So uh... What is wrong with having a World Government?

[Curtis2011]

I see this all the time from conspiracy nuts trying to say that there are "elite" people around the world trying to form a "new world order" or "world government" or whatever you want to call it.

And to that I ask, what the hell is wrong with having a single world government?

Personally I think people who are anti-world government are only correct in their worries if all government, in and of itself, was inherently corrupt and abusive of its power.

Now, some human beings in general ARE abusive of their power and self-centered, which is why pretty much every democracy that has existed in history has at some point collapsed. Because the self-centered individuals vote to give themselves so many benefits that the government eventually becomes inefficient and cannot even support itself (even Socrates argued against Democracy as a valid government type for this very reason - and that was thousands of years ago).

However, if you look at more autocratic nations such as Singapore, although it is a young country it is still a very successful country. It is sort of a "benign dictatorship" if you will. And personally, I think a benign dictatorship is actually the best form of government that exists.

The only caveat is that the person with absolute power, must actually be a person who has integrity and care for his people, and who is competent to rule over them. Once those factors are achieved, then the rule of (fair and just) law is able to be maintained over the populace without trouble or uprising. Again, if you look at Singapore, their citizens don't even have the right to protest in the street (it is illegal), but they have no need to - the government is benign and relatively uncorrupt.


In my mind, if we could achieve a world government that was led by a benign dictator/ sovereign ruler, we would have some awesome benefits:

1. No more incredibly costly (in lives and dollars) wars between nations.
2. A single common language used by all humans. For once in humanity's entire history, we would all be able to communicate with each other and be unified in this regard.
3. Free trade and exchange throughout the world, leading to increased efficiency and lower prices for everyone.
4. The same rights and responsibilities for all humans on Earth. Nobody would be inherently held above or below others by the law.
5. Development of enormous international businesses. Despite the anti-every-business conspiracy nuts, this would be a very good thing for humanity (as long as monopolies are regulated). Imagine the economic benefits of having enormous economies of scale. Product and service prices would fall drastically.
6. Free travel throughout the world.
7. Reduction of huge national defense costs, as national defense would no longer be necessary; simply a police force like nations already have would be enough to maintain order.
8. Acceptance and tolerance of all religious beliefs as personal beliefs, but not as to interfere with the formation and implementation of actual law.

These are the benefits I see of having a benign (= positive and caring) single government and leader of the entire world.

Obviously if we had a single leader that was evil or self-centered, things would turn to crap really fast. But in that case, people would rebel anyways and eventually form their own separate nations and governments.

As someone once explained, people only tend to rebel if the governments that rule them do so unfairly. I agree with this assumption, and from this assumption I conclude that a world government would only even be able to sustain itself if it was a non-oppressive and benign one. If it were not, it would be inherently flawed in a way that would lead to 100% certain eventual collapse, given enough time.



Sorry for the long thread, but I felt like getting this angle of the topic of "world government" out there, since there are so many others who oppose it.

[ssandra]

I think in large part I agree with you.

The only problem is that although you might have one big leader who is benign, the world is such a big place that he will need smaller leaders to take care of each part... and the more people with (almost) absolute power there are, the bigger the chances are that something goes wrong, eventually.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

In my mind, if we could achieve a world government that was led by a benign dictator/ sovereign ruler, we would have some awesome benefits:

1. No more incredibly costly (in lives and dollars) wars between nations.
2. A single common language used by all humans. For once in humanity's entire history, we would all be able to communicate with each other and be unified in this regard.
3. Free trade and exchange throughout the world, leading to increased efficiency and lower prices for everyone.
4. The same rights and responsibilities for all humans on Earth. Nobody would be inherently held above or below others by the law.
5. Development of enormous international businesses. Despite the anti-every-business conspiracy nuts, this would be a very good thing for humanity (as long as monopolies are regulated). Imagine the economic benefits of having enormous economies of scale. Product and service prices would fall drastically.
6. Free travel throughout the world.
7. Reduction of huge national defense costs, as national defense would no longer be necessary; simply a police force like nations already have would be enough to maintain order.
8. Acceptance and tolerance of all religious beliefs as personal beliefs, but not as to interfere with the formation and implementation of actual law.

1: Civil wars between smaller nations may exist still
2: A single common language would mean forcing more learning than required in a nation, and I feel it could endanger culture
3: Doing this can lead to even greater trade imbalances and nations with starting industries will not be able to compete with ultra-rich multinational corporations.
4: That would stir a debate on what are human rights, but that can be possible.
5: Mhm. But see #3.
6: If you mean free as in no passport or visa required, then sure. My only concern is that overpopulation of a country may result unless there were customs.
7. See my #1
8. That can happen by law, but acceptance at a social level may never happen. Not to mention one of the inherent problems with a global government is theocratic governments that can oppose this.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I think in large part I agree with you.

The only problem is that although you might have one big leader who is benign, the world is such a big place that he will need smaller leaders to take care of each part... and the more people with (almost) absolute power there are, the bigger the chances are that something goes wrong, eventually.

Same here. I still agree with democracy, but the benefits of a world government could be huge, though you hear it mostly talked about with panic in conspiracy circles.

A few other concerns:
Different populations have different priorities. I don't see a world government as feasible at the moment because of the vast difference between, for example, the Taliban and northern European socialists. Massive priority differences in those populations. I think if a world government were to happen it would "evolve" out of existing structures when the social and economic conditions became right, and it would likely be layered--with smaller country authorities as well.

I actually think of the United States. When the federal government was first established, it had very little authority. If I'm remembering correctly: it facilitated trade and organized a military and had a Constitution that the states had to work within. Just about everything else was a state's issue. Slowly that evolved into what we have now where Federal authority is more recognizable than state authority and quite large in scope.

[ssandra]

A good thing about a world government could be that they could set it up in such a way that different parts of the world are ruled in different ways.

For example;

A large region could be ruled according to the Sharia, with a few neighboring regions with a lighter version of that.

Everybody would be free to live where they would want to live, so they could choose to live under that law (and abide by it or suffer the consequences) or move somewhere else.

Children once they are 18 should be given the choice where to live.

Other parts could work without technology (Amish-like), strictly Christian, strictly Jew, a mix, etc.

I can see how that might work if freedom of movement is truly allowed and sponsored by the state in the case of 18 year olds who don't have money yet.

One way of solving that would be that before being able to "emigrate" to a new part you have to work for just room and board (and maybe a minimum wage) for 1 year, that way you pay back your fees for moving, and get used to the "country" before deciding you want to stay or not.

[Steel]

Sandra, that's almost exactly the world we live in.

Being practical, just look at the European Union. We can't even get that to work, so imagine what it would be like to have a World Government.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by Steel

Being practical, just look at the European Union. We can't even get that to work, so imagine what it would be like to have a World Government.

How doesn't it work?

It's easy to point at any government and say "It's such a failure, it doesn't work, what a disaster". It gets pretty redundant since nobody ever seems to be content with governments that may not be perfect, but not exactly horrible either. Complaining about a woeful government seems to be the norm. Coming up with decent reasons as to WHY that government is terrible seems to be a lot harder.

As for this sounding like complacency, I don't contest anyones right to complain about something that genuinely seems out of order. I just know that I'll be the last person to complain when I live in a rich, socialist, first-world, technologically advanced, well-educated country.

A single common language would mean forcing more learning than required in a nation, and I feel it could endanger culture

English is already the international language which every country gives priority to. People have no problem learning it, and in some countries it's even the norm to speak it to near-fluency even though it's not a national language.

[Cochonette]

I'm not a "conspiracy nut," thanks. I just understand that democracy means LESS centralized government, not more. We already have a "World Government" anyway. It's called the UN (and World Bank). And it has issues, just like every other centralized government does. There are plenty of academic critiques of the UN, if you bother to look for them.

As someone once explained, people only tend to rebel if the governments that rule them do so unfairly. I agree with this assumption, and from this assumption I conclude that a world government would only even be able to sustain itself if it was a non-oppressive and benign one. If it were not, it would be inherently flawed in a way that would lead to 100% certain eventual collapse, given enough time.

This sounds nice, but it also sounds like you came up with it off the top of your head rather than from research. In any case, there have been people rebelling against the UN pretty much since its inception, just as there were people rebelling against George Bush and so on and so forth.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

I'm not a "conspiracy nut," thanks. I just understand that democracy means LESS centralized government, not more. We already have a "World Government" anyway. It's called the UN (and World Bank). And it has issues, just like every other centralized government does. There are plenty of academic critiques of the UN, if you bother to look for them.



This sounds nice, but it also sounds like you came up with it off the top of your head rather than from research. In any case, there have been people rebelling against the UN pretty much since its inception, just as there were people rebelling against George Bush and so on and so forth.

UN is no form of government. It has no primary force, and it doesn't have a territory and it doesn't have sovereignty of citizens in a territory. The World Bank only sets transaction rates for currencies and gives loans for countries.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by st33med

UN is no form of government. It has no primary force, and it doesn't have a territory and it doesn't have sovereignty of citizens in a territory. The World Bank only sets transaction rates for currencies and gives loans for countries.

The UN and World Bank represent power in this world, centralized power, so I'd say they are forms of government. Well, maybe not the precise type we are referring to here... would have to think about it more in depth.

[Criseyde]

I think the threat inherent in that kind of centralized power vastly outweighs the benefits. I'm no libertarian, but the idea of letting power consolidate that way sort of gives me chills. Just because people might eventually revolt and overthrow a corrupt dictator doesn't mean that one couldn't do a LOT of damage. And think of the bureaucracy!

I also think that the cultures of the world are SO different that there'd be no way to do it without being extremely ethnocentric and probably wiping out some cultures.

And I'd be worried about the role of people who live in developing societies today. They probably wouldn't have much say in the creation of a central government, so they would probably suffer the most.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

The UN and World Bank represent power in this world, centralized power, so I'd say they are forms of government. Well, maybe not the precise type we are referring to here... would have to think about it more in depth.

I'm using government as a term for a ruling body over a sovereign state, in which there must be a defined territory and the ability to kill it's own citizens.

They also do not have a great amount of power. Look at China: they have violated tons of human rights and UN legislations, yet very little has been done besides a slap on the wrist. They do not have control over any territories (besides the UN building in New York, though that is internationally recognized as neutral territory).

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I think the threat inherent in that kind of centralized power vastly outweighs the benefits. I'm no libertarian, but the idea of letting power consolidate that way sort of gives me chills. Just because people might eventually revolt and overthrow a corrupt dictator doesn't mean that one couldn't do a LOT of damage. And think of the bureaucracy!

I also think that the cultures of the world are SO different that there'd be no way to do it without being extremely ethnocentric and probably wiping out some cultures.

And I'd be worried about the role of people who live in developing societies today. They probably wouldn't have much say in the creation of a central government, so they would probably suffer the most.

Exactly. And that's the problem with the UN - indigenous groups will go and be excluded from discussions and have to protest outside.

I'm using government as a term for a ruling body over a sovereign state, in which there must be a defined territory and the ability to kill it's own citizens.

They also do not have a great amount of power. Look at China: they have violated tons of human rights and UN legislations, yet very little has been done besides a slap on the wrist. They do not have control over any territories (besides the UN building in New York, though that is internationally recognized as neutral territory).

I think you are examining power pretty superficially, which is exactly what the UN would like you to do. The fact that so many people protest organizations like the UN is indicative of their power.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

I think you are examining power pretty superficially, which is exactly what the UN would like you to do. The fact that so many people protest organizations like the UN is indicative of their power.

What do you mean by power? They can't force people to do anything.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Steel

Sandra, that's almost exactly the world we live in.

Being practical, just look at the European Union. We can't even get that to work, so imagine what it would be like to have a World Government.

Not even close. As a normal citizen of any (not rich) country it is extremely difficult to move to another (rich) country.

The EU is a democratic government chosen by other democratic governments... Of course that will never work. People are too busy protecting their own to think about the good of all...

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

The UN and World Bank represent power in this world, centralized power, so I'd say they are forms of government. Well, maybe not the precise type we are referring to here... would have to think about it more in depth.

Even so, those are bodies of power ruled by several governments, who are again chosen by people.... So of course they are going to look out for themselves, and not for the good of all.

That is one thing that a benign dictatorship can do... look out for the good of ALL people, instead of just the ones who have the most voting power.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Steel

Sandra, that's almost exactly the world we live in.

Being practical, just look at the European Union. We can't even get that to work, so imagine what it would be like to have a World Government.

Not work? I don't remember my brother or my father being sent off to kill any Germans, unlike the 4 previous generations - I call that a success.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by ssandra

That is one thing that a benign dictatorship can do... look out for the good of ALL people, instead of just the ones who have the most voting power.

Can you actually find a benign dictator that can see past ideology and serve the interests of the entire globe? What mechanism would you have in place to get rid of a 'benign dictator' if he/she oversteps his/her role? How will you guarantee that state power is not turned upon its citizenry?

Even if you have regional authorities to deal with local issues, there are still going to be decisions that effect the global community. Some of those decisions are not going to sit well with the citizenry. Is it ethical to give only one authority the capcity to make decisions of this magnitude? Even if democracy is based on a model of conflict (political I mean), at least diverse groups of people have the opportunity to resist decisions that they feel are unethical.

I don't like the OP. Its premise links back to political theorists who think that people are too stupid and unrulely to manage themselves, and therefore, democracy is 'doomed' to fail. I don't think people are inherently stupid, apathetic, unrulely and selfish. The more educated people are, for example, the more politically engaged they are. I see nothing wrong with democracy as a theory. I see lots wrong with democracy as an institution, but that doesn't discredit the theory.

[Mariana Trench]

"Benign dictator" is an oxymoron, or at the very least, extremely unlikely to be realized.

[Solipsist]

To those who oppose a centralized, world government, what is at issue is national sovereignty. That is, individual, national governments must submit to the centralized, world government. This is not unlike the individual states of the United States submitting their own constitutions to the U.S. Constitution. Fundamentally, then, those individual states lose a certain amount of freedoms, as the laws of the centralized governing body supersede those of the member states.

The thing is, though, this is already happening, whether we like it or not. The U.S. Constitution is already superseded by the U.N. Charter to the point where it is just about dead (as witnessed by current executive branch acts that now have senators filing law suits for unconstitutionality).

Not sure if anyone is really paying any attention, and to be sure, those running the world have gone to great lengths to assure that the word doesn't get out that they are, in fact, running the world, but, for better or for worse, there are certain powers who most definitely pull strings to see that certain things happen in certain parts of the world in order to fulfill an agenda not unlike global governance.

The Bilderbergs (Google it) met this week in Switzerland. Since its first meeting in 1954, it has been quite hush-hush, very much on the Q.T., but they succeed where a global government can't. But, the news is getting out, and more of us are becoming more informed. It wouldn't surprise me, then, to see their agenda, now uncovered, pursued globally. It therefore wouldn't surprise me one bit to see more conflicts in the middle east. It would certainly not surprise me, considering the rate that global currencies are being inflated, that soon someone would suggest a global currency, after, of course, the complete collapse of the Euro AND the U.S. Dollar. Nor would it surprise me to see oil at $200 a barrel, or better. And all because these things are being subtly manipulated by the real global government, already in existence.

So, I concur, somewhat, with the sentiment of the OP, if not the details. I mean, we already have a global government, basically (though the U.N. is still fairly impotent, imo), whether we know it or not, admit it or not, like it or not. So, we may as well get used to it. Nothing we can do about it, either way.

[Steel]

The European Union is failing. National sovereignty is being pushed to the side while the EU amasses more power. Meanwhile, right wing nationalists are on the rise due to this and gaining more and more the appeal of the people.

Not work? I don't remember my brother or my father being sent off to kill any Germans, unlike the 4 previous generations - I call that a success.

Sure, that's a good thing, no arguing. But for how long? Will the European Union hold it's own for more 50 years?

Originally Posted by SSandra

Not even close. As a normal citizen of any (not rich) country it is extremely difficult to move to another (rich) country.

Sandra, you can't have complete mobility of citizens. Would an economy hold its own if that happened? Look at France, desperate to stop Italy from bleeding illegal immigrants into their country. Either we like it or not, if full mobility was possible there would millions upon millions of people marching towards richer nations... No economy would survive that.

But, yeah, Solipsist is right. We now have a quasi centralized word government.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Steel

Sandra, you can't have complete mobility of citizens. Would an economy hold its own if that happened? Look at France, desperate to stop Italy from bleeding illegal immigrants into their country. Either we like it or not, if full mobility was possible there would millions upon millions of people marching towards richer nations... No economy would survive that.

That's because of the way the economy is organized now. But I don't see the same thing happening for example in 1 country. Although people move sometimes towards the cities, it doesn't happen that much that it causes a problem.

meaning that it is the fact that there is economical unbalance in the world that causes people to move to richer countries.

If you would have full control over the world, you could spread the work over the world in a way that would make the most sense.

You would be done with subsidizing the produce of food in countries where that isn't profitable, because there is no need anymore to protect your "own" citizens. There would be a balance in what is produced where.

Land that is suited for farming wouldn't be used to put factories anymore, and land unsuited for farming wouldn't cause the people who live there to starve because of no other options.


(in the end, I think the risks outweigh the benefits of having a world government. I don't know if anyone willing to do what it takes to create a world dictatorship would be a good leader. I doubt it. But it is still interesting to see, how, if it would be in place, this could work.)

[Steel]

Originally Posted by ssandra

(in the end, I think the risks outweigh the benefits of having a world government. I don't know if anyone willing to do what it takes to create a world dictatorship would be a good leader. I doubt it. But it is still interesting to see, how, if it would be in place, this could work.)

I wouldn't mind ruling over the world.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Steel

I wouldn't mind ruling over the world.

Me neither, although I assume it isn't a great job.... but I do feel I could do better.

However, I'm not willing to do what it takes to get there. Meaning, killing people, create wars, etc.

[Brutha]

2. A single common language used by all humans. For once in humanity's entire history, we would all be able to communicate with each other and be unified in this regard.

No, a single common language is a separate issue. There are plenty of countries with multiple languages.

5. Development of enormous international businesses. Despite the anti-every-business conspiracy nuts, this would be a very good thing for humanity (as long as monopolies are regulated). Imagine the economic benefits of having enormous economies of scale. Product and service prices would fall drastically.

We already have enormous international businesses.

8. Acceptance and tolerance of all religious beliefs as personal beliefs, but not as to interfere with the formation and implementation of actual law.

I don't think you get the political significance of religious beliefs on actual political processes.

However, if you look at more autocratic nations such as Singapore, although it is a young country it is still a very successful country. It is sort of a "benign dictatorship" if you will.

Singapore has free elections in which their government get's the mandate to govern from the people.

When we speak about world government you should also note that part of the reason that Singapore works so well is that it's small.

This brings us to the central issue. Small government works better than large governments.
It's easier to lobby one big government than to lobby ten small ones. Lobbyists have more power to influence the big government and individual citizens have less power.

Problems usually get first acknowledged on a local level. A small government can usually react much faster than a big government. With it's ~300,000 citizens Iceland has it much easier to pass something like IMMI than the US with it's ~300,000,000 citizens.
Local decision making is central to solving the tragedy of the commons as the price winning work of Elinor Ostrom showed.

The European Union is failing. National sovereignty is being pushed to the side while the EU amasses more power.

That's no failure for the people who designed the system.

At the moment you however have a case that the EU is failing. Greece. We lack a good mechanism to deal with their crisis.

The U.S. Constitution is already superseded by the U.N. Charter to the point where it is just about dead (as witnessed by current executive branch acts that now have senators filing law suits for unconstitutionality).

Have you read the U.N. charter? Which parts do you consider to supersede the US constitution? Which law suits do you mean?

I think you are examining power pretty superficially, which is exactly what the UN would like you to do. The fact that so many people protest organizations like the UN is indicative of their power.

You assume that those who protest understand the power structures. They usually don't.

(in the end, I think the risks outweigh the benefits of having a world government. I don't know if anyone willing to do what it takes to create a world dictatorship would be a good leader. I doubt it. But it is still interesting to see, how, if it would be in place, this could work.)

May you live in interesting times.

[ChrisGinsburg]

I would have a difficult time imagining a world government without there being a significant lack of checks and balances.

[Focus Driblet]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

"Benign dictator" is an oxymoron, or at the very least, extremely unlikely to be realized.

"Dictator" didn't have the negative connotations in ancient Rome that it has today, even though they prefered the dual consulships. It probably had its benefits in times of crisis. "Tyrant" also didn't used to have it's negative connotations.

Dictatorship might be the ultimate form of government with a perfectly righteous and skilled dictator... and the worst government with a lesser person.

[ZephyrusX]

Rome was relatively small though and the only 'tyrants' that I remember from my history class ruled over city states, which were also very small.

Originally Posted by Focus Driblet

"Dictator" didn't have the negative connotations in ancient Rome that it has today, even though they prefered the dual consulships. It probably had its benefits in times of crisis. "Tyrant" also didn't used to have it's negative connotations.

Dictatorship might be the ultimate form of government with a perfectly righteous and skilled dictator... and the worst government with a lesser person.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Focus Driblet

"Dictator" didn't have the negative connotations in ancient Rome that it has today, even though they prefered the dual consulships. It probably had its benefits in times of crisis. "Tyrant" also didn't used to have it's negative connotations.

Dictatorship might be the ultimate form of government with a perfectly righteous and skilled dictator... and the worst government with a lesser person.

That's only a useful concept as a thought experiment.

It would be difficult to even define what that is.

[James81]

Why not just have a level of government above the "federal" government of each country?

In other words in the same way that states feed into a country, why not have countries feed into a higher form of government that is the world? And having a congress of rulers with representation from each country in the same way we have it with each state here in America.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that you take the "United States" idea (a bunch of states the fed into a central federal power) and you just chunk it up a level (a bunch of countries in that into a central world power). Now, the government at that level would need to be real "loose", but it could have some power in issues that make sense to give it power in those situations. Such as trade and world issues.