# Why don't we establish a world government? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885 "2013-03-03T03:58:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/101 "2013-03-04T00:30:49Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Unfortunately that also means having the power to deploy an army powerful enough to keep most countries in line. This. If they are strong enough to do anything serious they are strong enough to screw over the little guys, keep gaining strength and getting more entrenched and then eventually controlling everyone and like I said before probably eventually becoming if not dictatorial, inept, bloated, corrupt, or the like and impossible to get rid of short of a world wide revolution. Think about it, we all know families, small towns, big towns, businesses, and various countries /regions that can’t seem to ever get their shit together. And it seems to be often that they can’t get make the jump from operating in a shitty fashion to operating in a decent fashion. A strongish World government IMO would have a decent likelyhood of eventually going there and getting back would be a bitch. A very weak and therefore non-threatening world government IMO isn’t really a government. Its just a version of the UN that isnt the near joke today’s UN is. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/102 "2013-03-04T01:12:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > A nuclear war is much more likely between non-super powers. We had MAD during the cold war, that made nuclear war unlikely. None of the potential users of nuclear weapons (North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Iran if it develops one) are going to cause World War 3 if they used them. If North Korea or Iran were stupid enough to use them they’d be wiped off the map and their Chinese and Russian benefactors would look the other way. A Pakistani-Indian nuclear exchange is far more dangerous, but again it would cause regional devestation rather than one on a global scale. > [@](#): > > No. Economics is not government. There are not greater “political links” than there was before. The more countries, the fewer political links. There is no trend towards world government as envisioned in the OP. Countries are much more likely to split up than to merge. Just wait until China starts to explode. Economics and government aren’t identical but they are highly related. In the last two decades we’ve seen a massive expansion of both the EU and NATO, democratic reforms in countries ranging from Poland to Burma, and increasing globalization/free trade pacts which tie countries together. And a country breaking up or devolving doesn’t always equate to further polarization-for example the breakup of the USSR meant that its successor states could forge links with the rest of the world which it could not before. BTW, China isn’t going anyway-it will democratize and reform, and possibly suffer unrest but it is not balkanizing. Percentage-wise Han Chinese are more dominant in China then whites are in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/103 "2013-03-04T01:37:21Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > In the US, think about how things get done in the area you live in. Who is more responsive to the needs of the citizens and their issues? > > Is it the city/county government? The State government? The Federal government? > > Former Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill coined the phrase, “All politics is local.” > > Things that matter get taken care of at the local level. The farther you get away from local government the less representation and problem solving you get. > > A world government will add yet another layer of bureaucracy that is not responsive to your needs. I disagree. The stuff the local government handles is trivia like plowing the roads and enforcing zoning ordinances. The important stuff like freedom and justice and security are handled at the national level. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/104 "2013-03-04T01:53:52Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Yes but, imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do. I see what you did there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/105 "2013-03-04T02:43:52Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > None of the potential users of nuclear weapons (North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Iran if it develops one) are going to cause World War 3 if they used them. If North Korea or Iran were stupid enough to use them they’d be wiped off the map and their Chinese and Russian benefactors would look the other way. A Pakistani-Indian nuclear exchange is far more dangerous, but again it would cause regional devestation rather than one on a global scale. I never said such a devastating war was likely. I only said it was more likely than a World Government, as envisioned by the OP, which is extremely unlikely. > [@](#): > > Economics and government aren’t identical but they are highly related. GO and reread the OP. That’s not what he’s talking about. > [@](#): > > In the last two decades we’ve seen a massive expansion of both the EU and NATO, democratic reforms in countries ranging from Poland to Burma, and increasing globalization/free trade pacts which tie countries together. > > And a country breaking up or devolving doesn’t always equate to further polarization-for example the breakup of the USSR meant that its successor states could forge links with the rest of the world which it could not before. Ar you joking? The break up of the USSR has splintered nations into lots of different smaller political enclaves, and we still don’t know how it’s all going to work out. You are too focused on the Eastern European Republics of the ex-USSR and are ignoring the many Central Asian Republics. > [@](#): > > BTW, China isn’t going anyway-it will democratize and reform, and possibly suffer unrest but it is not balkanizing. Percentage-wise Han Chinese are more dominant in China then whites are in the United States. It’s not balkanizing yet, because it’s a totalitarian state. There is no comparison to the US, which is a recent invention and doesn’t encompass areas of significant ethnic diversity like China. [Link.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnolinguistic_map_of_China_1983.png). The US is unlikely to split up in the foreseeable future. There is no state that would secede right now if offered the choice. Not so for China. You have heard of Tibet, have you not? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/106 "2013-03-04T03:21:53Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Yes but, imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do. And given the precedents, it there were no countries, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine them being reconstituted. And, then, actually being reconstituted. History isn’t ever going to end. As for John Lennon, he could imagine all he wanted, complete with, as he did, giving back his OBE. But England’s still here. If the Queen ever gives me one, I’m keeping it :D. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/107 "2013-03-04T03:34:58Z")
A military dictatorship in the US is 100 times more probable than a World Government. ---
**Author:** ![Molesworth\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9dc877/32.png) [@Molesworth\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Molesworth_2)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/108 "2013-03-04T10:13:17Z")
I don’t support the idea of a world government. But I do think that the UN should have an armed component, which should only ever be used if the entire Security Council agrees. It should be based on the concept of the French Foreign Legion. UN peacekeeping troops are currently toothless. Too many times the major powers decline to stop something that the world agrees is evil because they’re worried about the domestic political cost of intervening. Basically, if you’re committing genocide in your own country then you shouldn’t be surprised if some UN troops armed with state of the art weapons descend upon your country. Troops filled with volunteers from across the world who actually _want_ to be in combat. I’m well aware that some blame the Rwandan genocide on the French, but I honestly believe that if the UN had had a corps of exquisitely armed and keen soldiers, an intervention in Rwanda would have been both possible and effective. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/109 "2013-03-04T13:19:49Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > I don’t trust my country but I trust the world even less. This. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/110 "2013-03-04T15:52:22Z")
> [@Molesworth\_2](#): > > But I do think that the UN should have an armed component, which should only ever be used if the entire Security Council agrees. It does, its the armed forces provided by member states when asked. > [@](#): > > It should be based on the concept of the French Foreign Legion. Wait - you want a permanent force assigned to the UN based upon an organization formed from foreign mercenaries with a policy of no questions asked about personal history in exchange for service and a fresh start? You know a lot of FFL personnel after WW2 were former members of the SS? This is what you want to base your international human rights enforcing armed force on? > [@](#): > > UN peacekeeping troops are currently toothless. Too many times the major powers decline to stop something that the world agrees is evil because they’re worried about the domestic political cost of intervening. UN peacekeeping troops are only toothless to the extent that they are charged with peacekeeping, not peace enforcing. The UN was hardly toothless when it asked member nation to provide armed forces to repel the invasion of[South Korea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command) or authorizing the formation of a coalition of forces for the ejection of [Iraq from Kuwait](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War). As to those too many other times that the UN has done nothing, note that you feel this standing UN army “should only ever be used if the entire Security Council agrees.” The UN currently only authorizes such use of force when the Security Council agrees, so how would anything change? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/111 "2013-03-04T16:16:24Z")
Since I don’t want more oppression in my life than I currently have, the only countries I want to play a part in forming a World Government (assuming such is needed, and that remains wildly unproven) have to be no more oppressive than Canada. So basically… Canada. And I guess [the five countries that Heritage.org thinks are freer than Canada](http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking). So your new World Government consists of representatives from: 1. Hong Kong 2. Singapore 3. Australia 4. New Zealand 5. Switzerland 6. Canada (yay!) They put Iran at #168, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/112 "2013-03-04T16:37:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Since I don’t want more oppression in my life than I currently have, the only countries I want to play a part in forming a World Government (assuming such is needed, and that remains wildly unproven) have to be no more oppressive than Canada. > > So basically… Canada. And I guess [the five countries that Heritage.org thinks are freer than Canada](http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking). So your new World Government consists of representatives from: > > 1. Hong Kong > 2. Singapore > 3. Australia > 4. New Zealand > 5. Switzerland > 6. Canada (yay!) > They put Iran at #168, by the way. I’m not disagreeing with you, but I find that list somewhat suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/113 "2013-03-04T16:48:44Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I’m not disagreeing with you, but I find that list somewhat suspect. Heritage’s list ranks economic, as opposed to political, freedom. Here’s a rival index, [the 2010 Democracy Index](http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf), of the Economist Intelligence Unit. > [@](#): > > The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Their top nations: 1. Norway 2. Iceland 3. Denmark 4. Sweden 5. New Zealand 6. Australia 7. Finland 8. Switzerland 9. Canada They have the U.S. at #17, and Iran at #158. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/114 "2013-03-04T17:38:28Z")
Cool, I’m okay with the EIU’s list, the point being in either case that Iran (and nations with similarly oppressive regimes) don’t get their grubby mitts on World Government until they undergo radical reform. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/115 "2013-03-04T17:58:20Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Cool, I’m okay with the EIU’s list, the point being in either case that Iran (and nations with similarly oppressive regimes) don’t get their grubby mitts on World Government until they undergo radical reform. I think they overestimate the importance of political participation; people not voting can just mean they’re happy with the status quo or trust the system to elect someone tolerable; not that they feel denied a voice or are being oppressed. That said, I agree that, whether it’s bigotry or not, I don’t want my civil rights up for a vote if the electorate includes the non-Western, non-Japanese world. Or even then, frankly. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/116 "2013-03-04T18:14:55Z")
Heck, I’m just picturing a World Government Constitutional Convention were every nation gets a vote on each article. Using the Canadian Charter as a guide, I wonder how many of its 34 sections would survive, and what additional elements would be thrown in. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/117 "2013-03-04T18:46:09Z")
> [@Molesworth\_2](#): > > I don’t support the idea of a world government. > > But I do think that the UN should have an armed component, which should only ever be used if the entire Security Council agrees. It should be based on the concept of the French Foreign Legion. > > Basically, if you’re committing genocide in your own country then you shouldn’t be surprised if some UN troops armed with state of the art weapons descend upon your country. Troops filled with volunteers from across the world who actually _want_ to be in combat. I’d agree with this, but only under certain conditions, namely that this UN force has to be limited to maybe a brigade worth of land forces, and integral air transport, with the units separated across the world, with the idea that this force wouldn’t be used for ongoing peacekeeping, but rather for intervention in genocide and being the point forces into hotspots for peacekeeping, to be replaced by more normal UN troops after things are calmed down. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/118 "2013-03-04T18:52:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree. The stuff the local government handles is trivia like plowing the roads and enforcing zoning ordinances. The important stuff like freedom and justice and security are handled at the national level. Yeah…that’s a little nebulous. Most actual freedom, justice and security are handled by my local or state police and legislators. The Federal government does take care of a lot of big-picture stuff at the national level - interstate highways, national military defense, treaties and other agreements with other governments. I’m just wondering what a world government would take care of? ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/119 "2013-03-04T19:04:17Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > I don’t mean a dictator or a king running the whole world; I mean a democratic type of world government. It just seems like there are laws that need to be established that the whole world must abide to. . “They” are trying to do just that. It’s taking longer than they thought. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885/120 "2013-03-04T21:34:27Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > UN peacekeeping troops are only toothless to the extent that they are charged with peacekeeping, not peace enforcing. The UN was hardly toothless when it asked member nation to provide armed forces to repel the invasion of[South Korea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command) or authorizing the formation of a coalition of forces for the ejection of [Iraq from Kuwait](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War). As to those too many other times that the UN has done nothing, note that you feel this standing UN army “should only ever be used if the entire Security Council agrees.” The UN currently only authorizes such use of force when the Security Council agrees, so how would anything change? I may be putting words in his mouth, but I think the idea was that it would be an all-volunteer, elite force, and that it would be used only in cases where the Security Council authorizes it. Couple that with a relatively small budget to allow for the training and deployment of the force and I suspect this pan-UN force would get used a lot more than national forces are currently, if only because the UN wouldn’t have to convince lawmakers (and ultimately the public) in whatever countries are contributing the forces that the mission is useful and worth their own country’s blood and treasure. Instead, you fight that fight up front with the budgeting, and then you can use the force freely, because it’s essentially a force of mercenaries a-la the Foreign Legion, hopefully minus the lack of background checks, etc… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-establish-a-world-government/651885.md?page=7)