There are lots of ways for a government to gain legitimacy. The current EU developed through a combination of treaties, government actions, and popular elections, the latter arguably forming the least significant factor. (Nor does the EU gain its control through military might or money.) As more and more issues develop that cross international borders, nations will continue (as they do now) to voluntarily cede power to super-state organizations. Neither the UN nor (as far as I know) the EU directly tax their member citizens, and neither has made filling out taxes any more complicated or burdensome. The UN is weak by design, but it could be granted more powers by states just as the once-weak EU has been granted more power and just as the WTO and the ICC have been granted more power. That wouldn’t mean Americans paying for trains in Cairo any more than my taxes now go to build the sewer system in Sheboygan.
A world government only has the power the member states give it. We’re not that far from having a very weak and very decentralized global government now. Do you see it becoming weaker or stronger? If it is currently becoming stronger, what do you think will reverse that trend?
The same. I’m sort of a pessimist in a way. I suspect, that sometimes the only thing keeping a full on tyrant or rogue state in check, is the threat of all out war against him.
Besides, you know who else was voted for and elected legally? :=)
One world goverenment would mean there is nobody to take him down.
Maybe. Certainly most of the world besides the US was willing to turn a blind eye to Milosevic, probably the most Hitleresque leader in recent years. Or maybe it would mean the (then nacent) obligation of every nation to intervene to prevent genocide would have been enforced. Or maybe it would have contained the horor to one country and prevented the invasion of Europe. It all depends on what kind of world government the world wants to have. I’m not sure any of those possabilities occuring under the legal auspices of a super-national system of government would have resulted in more bloodshed or suffering than the all out war that occured around the globe.
Besides, no one is proposing that existing states disarm under a global regime. Poland would still be able to defend itself to the best of its ability, even if the global government is opposed to it. In today’s world, it could even use nukes if it had them.
Remember, we’re talking about a system evolving from the current one, not about Khan Noonian Singh conquering the planet with an army of genetically modified supermen. At least I don’t think we are.
Milosevic was a monster, plain and simple. No argument there, whatsoever. As to the ype of goverenment? And chosen by the people? I don’t know about that. Rome started as a republic, with a senate and two co-rulers, the consuls. Then, it became an empire and the emperor was finally declared a god. Governments, once the fetters are gone, may not be what they started out to be. The world may want one government, and then over time, have something completely different - but by then, it is out of their control.
Sorry, my mistake then. Haven’t read the rest of the pages, perhaps I should…
I agree it would be impossible right now. Which is why I don’t believe that right now would be a good time to fully implement it, should somehow the occasion arise. My view of a one world government would be akin to the EU where most the states are already at a certain point socio-economically. Improved economic resources in the poorest places on earth would be a given, and many many years in the future, for this government to have a shot. So I already share your concern about democracy in such a large scale
However, like India has shown us, democracy doesn’t have to match the way us Americans are used to. India has like a billion people and they have a democracy. Some of their areas are very very poor and backwards, yet they can do it. For one thing, we’d have to give up on the one election day thing that the US seems to prefer. India’s election takes a whole month, and on a global scale, I don’t think its unreasonable to suggest that voting take several months. Yes, there are worries about fairness, but if we’re going to talk about a one world government seriously, then people can’t be taking every little problem as an existential barrier to the idea working. There would be problems in a voting period lasting 3 or 6 months but it would be doable under the right conditions
The same way I feel about bridges to nowhere in Alaska and playgrounds for kids I don’t have: annoyed but knowing that everyone fights for a piece of the pie just like I do. I’m sure that the public school I went to and the taxes that went to building it was a waste to someone who lives hundreds of miles away in my state and has never set foot in my city. That doesn’t mean it would be a waste or democracy can’t happen.
If the Cairo representative succeeds in getting bullet trains there, then he has done his job. I would have to elect someone to get bullet trains built here, or at least a decent subway.
I’m liberal, and I’ll put my money where my mouth is. I want the rich to pay more. In past elections, I’ve voted to raise the taxes of the rich and lower the taxes of the poor. The candidates I support have simliar platforms. If I am the rich in this one world government, then I will pay my share so that kids in Somalia can drink clean water. Let me repeat: I support a one world government and all that it entails. You’re not going to get me to back off by appealing to my emotions and greed. Right now, my family is middle class, but compared to the rest of the world, we’re probably rich. So if I have to pay higher, worker harder, and work longer in order so that the poorest people in the world under this government can get, for example, free health care, then that’s what I will do. Many people, especially what I see as selfish Americans pampered in this country have an attitude that giving one dollar more in taxes so that another family somewhere can survive a week is too much. That is not me.
Elaborate
Why would a stronger federal government have more problems with immigration, taxes, electoral reform, etc.? And why couldn’t a weaker government with control over the still powerful military not be able to prevent secession?
While I don’t agree with many of the laws in this country, I agree with the right for people to make them. During the darkest days of the Bush regime, not once did I seriously consider taking up arms or moving out. Not even when it was revealed that they tortured people, kidnapped Americans, and spied on our phone calls and emails did I consider that. To some, even a tiny intrusion is too much, but I do not consider myself subjugated at all. I realize that there are millions of other people in this country that do not share my views, and it would be unfair for me to force my views on them. However, had I the power of a god, I would, because I don’t give a shit. But no, I dont feel subjugated. Anyone with a fair vote should not feel that way
Consider me whooshed then. I didnt explain it and I should have
Its not unreasonable to think that the path to a one world government would begin similiar to the EU, which was not started by the likes of Greece, Albania, and Poland. Of course we would not fuse NY and some failed African dictatorship together, but I failed to explain that so it’s my fault. As I said in the post above, right now would not be a good time to just force implement it. It would be a gradual change wherein countries that have already established some moral and economical criteria would be invited to join once they meet certain standards. But once they are met and agree to submit themselves to the will of this government, it is not illogical to say that it could work out
China is spewing waste so that Americans can buy cheaper rubber dogshit.
OK, perhaps an oversimplification, but it is the case that by the “First World” exporting its manufacturing to China they have effectively exported their pollution production. (And this is apart from the actual garbage that gets shipped to China from the US and other countries).
At the same time the citizens of China are aspiring to a First World standard of living; smaller families in bigger homes, more food (and that food more processed), personal motor vehicles, consumer goods, etc, etc… all of which are expanding the environmental impact footprint per person… and they have a lot of people.
(Family size decreasing from 4.5 per house in 1985, to 3.5 in 2000 = 80 million more houses, and estimated 2.7 people per house by 2015, at same time floorspace per person is x3. Cars on road = x130 increase between 1980-2001, x34,000 output in washing machines last 20 years. All numbers from Collapse, Jared Diamond).
If Californians aspire to own SUVs why shouldn’t the Chinese? And if the (hypothetical) OWG is going to prevent the Chinese having SUVs then can we assume they’ll be banning them in California too?
True, but this is an argument FOR not against a world government, as it demonstrates how these problems cross borders in complex ways. As long as America continues to buy cheap rubber dogshit, China will keep making it, but we can’t force them to reduce their polution. We could put a carbon tax on imports (which would have to matched by one on domestic products) but how would we monitor the carbon emissions of rubber dogshit factories in China? We could restrict trade with China, but that would hurt us far more than China, who would sell their rubber dogshit to Europe and the rest of the world, stop buying American products, and possibly use their enormous holdings of American debt and currency to punish us. There is nothing America can do by itself that will stop China from manufacturing rubber dogshit in non-environmental ways. Frankly, China can’t do much do stop it either without giving up their economic future, even if they wanted to. Only a super-national agency could enforce an agreement that would treat all countries fairly (or something approaching fairly) while reducing the polution from Chinese factories without wrecking the world economy. It’s a big reason we have institutions like the WTO and the Kyoto Accord now, but those institutions have neither the scope nor the power to do nearly enough.
And what’s your alternative, assuming you believe we have to curb polution? War on China? And the US? By whom? Something has to stop us, and we literally can’t do it ourselves.
Or at least in favour of stronger multi-national entities such as the UN and WTO, and agreements such as Kyoto (which at the expense of seeming to rag on the US… is an agreement they haven’t ratified).
I wasn’t arguing against OWG btw, just noting that the situation is complex, and that China’s waste problems are tied to US economic drivers and the like.
I tend to agree that some sort of world organization is needed to deal with issues like global pollution.
I’m also pretty much in agreement with:
The added complexity is that to some degree at least it’s a zero-sum game; we (collectively) cannot maintain or sustain an environmental impact footprint equal to that of a (current) middle class American for everyone in China, let alone everyone in the world.
I think Martians were mentioned up-thread.
But seriously… I don’t know. I suspect that with enlightened self-interest the US might come to realise that exporting their pollution isn’t actually viable; if Chinese pollution is affecting California then the strategy hasn’t been successful. In light of this the US might mandate that US companies cannot manufacture overseas at lower levels of control than are permitted locally… and no, I’m not aiming this all at the US; the EU, Australia, NZ, etc would need to start doing the same. Chinese companies that wanted foreign dollars would have to meet the requirements or lose out.
At the same time I think a cultural change will have to happen… not only do we have to acknowledge that the girl in Bangladesh deserves a good life, but we have to agree that a basic standard of living and education for the girl in Bangladesh is more important than an SUV for the girl in Beverly Hills.
What I don’t know is whether we smart apes who are optimized for tribal living and have fallen into this complex civilization in the blink of an archaeological eye are up to the task.
Which if taken in conjunction with the impossibility to extending current first world environmental impact effects to everyone argues in favour (as far as I can logically see) of attempting to reduce those footprints.
Maybe you could start by giving basic standard of living to homeless people in Los Angeles before going across to the globe to Bangladesh.
But I already acknowledge that a girl in Bangladesh should have the same basic rights and opportunities as a girl in Beverly Hills. I don’t need a hegemonic world government to help me with that. And if the people of Bangladesh want to have the same basic rights and opportunities as Americans all they need to do is imitate American politics and culture. It’s not like it is a big secret how you take steps to create a functional society like the American. Have democracy. Separate the three powers of society. Have an open and free press. Educate the population. Reduce population growth. Separate politics and religion. Combat corruption. Have capitalism. Emancipate women. Bangladesh doesn’t need a world government to force these things upon them. They can do it now, today. And if they don’t want to imitate the USA (or other successful nations), then they shouldn’t complain if they can’t have the same things as the citizens of the USA. A society that produces the wealth of the USA comes with a cultural price.
The only purpose for a global government is to lift those challenges that are too big for individual nations to handle. Global Climate Change? Maybe, but probably not. War? No. Wars today are seldom nations war but ideological or civil wars. Space exploration perhaps. And if the Earth was faced with an imminent asteroid clash I’d be all gun ho for a world government to handle the settlement of Mars.
Large corporations with the common interest of “making” money have bought and sold this govt many times over and the taxpayer picks up the tab.
By legally “acknowledging” corporate personhood and generally regulating corporations less closely than the average human citizen, our government has made itself the creature of the wealthy.
[/rant]
Sure, I’d welcome a world govt. Peace and prosperity for all. If all the hoarded wealth in the world were to be directed toward an equitable sharing of resources and all corruption disappeared, what a wonderful world this would be. And all it would take is for a few thousand people to grow consciences.
You are have this nearly absolutely backward. Federal law takes precedence over local law just about every sinlge time, except where the courts rule that the Feds do not have the power to make laws in certain areas.
Right. And a good reason for government is to regulate to prevent such things, and a good reason for a world government would be to regulate more globally. We’d have to force pollution controls on Chinese factories, which would raise prices and make WalMart shoppers either pay more or buy less junk. But climate change and pollution don’t stop at national borders.
And why shouldn’t they? Is an SUV in California less damaging than one in China? The actual answer is to migrate everyone to transportation which is sustainable and appropriate in their environment. The idea that billions have to live without to support the few who live with is left over from colonialism, and cannot last forever in a smaller world. We can either have an explosion at some point, or solve it peacefully. It is kind of like South Africa wrt race. If they could solve that without a war, the world can eventually solve this.
No, of course not, they’re pretty much equally bad.
I’m very much agreeing with you and what you wrote – I just wanted to highlight something of the outcome effect of a (fair and equitable) OWG on the US (this being a US-centric discussion group)… raising the standard of living for many will (most probably) require curbing the excesses of a (relatively) few.
Many without supporting few with predates colonialism by many years; there have been Kings and Serfs for rather longer.
Well, that sounds suitably dire and all, but what’s preventing the Bengals from enjoying western-style prosperity is their own corrupt government and ruling classes, not some SUV-driving Angelina. If your “explosion” destroys the Bengali oligarchs, then I say bring it on.
