Now, give me a bit of slack here. I haven't done much thought on this idea at all, just explored it a bit with Christian in the chat room. Note that you shouldn't view this as an attack or even a direct response; your phrasing just kicked off the thought again.

Before I start, some ground rules for anyone wishing to flesh this idea out (or alternatively, shred it):

1) Mature discussion only, please. The flames and posturing that pass for debate around here at times are counter-productive.
2) If you can provide a counter-example, do so. A few counter-examples will be considered exceptions to the rule; my feeling is that there aren't many (inasmuch as I don't note them below as caveats).
3) This is a very broad brush I'm using here; keep that in mind. Macro as opposed to micro.

My first assertion (which should not be terribly controversial):

Human beings are inherently selfish.

Any so-called altruistic behaviors (again, on the macro level) are merely subtle incarnations of the basic drive to make one's own situation better. A typical indirect drive can be reasoned out as "if I do this 'altruistic' thing, it will benefit someone in my society to a greater extent than it harms me; if my society does better on the whole, the return to me will also be greater than the immediate harm".


In my conversation with Christian I stated that there are two basic components of a successful society (this was in the context of discussing the UN and other prospective world governments):

1) common purpose/culture and
2) economic prosperity/cooperation.

My assertion, which Christian took offense with, is that the economic portion of the equation outweighs the other part, for purposes of creating a stable, functioning society. History indicates (here's where counter-examples can be made) that societies must first solve their economic issues before worrying about common purpose and culture. Hence, the UN is not a good model for a world government, as it attempts to go about the task with the wrong priorities.

This is not to say that culture is not important; just that for a stable, functioning society, it is insufficient on its own. Caveats might include fanatic cultures, or cultures that self-sustain through intimidation or other means of coercion.

As such, I believe that any world government must arise only after we have solved the issues of inefficient economies on a global scale. Do not confuse this with an endorsement of the "corporate mindset". However, to a practical end, the multinational corporation is a valid example of this principle at work. The EU is another: the nations involved came together on an economic basis long before they began to talk about common governance and cultures.

Also note that inefficient economies are naturally corrosive to even the most stable of cultures, while efficient (or at least, prosperous) economies will bolster very sick cultures (Nazi Germany as an example).

Again, these are fledgling ideas. Rip them apart at your leisure. :-)

It really depends on whether any prospective world government is imposed or is agreed-to voluntarily.

That's actually one of the main themes here. People won't agree to a world government unless it is first and foremost based in economics.

In short, I think it's an accident of our times that economics comes first.

I don't think so. One of the most successful societies of all time was the Roman Empire. This was an agglomeration of wildly different cultures brought together by conquest, yes, but maintained more by economic benefits - the Pax Romana. Peace is good for business, in the long term. There are and will be temporarily over-riding concerns, such as despotism, barbarian hordes, corrupt leadership, but in the long run the economics is what drives the cooperation, not the cultures.

Regardless of how it came about, the Roman Empire lasted an awfully long time, and it lasted while it was economically viable.

A particular form of economic efficiency depends on the current conditions. 8000 years ago it was agriculture. Today capitalism happens to be a very successful embodiment of efficient economy, but that says absolutely nothing about my base premise. The type of economics has nothing to do with my point. The fact that it must be there does.

Economic prosperity outweighs culture? Only if one is a died-in-the-wool capitalist.

Any counter-examples, then? Again, my posittion is that economics is more important to a stable society (nation state/city/whatever unit of governance you wish to use) than is culture. I'm not making any judgments on the desirability of that state, but rather just commenting that this seems to be how it works.

Your assertion that "Human beings are inherently selfish." is false. It should be written "Capitalists are inherently selfish." Moreover, Capitalists think selfishness is a good thing. Capitalists the world over say, "Greed is Good. Greed feeds you. Greed clothes you. Greed is how you get ahead."

Again, counter-examples? If you believe this so strongly you must have some basis for that opinion other than rhetoric. When I look at any society on the face of the earth, true non-selfish behavior only arises when ALL other needs are met. Life is inherently selfish. This may not agree with your ideals, but I'm being practical here. This isn't about wishes, it's about how it actually works.

Like I said, I'm more interested in an actual discussion than posturing and bluster. Try looking at it without knee-jerk blinders on. If you can't manage that, then please step out.

Or, if I need to elaborate on something, point it out.

masquerading as a culture. Which supports my point, that economics comes first. The fact that it isn't a particularly good model says less about my point than it does about communism.

And as a result, it doesn't work in large doses. In small societies, however, that selfishness prompts the sharing of resources as needed.