A Global Body of leadership is mandatory

Great Debates
21

About Oil for Food:Documents: U.S. condoned Iraq oil smuggling

World Government would deal badly with local issues just as the US Federal Govt. deals badly with local needs. I doubt the world would be 100% united even with an external alien threat.

Now if your talking about Global Cooperation and setting of standards… I’m all for it. Naturally it should be balanced and so forth… and politics is certainly a problem… but at least some solution is attempted. A more global solution means no one feels less benefitted.

22

… ooppss… forgot to add…

Brazilian Forests are a good example of how blame shifting ends up making everyone a loser. Brazilian migrants are responsible for a lot of forest destruction… but a good part is illegal wood exports. The same europeans and americans that condemn our destruction of the forest buy up illegal Mahogeny like crazy. Or contrabanded tropical birds. Its hypocritical.

23

Regarding this talk of corruption, there is nothing inherently corrupt about an internation entity any more than there is about a national entity: Like I said, Nixon didn’t doom the US for evermore, and neither should Iraq and those UN employees.

In fact, the UN is almost a kind of world democracy already, albeit a permanently hung parliament in which the population, power and wealth of each state don’t affect the number of votes it has (like the US House of Representatives, I believe) in resolutions are non-binding anyway, and whose binding resolutions can be scuppered in an instant by a veto from any of five particularly vocal members.

It’s kind of like the Israel parliament magnified. :slight_smile:

24

Do you believe that the environmental problems I listed above are sufficient enough to deal with now vis a vis waiting for one or more decades to face the global rape of its resources?

If so, what would you propose be done to stop the above?

Lastly, do you think it is a problem at all?

25

Absolutely, they should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Internationally binding treaties limiting carbon emissions, pollution, deforestation, overfishing and desertification, with we the people pushing our own governments as hard as we can to be the first to sign them.

26

Eh.

So they get signed. Then what? Who is going to force the USA, EU, or China to do something afterwards?

Not gonna happen. Is China going to start an embargo against the USA because their CO2 emissions are too high? Of course not, that’s going to hurt China as well as the USA.

Is Guatemala going to cut off their shipments of delicious bananas to the EU if they don’t cut it out with the Norwegian whaling fleets?

Nope.

Really, that Starship troopers quote above is exceptionally timely.

Without the ability to project force, any organization is really powerless.

-Joe

27

First of all, there’s nothing inherently democratic about the UN. Many (if not most) of the UN’s member states are not functioning democracies. Because the UN only deals with the governments of states like North Korea and Syria and the Congo, and those governments are divorced from the will of the people, you can’t really say that the UN is a democracy. It neither recognizes nor gives a voice to the people of those non-democratic states; it only gives a voice to the people ruling the people of those non-democratic states.

Second, the power and wealth of each state do affect its voting power. The five permanent members of the UN are: the US, China, France, Russia, and Great Britain. Those were the five most powerful and wealthy nations on earth at the end of World War 2. Thus, they were each given the power of veto, which makes everyone else’s vote a nullity. There have been rumblings that Japan and India should be given permanent seats on the Security Council (meaning they’d have the veto power) precisely because they’re now among the most powerful and wealthy states in the world.

As for the OP, the idea of a world dictatorship is both impractical (since it won’t happen without the use of force, which won’t happen in our lifetimes) and a terrible idea. We may need to deal with environmental issues, but I see no reason why I shouldn’t have a voice in how we deal with them.

And by the way, if our elected representatives in the US ever ceded power to an unelected, foreign body, you better believe the US citizens would go apeshit.

28

As it appears more often these days, when faced with a serious problem, so many of us offer no solutions but simply decimate idea suggestions.

Of course an environmental earth leadership would be difficult to manage and enforce but if the body consisted of RECOGNIZED scientists from most nations who truly are interested in sensibly doling out the earth’s resources, I believe it would and could work.

I’m still waiting to hear from the “it would never work” people what solution do they have or should we just throw in the towel and let whatever happens happen?
i

29

MadSam, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that nothing is being done to deal with potential environmental threats. That’s false. In fact, environmental regulations are being tightened, technologies are improving, and we’re seeing results. From a report by the National Academies’ National Research Council:

There are still areas for improvement, but there’s no reason to freak out and give away our ability to self-govern.

30

I appreciate your comments that there is and has been an attempt to deal with these issues…BUT we move at a snail’s pace.

51 years ago when I graduated from Stanford, I read that several ounces of plutonium had been stolen from University of California, Berkeley supposedly by the Chinese who at that time had no plutonium at all…2 years ago I read that there is no account for plutonium missing from California’s nuclear labs and that we are actively investigating this.

My point is that if we allow the global governments to talk, discuss, form committees about the environmental losses…and meet again first part of next year, it may be too late…Global warming, rising temperatures, melting glaciers, rise of ocean waters is happening at a very fast pace. IMO, it requires more urgency among nations than is now occuring.

31

Well, if they have no intention of honouring the treaty, they wouldn’t sign it in the first place. I accept that there is no mechanism other than war whereby a country can be forced to sign a treaty. I (and perhaps some EU states) would advocate abolishing the veto and moving towards making General Assembly resolutions binding, but the US will not accept that this century. The question becomes: how should the US be made to co-operate? Whatever the proposed solution, the US would still have to formally and willingly accept that mechanism in the first place.

MadSam: What if it was the US which was primarily holding up attempts to address these problems. What is your answer to the bolded question above?

Of course, I meant that in terms of the procedure for making UN resolutions (in which every country has a vote) it is quasi-democratic: of course many of those countries are not democracies, rather like some members of a democratic parliament might not have been elected (like the House of Lords, for example).

I mentioned that binding resolutions could be scuppered by five vocal members.

Like I said, I think there are similarities between the UN and a really god-awfully crap national parliament which is permanently hung, contains MP’s who got there undemocratically, and whose legislation is dominated by five particularly vocal MP’s. I’m all for improving it, but that’s just how it is.

32

First, let’s face the fact that the UN is not an incipient world government. It was never intended to be such a thing, and if it was the Soviet Union and the United States would never have become part of it.

The UN is a debating society. It is not a bad thing to have an international debating societiy, it is a good thing. But the bedrock prinicple of the UN is national sovereignity for all countries, no matter what their system of government, no matter how brutal their dictatorships, no matter how depraved and genocidal their leaders. And this is understandable, because otherwise the dictators and murderers would simply refuse to join.

If you want global governance, we must therefore start over. Maybe eventually the EU will change its name to the WU and allow any country in the world to join. Joining the EU is a definate delegation of sovereignity to a supranational body. Even if the US didn’t join there are many countries around the world who would.

But that all MUST be done voluntarily, or else we have war. Is MadSam seriously proposing war to stop environmental degredation? The fact is that war makes environmental degradation worse.

Face facts. Environmental protection will only come about when free people are allowed to make informed choices for themselves. Dictatorship cannot and will not protect the environment. Dictators don’t give two shits for the environment, they care about protecting their own power. Setting up a dictatorship with unlimited powers to protect the environment means MORE environmental degredation, not less. If you want to protect the environment, how about working for FUCKING DEMOCRACY? How about convincing your friends and neighbors to vote for candidates that share your agenda? How about convincing people to vote against candidates hostile to your agenda? But instead you’ve done the opposite.

This talk about dictatorship is exactly the worst thing you can possibly do. Congratulations, MadSam, according to my calculations you just personally set back the global environmental movement by precisely 1 minute and 37 seconds with your posts. You might as well have dumped dioxin into a mountain lake, then cut down some old-growth redwood trees and barbequed a baby sea otter for breakfast.

33

Convince my voting friends to vote for legislators that support my ideas?

Our 535 congressmen and women know what needs to be done to insure a better world…but its total naievity to thing that they will.

Whether you will admit it or not, so many millions of potential voters don’t vote at all…and so many voters who do vote are not the sharpest tool in the drawer.

I/m still waiting for you lemur 866 and others how to achieve the goal of: save this planet before its too late.

34

In concept I have always believed in a world government. Free global trade, better distribution of resources, an unpartisian effort in a global community to make life a better place for all people of the world. It really does seem like that would be the eventual future of the human race, especially with a more global village that we now have today.

Unforunately the reality is not as pretty. I felt that the EU was the first step towards this direction (whether or not it takes 100 years to achieve). I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with the EU. They are showing the problems of a world government: what ever they say goes and everyone must follow, with reducing diversity. Some level of governmental diversity may actually be good. There are many thing the EU is trying to do to consolidate power and make laws that are one-sided and only in the best interest of a very few member nations. One such example would be the forced massive raising of taxes now required through the EU so that all nations match the high rates welfare states of France and Germany. This has been done soley to prevent lost tax income in these nations due to people or businesses moving to other EU nations. They are also now trying to estabish a “global tax,” which has fortunately been flatly refused by Bush. I personally find this somewhat scary, and much of the public in this part of the world aren’t even aware of such events. At least now we have the checks and balances of many nations in the UN that can take action against a country for not following reasonable guidelines and international law. This would disappear with a world government. One group would control world events deciding what is right and wrong for all.

Based on current actions of the EU, my fear of a future world government is that it would not be equal to all people, and just like every government, whether elected or not, would work towards its own agendas, often without the support of a large group of people.

Hopefully this can change some day but we are very far from this point now, and controls would still need to be put in place to prevent a controlling minority.

[QUOTE=MadSam]

The world government must consist of men and women with one common goal…to do whats best for the world and yet allow as much freedom as possible.

QUOTE]

This is a biggest part of my fear, that rather than seeing rights broadened, we would see them restricted much as we are now seeing in the EU, and like reduced privacy and rights laws in the US under such guidelines as the Patriot act and the potential passing of Patriot act 2. A world government would likely take this to the 10th degree, as the world is going to exist in the realatively near future.

Unfortunately a big part of the problem with a world government is the size, as stated elsewhere by others here. The government is going to want to pass laws to maintain controls over the world population, which essentially would probably reduce freedoms.

I certain support a world government in theory, but recent years have shown that we are a very long way from being able from being able to create a utopian society with it.

35

Philosopher kings. My joy knows no bounds.

36

So since you haven’t yet gotten what you want by democratic means, you are now ready to bring out the guns, barbed wire, and cattle prods?

And then you wonder why no one agrees with you.

I told you how to save the planet. Convince people it is in their interest. Otherwise shut up, or you are causing more harm than good.

37

Lemur: I agree 100% with what you said about dictators and the environment, but has **Sam **actually advocated a dictatorial action? Maybe I missed that in his posts, but he seems to want more urgency in the democratic institutions that exist or the formation of some new, democratic insitutions.

38

In concept I have always believed in a world government. Free global trade, better distribution of resources, an unpartisian effort in a global community to make life a better place for all people of the world. It really does seem like that would be the eventual future of the human race, especially with a more global village that we now have today.

Unforunately the reality is not as pretty. I felt that the EU was the first step towards this direction (whether or not it takes 100 years to achieve). I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with the EU. They are showing the problems of a world government: what ever they say goes and everyone must follow, with reducing diversity. Some level of governmental diversity may actually be good. There are many thing the EU is trying to do to consolidate power and make laws that are one-sided and only in the best interest of a very few member nations. One such example would be the forced massive raising of taxes now required through the EU so that all nations match the high rates welfare states of France and Germany. This has been done soley to prevent lost tax income in these nations due to people or businesses moving to other EU nations. They are also now trying to estabish a “global tax,” which has fortunately been flatly refused by Bush. I personally find this somewhat scary, and much of the public in this part of the world aren’t even aware of such events. At least now we have the checks and balances of many nations in the UN that can take action against a country for not following reasonable guidelines and international law. This would disappear with a world government. One group would control world events deciding what is right and wrong for all.

Based on current actions of the EU, my fear of a future world government is that it would not be equal to all people, and just like every government, whether elected or not, would work towards its own agendas, often without the support of a large group of people.

Hopefully this can change some day but we are very far from this point now, and controls would still need to be put in place to prevent a controlling minority.

[QUOTE=MadSam]

The world government must consist of men and women with one common goal…to do whats best for the world and yet allow as much freedom as possible.

QUOTE]

This is a biggest part of my fear, that rather than seeing rights broadened, we would see them restricted much as we are now seeing in the EU, and like reduced privacy and rights laws in the US under such guidelines as the Patriot act and the potential passing of Patriot act 2. A world government would likely take this to the 10th degree, as the world is going to exist in the realatively near future.

Unfortunately a big part of the problem with a world government is the size, as stated elsewhere by others here. The government is going to want to pass laws to maintain controls over the world population, which essentially would probably reduce freedoms.

I certain support a world government in theory, but recent years have shown that we are a very long way from being able from being able to create a utopian society with it.

39

Maybe I’ve read too much into his posts (and if I have, then I apologize), but I understood MadSam’s statements that the world body much be comprised of scientists (as opposed to politicians), must have powers similar to the US Supreme Court, must be insulated from geopolitics, and his statements that the democratic processes aren’t adequately addressing the environment’s needs to mean that he’s advocating for a non-democratic measure. I took that to mean that he’s advocating for a dictatorial measure.

If I misunderstood, I apologize for my unfair characterization of your idea. Care to clarify, MadSam?

40

Lemur: Your comments indicate to me why its necessary to have this global organization I have been refering to…there are few critical thinkers as you demonstrate.

John Mace: In your brief note, you were 100% correct.

Age Qjot Agis: I do NOT desire that this world body be a dictatorship= a form of government in which a dictator or a small clique has ABSOLUTE POWER without EFFECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL limitations.

I believe the underlying word would be URGENCY…The environmental world body would be as I suggested above and its conclusions must be presented to the world’s nations and to the people of the world so that THEY are aware of the facts. If the nations of the world decide to ignore the danger pointed out and the solutions recommended, then I hope my great great grandchilren are happy living on another planet.