Only during the beginning of the end was Rome Christian. In fact, Christianity was one of the causes of Rome’s collapse. According to Grant, “the theologians preached doctrines that minimized the importance of serving the state”, an obvious problem in the Roman world. In addition, since Constantine the Church had been allowed to establish their own power structures and politics, which added new complications to the ruling of the Empire. Additionally, the rise of Islam in the East lead to the sacking of Constantinople (now Istanbul) and the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the last vestige of ‘The Glory that was Rome’. Rome was limited by its own growth, and killed by its own popularity. It did not remain able to preserve a stable power structure with all its feuding generals and soldiers becoming more allied to local power structures than to Rome itself. And its popularity was such that it became ever-less homogenous. A less homogenous Empire was harder to govern, and each group wanted to be just as autonomous as it once was while still getting the benefits of citizenship, which during its last decades Rome was giving out even to those who had not served in the military. Bad move for the Empire. Anyway, my point is, Rome fell for many of the same reasons any modern world government would fall: Internal corruption; Too large for one political body to manage; Too diverse to be a successful democracy; Military spread too thinly and too far from home to be an efficient fighting force with good morale.
I think that one world government wouldn’t necessarily have many of the problems listed here associated with it.
In theory (I feel safe keeping this in theory because practically speaking, one world government isn’t going to show up in our lifetimes) governments exist because people interact in society and they need a body of rules to determine which interactions are acceptable and an organization to allocate/manage common resources and meet common needs. Some of these governmental functions are better handled on a global basis than on a national basis. For example, it makes no sense to manage oceanic fisheries on a national scale; it only works on a regional/global scale. The same could be said about global climate change. In addition, somewhere it was mentioned that people should have somewhere where they can escape the government. But what if the person is a murderer? Then we don’t want them to escape the law (or at least I don’t want them to). Another important function of one world government would be to keep local disputes from flaring into war. The other billions of people in the world have no interest in seeing India and Pakistan fling nukes at each other, but with nations and not the world, as the unit of sovereignty, there isn’t much we can do to stop them.
The form of the world government is debateable, and I would personally favor a democracy with clearly demarked limits to policy areas that are ligitmate interests at the global level, and other powers reserved for local/regional governments. I do not believe this form would be a monolithic dictatorship; it would not be a monolith because peoples or thier representatives would debate and disagree on policy, and it would not be a dictatorship because a democracy with limited powers is not a dictatorship.
I know that Americans would be outnumbered in a world democracy. Quite frankly, I don’t think an American has a right to more political power than a person of any other nationality, so this doesn’t concern me. Why the situation where America dictates policy to the rest of the world (I know, a gross exaggeration, but we are the most politically influential nation on the planet, and the word “dictate” was used before in this thread) is inherently better than political power being distributed proportionally by population, I don’t know. The only perspective that works from is that of a American self-interest. If we were the ones who were disenfranchised, we’d prefer the global democracy too.
Internal corruption may be a problem, so we should obviously take that into account when designing the new gov’t. Harsh penalties for corruption and separate branches that operate independently of each other would be a good start. Let’s say there are three branches, like in the American gov’t: executive, legislative, and judiciary. I think there should be an agency in the judicial branch charged with the sole purpose of investigating corruption in the other two branches. Surely there will be corruption still, but I don’t see why that has to be a bigger problem in a world government than in any other.
As far as one world government being a weapon that could destroy the world, I think we already have world-destroying weapons, both nuclear and biological. Nations maintain these weapons for use against each other (and sometimes against their own people! Brrrr!). A world democratic government has no need of these weapons, and should be disarmed of them. We need to be vigilant to ensure that the weapons are not produced, but the current system both allows and encourages (the international treaties in this regard haven’t got a great track record) their production, so I think that is a worse situation than one world government would be.
People who oppose any kind of cession of “sovereignty” are IMHO acting out of ignorance. Some time ago, there were 13 states and they realized they had more to gain that to lose by giving up some of their freedom to a Federal Government because that means the other guys do the same for you. I do not think anyone doubts this was a good thing.
Europe is now undergoing the same process where countries have decided it is better to share a certain amount of sovereignty than to be involved in wars to defend it.
The USA already has assumed international limits and obligations under many international treaties and I think this is a good thing. It is a good thing for nations to assume obligations in the community of nations in exchange for other nations doing the same.
I do not know what you would call world government but I am sure it is not going to tell you what color to paint your house any more than the federal government already does.
But I am quite sure that the present trend of globalization of trade and standards will continue and it will be a good thing. Both republicans and democrats are in favor of this and only hicks like Pat Buchanan and some unions oppose it.
It is not that Washington DC tells every state what to do; rather it is that every state gets to send people to Washington who can then agree on solutions that work for everybody. I think that is a pretty good solution and it would be good to expand it at the international level.
So, I guess it just depends what you mean by world government. Many decisions that affect us all are already being made at the supranational level, and the trend is growing.
**
The 13 colonies shared a common history, culture, and language. It wasn't a big stretch for people who are alike to surrender decide to operate under larger federal government. It would be very difficult for groups of people with little in common to achieve this kind of thing.
**
They are not under going the same process. So far as I know each country will retain its own government, military, and infrastructure. They are not becoming a single nation.
**
Which is not the same thing as as surrendering soverign status. It is simply an agreement we’ve reached with one or more nations because it serves our purposes.
**
Will it tell me other things? Perhaps they will impose restrictions of free speech, religion, the right to bear arms, and various other things I enjoy.
**
I’m a big fan of free trade. Products and information spreading around world is generally a good thing. While I’m not interested in sending our military everywhere I am interested in goods and information flowing across the borders.
**
And we’ve got a lot of people who feel as though Washington has to much power. We’ve got others who feel as though they are not represented in Washington. How will a one world government improve things for me?
Marc
MGibson, the point I was trying to make is that this is not a yes/no question but rather a question of degree. The more nations have in common the more they can share. The 13 colonies shared a culture and also a threat at that time. What kept them together was the British threat.
You might not feel represented in Washington but if this country were 50 separate countries you’d be much worse off.
A world government would not impose certain restrictions on you for the same reason the federal Government cannot do it: the colonies said, fine, we give the federal government certain powers and we stipulate it cannot do certain things. This “world government” would have limited powers to whatever areas it had been given. Also, I am not thinking of a one man government, I am thinking of institutions that would be multinational and would be everywhere.
Free trade is good but also requires international bodies with the power to make decisions or it is meaningless. So you have to accept outside decissions in the knowledge the other guys must also accept them. Or else you end up with the sillyness of countries finding excuses for limiting trade. The French say they won’t accept American meat because it’s loaded with hormones and the US says they’ll slap a 100% tariff on French cheese because it stinks. IMHO, it is better to agree to have a system of resolving these things even if they sometimes rule against you.
But if the US as a country says it does not want to accept any exterior regulation, then it has to realize it cannot influence other countries either. It cuts both ways.
About Europe you say “So far as I know each country will retain its own government, military, and infrastructure. They are not becoming a single nation.”
Well, they are well on their way. They have already given the EU power over many things like consumer protection, right to appeal judicial decissions, human rights, freedom of movement of people and goods inside Europe, etc. These are voluntary transfers of sovereignty.
France and Germany have already formed what is supposed to be the core of a European army and I have no doubt that soon there will be a European army.
BUT the most important transfer of sovereignty has been the adoption of a common currency as now every country has lost the ability to make its own independent monetary policy. This is a huge transfer of sovereignty and it has been done already.
Here is a piece of news about the UK having to follow some European ruling.
I also read some news about how the brits are being left out of some major European decisions because they have not joined the Eurozone. There is widespread opposition (due to the same ignorant hicks) but the UK has to join the Euro. It is not a question of if but when and the more they put it off the worse it will be.
**
My point was I don’t feel as though some body farther then Washington is going to represent my interest.
**
That sounds rather naive to me. The federal government imposes restrictions all the time. If you don’t raise the legal drinking age in your state to 21 they’ll cut off your federal highway funds. That sure sounds like they’re imposing certain restrictions on the states.
**
Great, a huge body made up of paper pushes and office dictators.
**
Uh, yeah, we already have governments that do that.
**
What makes you think we’ve got any problems resolving trade disputes with other nations?
**
Outside influence and outside regulation are two different things. I find it perfectly acceptable for an outside nation to attempt to influence how we do things. That is not the same as giving them power to regulate us.
**
That doesn’t mean I’m interested in joining them. Other then Canada I can’t think of any nation in North America I’d want to become a part of.
Marc
** sqweels ** hit the nail on the head when he said:
There is something to be said for having a world-wide entity with real power to prevent group A from attempting to wipe out group B by killing them all.
For people who contest that massive factionalism would be a bad thing, encouraging factionalism was the idea that the founders of the U.S. when they wrote the constitution; one of the greatest checks on the power of the federal government was that multiple minorities would ultimately prevent tyrrany of the majority. The idea would be that no single group(even a majority) has access to enough power to cause real harm to any other group, but if any real threat came to all groups then there would be the vehicle to resolve said threats. Such notions (as expressed in The Federalist Papers by Madison, Hamilton, et. al.) could easily be extended to an “international” government.
Your characterization of them as ignorant hicks is unfair. Am I an ignorant hick for disagreeing with you about the one world government?
Marc
The amount of power a government can wield over your life should be in direct proportion to the amount of power you have over that government, and the ease in which you can leave it if you are unhappy.
Thus, I don’t mind local zoning boards that dictate the color of my house and the type of garage door I must have. I have the ultimate freedom to choose by not moving into a neighborhood with restrictions I don’t like, and if I live in that neighborhood my vote in the community association will have some weight.
I want my civic government to have somewhat less power, because it is harder for me to leave a city I don’t like, and my vote counts for less.
I want my state or provincial government to have even less power, for the same reasons. But still, if I don’t like concealed carry laws in my state, I still have significant freedom to move to a state that better supports my beliefs.
The federal government should have even less power over my life, because my vote counts for little and it’s very difficult to leave a country you don’t like.
A world government is impossible to leave, and my vote is completely irrelevant. Therefore, I want a world government to have NO power at all. In other words, I don’t want a world government. Period.
Saying you can escape your country’s government is not very realistic. Most people can’t without major disruption to their lives and most people would rather bear hardship than move to another country. Even most of the Cuban people would rather stay in Cuba than get out and the conditions there are awful in every sense.
Even escaping your state or local government, while it can be done, isn’t that easy. They’d have to do something pretty bad for you to sell your house and move elsewhere. Most of the time people do not move away but rather try to participate in the common affairs by voting etc. That’s good at the local level and I think it would be good too on a global level.
Well, I guess the one thing we agree on is that it’s not going to happen any time soon. Some don’t like the idea and others think it is not so bad.
As I have said, I do not think this is a yes/no question but rather a question of degree. Voluntarily surrendering a measure of sovereignty in exchange for the the same by the others is a good thing IMHO. Tribes formed city-states, city-states formed nations etc. Conflicts that were previously resolved by war can now be resolved by other peaceful means.
There are certain things that require the community of nations to resolve. The world is getting smaller and the trend is for more interdependence, not less. There are issues like global pollution, overfishing the high seas, presence in outer space… If the USA can do whatever it wants in those areas, it means that so can everyone else incliding Libia and North Korea. International bodies set up voluntarily can better resolve these issues.
I for one would like to have a voice, however small in things that happen in China, even if it means they can have a voice in things that happen in Africa. because the millions of tons of pollution that Chinese factories belch into the air each year drift across the Pacific and end over North America. For the same reason, Canadians complain of air pollution they get from the USA.
I would also like to see a human rights international court that could guarantee the Chinese people the freedoms they do not enjoy today.
The EU can impose certain regulations and the member states have voluntarily accepted the jurisdiction of the EU to do so but they realize that, on the whole, they will gain much more than they lose. Industrial and consumer regulations are made for the entire EU instead of at a country level and this means saving in the drafting of the regulations and the uniformity is good for trade. The acceptance od the jurisdiction of the EU means the individuals have one more level of recourse. If they are not content with the results of their judicial system, they now have one more level of appeal to the EU as was illustrated by the news clipping I linked to. Those brits who appealed to the EU and won found protection in that venue, not oppression.
Note that any government exists by leave of the governed. Those against the EU were trying to get people to vote against it by scaring them. In France there have been campaigns saying French cheese would all have to be pasteurized which would in effect outlaw most of the French traditional cheese manufacture. In Spain they were saying bullfighting would be outlawed and the letter ñ as well.
I do believe the best government is that which governs the least and many programs are unnecessary but that is true at any level, international, national or local.
BTW, I did not mean every isolationist who opposes international involvement is a hick. What I do think is that hicks tend to think like that more (in every country).
Anyway, as we all know, nothing close to a one world government is going to happen within our lifetimes, so those who oppose it can rest easy.
**
All this is currently being handled by independent nations working together.
**
I’m not willing to allow China to have a say regarding the actions of the United States or the nations of Africa. They don’t exactly have the same principles of human rights that I do.
**
Nations already negotiate about such things. Canada does complain about our pollution but we do provide them with plenty of goods and service. They do benefit from the United States just like we benefit from having them as a trade partner.
**
Have you read the UN Charter and their stands on human rights? They still allow a nation like China to join despite their violations of human rights. What makes you think some international court will help the Chinese people? What makes you think the United States would allow themselves to fall under the power of such a court?
**
One of these days they’ll find a country that gets pissed off at everyone else telling them how to run things.
**
I still find that to be a gross generalization. It must be nice to be able to label anyone who disagrees as a hick. It makes it easy to discount any arguements they may have against a one world government.
Marc
I would have said “mishandled,” which is why I believe a world government would do a better job. Many (most?) independent nations don’t work well together. I’m sure we could construct a list of those that don’t, but I think it would make this thread unnecessarily long.
Much of the Chinese stance on human rights stems from the PRC being a police state. Perhaps if the PRC didn’t exist and the Chinese were members of a world democracy they’d have a more enlightened view on human rights.
If these are truly “human” rights, why should they be decided separately by each nation? Shouldn’t they apply to all humans irrespective of nationality?
…and somehow, that has failed to solve the problems…
I’m not sure this is relevant. We’d still trade with Canadians under a world government. In fact, I think there would be fewer barriers to doing so.
If it had the authority and power to arrest and prosecute those who violate the human rights of others, I suspect it would help. Wouldn’t you like to see those responsible for Tienamen (sp?) Square punished? Current international courts have neither the power nor the authority to do this.
> where hatred and bigotry are no longer practiced
How would a world gov’t eliminate those? Those come from individuals.
…asked what is it about the idea of a world government that sticks a thistle up the britches of conservatives, fundementalists, etc. I think it is probably because the concept has become (fairly or unfairly) associated with communist/socialist utopianism.
Aside from purely practical difficulties with bureaucracy or resolving conflicts between disparate groups of people, I wonder if it would be even possible to have a government with no outside. That is, without a “someone else” to help define who you are, by virtue of they’re not being part of your group.
Furthermore, I do worry that even the most democratic world government would abuse it’s monopoly on political power. The US might not be willing to attack other democracies, but that doesn’t mean that the US government isn’t unhappy about things even it’s closest allies do.
Take the Internet for example. A number of laws relating to censoring the Internet have been proposed, but are usually struck down on the grounds that they’re unenforcable, because US law doesn’t apply to web sites in other countries. A world government COULD enforce global censorship.
I don’t see a world government happening anytime soon, more of an “international order” with sovereign nations agreeing to behave civilly (no war, free trade, rule of law, human rights, etc.)
You’re missing the point. Only a one-world government can defeat Chinese conmmunism and bring justice and human rights to the Chinese people. And any idealized one-world government would be a republic, so only freely elected representatives would be seated.
I’m often reminded of the words of General Grant when he took command of the Union Army (paraphrasing): “Stop worrying about what they’re going to do to you and start thinking about what you’re going to do to them”.
I was about to laugh, but you sound so serious. Please tell me you’re joking and not really this naive.
I think the key word in squeels’ post is ‘idealized,’ by which I think he means ideal. An ideal world government would be a democracy or a democratic republic.
Oops: I should have mentioned that I believe it is also possible to, at some point in the distant future, establish a democratic or democratic republic world government, at which point the ideal world government would become real.
It is also possible that a totalitarian world government would be established at some point in the future, but for obvious reasons, I oppose that.
The biggest argument against a world government is this: The level of mediocrity. At a very small level, mediocrity is tolerable. The things a town government does badly can be cleared up at the county or state level. And in a town, you can look your mayor in the eye and tell him to his face what kind of a loser he is. As the government grows (town->county->state->federal), the fault tolerance shrinks. Why? More responsibility. You can’t fool around when you represent 500000 people like you can fool around when you represent 5000. And when you represent a significant fraction of your nation’s population, your screw-up margin is reduced significantly. Imagine how small the fault tolerance would be for the Gentleman from India in the World Congress. Imagine how many people would be screaming at him when he screws things up. Screaming at him thousands of dialects, no less. You can barely reach a busy state Senator on the phone. How often could you chew the fat with someone who represents your whole country? Is there a person yet born who can handle that kind of responsibility? Would any sane man want it? Humans are humans. That’s what made the Cold War so scary and that’s what would make a World Government so scary.