Curtis, when did the Trilateral Commission get to you? 
I quite agree. Consumers really don’t have time to think about other than where to get the best deal. We certainly have the govt we deserve.
How about a system where people aren’t worked until crippled or dead? Or forced to eat, drink, and breathe poison because that’s cheaper? Or all of the other evils of unrestrained capitalism?
Your way has been tried before; the result was Communist revolutions over much of the world. Because people with your attitude managed to convince millions that anything would be better than capitalism.
Yeah, communism sure was great at combating pollution.
Right, because Russia under the Tsars and China under the warlords were both exemplars of laissez faire free market globalist corporatist capitalism.
Did I say it worked out well? I was simply pointing out that good old fashioned unrestrained capitalism made millions of people desperate enough to try anything.
“Globalist corporatist capitalism” didn’t exist back then. Nor is the “global” part the problem. It’s the ruthlessness. And Russia and China are hardly the only places Communism spread; it was a worldwide movement.
So how’d that work out? The way you describe it, I can’t imagine anyone abandoning communism for capitalism, so every communist state should be perfectly stable, right?
What? At no point did I say that communism was actually better. I was just making the point of just how hated capitalism had made itself. And how little it served the “will of the people”.
To turn your argument around; if capitalism is so wonderful why did anyone ever abandon it? Surely all those non-regulation, free market paradises were perfectly stable?
The Congress can’t just change all the laws as a supermajority will be required to change the Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein.
Forceable assimilation of dangerous cultural aspects and mutual tolerance otherwise. English as global lingua franca and mandatory education of English for all.
That won’t work until most of the world agrees what “dangerous cultural aspects” are.
Unnecessary, and a good way to introduce further friction into a project already guaranteed to produce a lot of it.
Well, has communism made itself hated, since it’s being discarded? Gosh, every system of government is hateable - no wonder we can’t get anything done!
Heh, don’t lump me in with your libertarian-nutcase boogeymen. Of course capitalism needs regulation. I don’t agree, however, that it was abandoned in the manner you describe, with “millions” demanding a change. Rather, small devout groups seized power and through intimidation and indoctrination managed to cling to it for quite some time while the “millions” did their best to get on with their lives and stay out of trouble.
Some are hated more than others. Really, I’m not even sure what you are arguing for, or even against.
You seem to be lumping yourself in. What makes you think that entire governments and armies were fought to a standstill or overthrown by “small devout groups”? You are buying into American capitalist propaganda if you think that only a tiny number of irrational people would ever resent capitalism.
Okay, a supermajority comes along and decides, what the heck, that Jews need to be wiped out. What then?
Define “dangerous”. Are clothing-optional beaches dangerous? Female genital mutilation? Capital punishment? Abortion? All of these have their proponents and detractors. If I don’t like the way my national government views any of these, I can petition my member of parliament, who represents about 95,000 people and could, conceivably, pass my complaints directly to the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition. But under your scheme, I’m represented globally by one of 2000 members of an Assembly, each of whom (on average) represents 3.5 million constituents. What are the odds of getting my grievance even read, let along considered?
As for mandatory English… please. You may as well ask for mandatory Christianity. Believe it or not, other people than you actually exist.
I’m countering your reflexive anti-capitalism sneer with ridicule, is all.
Well, maybe it’s American capitalist propaganda, or just just my ability to read about how communism took hold in Russia, China and Cuba not through gradual social shifts or a series of peaceful legislative initiatives, but though coups, assassinations, violence and intimidation.
Interestingly, it’s starting to look like laissez-faire capitalism is indeed preferable to a lot of people who’ve lived under communism. China will be interesting to watch over the next few decades.
I think a Council of Presidents is a better idea. Even if we were to imagine the world uniting under a single government, geography and resources, something that isn’t limited by human psychology, would come into play.
Divide the world up into regions, make sure there are an odd number of them. An elected governor/president for each region sits on this council. Majority decisions by this council carry the force of law.
But that’s ridiculous, as any schoolboy could see. There wasn’t a capitalist system in Russia and China. There was a feudal system. The peasants and workers in Russia didn’t rise up and smash the capitalists, they smashed the Tsarist Monarchy.
If your theory was correct, then why did communist revolutions only happen in places that barely had capitalism? Why didn’t they happen in the UK, France, Canada, Australia, Germany, and so on, that actually had the late stage capitalism that Marx described?
Back to the OP. So the ideal form of a world government would be pretty much the United States writ large? Wow, that’s even sillier than imagining a global people’s revolution smashing capitalism. It ain’t gonna happen.
Why would any country join your federation? The thing is, people who live in liberal democracies aren’t going to surrender their freedoms to the dictators and thugs that run the rest of the world. And the dictators and thugs in the rest of the world aren’t going to surrender their powers and pleasures just because we ask nicely.
The only model for world governance that makes sense is something along the lines of the EU, although the EU has the obvious problem that while the member states are all liberal democracies, the EU itself is not. But a supranational federation of liberal democracies could form. It would be absolutely essential to prevent illiberal states from joining. But as the EU shows, the prospect of being allowed to join the Federation could be a carrot to clean up their act. Not for out and out dictatorships of course, but countries on the edge could reform.
Never mind
Heinlein’s idealized society:
“… a constitutional tyranny where the government is forbidden from doing most things, and the Peepul, bless their black, flabby little hearts, are given no voice at all.”
I wish you were suggesting this in jest Curtis. It’s a terrible, terrible idea. Each senator represents millions of people, from dozens of cultures, and does this effectively? If you don’t like this government - and because it’s global, you have no recourse, save the Moon - too bad, you get “crushed by government forces”? People have differing goals and priorities; a world government would ride roughshod over any differences. Every problem would be a nail, and this government would have the hammer.
If anything, more decisions should be made locally. Yes, civil rights and many criminal infractions should be recognized at a federal level, but there are so many other decisions that can be better made at a local level. Education and transportation immediately come to mind. When a decision is made locally, you can exert more influence on it. I have a much better chance of convincing my neighbors of an argument than I do of convincing people across the country; it’s much easier for me to influence a campaign to vote out a school board member than a federal senator. And if I don’t like a decision, there is always the opportunity (though I may not have the means) to move to another location that better fits with my beliefs and priorities.
And to Der Trihs, billions have been, and currently are, convinced that capitalism is better than any other economic scheme. Billions have prospered and live better lives than ever before because of the industries that succeed in a capitalist structure. As Bryan Ekers pointed out, your communist revolutions were driven by coups, assassination, and all other manners of violence and intimidation, and were forced upon the millions you imagine clamored for it. Had they voices, the millions that died because of these revolutions might disagree with your rosy view of the events that transpired.
Communist revolutions weren’t against “Capitalism,” they were almost without exception revolutions against dictatorships (like Cuba) or states that had outright failed (like the Russian Empire.) As others have pointed out, countries with advanced stages of capitalism largely didn’t have serious Communist movements, and I can’t think of any that had a Communist revolution. Your assertion that communsit revolution was the product of hatred of capitalism is plainly contradicted by the evidence.
In any event, you’re not playing in the sandbox. How would YOU set up a world government?
So you’d propose a federal world government with substantial powers devolved to member states? Which powers?
We have lots of current smaller examples - the USA, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, etc.