World Government (Post Here)

[H. Ross Peron]

Would you support the eventual formation of some sort of a world government? Note that you can support any form of it (democratic, capitalistic, monarchistic, socialist etc.) and that it can be as decentralized as the European Union is.

[Goldwater]

I voted no, but if there ended up being a democratic and capitalistic would government that's as decentralized as the EU, it wouldn't be that bad.

[Deus Naturae]

HN (Hell No!)

[ElectionsGuy]

No! It is a great thing that we developed as different nations with different interests and cultures. Even if it was a capitalistic system, how would we solve our disputes with the really wide range of problems in society, and how would this government be managed with 7 billion people?

[Hatman 🍁]

Hell yes.

[Frodo]

Inclined to say 'yes'.  Everyone should bear in mind that if there is to be a 'world government', we (the United States) will have the final say in how it is formed due to our status as the world superpower. 

[Deus Naturae]

Inclined to say 'yes'.  Everyone should bear in mind that if there is to be a 'world government', we (the United States) will have the final say in how it is formed due to our status as the world superpower. 

What makes you think that that will always be the case?

[bedstuy]

If we could get rid of military conflict and institute a system of basic international law premised on Western liberalism, free markets and human rights, we would have a far better world.  I don't know if that would resemble a world government, but I would be in favor of that I suppose. 

I would need to read some Francis Fukuyama and Alexander Wendt again to develop a real opinion.  I don't know if I have the imagination for how a world government could and would look. 

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh goodness, no. The US government already controls too far reaching of areas with divergent interests to function optimally. If we start adding in other places, it'll be even worse.

[Franzl]

Inclined to say 'yes'.  Everyone should bear in mind that if there is to be a 'world government', we (the United States) will have the final say in how it is formed due to our status as the world superpower. 

Inclined to say no, partially because of this.

[IceSpear]

No, it isn't practical. We can't even keep Iraq or Afghanistan under control, how would it be possible to do so for the entire world?

[Marnetmar]

Perhaps one day in the next century or so, but with the current state of affairs no.

[traininthedistance]

There are certain environmental issues- especially those regarding the oceans and the air/climate- that can only be effectively tackled on a planetwide level, with planetwide enforcement.  I would support an organization that was narrowly focused on the twin mandates of a) environmental protection/resource conservation, as well as b) a system of courts for enforcement of treaties, conflict resolution, hunting down fugitives, and the like.  I don't know that it would be a good or practical idea to go much farther than that.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Forming a world government probably wouldn't stop people from killing each other over ethnic or religious issues. Those things would simply become internal conflicts of the new world state. Which means the world government's military forces would be constantly involved in peace-keeping operations.

I doubt that many states would like to commit themselves to that. I mean, nowadays military intervention for humanitarian reasons is merely an option you may or may not exercise as a nation. If it were to become mandatory though because it's written down in the world constitution...

[Beet]

If it's as decentralized as the European Union and based on Western European style concepts of political and civil rights, then yes. Such is merely a fantasy; however, I believe that world government (and likely more centralized than I would support) is where humanity is headed... as soon as the explorers opened up the world in 1450-1750, and then steamships and railroads, it became just a matter of time. It could take 500-1000 years, however.

[TJ in Oregon]

Forming a world government probably wouldn't stop people from killing each other over ethnic or religious issues. Those things would simply become internal conflicts of the new world state. Which means the world government's military forces would be constantly involved in peace-keeping operations.

It also means the various factions in the conflict would be constantly vying for the world government's backing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Eventual, sure

[Franknburger]

Let's take one step after the other. Such steps include:
-Creating/ strengthening regional organisations: EU, ASEAN and MERCOSUR are, each in their individual style, more or less functioning. Southern Africa (SADC) and Central America are making progress, but in other parts of the world, especially Central and Western Africa, there is still quite a way to go.
- Fostering, enhancing and ultimately institutionalising multi-polar mechanisms for conflict prevention and management, especially as concerns giving southern, south-eastern and eastern Asia a role in such mechanisms that better reflects those regions' demographic and economic strength.
- Enhancing the outreach, effectiveness and efficiency of already existing international organisations. WTO is a positive example, but other organisations (UNFCCC, ICJ etc.) still have some way to go.
- Effectively combating and mitigating poverty and under-development in the world, while at the same time promoting democracy and religious/ ethnical tolerance, in order to - to the extent possible - eliminate possible causes for local conflict.

If these steps ultimately lead to World Government, I am fine with it.

[Redalgo]

An enthusiastic yes from me, though I agree it must be a gradual process. Nationalism (especially of the ethnic variety) is honestly something I despise for how it compels people to think in terms of "us versus them," for how it feeds into our tribal instincts to think of those most like ourselves as more trustworthy, deserving, and of otherwise superior value to those who are different. Nationalism fabricates artificial borders fragmenting a species that in reality shares some common moral values and has no objectively good or bad ways of life. Even if nationalism lingers (and it will), establishing a global goverment could be a civil rights achievement and step of forward progress for humanity eclipsing all others made thus far.

As a matter of fact, this slow, difficult political endeavor is one of the only I support more than socialism.

[Cassius]

Never. I mean, even leaving aside the lack of feasability inherent in such a grand project, it would mean the end of the West's dominant position in world affairs. Whilst, diplomatically at least, that dominance may already be slipping, we still have a stranglehold over all the things that matter (the World Bank, the IMF etc...). A world government would quickly devolve into a means for the have-nots to try and wrench power out of our hands.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The Internationale unites the human race.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

People can't even manage to make things work with one government in a place like Belgium. Imagine the whole world. Horrible, horrible idea.

[AkSaber]

Inclined to say 'yes'.  Everyone should bear in mind that if there is to be a 'world government', we (the United States) will have the final say in how it is formed due to our status as the world superpower. 

Inclined to say no, partially because of this.

As am I.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

God no!

[politicallefty]

No. I just don't think it is a feasible option. It may be a worthy goal several decades from now, but it just wouldn't work today. I'm not sure anyone alive here will be around to see a truly functional world government.