World Government. Yea or nay?

[Stuart]

[I][FONT=Trebuchet MS]"A world government is a speculative idea about the formation of a single government that would govern the entire world. While, hypothetically, such government might take one of many forms, such as a single communist global state, dictatorship, empire, monarchy, or theocracy, the only form currently enjoying substantial global support is a democratic federation of the existing nation-states.

The main arguments in favour of establishing a world government are that it would eliminate the need for violent and destructive means in resolving large-scale conflicts and would improve the effectiveness of handling global issues. Detractors claim that such a government is either undesireable or, more often, not attainable in the foreseeable future and is, therefore, not worth pursuing."[/I]

[B]- Wikipedia.org[/B]

This is an issue we are discussing in my current history class. I've heard the opinions of my classmates, but I'd like to hear more from the members here-- I believe there is the potential for a lot more output here, and I'd like to hear it all.

So, now that you know what the world government idea is, I'd like to get a discussion going on wether or not this is an idea you'd one day purpose, or are you respectfuly againest it? In what aspects do you believe it would be benifical to the world, and what the negative impacts it would have. Would it be ran by a "world president"? If so, then would every person on earth be able to vote, or would each country cast one vote that is decided by that countries' representitive? There a lot of questions I'd like to ask from you, but I think you get the idea of what I'm looking for.

I currently have little to nothing to say on the topic, but I will become involved once I can hopefully get a few responses.[/FONT]

[TheShinje]

[color=crimson] Nay to 1st world government, yay to the second.

Why would I say that? Because the first world government is prophecised to the the dictatorship of Antichrist and that's inclusive of you must worship the guy or die, and have 666 emblazoned on your forehead or right hand.

Now, the second world government will be the Kingdom of Christ, which will last forever, so, I'm all for that one.

I could believe otherwise if I see a global government that will keep my freedom to worship God, and will not stop me buying or selling unless I have the mark, I somehow, don't see that happening.

I don't see, with the world's climate the way it is, the achievement of a global government at the hands of anybody else but a benevolent miracle-worker, which Antichrist is.

Differing opinion for you?[/color]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]I'd be for it but, realistically, I don't think we're anywhere near a possible world government. Obviously there are many obstacles to having even a semblance of unity on a worldwide scale. I think a good first step in that direction is regional unity- the EU, for example. I'm not supportive of democracy on a national scale so I wouldn't be too privy to any representative system on a world wide scale.

I guess I'm nominally supportive of an mad scientist autocracy. Sounds like a fun time, eh.[/color]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Personally I think it's simply only a matter of time before we have a global government, after all we've gone from hunter-gatherer clans to individual nations, so it's inevitable that we'll eventually all rally under one banner, so to speak. I am for or against the idea ? Well honestly that would depend on the government itself, after all I come from a country of only four million people when there are cities in Europe that size and bigger, so on the one hand I'd be looking at a massive loss in voting power, after all one in four million is a far more valuable vote than one in six or more billion.

On the pro side, as has already been said the idea of war between individual nations is taken off the table, unless you're talking about civil war which under a planetary government is actually a world war. You're also into the situation where divisions between people over benefits due to the size of one nation is gone to, as is case in the EU where the Germans and the French are looking for better deals and more control because they're bigger. You're also looking at a government where everyone is treated exactly the same regardless of where the live, which is something I'm sure any human being would be able to appreciate.

How would this form of governance be conducted, with probably more than six billion people to govern it would simply be too difficult to get someone elected by a majority of the entire population. What might appeal to one hundred million people mightn't appeal to another hundred million, I really don't want to imagine the kind of logistics involved in something like that. Probably the best idea would be to have some form of senate, with each member elected per ten million or so people, you're still looking at about six hundred or so, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than a voter population of six billion. [/SIZE]

[Retribution]

[size=1]I think that people thinking of a world government are biting off more than they can chew. Realistically, I see the European Union becoming one nation in another 100 or so years, as the cultures and languages are so intertwined due to the geographic locations of the countries.

Will there be a world government? I have no idea -- I'm inclined to say yes. Will it be a good idea? Anyone's guess. The Roman Empire collapsed because it overextended itself (granted, it's not the only reason, but a contributing one), for example. As for the government of such a nation? I'd say a Representative Democracy, similar to that of the United States's government. It seems like a fair way to get everyone's input in a way that's proportionally fair -- why should Ireland have the same representation as China when China has far more people?

It's a good idea to think about, no doubt. And what would the world language be, then? Basic?[/size]

[DeadSeraphim]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=arial]A world government would need to be heavily segregated to effectively govern the whole thing. A committee in New York wouldn't be able to speak for a small town in Australia, for example. Segregation would, most likely, end up being split into the existing territories of the former nations - and any semblence of unity would errode, because to govern the unity, things had to be separated - a world government would, in effect, turn into something like the UN.

The world is too big to be governed by one body. I'd prefer the approach of just fostering peaceful ties between nations, and keeping the sense of nationalism different countries have.[/font][/size][/color]

[ForgottenRaider]

There are to many different values and personal goals between populations and this is easy to see in things like racism which tends to come about when sticking points between these sets of ideals clash and cannot be resolved. So it just isn't possible to start a world government that would stay stable...

Just look at how damaged the UN was after America said it was a waste of time only to come running back a year or two later when it needed help. In fact that is a very good example of what one country, nation state, state - what ever you want to call it under a world government - would be able to do to put unfare pressure on a governing body and cause it to possibly disband or at least lose popular support. This sort of thing has already caused large rifts in Australia between one of our states and the others. (For those of you who are unaware of our policitcal system we are a federation of states so we have the main government who makes choices and then we have a senate which (is ment to) screen each choice to make sure each state gets equal opportunities/doesn't get screwed over and they have equal powers though in the past it has been abused causing big problems and one state has used the threat of leaving the federation as a means to make sure it gets its 'rightful' share and this still lingers. For those Australians who haven't done social science in Australian histroy I'm talking about Western Australia.)

To be simple about it democracy simply, in its current form, cannot scale to some thing that large. There are enough problems just dealing with states and small populations as it is and on top of that you have the possibility of insane, corrupt, or just out right evil people getting into power leaving people no where to turn unlike now where you can just move if you don't like a choice of those in power. It is just an outright bad deal for the population and the best that could possibly be hoped for long term is an Orwellian reality... (Please read 1984 if you have not already done so.)

If it how ever does come to a world government I will be supporting the Waffles party and its maple goodness!

[celestialcharm]

[COLOR=DarkOrchid][quote name='Stuart][I][FONT=Trebuchet MS']Would it be ran by a "world president"? .[/FONT][/quote]

No, a world Prime minister! ;)

Maybe in the future when Aliens would come, then maybe a World Government would make sense. Currently, different countries have different views and opinions of issues.

Plus, if we were to have a world government, wouldn't that mean we would have to have a standard form of currency?

So, basically I say no to this idea, for the moment anyways. [/COLOR]

[Anime Elf]

I also say no. Just looking at the United States and how divided we get over certain issues. Now blow that up to a global scale. Each country has its own culture and way of doing things. Trying to unify all of that under one government is crazy. Just imagine all the gridlock that would happen.

[Gavin]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']I think that people thinking of a world government are biting off more than they can chew. Realistically, I see the European Union becoming one nation in another 100 or so years, as the cultures and languages are so intertwined due to the geographic locations of the countries.[/size][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Honestly I think the EU would need to be completely revamped before it could become some kind of working continental government. What you have at the moment is a tangled ball of red tape governed by people who answer to nobody and cannot be removed without an awful lot of effort. Personally I would much rather see an open system where the representatives are elected by the people to some form of senate, after which a governing body of those members is created and from there, there is actually some semblance of work done without handing those responsibilities down to innumerable committees.

The whole EU just needs to be streamlined and made a far more obvious and open organisation, if you?re elected you shouldn?t just disappear into some bureaucratic nook. Not to sound pessimistic, but one-hundred years to a complete European nation sounds a little sanguine, of course perhaps it?ll happen in less and I?m just being cynical. [/SIZE]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']I'd say a Representative Democracy, similar to that of the United States's government. It seems like a fair way to get everyone's input in a way that's proportionally fair -- why should Ireland have the same representation as China when China has far more people?[/size][/quote]

[SIZE=1]You?re absolutely right, it couldn?t work on a principle whereby countries with greater populations have greater power, smaller countries like Ireland would simply withdraw. One nation, one vote is the obvious way to go.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']It's a good idea to think about, no doubt. And what would the world language be, then? Basic?[/size][/quote]

[SIZE=1]How about Terran ? Of course then we?d actually have to develop some global language that would be acceptable to the entire populous. Probably easier to just create a universal translator.[/SIZE]

[Aaryanna]

[quote name='Anime Elf']I also say no. Just looking at the United States and how divided we get over certain issues. Now blow that up to a global scale. Each country has its own culture and way of doing things. Trying to unify all of that under one government is crazy. Just imagine all the gridlock that would happen.[/quote][COLOR=DarkOrange]I agree. On paper it seems like a good idea, but you really do run into the issue of cultural differences. I just can?t see people agreeing to follow one government. If it did happen I think we would end up with all sorts of problems caused by groups of people who would object. Whether it is on a cultural basis or a religious one.[/COLOR]

[shibatku]

Okay the whole idea of world govt. is freakin' stupid. It could never happen. Humans are creatures of habit and they will always hate and despise one another. This is why it would never work. We could never do anything like that because of how many people hate the United States. N.Korea still hates us because of what happened a long time ago. They are brainwashed to think that U.S.A. is the enemy and is going to attack us. Also the fact that if we don't like what your doing we bust in and are like, "Stop what your doing or well blown you the *blank* up". And then it's all apoligizes from us and then we leave several thousand troops there. It's a blunt and horribly true fact about us. We are controlling of lesser nations. World Govt. is a idealistic thought from people who have no grasp of the fact that humans can never stop the fact that we repeat things over time. It seems new, but if you look back in history, the tech gets better, but it does the same thing something from the past did, only better. World War 3 is coming and when it does I'm getting the heck out of the dangerous part, because the whole WW3 thing is just bullcrap. I mean we KNOW it's going to happen. The problem is when. That's what sad, we know what's going to happen, but yet we're still careening straight into it. This is a great point to the whole World Govt. thing. It's a nice concept, but to bad it will not happen. Nice try though. It's a pity though.

[renayiiq]

Well, if world government means that [U][B][I]I[/I][/B][/U] get to run the whole world, sure. But being realistic now...no way. Nope. Why? I already dislike power (unless it is in my hands), so why let more power be given to fewer people? No way.
If it so happened that a world government happened in my lifetime, I'd become an assassin and they'd all die.

[the_sixth_child]

I may not know that much on the subject but, I think that the idea that President Wilson's (I believe that was his name) League of Nations idea was a good idea and should be considered. If it weren't for the fact that at the time the U.S. was still young and just starting to get full of itself that it would have worked.

I could see how a world government could have its pros and cons but if the time comes that it happens I suppose in my opinion it would depend on what the options are. But that's just me, I really suck at explaining what I mean.

[Boba Fett]

[color=green]The League of Nations failed. The U.N. is an international joke. The EU is a laughable organization of nations that can't even govern their own peoples, let alone the entire continent. A world government would fail for the same interests. Nationalism is entrenched too deeply at the present time for anything resembling a world government to work.[/color]

[Fasteriskhead]

I can only talk briefly on this topic; needless to say, Kant's [URL=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm]Perpetual Peace[/URL], which is some two centuries old, remains [I]the[/I] key text to approach in any argument for or against the concept of a world government. It's important to note first that what's being proposed by Kant (and really anyone else trying to be taken seriously on this) is NOT a centralized state which oversees individual nations in the same way that, for example, the federal government of the U.S. oversees the individual states. DeadSeraphim is quite right in the unfeasibility of this kind of direct governance. The "world government," even under the best conditions, would simply not work as a set of old guys in Brussels (or wherever) controlling the local police forces and street maintenance in Hanoi.

But this isn't the intent. The idea here is to find some way to settle disputes between states outside of "might makes right," as those disputes being conclusively settled in some way other than military force or any other use of political power. No justice can be said to exist when I declare my state right and another state wrong because they cried uncle first; this is only unilateral and arbitrary action not guided by any kind of law. The goal of world government is, then, to gradually establish a commonly-held international code agreed upon by all parties, with the express goal of having a normative basis from which moral action can be arrived at by individual states, and from which punishment can be enacted on states not conforming to that basis. We already have something like this in the United Nations, as well as in more location-specific territorial alliances, so it's nothing particularly new.

The problem with this, of course, is power. Certainly the institution of international law is an improvement, because at least now there is a normative basis of [I]some[/I] kind to resolve issues in a way other than ICBM diplomacy. However, nations can still act unilaterally or prevent the workings of international law [I]if they are in a position to do so[/I]. Hence, even though a particularly powerful nation may have to tread much more carefully than they would have a century ago, they can still push around the rest of the international community fairly easily if they have something to hold over their heads. A nation with enough pull is also able to legitimate its actions even though they may be entirely [I]contrary[/I] to law. And this is to say nothing about corruption on a smaller scale.

Is it feasible to have a world government (which I mean to be synonymous with international law and, at the greatest extreme, universal justice) where the issue of power is, if not nonexistent, then at least negligible? Not at the moment, no - this should be obvious just looking at the headlines. Even getting on the way to something like that would require something entirely new, a fundamental change in how human beings determine themselves and their place in things. In his last years Derrida wrote on occasion of something he called "the democracy to come," which is very close to this: it would require that we begin to think justice on a global scale and to consider, more deeply than we have ever done before, what exactly justice [I]means[/I]. Will this ever happen? Possibly. It may be a long ways off, though.

[Guest DarkMessenger3]

it would be great if there was one leader of the world...Hegemony

[KatanaViolet]

Hmm...
although it could be a desirable ideal, I highly doubt that the global community could pull something off like that.
If it did, and I'm just gonna spout ideas here, a good idea would be to have a council consisting of elected officials from every country as the representitives of regions around the world. Although I don't really think having a "president of the world" would be a good idea. Power like that in the wrong hands would be a terrible terrible thing (imagine if Bush was elected? :animenose) then again, if it could be pulled off, it would be interesting to see what it would evolve into.
However, such an economic system would probably not abolish the stratification in the world, and there is a good chance that those who are allready oppressed would be even more so.
Still a world without borders would be nice thing. We're all people living on this planet we don't need to be so segregated...
But, like I said, this is an ideal that would probably never happen.

[Farto the Magic]

No. A global government couldn't happen now. In 600 years? Maybe. But before that, it'd be horrid. I agree with Boba Fett on all points. NATO is worthless and the EU only succeeded on making cool money. The federation would need to be loosly bonded to one another, more like a Republic and let the nations govern themselves for the most part. It would more than likely be the bridge between countries who have issues regarding one another. Universal laws though, are impossible. Some countries still allow hanging to take place, while most countries don't even have a death penalty. Universal government could work, but it mediate rather than govern.

That's my two cents.

[Boo]

[size=1]This would turn out terrible. It's a nice idea, but in this world you simply can't do this without getting a dictator-type at the throne in a matter of time. And I just don't like to think of [strike]one ring to rule them all!![/strike] one goverment, since the differences in political opinions differ way too much per country.

I didn't read a single post except the first one, just on a side note. [/size]

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='Boo][size=1']I didn't read a single post except the first one, just on a side note. [/size][/quote]

Well, at least you're willing to [I]admit[/I] it. Kudos!

[Leofski]

To kind of paraphrase Von Hayek,if you want a huge institution like a world government need to evolve over time, rather than just be built overnight. It would be almost impossible to maintain a democracy, since entire ex-countries would feel as though they had no influence. Economic conditions would be steered to benefit certain areas and assuming borders were opened, some countries immigration could prove untenable. A unified wages and taxation system would be needed to keep a fairly even population distrubution. In other words, every nation with power would be opposed as it would drastically reduce their utility, or every developing nation would be oposed as the system would be designed to keep them poopr and where they are.

The only viable routes that I can see for a world government is for it to be formed through greater integration between countries over a period of centuries leading to a single government or through conquest with an absolutely huge occupying force and absolute zero tolerance terrorism, dissent etc though such a government wouldn't be one you want to live under, and still has a good chance to implode.

[Boo]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead]Well, at least you're willing to [I]admit[/I'] it. Kudos![/quote]

[size=1]I doubt reading other posts in the thread will have a strong effect on my current opinion. Seeing as it obviously is in human's nature to have certain individuals that climb up in society, get lots of power and get mad (for having to much power) or just [i]really[/i] unreasonable.

People stink and making a world government would be just ruining the world more than it currently is. Like mentioned before, there's no way that a world goverment could be made anytime soon. I even strongly doubt that it can ever be made. I sure hope not to be alive when it is.[/size]

[Tigervx]

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Teal]
A unified world government just can't work with the current state of human nature, until we (Or if we) evolve from that shell then maybe, but not anytime soon. Karl Marx's ideas aren't bad, infact they're quite ideal for a utopia. But they're impossible, and they're the only way I could see a world government functioning. Maybe Karl should have picked ants instead of humans, the idea would have gotten alot more popular. As my history teacher said.

"Karl Marx stated that a revolution would spring up on one side of the world, and then there would be a world wide revolution... Followed by magic Marxist pixie dust that stabilized everything."

It just can't work, theres bound to be corruption, theres bound to be selfishness, and all other negative human traits that will just end up bringing the government down.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

Well, Marx proposes a completely different kind of "world government" from the kinds we've been talking about. You really shouldn't get me started on this stuff.

[quote name='Tigervx][FONT=Arial][COLOR=Teal]"Karl Marx stated that a revolution would spring up on one side of the world, and then there would be a world wide revolution... Followed by magic Marxist pixie dust that stabilized everything."[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
Okay, let's go on a tangent here. Actually, "magic Marxist pixie dust" isn't a bad way of putting it, since what Marx proposes eventually has to happen in history is itself halfway magical. So, part one. If I understand him correctly (and there's no guarantee that I do; I'm much more familiar with the earlier, more thoughtful Marx than when he takes his more practical turn later on), the ultimate goal of history is the reconciliation of me, as a human being, [I]with my own labor[/I], that is, with the objects I create (for Marx, labor isn't just "work," it's the moment to moment realization of who we are through our creating). At the moment, my labor is alienated from me. When I work, it's never purely as a realization of my own self but always goes into the fueling and accumulation of the abstract force called "private property" (which achieves its greatest abstraction as money), and thus stands apart from me as something alien. What defines who I am, then, is [I]not[/I] my own labor, but this thing called money which is outside of myself but completely determines me (this is easy enough to understand if you've ever met anyone who only thinks you're worth anything if you're loaded; or, just watch a couple of really bad hip hop videos). For Marx, [I]money[/I], as the alienation of myself from my labor, is the real source of greed, corruption etc., not something intrinsic in human nature. This leads ultimately to class struggle, and thus the famous quote about all history being just that. What Marx proposes is that, if we are ever to have our labor brought back to us (which means nothing less than to arrive at [I]who we essentially are[/I] as human beings), it will have to involve our removing money to its proper place, that is, returning it to us as our labor and, thus, our self-realization as human beings. If this ain't a feat of magic, nothing is.

Now, part two. Marx thinks this can only happen with the end of class struggle as the triumph of the workers over the business owners, and while I'm not entirely convinced of this, it does need to be understood properly before we all go making fun of it. For Marx, this revolution can only happen after the triumph of industrial capitalism, after capitalism has [I]already won[/I]. I won't go into the technics of this too deeply (you can read about them elsewhere), but the idea is that constant competition eventually concentrates all money in the hands of a very few, workers' wages drop more and more as that competition grows increasingly frantic, the workers reach the greatest possible point of alienation (they become animals, cogs in a machine), until finally they revolt and put the awesome power of capitalism (which is ultimately their own labor) under their control. After that it's more of a question mark - Marx's latest thinking, as far as I know, was that the state (now controlled by the workers) would provisionally take control of all private property, but that at some point it would no longer be necessary as the workers were increasingly brought back to their own labor.

There have been too many criticisms of part two for me to even get started on them; personally, I think Marx was a better philosopher than he was a political economist, although he would probably punch me for saying that (for him, philosophy isn't useful in itself). Anyways, the point is: for Marx, world government isn't determined by laws or anything like that. It's the result of an unavoidable historical progression determined by economics and, ultimately, by the nature of human labor. So, if sometime in the future (when we've all been long since turned subhuman by our crappy jobs) you happen to revolt and establish state control over private property, give Karl props for knowing it was going to happen.

I hope this has been at least [I]slightly[/I] interesting; I'll shut up now.