Poll: One World Government?

[Khedive Rex]

What are everyone's feelings toward one world government? Do any of you think humanity will eventually reach a point where all the world is united and follow the same laws or do you think that such a form of government would be impossible? Why do you think so or not so? Assuming it were possible would we even want it? Would one world government ensure freedoms around the world or restrict freedoms around the world? Why do you think one way or the other?

I'm a left-leaning Libertarian and generally believe that a smaller government is better for the people it governs, however I can't help but notice that more and more countries are forming, basically, multi-national ... teams for lack of a better word. The EU, Mercosur, deals like NATO, they all basically take a bunch of countries and have them combine resources and some more general points of government for the purpose of presenting a stronger united front against other multi-national teams. This of course begs the question what happens when one "team" merges with another "team" for the purpose of presenting an even stronger front?

It seems like eventually you would get a good majority of the world on one team or another and then one team would end up winning or they'd make a deal of some kind but either way we'd eventually find ourselves in basically a loosely governed one world government and I'm not entirely sure I see the problem with this. Of course, it objects to my current political philosophy a bit but ... meh, I'm flexable.

In any event, that's what I've been thinking of lately and I was interested to know the opinons of some other people. Is one world government possible (or inevitable) and would it be for the greater good or the greater ... not good?

 

[Alotak]

It would not work as you would have corruption, which would lead to war and not just a small one a world war, or more a Rebellion

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Good would depend on where I was a citizen. If I was in a third world country, I'd be highly against it because I'm going to have far less say than the first world countries. From ye olde America though...yeah, ya'll buy my crap more!

Hell, we're already almost up to a fully functioning global economy because of the World Bank anyways. When it comes to government, the tail usually follows the dog.

 

[RetiarySword]

I think it would work, and I do beleive that it will happen. Look, the West is basically united, the middle (as in the EU) is united, thats like 1/3 of the world, and they are good friends.

Relations are improving with Russia and China, African countries are starting to stabalise (very slowly). All we need is a few more pushes in the right direction and bingo!

It would make things easier as well. Like one world currency, one law set, so if you break the law somewhere, you will get hunted down like a dog where ever you go!

Another advantage would be global trade and travel with ease, you could go anywhere with the same ID and cash!

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I'm also a bit of a lefty-libertarian but I feel that the WORLD NEEDS TO BE ORGANIZED in some manner, otherwise we're basically fucked. I mean look where just letting governments do what they want has gotten us... nowhere.

 

[Conqueror Kenny]

This makes me think of a more controlling and evolved form of the EU mostly. Dunno just popped into my head.

 

[John Galt]

I don't think it's feasible. To bring the world under one banner would require immense resources, watchdog groups would have to be keeping constant eyes on the mountains of paper being shuffled to make sure that there's not the slightest miscalculation or graft. Then you've got the sociological aspects of it. Third Worlders would be ground under the heel of the West, some people would obviously want to retain their own independence, religious fanatics would be a constant thorn in the side for any attempt to bring in government to many areas. It'd be seen as a new form of colonialism by not only Jihadists but social commentators as well. It's just impractical.

However, I do advocate a continental government. The North American continent has the industrial capacity, resources, and manpower to run a pretty good ship. We've got the bountiful oil fields of Canada and Mexico, the breadbasket and what little manufacturing is left in America, and the tourism capacity of the Caribbean. Self-sufficiency, while possible, would require years of overhaul. America's industrial capacity would have to be tapped once more, and Mexico would require a good deal of effort to modernize. The investment would be huge but I feel with proper management, it would be possible to create a self-sufficient state. And once more, I shall link to Technocracy Inc.'s site for those who want to learn where I'm pulling this from.

http://www.technocracy.org

 

[Saskwach]

I don't think it will ever happen because the leap of faith is so large. Nations stick together because people feel they have a common purpose and identity with everyone in it, and they fall apart without this feeling. This kind of belief would not only be wrong in a world nation today, or even in a century or two, but it would take even longer to convince people it was right. Look at the EU. It seems the only people supporting its larger aims (one Europe) are a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels; every time a country has been asked to yoke itself to even the loosest EU rule it has declined. This is in one of the least divided continents of the world. Now imagine the monumental amount of effort and time that it would take to achieve a one nation Europe, and multiply that by several factors- the bigger the harder- and you can see what's so impossible about making a world government with any punch.
More to the point, I don't want it. I believe in subsidiarity- that every task should be done at the lowest level possible while still working. I believe this because when something is screwed up at the local level it's much easier for a few determined voices to get this message to the people who screwed up. The only tasks I see as being remotely worthwhile at the global level (ie that would be worth giving up the chance for a grass roots movement to change bad policy) would be peace-keeping, which I believe could be achieved simply by a better type of UN. Peace-keeping does not a government make.

 

[Necrohydra]

Saskwatch, I approve of the return of the cthulu avatar!

Ahem, on topic..I voted very postivitely. Which I shouldn't have, because I don't believe the method I have in mind would ever work. Barring the method of world domination (which wouldn't work without A LOT of deaths), the other option, that I see, would be a world democracy. Since having the whole world vote on each issue would be..silly, this would ultimately take the form of a vastly strengthened United Nations. In other words, representatives from each nation would meet and vote in a global "congress" on issues affecting the entire planet. Except country's would have to actually listen to what this global congress decides...

..which likely won't happen. Should we move forward on that path, my guess is that the early history of the United States would play out again, except on a global scale. In other words, massive debates on "nation's rights" vs. "global rights". As Saskwatch eluded to, nationalism would be a massive roadblock. And if you look at U.S. history, that states' rights issue eventually led to a very bloody war...

As to preferable, well...I haven't experienced a global government yet, so I couldn't tell you.

 

[Kukakkau]

it would never work besides the un is a sort of world government and is completely useless
also about a week in america would likely try to take control and the world would turn into a shitstorm

 

[kinch]

Not only will it never happen, but I think it's impossible... Humans just are too greedy, selfish, violent, cruel, heartless, uncaring and intolerant about other people outside of their 'circle'. Israel and the Arab states will never mix. Never. Ever. Large parts of Eastern Eurpose (I can't get the names right so I won't try) will never mix. One large country that has more influence will use that influence for the benefits of it's own citizens, and the less influential countries will resent them for it. Resentment will lead to skirmishes, holding back of aid, sanctions, import/export restrictions... And that's assuming everything is above board (someone mentioned corruption... I don't even wanna think of how that would cock things up.)

 

[SilentHunter7]

We all know hoe frustrating it is to be heard in a nation of about 300 million. Now imagine trying to be heard in a nation of 6 billion. I seriously doubt it would be preferable. Also I think there would be an uprising somewhere every other week.

 

[CanadianWolverine]

Could you imagine it?

You know how everyone complains their politicians in such and such a capital are crooks and liars. Complaints of how their policy makers and influences (see: lobbyists & political "contributions") don't have a clue how that actually works where you live and their "rules" will make things even worse.

Now picture that on a world scale. A clerical error could damn whole regions to starvation and other bull shit like that.

Is it just me or did other past attempts at OWG fail miserably? How many empires do we have to go through before we realize what a load of crap they are? Sure, if you happen to live near the capital of whatever empire, you are friggin living it up other than the back stabbing to get closer to whoever happens to be the Emperor at the time, that is until your decadent self centered lives are interrupted by hordes of some sort. Babylonian, Chinese, Persian, Greek, Roman, Incan, Aztec, French, Turkish, Mongolian, Spanish, French, British, American "Western Expansion", German, Nazi, Soviet, American World Police, Communist China... At what point do we go "You know what, perhaps the whole thing of trying to control the fate of the world is just way too bloody and messy?"

I think Saskwach is on to something, I wouldn't be surprised if those hell bent on OWG would use a "leap of faith" convince people to get together under a OWG banner, a One World Religion. Lets see, hasn't the Vatican and Meccah taken some shots at it in the past, possibly even present? Bah, weren't those plays messy enough for us to get a clue?

If OWG is ever successful, its going to be a very sad time for the world. The attempts are bad enough.

 

[Larenxis]

I think there should be one worldwide state to deal with international issues (environment, refugees, war criminals, greeting martians) but we shouldn't all have the same rules when it doesn't effect anyone else. If I want to have this parking regulation, it's up to me!

 

[nightfish]

Sounds a bit like Star Trek to be honest.

 

[H0ncho]

The vast majority of countries function worse than mine. Why on earth would I want to exchange what I have for something which is made by people with inferior political systems?

That sounded a bit supremacist, but it is nevertheless true.

Anyways. I think small states are preferable to large states for one reason: Accountability. In a small state, society is less complex and the political scene contains few people. In short, there is not as much activity as in large states. This makes it easier for the media and the public to understand what is going on politically, and since the politicians and the power base is closer to the people, it is easier to hold them accountable.

 

[LewsTherin]

A world government would be preferable, because the next step from a single government is no government at all. I'm not talking about chaotic anarchy, but a peaceful co-existance. Initial instigation of a world government is already going on, through the world bank and the united nations,and though it will take some time and inevitable reforms, eventually every country will be a part of it.

While some people may say that a single world government is not preferable, or that certain first world countries would generally dictate how everything is going to go, but the thing is, is there is one world government, there WON'T BE any first world countries. The whole idea is that the planet will be unified into a single country, not something like the U.N where they just are in the same playpen. And, once that goal is reached, people will eventually realize that the best type of governance is self governance. This is what I perceive as the fatal flaw in democracy, because although people (generally)have a say in what goes on in the government, the GOVERNMENT still decides what happens, and by no means is the government infallible, but I'm getting off topic.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is, the best way for the world to run is for each individual to be able to live his of her own life the way he/she best sees fit.

This may just be hopeless idealism, but I'd like to trust in humanity's better nature to win out.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

 

[Easykill]

I only read the first post, so I may not know what I'm getting into.

I think large united areas are usually best, if we must have a government, except where ideologies clash a lot in very small areas, but not a world coalition. It would be nice if the UN was a hell of a lot more powerful, but that seems as close as we're ready to be to a world government. There are too many glaring differences in culture to try and unite everyone under the same set of laws, and some countries like the US would try to keep their national identities after assimilation and pretend that they're in charge. A few generations more of the same media reaching across the world might be enough to unite global values enough to join together. It helps that tolerance of other people seems to be increasing exponentially as time goes on.

Damn, I wish I knew a thing about politics.

 

[Necrohydra]

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is, the best way for the world to run is for each individual to be able to live his of her own life the way he/she best sees fit.

This may just be hopeless idealism, but I'd like to trust in humanity's better nature to win out.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

..yeah, it's hopeless idealism. If "humanity's better nature" was winning out, those oil exporters and oil executives would hear about how people have to choose between food and walking to work, or how people might not be able to heat their homes, and lower prices.

Oh...wait..selfish greed wins the day again!

 

[H0ncho]

but the thing is, is there is one world government, there WON'T BE any first world countries. The whole idea is that the planet will be unified into a single country, not something like the U.N where they just are in the same playpen.

Having one world government won't magically and suddenly equip the people formerly living in poor countries with the capital and skills necessary for a first-world standard of living. Of course, under a single government the world would finally see completely free trade which would even things out but still, it would take a lot of time before for the populations in these countries to aquire the skills and capital necessary for a western standard of living.