You know, the above posts are exactly why I am against world government, I don’t want to have ANYTHING to do with someone with such idiotic ideas as the poster.
No thanks, our Constitution is superior to your outdated document.
Bombing the bad people sounds much easier and less aggravating.
Matter of fact, just reading that description of the process makes me want to bomb somebody.
Things like Bush II and the fall of the Roman Republic? Given how easy people will make that vote for evil I don’t all want my eggs in one basket.
How about this for a start:
The One World Government will have the responsibility for preventing genocide and nuclear proliferation and ensuring free trade. Any powers not explicitly granted to the OWG will be retained by the states or the people.
It will be funded by the member states.
I am not trying to describe an ideal OWG - I am trying to demonstrate that there are other conceptions of OWG than the ‘no borders/banning porn/funding bridges in Cairo’ strawman.
What does nuclear proliferation mean under a World State? For that matter, under what circumstances (if any) might nuclear weapons be used under a World State?
And I’m not sure “banning porn” qualifies as a strawman. Curtis is suggesting a cultural unification instead of just a military or economic one, in which the west agrees to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to get the east (“west” and “east” used in the most generic possible sense) to guarantee to implement certain freedoms (though I’m unclear on what those might be), but it’s unclear how (or if) the trade-off would work.
In any case, I don’t personally see the point. If the goal is the improve the standard of living for the average Earthling and reduce the incidence of famine and war, gradually guiding the various nations toward liberal democracy looks like the way to go.
If it’s just so we can present a unified front to the visiting aliens… fuck 'em.
Ok I didn’t want to do this but you forced my hand! Hitler ate food and drink water too, should all of us stop doing that? 
Also, Hitler had 2 arms, so either get cutting or get growing. 
you can’t be so selective with what this government can or cannot do. preventing genocide, nuclear proliferation, and fair trade are all agendas that the united nation tries to maintain. they aren’t overwhelmingly successful because they have no authority. the powers are retained by the states, as you are hoping for. in order for them to prevent genocide, proliferation, etc. they have to have those powers presently retained by the states. they need a standing military, they need funding through taxes, and they need legitimacy through election.
you give that governing body an army, money, executive power, and legislative power, then you’re rolling down a slippery slope to the problems mentioned above. the problems with election, collecting money, maintaining control, etc. these other conceptions of the OWG are just pipe dreams, and leaky ones at that.
IMO this is a political version of many science/engineering/fantasy/economic discussions here on the dope.
The kinds that start off like this : Hey, I know this is the craziest idea ever, it would probably never work, and it certainly aint a good idea…but is it even remotely barely doable ?
Again, IMO, the only way it would work is when most nations of the world are sufficiently “advanced” enough that having a “world” government is a solution to a problem that no longer exists (baring star trek and alien invasion scenarios).
A world government is not the same as a world state. I think a single world state is extremely unlikely at any point in the foreseeable future and will develop, if at all, very slowly from other much likelier models for a world government. I think kevlaw has the right idea. We’re talking (at least I am) about a “super-power” like the UN that would primarily establish and enforce laws governing the relations between states, not a global state that would replace or supersede existing states (though it may intervene in cases of dictatorship or denial of fundamental rights, and would, I admit, take over many of the functions currently carried out largely by independent states now).
These are real issues, but they aren’t insurmountable. There are plenty of federal government systems in the world, including the US and the EU, that work just fine by limiting the power of the larger state. If you don’t want the UN to tax, you just keep that power at the national level. Future generations may change it (just as the US states eventually amended the Constitution to allow federal income tax) but it isn’t inevitable unless you think human society will inevitably move in such a direction that makes it necessary (in which case, is it such a bad thing?)
GOVERNment. how would they GOVERN? how would they “enforce” anything? who’s going to listen? if you don’t legitimize their power with force, money, and/or vote, what’s the point?
is the UN stopping China from effectively funding darfur in exchange for oil rights?
did the UN stop the US from invading Iraq?
can i hop on a plane to pick up a case of cubans over christmas holidays?
no. and it never will unless it gets some sort of vested power in the form of election (global consent to subjugation).
It’s not crazy and given that the EU has already been successful at blending national and international governments, it could work. Its only crazy when people use the Hitler comparison AS THE FIRST COUNTERPOINT.
Many nations in the EU are not as advanced as ones like Germany and France and England. Problems arise when trying to blend these governments. But enough controls and influence over the individual governments does not mean a total elimination of national identity. When you think of Germany, do you think champagne and cheese?
I was going to start one of these topics too, except my question would have been “What is the objection to a one world government?” Given the answers I’ve been seeing in this topic, it seems like “crazy”, “paranoia”, and “ignorance” fills up 99% of the objections.
A one world government can work, and I hope it does. Just as states retain their identities, and the EU nations retain theirs, different countries would retain their identities without fail. After all, one government does not mean one geography. People living in Iceland would still differ markedly from people living in Argentina. But the basis of nukes, human rights, and a shared currency would make a strong statement that it can work, especially if we don’t have to rely on bickering nations to vote against each other. If one government body can tell Sudan to stop killing, or Iran to not enrich uranium, then it would outweigh the bad.
Something tells me that your free trade clause would serve the same purpose as the interstate commerce clause in the United States Constitution - a loophole to be abused.
They would govern as a single nation does now.
The UN is not a one world government so you cannot simply throw their name out and assume a true one world government would work that way. Its a nice step, as is the EU, but not the goal
I feel sorry for you if you think that elections equates to subjugation.
Clearly that’s a real possibility. But could we craft a constitution to prevent it?
I agree with the posters who have proposed the EU as a good model (rather than the US federal model), but there are already signs that the EU is becoming more powerful - and the countries of the world are much more diverse than the countries of the EU.
Also, it bears repeating: One World Government != One World State
Every law has a loophole. Pretending to wait until all loopholes are fixed before supporting a point is akin to never supporting it. All arguments against laws with loopholes can be countered thus: The best effort will be made to close the loophole and promote fairness.
Yog, i was retorting to the people who are calling for a stripped down government akin to the UN (allen, kevlaw).
YOUR view of a truly sovereign one-world government has even more problems - those of legitimizing an organization like the UN. i’ve already brought up some points earlier, namely:
-direct democracy on a global scale is logistically impossible, as of right now anyway. as of… any time in the forseeable future. even representative democracy would be nightmarish to organize.
-if you think pork is bad now, exponentialize it. your tax dollars will be going towards building bullet trains in Cairo. how do you feel about that?
-
worse yet, most of us will be paying for a disproportionate amount of those bullet trains seeing as we’ll be amongst the top earners. and even worse still, a world government would complicate the tax code to the extent that the IRS becomes a bureaucracy so massive it becomes a parody of itself. income tax, flat tax, consumption tax, trickle up the taxes from state-by-state tribute, etc. it will be messy no matter what.
-
immigration.
-
secession. the federalism of the government would be so weak that the global power would have little power. it’s a catch 22. give the federal government lots of power, then the problems of immigration, taxation, electoral reform, etc. grow. temper the problems of immigration, taxation, election reform by spreading the responsibilities to the states and you give the states too much power and inevitably the rich states would say, screw you zimbabwe, i’m out.
*really? you’re sorry that i feel subjugated? that i’ve acquiesced to a set of stipulations as to reap the benefits of being in that society? you don’t feel subjugated? you don’t feel that you’ve been brought under control and living under somebody else’s governance even in the slightest? laughable.
Oh please.
The Hitler joke was a joke on your lame pro vote post that didnt explain ANY reason WHY it would be good, nor explain to the others that thought it was a bad idea how their reasoning was flawed.
My very first post here explained one reason why I think its a bad idea, which many other posters have also cited as a good reason for a no vote. I’ve also given other reasons why I think its bad.
About the only thing you pro guys have come up with are porn for peace and the EU, in which the societies are way more ALIKE than different and mostly first world “democracies”.
According to you guys, if we could merge Alabama and Missippi into one state, doing the same with New York State and failed Africian dictatorship should be easy peasy as well.
I don’t know!