I wouldn’t propose a federal world government; I’m not sure where you got that out of my post. If I were to, I would imagine it would do only one thing: protect civil rights. Right of life, liberty, property, speech, assembly, etc.
Well, constructing a world government is the entire point of this thread. All the world’s sovereign states have come to us here at the SDMB and said “Fuck this, we want world government” and are looking to us for the solution. That’s the OP’s scenario.
Okay, how do you want the world government to protect civil rights, and which ones?
Also, should the world government prohibit trade barriers among its member states?
Well, if we’re to seriously propose things, as opposed to just deconstructing Curtis’s fantasy, I daresay anything that encourages trade is infinitely likelier to bring about global harmony than some kind of imposed hierarchy.
Why have a two-house legislature?
The U.S. Constitution does not say there can or cannot be trade barriers among the states; it says only that Congress, not the states, gets to decide that. Congress could erect interstate trade barriers if it wished, but never has, probably because no reason to do so has ever been apparent and no state or group of states has vigorously demanded a state-protectionist policy. That’s just how it worked out. But a world government, if it had exclusive jurisdiction over interstate commerce, and if it were established at this stage of global economic history, might find that political pressures required the establishment of some protected states or zones; there are some sound arguments for such, at least on a case-by-case basis. (See Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, by Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang.) That, however, would be a matter of politics/policy, and need not be written into the constitution.
Actuually, there have been fairly advanced industrial-capitalist states with serious Communist movements/revolutions – there were several in Europe, in the aftermath of WWI; and there was the Paris Commune; and the Popular Front government of the Spanish Republic (and the simultaneous, unofficial and short-lived Spanish Revolution – really more Anarcho-Syndicalist than Communist, but Marxist nonetheless); but there have been none with successful Communist movements/revolutions. They all got squashed or marginalized.
That’s just American capitalist propaganda talking.
Once again, I would be wary of a world government; too much power concentrated in too few hands. I would hope that if any world government ever appears, it’s hands would be tied very tightly by a very strongly worded constitution with little room for interpretation.
That said, this fictional world government should be limited in scope, and as I said earlier, only work to protect civil rights. Above all it should protect life, liberty, and property, as well as freedom of speech, assembly, travel, defense, and consumption. In other words, a world government should protect all negative liberties, but no positives. Member states’ governments would actually enforce said laws, with a way to appeal to the world government.
FullMetalJacket
Son, all I’ve ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out.
/FullMetalJacket
My idea has always been to encourage the major regions - roughly the ones the OP listed - to proceed at their own pace in integrating along the lines of the EU, but with the further goal of forming full-blown regional federations under a loose global umbrella. (The US, China, India, and Russia are large enough to be kept separate).
Meanwhile, while retaining the UN General Assembly as one “house” where each state government appoints a representative, we add a second parliamentary house where representatives are elected from equal-sized districts. The kicker is that only reps elected in multi-party elections free from interference from state governments. That would exclude anyone from China–just for starters–for a good long time.
This global parliament would have little power at first, but would have as its goal the convening of a constitutional congress to clarify its role vis-a-vis the system of regional federations I described.
If you’re going by population, Russia’s a strange choice to be kept separate. Russia is not one of the four most populous states in the world. It’s ninth, actually.
If you’re going by area, then India’s a strange choice.
Because, “…[T]he more impediments to legislation the better…”
I don’t know which form of government would work best. I’d assume a parliamentary system but do not know which one. Plus you run the risk of giving a nation like North Korea the same influence in world events that you’d give to a nation like Canada, and Myanmar’s vote would be as powerful as that of France.
Personally, I think we should have global institutions designed to uphold the universal declaration of human rights which are actually effective at doing so and are not corrupted. A weak federal system which has basic demands/requirements for member states.
Take the international criminal court and give it its own police force made up of special forces soldiers designed to perform kidnap missions in hostile territory.
Mandate higher funding for organizations like WHO, UNICEF and NGOs designed to promote basic health, infrastructure, education, civil rights, etc.
Strong international penalties for excessive human, civil and political rights violations.
Is there a step by step process of how larger federalized governments are formed?
The EU started out as a coal-and-steel tariff union. Now, it is something less than a federal government, but more than a mere association like the UN or OAS.
I think we’ll go in the opposite direction. Other than the EU, democratic government and self-determination tend to create smaller political entities, not larger ones.
Look at the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent breakup of Yugoslavia. Anything constructed by military force tends to disintegrate sooner or later. Now, the native populations of, say, the United States are sufficiently integrated (and disintegrated) that a rebellion of that sort is unlikely - but it’s not all that unlikely that Oregon or Texas or South Carolina* or smaller or larger subdivisions, will one day decide that they’re better off on their own.
Even Britain is slowly becoming less integrated rather than more.
The world already has a successful model that can apply to a world government. It is the United States of America.
Inevitably, if we are to survive on the planet, we must be governed by a body with the means to effectively execute the controls on the citizenry for a fair and judicious use of resources favourable to our species.
Washington does that for a segment of North America and Oceana .
New York is a joke. (So is Copenhagen)
Given that many of the worlds’s people would love to live in America, I would love to see America open its borders to accept other countries who wish to become part of their federation. Sure, it might take decades if not centuries. But it has worked for 50 states already. 150 more is not out of the question.
I see a slowly evolving concept of “world government” from " America government" as more doable than any convention that seeks simultaneous acceptance.
What, the U.S. is the only applicable successful model? That seems rather optimistic.
You’ve compared a system arising from U.S. government to a simultaneous system arising naturally. What would you feel makes a U.S.-sourced body superior to bodies arising from other federation-like groups?
Look, I just don’t see Ottawa as being the capital of the world, no matter how proud I am of our own federation here in Canada.
The United Nations is a joke. No teeth. Five separate power bases. The EU is much more fragile compared to the united states in the Americas.
But success is as much dealing with what you have as general ability. Should we measure success as power on the world stage, or success in context of the nation in question? Probably a good argument for both, really.
I would argue that the U.N. and the EU are very good indicators, however, of how a world government might come about. I mean, they’re the closest type of things, really. And they show that, in general, countries just aren’t willing to give up their authority. Those nations which believe themselves more capable of surviving on their own will do so - look at the reaction of the UK to the EU. Essentially any deal in which a country would seek to join the U.S. is going to be percieved by the U.S. as a net defecit, not a benefit. Any idea which presupposes a powerful nation be the head of some world order has the problem that there really isn’t much in it for the nation in question.
I would argue that any kind of world government is more likely to come from a situation where several conspicuously not-powerful, non-players on the world stage come together. Me being a cynical bastard makes me think that a world player may very well come in towards the end and make a moral hijack of the affair, but I doubt any kind of source is going to come from the U.S. Lots of people want to live in the U.S. Not so many U.S.ians want everyone to come live there.