Talk Elections

33 day poll.
First of all Don't think of the UN, because there many problems with that model.
Second, Don't (necessarily) think of a model where indivual nations would cease to exist or give up all or most of the national sovereignty, unless you think that would be inevitable and/or you like that idea.
Think of any model that you like...
But basically, no fence sitters are allowed (although not voting is always an option) I basically want to see if the majority favors or opposes this idea.
I don't want to eleborate to much on what I envision in a world government, because the more specific I am the more likely people would vote no.

Please pardon all the spelling and gramatical errors.
I'm really not that stupid.
Obviously I type too fast.

Absolutely. We want to make great strides as a species, but cant even work with eachother. Imagine what we could do all working together!

Thanks... I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think the idea is a valid one - however I think it would take some massive global trauma for the desire for such a thing to come about.

Shame on you!
This is size-fits-all taken to its extreme form.

Let me tell you, outside of liberal la-la land, what would happen if we implemented a world government tomorow:
A coalition of indian and chinese would come into power, who would "find" that the weestern world has too much money and they themselves too little. They would start a massive redistribution campaign to destroy wealth in the developed world and prop themselves up.
Is this what you want? Seriously, there once was a time when decentralization was a liberal ideal. Where has that gone to?

Well look at what we have now. More and more nations getting nuclear weapons. How are we going to stop WWIII? Or do you think that it is inevitable?

This is an argument?
Anyways, it could easily be solved if each one of the countries trying to get nuclear weapons were broken up into 1,000+ small city states.
But even aside from that, I don't see any reason why swift action--and less talk shop like what the UN does, which would be only aplified by a global government--cannot stop it.
Besides, one thing is having nuclear weapons, and another completely different thing is using them.
Besides, your side doesn't seem to have many proble,ms with countries having nuclear weapons, since it was them that were praising the Soviet Union in the 70s.

You also haven't adressed anything I said.

The point is that I don't think the current geo-political environment would exist - if such a thing were considered desirable enough to enter into.

It would be only in the aftermath of something HUGE.

Yes, you'd need a kind of man that doesn't exist, ie, the "New Marxist Man".

Bono,
Do you think war is inevitable?
If not how would you propose we achieve world peace?
The thing that motivated me to start this thread was more about how do we achieve world peace than about how to achieve world government.

Bono - I'm talking aftermath of some plantary disaster when national boundaries will seem somewhat pointless... but since such a thing is not likely to see any of us around at the end... it somewhat makes the point moot.

I think world peace is a wonderful idea, and something I would love to see - however, the very thing which makes large scale Marxist/Communism impossible makes the idea of world peace impossible. People.

We all have wants and desires which may not be in line with the main body wants, the human is an ambitious and selfish creature... me included.

When did I say that?


Do you really want me to answer this? Fine, I will.

By abolishing all governments in the face of the earth. War is nothing more than something governments do to increase their power. hayek espounds upon this in Road to Serfdom. Abolish governments, and you can do with war, since for market entities that don't have a tax base, war is not profitable or desirable.

As a former student of political economy if I never have to read ANYTHING by Hayek, Friedman or Marx again I will be a deleriously happy man.

Bono,
So, in other words, you don't think the Libertarian party goes far enough?
Don't just have limited government, but eliminate it altogether?
Would we have traffic lights in such a world or a common currency?
Would we have police or would people protect themselves?

Yes, provided it would be organized in the form of a federal democratic republic.

But I probably won't live long enough to see it... if it happens at all.

I'd support it, but only on the strict condition that it is ruled by a man named Nicolae Carpathia.

No way. I would rather be smothered in my sleep tonight then live under a world government. The force that would be needed to rule over 6 billion people would be enormous and the constrains of keeping such a government together would, in my mind, lead to a totalitarian form being the most aptly suited to a world-spanning state.

You can never stop war, never. It is impossible. World peace is not achievable in any way. War is a basic human nature as it is the greatest final arbiter of conflict between groups. While you might have a singular government you may have sub-national entities that fight each other, warlords, cartels, clans, tribes, etc., or if the world state turns into a totalitarian state, in order to maintain its dominion over 6 billion disperate people, it would have to be at a constant state of war with those who it percieves as deviants and enemies of the state.


Oh come on Bono I can show you examples of how that is completely wrong. Let's take your greatest example of a anarchist country, Somalia. Even before these Islamic Courts came to power and began to fight their way into control there were warlords who constantly fought with each other to gain power and control over territory. While it is possible that in a completely government-less society there would not be war, although I think then you'd just have people murdering each other instead, a government-less society can never happen. When there is a vacuum of power, as there was in Somalia or in Afghanistan, those who can organize and protect themselves assert themselves as rulers. Within a few years within this power vacuum you get the power being taken up by warlords and new entities that were not apparent when the government collapsed. So a true anarchy isn't really possible in any sense since the power vacuum created by not having a government is filled by any number of new warlords, communes, organizations, and governmental entities.

I would like to see at least three things if there ever were a world government.
1. It would not be headquarted in the USA.
2. Every nation would have the right to resign it membership.
3. It would be democratic and proportional. Not necessarily in the sense of proportional representation (although that is not a bad idea), but in the sense of larger countries being represented more proportionally than smaller, in terms of population. Not like it is in the UN where we have one country one vote which doesn't really make much sense.

I thought everyone knew I didn't.

Yes.
I don't see why not, but traffic lights are far from essential anyways. As for common currency, the market tends to gold as a currency unit. I don't see why this would be any different.

There would be private defense associations, and people would also protect themselves. Anyways, this is the situation now, because the police doesn't have any obligation to protect hte people, just to find and detain the criminals.

Anarchy does not mean--at least in the sense that I apply it, though anarcho-socialists would disagree with me--the absense of authority, or even the absense of government. It simply means the absense of a state. Anarcho-capitalists don't propose chaos, they propose sponteneous order.
As for the ICU, I'm waiting to see what comes of them. One of their leaders expressed some very libertarian ideas, believe it or not.

Your professors considered Marx to be serious economics?

That is exactly what would happen. Also the majority might impose its will on the rest. Would China impose its view of religion, atheism? Would India impose Hinduism? Maybe the muslims might someday become the majority and impose Islamic fundamentalism.

If the rest of the world wants to do something like that let them. But keep the US out of it.

Considering a world government would probably compose nations and groups that wish the death penality on homosexuals, then no I don't think it is my best interests for us to join!

It was historical political theory... you can't not study Marx... and I couldn't abide him... mid you I can't stand Hayek or Freidman either.


I think you're missing the point... A One World Government would only come about should something cataclysmic happen and there is only a small world population left. There will not repeat NOT be a OWG within the parameters of the present geo-political climate - so all the fear of China and India is pointless.

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.

In theory, it need not be, although the term 'government' tends to be tied to such a connotation.

In theory, it could be democratic, with the explicit right for a nation to resign if such a nation were unhappy with the union.

It would, perhaps, be naive to think such an organization would be likely any time soon, but the concept is tenable, I would think.

Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.

I think in some ways decentralization is a good idea. In some liberal churches, you have congregational polity whereas in the Catholic Church you do not... And the Catholic Church is hardly liberal.

I think that it all depends on how you define 'liberal'.

The southern baptist convention is completely decentralized.
Anyways, that's totally irrelevant, because private organizations like churches have the right to organize in any way they want.

Well, don't governments also have the right to organize in any way they want?

I never knew governments to have any rights.

Don't governments have the ability to organize in any way which they want?

Obviously no. FOr instance, states in the united states can't be a monarchy.

This is a red herring anyways.
What we were talkig about was if it was desirable for governments to be centralized or decentralized. What private organizations do is irrelevant because membership in them is voluntary--completely unlike governments.

But under my model nations would have the ability to withdraw.

Then it wouldn't be a one world government.

I don't think that the US would be likely to join an organization unless there were the ability to drop out.

Also, technically, membership in free nations is voluntary in the sense that a person has the freedom to leave and become a citizen of some other nation.

That's not free. Free would be if the person could leave the jurisdiction of the state thereof and mantain her place of residence.

Then what the hells the point then?

I am signing off for.. now.. perhaps I can return to this discussion at a later date.

Whew! But to answer the original question... I oppose world government at any scale for any purpose for any reason period. I took an oath the the Constitution of the United States of America in 1970 and although retired from the service for which I took that oath I consider it binding in perpetuity. For me it is case closed.

First of all no specific plan such as that has been laid out.  Even if a unicameral population based legislature was given complete control, I seriously doubt China and India would form a coalition to get money.  They'd each claim the right to more money and all hell would break lose.  They hate each other anyway.  Anyways I would see a bicameral legislature with something like the General Assmebly involved diminsishing big countries' power.

There's never going to be world government. Well maybe if the world lasts for another few thousand years. There's just no benefit to it.

Actually, the number of governments in the world has greatly increased in recent history. There's a good chance that trend continues, quite opposite of any unifying trend. Unfortunately for the left, the dream of world communism in the near future is dead, even if they've had some successes.

Oppose

In theory it would be a good idea, if it could be structured somewhat like the US system, albeit with more power to the individual states and less to the federal government then in our system currently due to differences of culture. If it could prevent war and get people to settle their disagreements at the ballot box instead, that would obviously be tremendously advantageous. I think that the US is far better off as one country rather than 50 seperate ones, so it would make sense to think that concept could be extended further, although obviously as the scale gets larger it gets much more difficult to make it workable.

However, it would be extremely difficult to get a to a system everyone could agree on. I can't see it possibly being feasible in our lifetimes.

Nay to world government.  Nay to taking away the freedom of the people.  I want to keep American ideals such as freedom to bear arms and freedom of speech and religion.

No.  Our world is too "young" for a world government.  The only time I can see that a world government would become possible (but still not practical) is when we start colonizing the solar system, and we grow beyond country issues to planetary issues, where a unified "Earth" voice is needed when it comes to political/trade issues with the Moon, Mars, etc...

Ditto, and even then I would prefer it to be a loose federation rather than having a strong central government.

Nah, then you'll just have the colonialism of the 19th century played out on a galatic level. British Ares Territory, American East Luna, Chinese Tharsus, French Hellasland, Japanese North Lunar Territory, and Indian Tranquility Territory. Humanity is, if one thing, predictable. Why do you think we study history since history would be irrelevent in an unpredictable society.

...and if the sorry sage of European colonialism in Africa were to be repeated to any degree, some utterly insignificant (in a geopolitical sense. In a beer-making sense the reverse is the case) little country will end up taking over a huge chunk of the Moon, Mars etc, and proceed to generally pillage the area in such a brutal and greedy way that makes even the French feel a little sick.

As far as the question itself goes, that depends whether we are talking about theories or reality and what exactly is meant by "government".

Who said anything about a "strong central government"...
In my understanding "A loose federation" would still be a world government, (isn't the United States still, technically speaking, a 'federation')

There is no way that a world government would work.  To many cultures would clash.

at this point in time a majority (11-10) have voted yes

1. It would, never said it wasn't, just that if there must one a loose federation would be the format I prefer.
2. Less so than it was intended to be. The power of the federal government has greatly expanded in the last century.