Something in the UN thread got me thinking about this.

I am all for a world government, and I would base it on the US constitution, along with a universal declaration of human rights. There are several reasons, I shall try an enumerate them clearly.

1. Economic: In Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, he makes a strong case for free trade raising the prospects of living standards and freedom. However, the model he describes seems to be geared mostly towards the trade within a nation. Right now, while vast bulks of the world's resources are in some of the world's poorest nations, the countries that were made strong by colonialism and expansionism hold all the power cards. "Free" trade doesn't really exist right now because one, there is NOT a level playing field, and two, various laws in different countries are encouraging inequity by drawing international business precisely because of their low regulations on businesses and their lack of laws protecting workers. In effect, if the world were all part of one nation with universal laws, we could truly realize the benefits of free trade.

2. Political: Just like the House and Senate, the world government would have two bodies - one based on population, the other with an equal number of "senators" from each state (nation). The executive branch would be far more administrative and serve a strong mediation function, as there would be no other nations to treat with.

3. The threat of war would diminish almost entirely. The Global Armed Forces would be more than enough of a threat should any state want to "secede" from the Union.

If these could be achieved, what really would anyone's opposition to it be based on? Do we love our country because of the things it stands for, or just because it is "our country?" I would choose the American model for a world government because, while in today's world it is serving to increase inequity and increase its wealth and power on the backs and at the expense of the poorer developing countries, as a basis for global governance it would be the best thing going.

I could go on, but you will probably thank me to stop here and get your thoughts on this!

I voted NO WAY. It's hard enough to get my voice heard here now. I can't imagine how quiet it would be among the din of 6 billion other voices.

My short response would be, If it's roughly based on the US Constitution, and the American 'way of life' so to speak, then I think it would be something to strive for eventually.

But, of course, the devil is in the details. Before I could throw my support behind something so grand, that had such an effect on our lives, I would really need to study ALL of the details. Kind of like the Patriot Act, sounded good until we started reading it.

I said "No Way," because I see the potential for tyranny there, and while I support the concept of the world community working together, I also think that our differences are what help to keep us in check. Additionally, having one world government may succeed in destroying many unique cultures. I just can't subscribe to the idea that there is one way that is right for all people.

I totally see where you are coming from, but let me ask you a couple of questions:

1. Is the potential for tyranny because the body politic is 6 billion strong? Are you implying that a system of government based on equality and human rights can only work to a point, that point being based on population? I'm not sure. I'm not sure that's what you're saying, and if it is, I'm not sure I agree.

2. About our differences: Having traveled a lot in the "developing world," I can attest to the fact that these differences are rapidly disappearing. Already, people in remote Africa are wearing coca-cola shirts. A lot of them know who Oprah is. In India, I've seen Buddhist monks playing video games at an arcade. Aside from the issue of whether or not the globalization of western culture is good or bad, it's happening already. As it is, the world's cultural differences are disappearing. The rate of that change varies from country to country, but changing they are. We are exporting the culture of consumerism, but rarely the mechanism of consumerism. Again, I am not here arguing that consumerism is a good thing per se, just that it's already happening. If it is inevitable, why not encompass the good with the bad?

3. I agree that there is no right way for all people. That's why, in the United States, we have the opportunity to live (pretty much) in the way we see fit. We have all stripes of people in our country, and yet we more or less bumble along, often still celebrating our differences. Why could this not be true on the world stage as well?

Jaime: If the mechanism for individual involvement remains the same as it is here and now, there could also be an upside - while your voice would be one out of 6 billion, there would, on the other hand, likely be a much larger base of people who share your concerns and views.

I got a little off track in the UN thread, and voiced many of my concerns over a world government there, so I won't repeat here, but if anyone cares to look...........

I guess what I'm saying here is that currently if a government goes "bad," we can take certain actions within the world community to cripple that government, and ideally cause them to change for the better, specifically in the realm of human rights. What happens when you have one world government that becomes too powerful, and how do we prevent that from happening? I understand the system of checks and balances, but would that really work with so many vastly differing ideologies and cultures in the world? I'm just not sure.



Yes, they are rapidly disappearing, and I can appreciate what you're saying here, specifically in regards to bringing the good along with the bad, but isn't it possible to do this without creating one world government by creating ethical standards within our own governments based on world cooperation?



We do have the opportunity to live as we see fit, but let's use economics as an example. We can't agree within our own country whether or not socialism is a good thing or a bad thing, but I think we are leaning mostly towards capitalism, while many European countries are leaning towards socialism. As I see it, right now, if I decide that I hate capitalism, I could possibly emigrate to a more socialist country and vice versa. How do you get all of these systems to work together, and don't you think that not having an option is kind of a form of tyranny? I guess what I'm saying is that I like choices, and I like the idea that there are other countries out there that are making different choices than we are. I may not always agree with them, but I will always feel that diversity is better than conformity.

No way no how.

As soon as we form a "world government", we create the situation that any war is civil war.

I've heard of keeping your enemies close, but letting them join your ranks?



Mike

this is one of the best arguments against a one world government. imagine we had a one world gov. and someone like hitler got into power. (he WAS elected ya know?) there would be almost no stopping him. the reason we stop hitler was because people outside of his sphere of influence and power joined together to fight him. imagine if his sphere of influence had been the entire globe, and the gestapo were EVERYWHERE, he could've stopped any uprisings.

my other main argument against a OWG is this: look at the world as a ocean going ship. a ship has one basic hull, but inside you have many seperate compartments. if one section of the hull is comprimised (ie a big a**- hole happens) you can seal off the compartments around the hole that are being flooded with water, this prevents the entire ship from sinking (this is why the USS cole was able to sail to it's home port) with out these compartments and bulkheads, moving through the ship is easier, but one hole and the entire ship will sink.

nations and borders act like the compartments and bulkheads, if a major economic crisis happens in one country, it can be stopped and brought under control without bringing the entire world down with it. under a OWG we would also have a OW economy. it may be easier with a OWG and OWE to move people and materials, and money around the world, but one area of it gets in crisis (ie a hole in its hull) the entire world would go under.

I do support working together, and perhaps, one day we could have a one world system, but we need to move past war, want of material power, and deveolp a perfect economic system. It is possible it will happen in our lives, but not highly probable.

I chose the 1st option because a World Government under U.S. Ideological ideas & under the International Declaration of Human Rights would mean a more peaceful & stable World.

Wars will be a thing of the past (unless there is a rogue in the group)

Oh, come on, DTOM - this isn't a scavenger hunt.

Seriously: I doubt anyone would strenuously object if you pasted some of your comments from that thread into this one. It's not like you've got a history of flooding the board with a single posting or anything - and it would make it easier for people to respond to your opinion here rather than further fragmenting the discussion.

OK, from th UN thread........

And......

As one of the strongest supporters of OWG, I can't believe I'm about to say this, but....

You made a very good point here and given me a lot to think about.

Thanks!!

I oppose a OWG for the same reason I oppose the usurption of individual and states rights by our federal government. It prohibits individual choice. If I do not like my homeowners association I can sell my house and move, if i do not like my city government I can sell my house and commute to work or quit my job and find one elsewhere, dislike the state government, I can move to another state, dislike my federal government I can emigrate. Going to have to immigrate to the moon under a OWG.

I would support a system of World Government which would not usurp all the soveriegn rights of nations and regions, but would rather act as an umbrella for world legislation, human rights, and general social, economic and political policy.

It would be like the US in that the states contained therein would have their own legislative and fiscal powers within the wider government, but it would be like many European countries in that it would provide a welfare net of education and health-care etc.

It would work as a regulatory force in the world so that, to as great an extent as possible, everyone would be treated equally, both culturally and economically, and would act as a curb on trans-national companies, just as national governments act as a curb on domestic businesses.

I would not support the idea of a world government. It would be to clumsy, and open to misuse. Instead I would rather have a set of international laws which all countries would have to agree to use and which would require individual nations to contribute per capita. An international court system could be set up which operated from one base on each continent (perhaps two in Asia) and the overall decision making would rest with a council of national representatives.

That could work but then you'd need someone to smack around a country that that doesn't follow those rules

Then there are some countries who are are so dirt poor that they couldn't contribute per capita wise

My belief is that the human species will evolve into being one race, one people, one world. I don't think we are very near to reaching this spot, but the advancements toward it have been moving ahead by leaps and bounds.

Within a handful of generations, the world has become connected through communications and trade in a manner where national physical boundaries have blurred.

Racial intermarriages are more common now than earlier times in history, which will eventually lead to no racial distinction whatsoever. Yet vast geograpical, cultural, and physical differences still exist to the point that war is still a viable solution to problems.

Pat Buchanan decries the blending of culture in "The Death of the West" (ISBN 0-312-28548-5, Thomas Dunne Books, © 2002). He refers to it as "cultural war" and calls upon conservatives to "take America back." We have many more generations to go before it seems right and natural to think of ourselves as citizens of Earth.

Right now we do have a sort of confederacy with the weak central power of the UN. This confederacy may very well disintegrate if another world war starts up, like the League of Nations did in WW II (or before, not sure of that history). Fiction writers have found the notion that some big war has to happen before world government becomes a reality.

I go along with that idea as being probable but not absolutely necessary. Other writers have gone the route that some common cause must bring nations together for common survival--invasion from space, great natural catastrophe, disease, machinery out of control (Matrix). I think this will be the clincher--humans have to see a clear, mutually beneficial reason to band together globally. Idealism isn't enough.

What form of world government would be best? I'll vote for a strong centralized government with checks/balances, but that's because it is a form I am familiar with. Some smart political philosphers yet to be born will come up with something even better--of this I have no doubt. So now, I shall cast my vote in the poll . . .

GoAmerica

Well the individual countries would be responsible for enforcing the law within their own borders of course, but if one nation refused to co operate, the others could levy sanctions against them

First off, I ain't gonna pay any taxes to yet another government. I'm already nearing (if not over) my tolerance level with the amount of taxes I pay.

And the only situation I can see where there might be a world government is if one single nation conquers the entire world. Otherwise, there will always be some country that wouldn't want to be under the world goverenment.

And in either case, my money's on America...

otseng


Consider if the US didn't have to pay 350 billion plus each year for world defence. I say "world" because our military is more far-flung than the British military when that country held colonies, and way more far-flung than any other conquering nation in history. What if we only had to defend our boarders while paying dues to a UN-like structure that provided world security?

I think the burden on individual Earth citizens would be smaller than what individual US citizens are paying today. For one thing, rivalries between countries will likely be a lot less hot than now because we are all citizens of Earth (I am thinking about 10 generations ahead here). There would be no need to conquer neighboring countries just like the US states have no need to conquer each other (although I often wonder about Texas--but then I'm Coloradan --insider joke).

But what if the notion of money started to disintegrate toward some other economic base? "The Wealth of Natons" was written while precious metals (gold and silver) were still the international currencies. This has since been replaced by purely conceptual money not backed by any precious metal. Is there yet another conceptual leap that humankind can make? Could such a leap make taxation obsolete?

What if we could obtain everything we needed just by asking for it? What if we contributed our best talents and abilities to the common world good? What if the notion of superiority fell away to the idea that each of us is born with unique talents, and that we can pursue whatever abilities we want to pursue just because 1) learning is fun, and 2) we have an innate sense of responsibility to community?

Okay, I am off on my idealism. Time to take a break.