I think it’s fun to stay ahead of the curve. A One-World Government is inevitable, it’s just a question of when. So yes, I am in favor of it. Why not be on the right side of history? It impresses the chicks, and pisses off the slow-thinkers who didn’t get it; the ones who sanctimoniously placed their bets on future society’s inability to progress. It’s kinda a no-brainer. Big fun for everyone!
Lots of things are inevitable. Nuclear war is inevitable. A global Communist revolution is inevitable. Malthusian starvation, peak oil, meteor strikes, a total breakdown of civilization - all inevitable. Discovery of artificial intelligence that will lead to a massive singularity of scientific discovery forcing mankind to evolve into something beyond humanity? Inevitable.
A global government? Sure, why not. It’s as inevitable as anything else.
(And how the hell does the spell-checker recognize “Malthusian” when it can’t even handle “1970’s”?)
Don’t you mean a one government world?
Well, it’s both. The oligarchs make it worse, but the wealthier countries control and consume the majority of the world’s resources. Even a more enlightened Bengali regime would still be stuck trying to make a living off the dregs.
If you’d like to read suitably dire I’d recommend the Jared Diamond book I mentioned earlier, Collapse. He examines the various factors that lead to the collapse of quite a few historical societies (e.g. Easter Island and several other Polynesian islands, the Greenland Norse, the Maya), along with looking at some modern day examples (background to Rwanda, current state of Haiti – with contrast to the Dominican Republic – China). I haven’t finished it yet, but it’s been a really interesting read.
But enlightenment is the only chance they have of becoming one of the wealthier countries, so they’ll get a chance to exploit their poorer neighbors like all wealthy countries do.
I know the US and USSR used smaller countries as little more than poker chips during the cold war, but that excuse only goes so far now that’s it over.
Yes, I would and do. I am a global federalist, and I am of the opinion that such a system is the logical ultimate ideal and will eventually evolve (and if it doesn’t, there is little hope for humanity).
Several of the founding fathers of the U.S. were of this same opinion, and saw the U.S. as a great experiment, an example of how it could be possible for individual states/nations to join together for mutual protection and prosperity.
They attempted to craft a system in which member states reserved as much autonomy and liberty as possible while agreeing to adhere to federal oversight.
I think they did a pretty good job, though there are a few things I would change (namely adding proportional representation and eliminating corporate funding of campaigns, jmho).
Not a perfect system to be sure, but a hell of a lot better than what existed before, with states imposing travel and trade restrictions and going to war with one another. (sort of like the global situation currently).
The experiment proved that it is not necessary for every state/nation to join up at once for the system to work…many states resisted the new system, voicing fears identical to those voiced by opponents of a global federation. Member states agreed to a unified currency and free trade/travel with other member states, to abide by the basic human right protections of the founding documents, and to disband their armies in exchange for federal protection in the event of aggression by any other state, member or otherwise.
The resulting benefits to member states convinced the balkers to eventually sign on. The rest is history. BTW, when was the last time a U.S. state invaded or bombed another state? Why? Such used to happen. Under federation, there is no incentive to wage war with a fellow member state and heavy DISincentive to do so. This same dynamic could work globally as well.
The UN model was intended to function as this sort of a global federation (Einstein was a big supporter of the new organization and a global federalist himself) but lacking the teeth to compel compliance as it does, the UN is a poor substitute for an actual governing body.
And of course, Gene Roddenberry may have done more than anyone in modern times to promote the idea of federation as the ideal system with his portrayal of a GALLACTIC federation on Star Trek.
I fail to see the logic of opposing such a system based on fears of losing power to a huge, centralized government…currently, we allow corporations, rougue warlords and despots, and other forces beyond our collective control to run our world. Under a federation including similar safeguards for individual and member state rights and representation, we would actually TAKE CONTROL BACK and be empowered to make rational collective decisions on our own behalf. I suspect this is the LAST thing those benefitting from the current state of chaos want to see…the staus quo is serving them quite well.
Yes, I would and do. I am a global federalist, and I am of the opinion that such a system is the logical ultimate ideal and will eventually evolve (and if it doesn’t, there is little hope for humanity).
Several of the founding fathers of the U.S. were of this same opinion, and saw the U.S. as a great experiment, an example of how it could be possible for individual states/nations to join together for mutual protection and prosperity.
They attempted to craft a system in which member states reserved as much autonomy and liberty as possible while agreeing to adhere to federal oversight.
I think they did a pretty good job, though there are a few things I would change (namely adding proportional representation and eliminating corporate funding of campaigns, jmho).
Not a perfect system to be sure, but a hell of a lot better than what existed before, with states imposing travel and trade restrictions and going to war with one another. (sort of like the global situation currently).
The experiment proved that it is not necessary for every state/nation to join up at once for the system to work…many states resisted the new system, voicing fears identical to those voiced by opponents of a global federation. Member states agreed to a unified currency and free trade/travel with other member states, to abide by the basic human right protections of the founding documents, and to disband their armies in exchange for federal protection in the event of aggression by any other state, member or otherwise.
The resulting benefits to member states convinced the balkers to eventually sign on. The rest is history. BTW, when was the last time a U.S. state invaded or bombed another state? Why? Such used to happen. Under federation, there is no incentive to wage war with a fellow member state and heavy DISincentive to do so. This same dynamic could work globally as well.
The UN model was intended to function as this sort of a global federation (Einstein was a big supporter of the new organization and a global federalist himself) but lacking the teeth to compel compliance as it does, the UN is a poor substitute for an actual governing body.
And of course, Gene Roddenberry may have done more than anyone in modern times to promote the idea of federation as the ideal system with his portrayal of a GALLACTIC federation on Star Trek.
I fail to see the logic of opposing such a system based on fears of losing power to a huge, centralized government…currently, we allow corporations, rougue warlords and despots, and other forces beyond our collective control to run our world. Under a federation including similar safeguards for individual and member state rights and representation, we would actually TAKE CONTROL BACK and be empowered to make rational collective decisions on our own behalf. I suspect this is the LAST thing those benefitting from the current state of chaos want to see…the staus quo is serving them quite well. The rest of us, not so much.
I apologize for the double posting…just tried to edit the first and for some reason it reposted and I was unable to figure out how to delete the duplicate before timing out. :rolleyes:
That won’t happen when the world is as one.
Well I should hope NOT! 
Bear in mind, I am not suggesting I would be in any way involved with any such global government, aside from as a voter and active citizen. 
InterestedObserver frames the question well, in terms of American history. The question is not so much whether we should have world government. We already do in some respects. The question is what the scope of that government’s power ought to be, how it will make decisions, and how those decisions should be enforced.
The American Revolution is a good model for thinking about these questions. The federal government is set up to have fewer powers than the state governments, and they are powers tied to the failures of confederation: interstate commerce, collective security, etc. It is also set up to be more egalitarian than state governments, or at least was at the time. No significant restrictions on candidates, fewer restrictions on voting, and in many cases more need for majorities or supermajorities.
I think you can extrapolate those ideas out to world government. The world faces collective problems that can only be solved by cooperation, and in some cases only by majoritarian coercion. They can be limited in scope: how to regulate the international oceans, global climate, a handful of fundamental human rights, etc. And the nature of that government must be very egalitarian. Right now, it’s probably a little too egalitarian and voluntary.
The UN is a near perfect analogue to the Articles of Confederation, with almost identical problems. The same evolution from Articles of Confederation to Federal Government will play out globally, if over a longer scale. International law will be given enforcement teeth, some limited national powers will be usurped, and some kind of unitary fundraising mechanism will be put in place. It will no longer be decision-making by consensus.
Would I support it? It depends. It would have to be pretty circumscribed, and in more explicit ways than the US federal government was. But properly constructed, with the right processes of decision-making, it may well be necessary to solve the great and novel global problems of our day.
I think the whole argument about Bangladesh illustrates why we need a global government. In matters of national sovereignty and local greed, the OGW can step in and enforce fairness on both sides. Right now, people see the argument as one of Bangladesh vs. Beverly Hills. The OGW would see it simply as a conflict between 2 areas, both under its jurisdiction, and would work to make a viable solution palatable to both sides. In the system we have now, both sides work for themselves, and to hell with the other side. Conflict resolution, along with the means of enforcement, would go a long way in eliminating these kind of problems plaguing the world. If that means the rich will be diminished so the poor can survive, then so be it
Well, some people do, because they’re wrong. The problems in Bangladesh are almost entirely due to the government in Bangladesh, not conspicuous consumption in Beverly Hills. If the OGW can casually swoop in and “fix” things in Bangladesh, I don’t see why they can’t swoop in and fix things elsewhere, even when they aren’t broken. If you think it’s great that the OGW can go into Bangladesh and enforce your view on what is a fair democracy, be prepared for the OGW to enforce someone else’s view on what is a moral society on wherever you live, and kiss your internet access goodbye.
This “we are all connected” guff comes in handy when you want to blame your problems on someone who is conveniently 10000 miles away (because they’re “connected” to you). You could blame the person a mere 50 miles away in your own capital city who has a hugely greater impact on your life, but that might be risky.
Wouldn’t it be better to give the poor a chance to become rich, so nobody has to be diminished? One-world government won’t do it, but increased trade and education might.
Which is why I postulated a OGW like that of the EU where already established criteria regarding morals and tolerance are accepted, and new countries entering into this OGW are vetted for that.
This fear that some foreigners are going to impose their morals on you is a red herring that I always hear during these OGW debates. You’re just as likely to have your rights taken away by your own government than a OGW. So no, I am not afraid that other people will be enforcing their values on me. My view of the OGW would be that it would reflect the values of the only countries capable of even pulling this off (Zimbabwe is not going to suddenly pull itself out of hyperinflation and take over the world. Nor would anyone follow them if they tried), which would be the US and western European democracies.
There is not enough wealth in the world to make everyone “rich”. Besides, rich is relative. If everyone had tons of wealth then the price of items will go up. There will always be rich and poor, but in a OGW, we could make sure that the rich aren’t obscenely rich like Bill Gates while there are people who struggle to drink clean water and find their next meals. Yours is a nice fantasy, but until we come up with Star Trek-like replicators, there’s going to have to be a limit on how rich one can get if the majority of people are starving
Except, Bill Gates doesn’t have $30 billion because he stole $300 from every person in Bangladesh. People in Bangladesh aren’t poor because Bill Gates is rich. If Bangladesh vanished off the face of the Earth tomorrow the SUV driving suburbanites you hate would barely notice.
You’ve got the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and therefore for people in Bangladesh to have more, everyone else will have to have less. But that’s retarded. Of course there’s not enough wealth in the world today to make everyone rich, that’s the whole point. Why isn’t there enough wealth? Why can’t we increase everyone’s wealth?
Taking away Jennifer’s SUV doesn’t do diddly-squat for a guy in Bangladesh living on the streets. Opening a factory in Bangladesh that produces SUVs? Now you’re talking. As for fearing a “race to the bottom” where global capitol moves to places with the lowest wages, well, hate to tell you this but you’re living in that world today. Except wages aren’t the only cost when starting a factory. You need roads, you need shipping facilities, you need a local government that won’t steal your money. Wages are a lot cheaper in Somalia than they are in China, so why aren’t people opening factories in Somalia? We’ve already hit rock-bottom wages. And global prosperity doesn’t mean lower wages still, it means higher wages! Are wages in China are going up or down?
What is needed is not global government, but global governance. And the most encouraging sign is that every person every country in the world today can look around and see which countries are pretty decent, and which countries are shitholes. And if they happen to be living in a shithole, they can ask themselves, why am I living in a shithole, when the people over there have it pretty decent?
And it turns out that nowadays the answers are obvious. What makes a pretty decent country is democracy, rule of law, liberality, equality before the law, capitalism, education, and so on. Every country in the world that is a shithole is a shithole to the degree it lacks the above factors, and every country that is pretty decent is decent to the degree it possesses the above factors. And improvement in any one of those factors helps improve any other. And so you find that some countries almost by pure will can transform themselves from shitholes into decent places overnight.
An organization like the UN is not suited to become a world government, because it was conceived as an organization where the method of governance of the member states was irrelevant. Dictatorships and democracies were treated the same, because the whole point of the UN was to find ways for states to work out their differences without having to bomb each other. And so the founders were under no illusions that the Soviet Union would be reformed by the UN, because if it had that power the dictatorships would simply leave. Rather the UN was merely an organization where deadly enemies like the Soviets and the Americans could sit down and argue with each other rather than bomb each other.
And so an organization where Burma has the same voice as Denmark is useful, but because Burma is a vicious dictatorship Burma can’t be allowed to have power over Denmark, and likewise because Burma is a vicious dictatorship Burma won’t allow anyone to have power over Burma.
And so a likelier candidate are various voluntary organizations of similar states. In other words, clubs of liberal democracies that allow other countries to join only if they agree to follow the rules the liberal democracies have already established. If you want to join the EU you have to prove yourself worthy. And there is no inclination to pressure states to join the EU, rather the opposite, because since the EU already consists of the wealthiest states in the world any addition is almost guaranteed to lower the average wealth of the EU (with a couple of glaring obvious exceptions).
Excellent post! Great economics lesson.
I don’t know if it was your intention, but you have increased my desire for OWG - the kind that might grow out of an alliance of liberal democracies. We should get started on that right away.
I have often wondered about places like China. The chinese government would clearly disagree with your list but probably aspires to be a pretty decent country.
Is OWG impossible without China? Impossible with China? Will China one day wake up see the sense in your list?
China is definitely the fly in this ointment. They seem to be doing quite well economically without liberty or democracy. The idea that capitalism is inherently liberal may turn out to be false, with who knows what result for the future. It would be a sticking point in terms of developing true OWG!
But China is so much more liberal today than it was 20 years ago that it’s like a different country. And capitalism doesn’t inherently lead to democracy, but it does lead to power sources independent of government–if you can be a rich industrialist or banker but aren’t a member of the ruling aristocracy. And for real capitalism to work, you’ve got to have some sort of rule of law, so that disputes can be resolved.
If Bangladesh ever qualifies for membership in the EU (or a similar organization), either they’d have undergone huge changes or the standards of admission are absurdly low. Even the most screwed up EU member (Bulgaria? Slovenia?) is far beyond Bangladesh.
But if my government tries this, I’m only a two-hour drive from Ottawa and I can go there personally to petition or protest or (in the extreme case) assassinate. What’s my recourse if the pressure is coming from the OGW capital in Brussels or Zurich or New Delhi or wherever, and the pressure on them is coming from majority votes across the middle east or southern Asia?
Isn’t there? If wealth was the zero-sum game you imply, how do you explain the massive increase just since World War Two? Heck, the U.S. alone has become so much richer that by your logic, every other nation must have been reduced to scrabbling for roots and berries.
Yeah, and there would be competition to increase productivity and efficiency and birthrates would go down and there would numerous other effects as well.
Choosing Bill Gates is a classic display of ignorance - Gates’s wealth in no way comes from exploiting the poor. His products can’t be made by slave labour and they can’t be bought by impoverished natives. Gates’s software is produced by white-collar professionals to be sold to white-collar professionals. Even if the nation of Bangladesh vanished, it would have only a trivial effect on Gates. I’m sure he’d be concerned if India vanished, though, since there’s a growing pool of computer programmers there as well as a massive potential customer base - signs of that nation’s economic progress and increasing wealth.
Penalizing Gates may make OGW boosters feel like they’re accomplishing something, but it’s a lie and a short-sighted one at that, believed by people who think the rich accumulate money just so they can swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.