What is the problem with a one-world government?

Great Debates
21

I notice that most messages seem to lean towards a belief that the US would be dominant in a world government or that the US would be a model for the world government.

My questions is … why? The US does not represent a world majority of any type! So when deciding on electoral districts, whether they are based on population, financial generation, whatever, the US would not have a majority.

Look around the globe at the places that would have a population majority and decided if you would like world policy coming out of there? Now imagine you are living in that country, how happy would you be having the US make all your decisions? (even if done under the umbrella of a world government).

Plus, Canada is routinely voted the world’s best country to live in … grin

MDE

22

I wasn’t addressing you, pldennison, I should have said, “anyone who sees…”

Can you give some specific examples of neccessary differences–besides foreign language problems–in educational curricula from one state to another? Does average IQ vary from state to state? Math is math, English is English. It isn’t “coincidence” that they’re the same in every state.

23

World Government would never work.
Reasons:
[ul]
[li]Too many differences. No group is equipped to represent all disparate interests.[/li][li]Too much power consolidated in one body politic. No group is equipped to be trustee and steward of all that power.[/li][li]Too much hate. Muslims hate, Jews hate, Christians hate, every group hates. It’s how groups keep hedgemony over their constituants. (‘If you aren’t in this group, you are EVIL and will be KILLED.’ is the kind of philosophy that makes the world go 'round.)[/li][li]Too much of a chance to really screw up when ‘local’ matters grow. Local matters, like the killing of a few royals back east somewhere, can turn into global matters, like a new superpower with nukes aimed right at you. Kind of scary to imagine a huge bureaucracy trying to fight a brushfire while assassins plot a potentially destabalizing assassination.[/li][li]The inability of a single government to fight all the problems that happen. Don’t think a world government won’t have to, either. If any smaller group is allowed to fend for itself, it gets ‘uppity’, to use an old term, and agitates for independence, creating a whole world of troubles.[/li][/ul]
Okay, what does this leave us with? Let’s see:
[ul]
[li]A totalitarian regime that self-destructs as its power structure becomes more exclusionary and more dependant upon a strong military. The military stages a junta, the government gets worse because the military demands even more of the people than the old regime, the people fight for freedom, the government gets even worse because local strongmen rise to power, etc. Look at the African governments in the post-colonial age. How much of Africa is stable? Imagine that on a global scale.[/li][li]A US-type system that suffers from constant civil wars because of a bureaucracy too large to react to anything. The local pols may want the best, but everyone else, who also wants the best, knows that those policies would not work for their districts. So the policies get so watered-down they become worthless as a way to serve the people. Meanwhile, local reactionaries see the corruption and inefficiencies created by so large a government and demand action, which groups like Fascists have always provided. Even if nobody big enough to make a difference wants Fascism, enough people will want a change. Votes appear to get lost in the ocean of other votes. Civil wars break out. Not pretty.[/li][li]A very weak government that either breaks down because it’s unable to compete with local governments in providing service and preventing conflicts or is completely ignored and reduced to censuring groups others must fight. If the government is so weak as to give local groups most of the say, how is that different from having no government at all? People don’t pay for a service nobody sees. And without any real power, government has no reason for being.[/li][/ul]
jayron32:
Your government would not work because it would have to assert itself somehow to keep peace. Freedom and liberty are not compatable. If locals are given freedom, there is no end to the troubles a world governing body would have to contend with. A government based on your principles would have to trade liberty (life, security, and property) for freedom (do as you will, when you will), which is not a pretty sight.

24

i’ve never seen a monopoly i liked. one that ruled my life would really suck.

at least now i can go exist in local monoplies other than the one i happened to be born into.

[hooray for small freedoms. :-\ ]

25

You’re rather inflammatory here don’t you think? Right off the bat you’re equating those of us who enjoy living in a soverign nation with isolationist reactionaries.

Why would a one world government mean people could choose their own leaders? How would hatred and bigotry all the sudden come to an end?

Finally here’s a good reason not to have a one world government. I have a hard enough time getting representatives in Washington to represent my interest. I’m not willing to surrender sovereign powers to the rest of the world.

Marc

26

HA HA! Maybe we can work out something. A 3/5ths compromise perhaps?

Marc

27

I see everyone thinking the same thing.

That a single world government would be monolithic and oppressive. Or at least that that government would be to the world what our government is to us.

Since a lot of people hate our government…

A single world government would probably be NOTHING like ours. We are but one-half of one-half of one-sixth of the world’s population! Our say would be pretty damn limited! If you ask me, that’s one of the big fears. Not only that it would be a “big, oppressive bastard” but that it would be a threat to our way of life.

Since you probably can’t get 20 strangers to agree to a place to eat lunch without one of them taking charge, we’ll probably never see a government of the type everyone fears.

However, if you study culture you notice that, as each country advances, it goes through a centralization of power. And the world is now becoming unified enough through communications and such that it is approaching the point where humanity could be viewed as a large (though geographically disparate) culture. Very probably we will see some sort of centralization of power.

BUT…

And this is a pretty important “but” here.

But there are so many groups of people, so many seperate interests, and (the big one) so many different people vying for power that that government could probably never be the monolith we fear. Probably the first thing we’ll see is a mostly impotent body of many nations that doesn’t do TOO much. Waidaminute, are the UN and NATO at all like that? (I like being a prophet of past events)

28

**

The key word is voluntary. Our legislators vote on whether or not our nation is going to enter into a treaty. If we surrendered our soverign status then the rest of the world could dictate policy to us.

**

I guess I’m ignorant then. I’m not willing to trust the rest of the world to look out for my best interest. Unless the rest of the world is going to adopt a government similiar to ours I’m not even going to think about it.

Marc

29

I can’t remember who said it but I once heard, “we’ll have one world government as soon as we have a Israbia”…meaning of course that if two different religions who have been fighting for two milenia can call it quits then we have a chance.

Actually, I think it’s a great idea…and I think we’re moving closer to it anyway…how many democracy’s existed 200 years ago? Now how many are there? Hell, the Roman empire only lasted 400 years so we should be near world domination under one government in about 200 years or so…Ok, I’m drunk, sorry for the spelling mistakes, ansd sorry if you think there are any mistakes in my logic.

30

Occam wrote:

600 years. Over 1400 years, if you count the Byzantine empire. Plus, the Roman Empire was preceded by about 500 years’ worth of Roman Republic, which was itself preceded by 200+ years’ worth of Roman Kingdom.

31

Well, see there you go? The US is just an infant. We have global communication so it’s now possible. It’s just a matter of time before we see a United Nations of the World. I may even see it in my lifetime.

Of course, if we discovered a “Them” like aliens we would be united in a heartbeat so we could concentrate on kicking their ass.

32

Rome didn’t conquer the world. Heck, it couldn’t even manage conquering all of Europe! Germanic tribes beat it off when it tried to invade Central Europe, a move that limited it to costal regions. Rome never even got all of the British Isles. It had to build Hadrian’s Wall to prevent the big, bad Celts from moving out of Scotland with their iron swords. The folly of Rome is this: Monolithic governments must use force to ensure their place in the world. Use of force does not make any friends with the locals. The locals revolt even further, precipitating one of two things: A. Even more retribution and the establishment of a garrison state, a system that entrusts active military with the operations of civilian government. Not very efficient, at best a stopgap until the revolution is truly quelled, at worst the prelude to a military dictatorship. B. The government gives up and pulls out, giving other revolutions hope. The successful revolution is rarely followed by a successful government. So the one-world government shrinks and fragments, torn outside between loyalists and revolutionaries, torn inside between doves and hawks. Eventually, both options die.

33

What I find intersting is that fears of a one-world government are way ahead of any significant movment toward that end. The responses on this thread, though, are all quite reasonable.

But here’s my take on the issue:

Focusing on the idea of a one-world government is premature. Instead, it would be preferable to develop the creation of a system of regional federations, along the lines of the European Union. Regions such as Sub-saharan Africa, Latin America, the Middle East (that quote about “Israbia” hits the nail on the head), and Southeast Asia could form their own governments at their own pace. (The US is already a regional federation, so we would be unaffected.) This would create greater stability since there would be fewer actors to cause conflicts.

Of course, I’m glossing over a vast number of complicating issues, but I think this idea really has legs, and we may already be moving in that direction, even though most have yet to grasp the concept.

34

Regional federations may well happen, but only in regions that are pretty homogenous and fairly stable to begin with. The EU may well strengthen to the status of a true country, but no Middle Eastern federation would work. I doubt the Koreas will work out their differences peacefully for a long time. Same for China and Taiwan. Unification is a nice plan, and in some ways it works, but people need governments close to home. A government that outgrows its constituants becomes a corrupt government. That’s why I’m always wary of people trying to expand federal systems to govern people who would have little say in what happens. And as the number of people rises, everyone has less say in the government. Maybe a confederation and a common currency is all some regions will want or need. Others may prefer a strong federal system with a true capital and a standing army. No matter what happens, it must be kept small and close to the people. When that fails, the government fails.

35

I believe Alexander the Great tried this and got an STD for his trouble, dying at 33. A sobering lesson.

36

wanderlust,

dying at 33 is not a tradegy. dying at any age without having lived a fulfilling life is. my guess is alexander felt he’d lived a fairly satisfactory life.

37

I do not object to one world government as a Christian, just as a person. Not that cartoons are much like life, but what does every cartoon villian want? “To take over the world!” In the real world, what did Hitler want? And countless other evil rulers?

The main problem with one world government is, if a tyrant gets control (or a tyrannical party), where will you go to escape it, and what will you fight it with? You have no country to ask for help, no NATO to appeal to, no place to buy arms from, no where to organize a rebellion.

If there is a weapon that can be used to destroy the world, our first obligation is to make darn sure nobody can touch it. One world government could be that weapon.

If this sounds like paranoia, I think you’ve lived too long in cushy America. I don’t own a gun and I’m not an extremist, and I tremble at the thought of ever having to resist the government, but history proves that the wolf is always at the door.

38

What will you fight it with? Simple home made weapons.

Oh, and be sure to fully dispose of the bodies. It scares the willies out of cops when “Ten went out, none came back” things happen.

39

Derleth, you’re wrong. First, Rome nearly conquered all the KNOWN world…who cares about nomadic tribes in southern Africa or a dynasty in China, Rome was the biggest badass on the block…and it was a very large block. Second, Rome didn’t rule with military might as you suggest. Rome conquered with the military, but Rome ruled with trade and the promise of safety. There were over 100 different languages and cultures within Rome’s permanent borders and they were kept together with the most sophisticated network or roads and ancient world has ever seen, even then it still took months to communicate with the entire empire. Many aqueducts and roman roads still exist two millennia later? How many Roman castles exist?? Zero, because Rome didn’t build castles, they built forts for the legions in their most wild areas, but they never built them to last, their legacy has nothing to do with their military, but rather their religion (Christianity), their towns, their language (which was the foundation of Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, and Romania), their technology and the Pax Romana lasted longer than any age of peace before or after. They didn’t call the age after Rome the ‘Dark ages’ because of the lack of Roman generals. For over 400 years it was safer to be anybody with any religion then it had ever been before. That’s what we can do.

40

But then what happened? The democratic countries of the world united under a single military command to defeat him. The WWII Allies were a quasi-one-world government! And if the Russians had (somehow) given up their sovereignty to the Allies then they would have become democratic 40 years earlier and there would have been no Cold War!

No, history proves that history doesn’t prove anything. The world changes, it never changes back. In places where wolves have gone extinct thru loss of habitat, the people no longer have had to worry about them. One lesson history does teach is that when you divide the world up into separate entities, WAR occurs between them and INJUSTICE occurs within them.

If Europe had been a true Federation, the recent war and injustice in the Balkans never would have occured.

A pan-African peacekeeping force is in the works, although many challenges lie ahead.

The existence of Israel is indeed a major impediment to unity in the Middle East, and the dichotomy between democracy and radical Islam is the other major source of instability, but there are positive signs as well. The peace process moves forward. Lebanon has been turned around. New leadership in Syria and Jordan. Surging democracy in Iran. The Gulf War coalition was a great exercise in unity. And there has always been a pan-Arab movement.

Reunification of the Koreas and China/Taiwan is inevitable; it simply awaits the fall of the two Communist regimes. It ain’t gonna happen tomorrow, but it’ll happen.

ASEAN seems to point the way to federation in Southeat Asia, but there is much instability in the region, so the mid-term prospects are poor.

The prospects for unification in South Asia are even worse.

The republics of the former Soviet Union are on the downswing away from unity toward independence. This has to run its course.

Islam is a major issue in the above three regions as well.

Latin America shares a common culture and a common resentment of the US. I’d say the prospects for eventual federation are middling.

Japan, Canada, Australia, the US, and some others are fine on their own and are cases of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

But the world as whole is definitly broke and needs fixing. Show some vision, people. We’re not ready for a single global government, but the world has all the time in the world, cuz the world ain’t goin nowhere.