, and that some land can do anything to the earth or to the people because "it is their land".

Back to the top