Would you be in favor of a one-world Government?

[Le Jacquelope]

I'll open with my opinion - I couldn't imagine of a worse thing than sacrificing my country's sovereignty to such a thing.

Can you imagine a worldwide democratic or representative democratic vote on human rights, for instance?

 

[tickledkitty]

No.

 

[rengadeirishman]

I would fight to the death to prevent such a thing. Governments are out of touch enough only watching an individual country.

 

[neonlyte]

I guess it depends upon how much freedom / independence one actually believes exists. There is a mutual dependency between nations and I perceive independence within and between sovereign states as being cultural rather than overtly political. At the political level there is an inclination to find mechanisms between nations to resolve differences and whilst ideology plays a part, political harmony between sovereign states is more to do with keeping the wheels turning. In that sense, most democratic governments have similar objectives, all be it with their individual political stance.

It is at the cultural level where the problems begin and I don't believe 'we' have reached the level of culture that would allow for 'world government' other than as a brief experiment.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I guess it depends upon how much freedom / independence one actually believes exists. There is a mutual dependency between nations and I perceive independence within and between sovereign states as being cultural rather than overtly political. At the political level there is an inclination to find mechanisms between nations to resolve differences and whilst ideology plays a part, political harmony between sovereign states is more to do with keeping the wheels turning. In that sense, most democratic governments have similar objectives, all be it with their individual political stance.

It is at the cultural level where the problems begin and I don't believe 'we' have reached the level of culture that would allow for 'world government' other than as a brief experiment.

How would the democratic governments deal with the 'vote' of 1.8 billion non democratic Chinese and a billion or so misogynist Muslims?

 

[DeeZire]

It would be nice if human rights were respected worldwide, but a worldwide government might be a little unweildy, to say the least. However, looking into the future, there could be a point in time when our world will be faced with interacting with other worlds, in which case, some form of cooperation between the countries of the earth would be beneficial.

I could see agreements on environmental concerns being beneficial to the world as a whole, since China's pollution problems are already affecting us, just as the pollution problems of the USA have been affecting the rest of the world for decades. To ignore our interdependence with other countries is to ignore reality, and any society that bases its actions on ignorance is not exactly proceeding in a thoughtful manner.

 

[neonlyte]

How would the democratic governments deal with the 'vote' of 1.8 billion non democratic Chinese and a billion or so misogynist Muslims?

It's a non-starter. it's either democracy or dictatorship - there's no middle course. And, not all Muslims are misogynists, some even enjoy democracy

 

[Le Jacquelope]

It's a non-starter. it's either democracy or dictatorship - there's no middle course. And, not all Muslims are misogynists, some even enjoy democracy

Well, to me, I wouldn't want a middle course. I like my representative democracy. In a one-world Government, that system would be put at great risk. As many human rights are in danger in Western representative democracies, a "compromise" middle course would be disastrous - at least to Americans.

And it would be utterly imperialistic for me to demand that every nation on Earth go by Western standards of freedom.

Not all Muslims are misogynist, but in how many predominantly Muslim nations do Muslim women have the same rights as American women? Please tell me which ones.

 

[SavannahMann]

A flat out no.

We have local government that is incompetant. We have state government that is even more incomeptant, but the federal government takes the cake at incompetence.

An example of stupid Government actions. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295449,00.html

TAMPA — A foul-smelling, shoeless serial rapist who has attacked six women and possibly a seventh in the University of South Florida area has resurfaced this summer and may have struck again only a week before classes started.
Police are awaiting the results of DNA testing of the latest victim, raped Aug. 19, to see if the same man who committed the other six between August 2003 and June of this year is to blame.
Though none of the victims have been students or faculty at the Tampa-area university and none of the rapes have occurred on campus, the university decided to issue an e-mail alert Friday about the serial stalker on the loose. Classes resumed on Monday.
“It’s a little too close for comfort,” Ken Guillette, a university spokesman, said. “I do believe it’s our responsibility to carefully word an e-mail that doesn’t incite panic.”
Neighboring Tampa and Hillsborough County police have been hot on the trail since the attacker — described as a black male in his 20s who has a putrid body odor, short dark hair and a possible scar or birthmark on his upper left arm — struck June 14, after three years of no known activity in the vicinity, Tampa police said.

OK, the police have a suspect that stinks to high heaven, and they can't find him. The action they plan on taking? A carefully worded email that advises women of the threat of the smelly rapist, yet doesn't incite panic. Here is a better plan, give all the women 9mm handguns, teach them to use the guns, and then when the smelly rapist attacks them, give the cadaver a ticket for loitering. You want to see the rapes drop off in this nation? Give the women firearms and authorize them to shoot rapists. Nothing takes the starch out of a potential attacker like a silvertip in the ass.

 

[neonlyte]

Well, to me, I wouldn't want a middle course. I like my representative democracy. In a one-world Government, that system would be put at great risk. As many human rights are in danger in Western representative democracies, a "compromise" middle course would be disastrous - at least to Americans.

Don't think I was advocating for a middle course. Democracy is what voters make of it. In most democratic nations it has become a mechanism for polarising opinion - but hey... that's freedom

In a world democracy, likely the same outcome would arise, but you would still have your vote.

Not all Muslims are misogynist, but in how many predominantly Muslim nations do Muslim women have the same rights as American women? Please tell me which ones.

It'll take the thread off topic.

Why assume Muslim women want the same rights as American women? The difference between Muslims and non-Muslims is cultural, not political.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

We have local government that is incompetant. We have state government that is even more incomeptant, but the federal government takes the cake at incompetence.

An example of stupid Government actions. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295449,00.html

TAMPA — A foul-smelling, shoeless serial rapist who has attacked six women and possibly a seventh in the University of South Florida area has resurfaced this summer and may have struck again only a week before classes started.
Police are awaiting the results of DNA testing of the latest victim, raped Aug. 19, to see if the same man who committed the other six between August 2003 and June of this year is to blame.
Though none of the victims have been students or faculty at the Tampa-area university and none of the rapes have occurred on campus, the university decided to issue an e-mail alert Friday about the serial stalker on the loose. Classes resumed on Monday.
“It’s a little too close for comfort,” Ken Guillette, a university spokesman, said. “I do believe it’s our responsibility to carefully word an e-mail that doesn’t incite panic.”
Neighboring Tampa and Hillsborough County police have been hot on the trail since the attacker — described as a black male in his 20s who has a putrid body odor, short dark hair and a possible scar or birthmark on his upper left arm — struck June 14, after three years of no known activity in the vicinity, Tampa police said.

OK, the police have a suspect that stinks to high heaven, and they can't find him. The action they plan on taking? A carefully worded email that advises women of the threat of the smelly rapist, yet doesn't incite panic. Here is a better plan, give all the women 9mm handguns, teach them to use the guns, and then when the smelly rapist attacks them, give the cadaver a ticket for loitering. You want to see the rapes drop off in this nation? Give the women firearms and authorize them to shoot rapists. Nothing takes the starch out of a potential attacker like a silvertip in the ass.

I'm not such a die hard critic of a Federal government accountable to a Constitution devised by the 13 colonies, but the problem there isn't incompetence. The problem there is a cultural divide - a culture that says personal gun ownership is essential to self defense, versus a culture that says personal gun ownership is chaotic and dangerous. This problem is greatly magnified in a one-world Government.

BTW I'm a huge fan of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[rgraham666]

At the present time, no. Democracy requires a level of personal introspection and personal restraint that few people even in the democratic countries have.

Most of the world's current population is more familiar and comfortable with authoritarian government. They'd tend to hand over power to a 'strong person' as quick as they could.

Also, from what I've seen, many people are not individuals, as we are in the West. They are first and foremost a member of what ever group they belong to, their 'tribe' or 'clan'. So a democracy based on individualism isn't something they'll understand or like.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I would favor a one world government as long as it were ruled by a one-world dictator - me - with the status quo ante resuming upon my death.

Seriously, we will get there in a few hundred or thousand years, but as the previous poster said, too many people and places are not ready for liberal democratic government, and that's the only kind worth wanting.

Would I be in favor of a one-world liberal, democratic government that respected individual rights, protected property, provided order and effective reason-based dispute resolution mechanisms, and ran efficiently without corruption? In short, provided the kind of governance that we in the US and the West take for granted but which is the exception not the rule in the world today? Sure, why not.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I would favor a one world government as long as it were ruled by a one-world dictator - me - with the status quo ante resuming upon my death.

Seriously, we will get there in a few hundred or thousand years, but as the previous poster said, too many people and places are not ready for liberal democratic government, and that's the only kind worth wanting.

Would I be in favor of a one-world liberal, democratic government that respected individual rights, protected property, provided order and effective reason-based dispute resolution mechanisms, and ran efficiently without corruption? In short, provided the kind of governance that we in the US and the West take for granted but which is the exception not the rule in the world today? Sure, why not.

And how many Chinese & Muslims would we have to "democratize" to make that happen? I foresee that the reality of such a thing would be a bit bloodier. It usually is.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And how many Chinese & Muslims would we have to "democratize" to make that happen? I foresee that the reality of such a thing would be a bit bloodier. It usually is.

Just about all of them, I'd say. *

I said, "a few hundred years, or thousand." Maybe the latter.

It won't be bloody at all, because it will only happen when all the worlds nations already have governance like I described, and people's responses are predominantly the one I offered: "Sure, why not."



* Yes that's a bit unfair. There are a few places where people of those identities have established governments that approach liberalism. Turkey and Taiwan, I'm thinking. Not perfect, but you could imagine living there.

 

[TxRad]

They can't make the UN work so how the hell are they or anyone going to manage a one world government.....

 

[rgraham666]

Actually, Tx. The UN works fairly well. It did accomplish the main reason it was set up, which was to prevent WWIII.

People, at least here in North America, hold the UN to an impossible standard. If it fails in any small particular it's regarded to have failed completely.

But that is a big part of the North American mindset. Perfection is not only regarded as possible, but as necessary.

 

[Liar]

I'll open with my opinion - I couldn't imagine of a worse thing than sacrificing my country's sovereignty to such a thing.

Why?

*shrug*

I sacrificed parts of my country's sovereignity to the European Union not all that long ago. Political desicions that affect the whole region is decided by the whole region. I choose my representatives to the region's parlament and council.

Other parts of my country's sovereignity is in the hands of the Baltic Council. Real, binding political desicions on common issues for the Baltic Sea countries are being made there by representatives from that area. Representatives that I elected in my county's general elections.

There's a political mandate spanning Sweden, Norway and Filnand regarding issues relevant for the Sami inigenous people in our north.

There are even global communities that have mandate over my country. The exact legality of UN resolutions is perhaps a grey zone, but the members are by and large politically and diplomatically obliged to follow those. probably more a matter of etiquette than anything else, but some of my my local laws are shaped by UN desicions.

Power should be decentralized, and desicions should be made as locally as possible, by the peple that are primarily affected. Most of the time, this "desicion domain" will be much smaller than a country. but sometimes bigger, or crossing a border at some point. I don't see a magic line at a nation's border for those domains.

So... if we need to make some desicions that affect the whole world, however rarely... shouldn't the whole world be included in the desicion making?

Rationally, yes.

Will this ever be practically doable in a democratic fashion? At least in my lifetime? Snowball in hell, baby.

 

[gauchecritic]

World government. Fine and possibly the only real way that the natural order of communist democracy could flourish.

But that would take a several generational upheaval in order to culturally acclimatise the world's population.

Before that, it's too cumbersome to manage.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The one place that I've ever lived that really seemed to work well, was Switzerland. One reason it work(ed) It's been a very long time since I've been there) was that each city was pretty much sovereign, at least as much as our states are. Much smaller populations, solving local problems. And at the same time, there were plenty of nation-wide policies guiding things like human rights, health, defence, and finance.

 

[Andy_Pipkin]

i don't like it

 

[mikey2much]

It makes little difference

I think that it makes little difference what happens to government, because they are losing their power as we speak. Corporations rule over the world today more so then governments. With the laws put into place by the treaties that support the WTO, governments took a back seat to big business.

Today private companies run the post office as well as the prisons, and now they are a large part of our military. From schools to jails, from Armies to traffic controllers we are letting big business call the shots and they don’t let national interest enter into their decisions.

Government stops at the border; big business sails right through, with no taxes or tariffs to slow it down. Profit is their only concern.

 

[rgraham666]

I think that it makes little difference what happens to government, because they are losing their power as we speak. Corporations rule over the world today more so then governments. With the laws put into place by the treaties that support the WTO, governments took a back seat to big business.

Today private companies run the post office as well as the prisons, and now they are a large part of our military. From schools to jails, from Armies to traffic controllers we are letting big business call the shots and they don’t let national interest enter into their decisions.

Government stops at the border; big business sails right through, with no taxes or tariffs to slow it down. Profit is their only concern.

In a game I designed, set in the year 2060, the corps rule most of the world.

There's only about a thousand of them though. In my world 'hostile takeover' has an entirely different meaning.

They aren't nearly as profitable as they used to be. Spending money on things like healthcare, defense, education, energy and water cut into their bottom line big time. And they found the hard way they had to supply these things. There were more than a few case where the water provider took over another company's installations by poisoning the water.

Who's going to stop them? The government?

Also their markets are much smaller and poorer. There's maybe two billion people living on the planet Earth, and most live in Third World poverty.

The corps were prepared to conquer, but not to rule.

 

[Pure]

i think we're under something like a world government, and the 'war on terror' has certainly solidified it a lot. multinationals come to agreements about turf; the US, China, and Russia agree to help each other with 'terrorists.' there are 'pockets of resistance,' but notice that the Russkies and Chinese are basically 'saying,' do what you gotta do in Iraq
--- and leave us alone with suppressing our 'insurgents.'

 

[neonlyte]

... but notice that the Russkies and Chinese are basically 'saying,' do what you gotta do in Iraq --- and leave us alone with suppressing our 'insurgents.'

It's those pesky Tibetian's and their bloody chants - insurgent vegetarians, the worst kind.