In general, the world has moved on from a time in which the only times a government/power would interact with another was in times of war. We have interdependent economies. Governments no longer merely make decisions that affect their own constituents - aside from some purely domestic issues, the more powerful countries will now affect others across the globe.
Lets be honest; whether or not you agree or disagree with their politics, the USA can pretty much do whatever they want - other countries are incapable of standing up to them in any meaningful way. If the US decided to invade, say, Canada, there’s not an awful lot any other countries can do about it, short of nuclear war and MAD. And that’s only in war terms - if the USA decided it would no longer trade, or protect, a nation, nothing significant can be done about that, save changing that government; a ability subject to the population of American only.
It irks me that, as a non-American, I am subject to the whims of a government that I did not vote for, nor have the chance of voting for. It irks me that my own country will also affect the lives of others across the world without their knowledge, or chance to give approval.
How can we call ourselves “democratic”, when our decisions and elections will affect others who have no say in those elections, no vote? Like it or not, a powerful country no longer has it’s own citizens to worry about. Understandably, priority is given to one’s own citizens, than others - an economic deal is often about securing the best deal for one’s own country, not about creating a mutually-beneficial agreement- yet this attitude will serve to cause as much negative for others as it does positive for one’s own countrymen. Decisions by one government affect us all.
Is it time for a proper World Government? I think so. Bringing it about - therein lies the difficulty.
I agree; especially about the difficulty about bringing it about.
Another point is the growing number of worldwide problems. Environmental problems, international crime/terrorism, multinational corperations, and so on; more and more, we are faced with issues that a single country can’t deal with very well. If the scale is too large, or the problem ignores borders then nations find it difficult to solve such difficulties.
I think the ( very ) long term will bring one about, but the cultural/political inertia involved is huge.
But the truth is, we already have aspects of world government, and the fundies of the American Midwest have yet to shoot down a black helicopter. Think of large trade agreements, international treaties, the EU… Admittedly, this is just a patchwork, but the principle is there – namely, that countries have to obey not just national laws, but supernational alws as well.
I consider that the UN is actually already the world’s de facto government, in that all the governments of the world are represented in a debate about What Should Be Done. Granted, it is a woefully powerless and undemocratic government. If the US or EU governments were like it, California or England would have disproportionately powerful influence bordering on outright bullying, and most of the representatives of the poorer states between Utah and Florida or Portugal and Greece would arrive at the chamber with absolutely no democratic mandate whatsoever.
But this was largely how the US and EU used to be in its history, and things are a whole lot more fair and democratic in the US and EU now. There is no fundamental reason why the UN must be so flawed. Indeed, if its most powerful states (the US and EU) ignore what they signed (and actually wrote) - what I’d call the “constitution” of the world government - then the ineffectiveness of the UN becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I just want to say that, regardless of the plus and minuses of a World State, this state of affairs is entirely the fault of the other nation states. If, for example, France or England or whomever decided they wanted to play at the same level militarily as the United States they could ramp up and achieve the goal.
It’s not that there’s some ‘golden touch’ the US has in its ability to project power around the world. It’s that there’s been a historical commitment to being able to do so by the American government.
Well, what if this new world government were to restore the right to lynch black people? I think that would bring a LOT of conservative southerners into the fold!
They do have a “golden touch” - it’s called money. How long could, for example, France and England keep a war machine the size of America’s running? And how crippled would every other department (education, trade, whatever) be by such a significant percentage going into Defense? It would be crippling.
I agree with **Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor ** that a world government would be met with strong resistance among US citizens. I think the same could be said of quite a few of the major industrialized countries. Note the difficulties in the EU with adoption of the currency (UK), the constitution (Netherlands, France, others?) and joining at all (Norway, Switzerland).
Say the EU, then. No reason, finacially, that the EU couldn’t challenge the US militarily if it wanted to. By “challenge” I mean have a comparable military, not engage in battle.
It won’t be time for a world government until the world becomes more democratic. Western Democracies would end up losing freedoms by joining in a world government. In a compromise with undemocratic states like China, how would we come out ahead?
Yep, it could do that. The reason why it won’t happen is the same reason a World Government won’t - too different idealogies. In the EU’s case, there are generally less conflicting ideals than in the world at large (obviously) so it is more likely, I suppose.
But again, there’s still the problem - now we have two superpowers. This helps everywhere else how?
And to look at it the other way, how would they come out ahead, having had their policies filtered down into more democratic forms? In a comprimise, all parties gain and lose. I’m not saying it’s likely to happen anytime soon - the day the US and China agree to live under one system is the day I eat my hat - but I would say, if such a comprimise could be made, in the long run **all ** people would be better off.
To have a world government, you’d need global free elections. That’s the only way you’d get the American midwest involved - otherwise they’d be left out like the Iraqi Sunnis. Not to mention the fact that that would actually be the best way to run your government.
In theory, there is no reason why such a system would not work. A global government could reasonably be based upon such models as we see in countries today; where countries are taxes proportional to their GNP and the kitty is collected and used to create global infrastructures and efficient aid networks. It seems like a simple idea.
Of course, that means that us richer nations would have to give up a little luxury to afford such a thing, and I am not sure that everyone would be pleased with this. I can just imagine (I’m not trying to bash america here; they just happen to be in power at the moment) the global donation hat being passed to the US, only to receive a reply of, “we’re not going to contribute. if you have any issues with this, please take it up with our army”.
This is without even mentioning that if we really strove for “world fairness” and starting paying the poor bastards in china and other such places a decent wage, then we’re all going to notice a massive price hike in all our consumer goods. I’m know that everyone loves to act all noble and preach world equality, but will they change their minds when their Nikes jump a hundred dollars in price.
The paramount problem to a world government, however, is that who decides what is and what isn’t fair? There are a great deal of opposing, extremist ideals in this world that simply cannot compromise with each other. I’m not saying that we should abolish extremist ideals; I’m saying that being different is being human and there is nothing that can be done than just letting nature take its course.
Power is a fantasic way of dominating the world to a common will, and while it may not seem like the fairest way to let things run, it gets the job done. If you ask me, we all should just grin, bare it and put ourselves in the best spot we can be in the world. Ultimately, power balances itself out and transfers the head position to someone new. Such things are already in motion, and we’ll have to see how China plays its cards in this next decade or two. I’m not quite sure if it’s time to start brushing up on your Chinese, but we’re certainly in for some interesting times.
Not even remotely - and I say this just from a practical standpoint. The thing would die of inertia. Such a massive bureaucracy would be entirely unmanageable. Not to mention nearly unaccountable.
Also to consider, is there’s an inverse relationship in governmental bureaucracies (no matter what form they take) between size and service. As the constituency of a bureaucracy grows larger, the less able it is to effectively serve the individuals in that constituency. You can see evidence of this all around you. One simple example is provided by the increasing fragmentation of informational media. Many of these outlets which cater to smaller and smaller market segment do a far better job of serving their customers. Same thing with government.
I’d argue that we already have a full on world government. The reason most people don’t see it is because they are expecting some kind of centralized behemoth a la the Nation-State model, but the world government is and will be based upon a network structure, rather than a top down hierarchy.
Anne Marie Slaughter wrote a book called “A New World Order” that talks about the interrelationship between governments, NGOs and corporate networks and how closer cooperation between customs agencies in multiple countries are part of how the government operates. Currency speculators like George Soros can impact multiple nations by destabilizing currency.
So I think that the world has a global order, and it will continue to be run the way that it is, I don’t think a global centralization is going to happen or is even a good idea. I mean the term “International Law” should say it all. It will evolve as time goes by, but it’s already there in the form of distributed transnational networks. If you look at it in terms of corporations and interlocking jurisdictions instead of a monolithic entity, it’s much easier to see.
