World Government

The world is getting smaller every day. Air travel, the Internet, a global economy, and so on.

My question is: Will we ever see a world government?

Europe is consolidating, the Pacific Rim is economically inter-dependent.

Are these the first steps (faltering though they may be) towards a world government?

Or are the problems insurmountable? For example racism and xenophobia.

You make the call. I would like to hear your opinions.

To answer your question: not anytime soon. Just look at the U.N. and how they are so slow and inefficient at implementing what ‘should’ be done. Application of international laws and standards conflicts too often with national (political) interests.

You need a very strong imperatives to justify it to all the countries of the world. An alien invasion would do it, I guess.

Only humans commit inhuman acts.

I hate to sound CLintonesque, but my answer is, it depends how you define “ever.”

If you mean “in a few centuries,” the answer may be yes. If it means “in out lifetimes,” there’s almost no chance.

Abut fifty years ago, a prominent British diplomat was asked when world government would be feasible, and his facetious answer was “shortly after the formation of the state of Israbia.” His point was, if Arbas and Jews can’t coexist peaceably in one small strip of land, what are the odds that hundreds of races/religions/ethnic groups can agree on what a government should be like?

Thnk about it- right now, Canada is a beautiful, peaceful, prosperous, democratic country. Its people have EVERY reason to be happy, and yet it’s constantly on the verge of collapse because its French-speaking citizens want out. If multi-ethnic government can’t last in a country like Canada, it’s hard to imagine where it could.

Will institutions like the E.E.C. bring about world government? In a limited sense, perhaps. But even as countries officially place themselves under the E.E.C.'s control, ethnic tension is eating away at them from within. The Flemings and the Walloons still don’t get along, and continually talk about breaking up Belgium- BELGIUM, for crying out loud. Again, if a government in a country as free and prosperous as Belgium can’t keep two ethnic groups happy, how can one government keep all the nations of the world happy?

The USSR collapsed. Yugoslavia collapsed. Indonesia is shaky. Multi-ethnic and multi-religious African countries are constantly wracked by civil wars. Think Rwanda’s Hutus and the Tutsis will agree on one government in the near future?

Nationalism SEEMS like such a quaint, antiquated, obsolete notion, and so intellectuals tend to dismiss it, or to assume it will fade away. Don’t bet on it. Like it or not, nationalism is powerful, and it’s a GROWING force, not a dwindling force.

I’m not one of the right-wing wackoes who thinks the idea of "world government"is evil or part of a sinister plan by the Trilateral COmmission or the Banks or the Jews or the (fill in your favorite paranoid fantasy). I just don’t see any way it could be feasible for a LOOOOONG time. So, don’t expect that you’ll live to see the “Star Trek” fanatsy of all races living together in harmony under one benevolent government.

World Government will occur just as soon as there is an enemy planet to deal with, not sooner.

Good thought, DSY.

While there are things like NAFTA, the EEC, etc., the strong theme we’ve seen this decade is a resurgence of nationalism and the dissolution of various sovereignties to their formerly constituent parts. A recent trend (not necessarily great) has been the willingness of the world community to intervene in situations within the boundaries of a sovereign nation. This generates a mixed signal, because the assumption of such authority smacks of a leaning toward world government, but the likely end result (Yugoslavia and Indonesia) of these efforts will be further fragmentation.

Parts of global civilization are more cosmopolitan than others, and it’s the others that will provide the a lot of the mainstay against a world government for a while. Generally speaking, who hates each other the most in the world? The people who live next door to each other and have centuries old animosities. Not going to smooth things over in Kosovo any time soon.

If you try and look at the larger picture, we’re quite aways off from DC, Tehran, Beijing, Moscow and Tokyo locking on to the same plan.


The USSR was doomed to collapse anyway. It’s not like it was ever a voluntary grouping. Not a few of the “consitutent republics” which made up that Union were forced into it.

Monty writes:

<mild sarcasm>And, of course, historically empires have collapsed almost the same moment that they were formed.</mild sarcasm>

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

Aka: yeah, I’d say that’s the caee for the so-called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 80 years or so isn’t that long historically, now is it?

I think you have to define what you mean be “government”. I mean, if you have a situation where no one will go to war with anyone else for fear of a hypothetical third country’s military intervention, but that third country does not collect taxes, administer justice, or draft soldiers in those other countries, is that a world government? For instance, in retrospect historians tend to lump those areas that the Romans had hegemony over as part of the empire–even though the people who lived in, say Dacia, would of been appalled at the idea. I don’t think that we will ever see a world government that is 100% anagolous to the moderrn idea of the “nation state.” A new type of government would be needed, a type that can juggle these different groups and ethnicities.

Actually, Monty, I was thinking of some other empires: the Roman empire, the Chinese empires, the Indian empires, the Sunni khalifates.
Unless a good argument can be made that politics has undergone a fundamental change in the last century or so, it can be argued that empires are pretty stable entities.

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

The difficult & expense of running a government is controlled by several factors.

1-the number of people governed

2-the degree of government required (rebellion, crime, consent of citizens, number of services expected by citizens, etc.)

3- the physical area covered & controlled by the government (large/small area contains people)

4- communications tech

5-transportation tech

6 economic knowledge

7-resources available

Ergo- we wont get a one world government until we get much more advanced technology

We have met the enemy, and He is Us.–Walt Kelly

The World Government will exist only when there is one human left alive on it. Even if two people are alive, then there will be two governments. This comes from the fact that every person forms his/her own opinions on how things should be. No two people will every completely agree.

Depending on how you might define “World Government”, I think the U.N. might already meet the definition. Consider the two following points:

  1. Although the U.N. is admittedly slow and weak, it is equally true that here and there, there have been issues wherein the U.N. did take specific actions to maintain domestic order among hte member nations. The Gulf War is just one example.

  2. Compare that to the real existence of economic wars between individual states in the U.S.A. There was a recent (in the past year or two) case where New York State changed the State Income Tax laws to give preferential treatment to New York residents at the expense of commuters from New Jersey and Connecticut. I don’t remember the details, but NJ and CT retaliated with laws to punish NY residents, and NY ended up backing down. Similar wars crop up every time the governments agree on the need for some new facility which will benefit two states; they bicker endlessly about which side of the border to build it on.

My point is that the U.S. Federal Government exists, despite the problems caused by the desires of the individual states. Similarly, a World Government does exist, weak though it be, despite the problems caused by the desires of the individual countries.

The following page (Drudge Report) changes often, but as of this posting, its subject is Strobe Talbott and his belief that in the 21st century

World Government? I thought the Bavarian Illuminati accomplished this two centuries ago.

tracer, sewing on his New World Order merit badge.


‘They couldn’t hit an Elephant from this dist…!’

Last words of General John Sedgwick

tracer is a WWF fan?

If anything, these are signs that the world is gearing up for more intense competition. Euroland hopes to become a market that can compete on equal footing with America and NAFTA. Beijing talks of being a “Superpower” and seeks to exert influence in the regions near its borders.

Global spheres of influence are becoming more well defined. What we are witnessing, I think, is not the emergence of a World Government, but the creation of new lines in the sand.