Is it time for an actual World Government?

Great Debates
41

If there was a world democracy, there would have to be two main parties, or at least two power blocs that would act like parties. Here is how I see it breaking down:

Solid free markets (with some charity): US, Canada, Europe, and Australia. I’d guess also a lot of India. 1 - 1.5 billion ppl

Solid conservatives: Islamic world, plus a few communists allied against the US. 2 billion or so

Solid swing/radicalized minor parties: Areas torn between a strong sense of Christianity and also being dirt poor. Sub-Saharan Africa plus a few parts of southeast Asia. 1 billion ppl

This leaves China, Russia, India, and South America, which I think could probably go back and forth depending on regional factors and how other countries vote and what not. If three parties end up resulting, this would form the basis for the middle party.

42

http://www.expansionistparty.org/index.html

43

Why? Lots of democracies have more than two.

44

That’s just part of life in the big scary world. Even us powerful Americans are subject to the decisions of people and governments in far away places. You think American autoworkers were thrilled when the Japanese started moving in?

Being “democratic” doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone gets an equal vote. Athenians were democratic but male citizens could vote nevermind the women or slaves. The United States can elect officials through a democratic process without letting everyone in the world vote. I have no problem with that.

Marc

45

I can’t see the point of a world government.

Here’s what I can see, and what I think we’ve already got in a weaker form.

  1. A trade organization, that regulates transnational trade. It’ll decide if some nation is unfairly subsidizing its widget industry, for example, and if it is, it’ll enforce its ruling by imposing economic sanctions. Since that’s all international business, that’ll be a big deal.

  2. The UN. Or something very much like it. A place where diplomats gather to hammer out agreements rather than blowing each other up.

  3. A World Court. It’ll arbitrate disputes between countries (if both agree to it), hear cases where the law of any single nation may not apply, and try the occasional crime against humanity.

And that’s it. Local matters, and nearly every law, social program, and policy that individuals should concern themselves with will remain the province of the individual nations. I don’t even see these things having a standing military, depending on its member nations for force of arms when necessary.

A world government? Maybe under the strictest sense of the word, but unless you yourself are a politician or international businessman, you’ll hardly notice it.

46

I do think it could happen, but only if there were a world dictator. After all, there are too many different philosophies about governing to agree on one government.

How would a citizen protest if this one world government became repressive? Run to another country?

47

Well you may as well start with the simplest scenerio and work from there.

Anyway, I don’t see the Islamic world splitting their vote, or the western world, so that really only leaves room for one more major party.

48

Are you kidding? You know how many conflicting factions there are in the Islamic world? And in the Western world? No reason to expect those conflicts would not translate into elections for a world parliament.

49

Look at the history of Europe before the European Union was established: Endless wars for countless reasons. Now look at Europe under the Union: Peace, freedom, open borders, prosperity, and a rising generation of young people who identify themselves more as “European” than as French or German or British. (See The United States of Europe by T.R. Reid – http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143036084/qid=1138379861/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8724434-6256616?n=507846&s=books&v=glance.)

That’s the point.

50

Right. Tell it to the Muslims in France. I’m afraid you don’t have a nearly long enough frame of time from which to reach the conclusion your making.

51

There are lots of conflicting factions within the Democratic and Republican parties too.

When the subject turns to establishing a global caliphate, I don’t see to many Americans defecting to third parties. Likewise, its hard to imagine sectarian differences in the Muslim world taking hold either at that point.

52

Yes. That’s right. 3,000+ years of history versus… what, 55? (The earliest possible treaty is around '51, as I recall.)

Yes, clearly, the EU is the reason we never had a third world war.

53

lol, my thought exactly. Besides, ‘peace’ breaking out (at least in Western Europe) predated the EU anyway. I’d say it was NATO (and the fact that the Euro’s had just gotten done with slaughtering each other in job lots for the second time in a century) that had more to do with it that the EU did. BG is ever hopeful though…

:stuck_out_tongue:
Oh yeah…the OP. Is it time for an actual World Government™? Er…no. Not hardly. It would be a nightmare IMHO. Perhaps its time for a more democratically run UN…that might be a good first step. Representational assignment to the UNSC…not based on population size but on factors such as economic strength and human rights (of course this would probably mean that both Russia and China, and perhaps France would be gone :wink: ). Also, do away with the unanimous vote on the UNSC to get anything done. Make it a simple majority or 2/3rds if necessary. When we as a world are ready to do that, then come back and talk about if its time for an ‘actual World Government’. Then I’ll get into why its still a bad idea… :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

54

Quite true. Peace and friendship among the states of Western Europe was a precondition of the EU, not an achievement of it. But the Union secures the peace. It promote free exchange and movement of goods, people and ideas. It binds its member nations together in a cooperative enterprise. It makes it all but impossible they will ever again make war on each other. Why could the same thing not work on a larger scale?

55

A world government won’t be a good idea until the world is united against a common threat. Until then, a world government would only ultimately result in one extremely corrupt, ever-weakening power that eventually crumbles to dust. It’s of paramount importance that we have 4-5 large world powers that can check and balance each other – something like Orwell’s 1984 – ever-shifting alliances. Otherwise, you’ll get what is happening to the United States, but world wide: the corruption will continue to flourish until entities outside the power structure take over. Power structures get old and die. Diversity of power is just as important as any other kind of diversity.

56

I agree that political union is unworkable today and a very bad idea. I doubt that the 21st century will see a world where that changes.

Having said that, a World Economic Union: one world economy following one set of rules and perhaps one Electronic currency (essentially), one set of labor standards (child labor, minimum wage & working conditions), one set of environmental production rules, one set of tax rules, international crediting standards seems possible to me.

If we really are facing a world where a Pakistani Mason’s idea of prosperity is smeared across the world in an outsourced and immgratinng world (and we really will be as the 21st Century rolls out) then it might not be a bad idea to grab the bull by the horns and make the best we can out of it. To control the leveling process

Incredibly hard to do – essentially expanding the WTO – but not doing it has serious consequences too – and it is being an ostrich to pretend that it doesn’t (he said in an unecesarily inflammatory way)

57

All right, ALL RIGHT! I’ll do it! Quit nudzhing me!

OK, I’m gonna need advisors, lieutenants, satraps, vassals, mad scientists. courtiers, fawners, toadies, lickspittles, inquisitors, torturers, executioners, spies, provocateurs, assassins, propagandists, jackanapes, dirty-workers, brutes, goons, thugs, toughs, enforcers and grunts. E-mail me your resumes. Ex-cons preferred.

58

That’s how the European Union started out. Less than that, actually – it was only a coal and steel tariff union. It just evolved more functions and powers over time.

59

Personally, I see a world gov’t as inevitable, but probably 200 years away, with the process growing gradually.

First, the reason the US is stronger than the EU is because the EU is a bunch of disparate govts working against each other in many ways. The US and Europe are approx. the same size and both have abundant natural resources. But one can utilize the entire country’s resources for the entire country’s good. We don’t need to grow massive numbers of crops in New Jersey because they are easy to import from the midwest. And the midwest doesn’t need to focus on a huge film or aerospace industry because that’s based in CA and helps the entire country.

On the other hand, a film industry in England doesn’t do much good for the residents of Sweeden. They’re just not interconnected enough.

So I think one of the first steps is to have what we currently think of as separate countries in Europe band together into states under a single European leadership system with real power, and local issues would be dealt with by local gov’ts.

The arguement that separate cultures can’t work together in the same gov’t is an absurd one, IMO. Anyone who thinks that doesn’t realize how vastly different cultures in the US are regardless of a common language. Louisiana vs. Florida vs. New York vs. Kentucky vs. Washington. And as much as the political parties here fight, even the 2000 Election debacle was solved without violence. The conflict was all verbal and political, which was an amazing sign of progress. I despise Bush with a passion, but like him or not, I still recognize that he’s the country’s leader for the next few years, just as the right wingers had to deal with Clinton before him. Again, without resorting to mass violence when he won.

Another benefit the US has is a common language. Putting cultural differences aside for the moment, the whole point of language is to communicate with other people. A single international language would do more to unite the world than any other individual step could, though obviously much more would be needed. At the current time, I think the language would obviously be English. 100 years ago, had a global language spread, it would most likely have been French. Additional languages wouldn’t need to be removed, so long as everyone learned at least the agreed upon standard, whatever that may end up being.

And again, look at Canada vs the US or different regions in the US to see that shared language does not automatically result in homogenized culture.

So start with a genuinely unified Europe, add a century, and watch it grow. =)

60

sooner than later.

Fairly predictably, the US will come to understand that rather than empowering it, the status of sole superpower is a detriment.

Once the US understands the value to it of granting to the UN the monopoly on the legitimate use of force (gets us off the damn hook of being responsible for everyone’s beef with everyone else, vide, inter alia, palestine…) it will concede what trade and environmental agreements will have already made manifest–

“It’s a small world af-ter all” (pause to hurl…)