One World Government

[LexusInfernus 908]

Given that this comes up every now and then I thought we could give it its own thread. Might lead to some interesting discussion. 

 

A world government would not necessarily be a monolithic thing.  Certain sovereign powers would necessarily devolve to it:

 

Law Enforcement;

Trade regulation;

Currency creation and propagation;

Taxation;

Others as thought necessary

 

Member organizations must agree to the first two or it is no go.  As with any government, it has to have taxing power and means of enforcement.

 

Setting up the legislature would be a major step in this, and the most important thing would be the limits to terms, and whether an election could be called should there be a dead-lock or no-confidence situation.  What kind of structure would you like?  I am prejudiced in this regard as I believe that a form of government that has been around for about a millennium is probably the best since it has many of its bugs knocked out. 

 

I refer, of course, to a bicameral parliament with a watchdog.  The watchdog would be the ceremonial 'head of planet' in the case of alien contact, and otherwise have the power to dissolve the lower house in case of a failure or at the end of its term whichever came first. 

 

The upper house, appointed or elected by the member "states" would have a fixed term independent of the lower house and be apolitical as possible. 

 

Passage of legislation by the lower house would result in a referral to the upper house.  Passage in the upper house would result in a referral to the head of planet who might or might not have veto power.  There must be constitutional powers to override a veto with a substantial majority of the lower house.  Overriding a veto should result in the mandatory resignation of the watchdog.

 

Appointment of the watchdog must be by 2/3 majority of the member states.  This post needs to be of limited term, say 10 years with no repeats.

 

Clearly, a new constitution would be required.  We have a great deal of experience in what not to have in one.

 

 

So, what do people think. One world government, aside from whether it is realistic to achieve, is it something that we should want? 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

It would not be realistic and it would not be something we want to strive towards, unless it is a confederacy, where the nations have a lot of sovereignty and the central government cannot do much anyway. A strong central government on a Global scale would lower diversity.

 

If we come to a point where we start colonizing other planets, then maybe each planet should get its own government but the global Earth government would need to be a democratically elected confederacy if we are to respect other nations.

 

--Ocram

[elavery 1,013]

Would not work. The UN is pretty much non-functional and can't resolve anything. Law enforcement and taxes would be impossible to agree on, let alone anything else.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If you want an alternative to the plutocratic capitalism we now 'enjoy', something has got to give.  Parochial sovereignty is surely one of them.  Creating a constitutional, representative world government with powers as outlined above would be an interesting goal.  Whether this could be accomplished by peaceful means is a good question.  It won't happen very soon, but we need to get on with fixing the present mess.

 

If the UN is a bad example, surely we can do better than that.  The problem with the UN is lack of power and true unity.

 

Consider creating electoral districts based on simply dividing the world into sectors of, say, 15 degrees on a side.  Some of these would be empty, some sparsely populated, and some heavily populated.  Ignore existing 'national' boundaries.  The upper house would get one representative for each populated sector.  The lower house would get one representative (elected) based on sub-divisions by population within each sector, and no monkeying with sector boundaries.  The 15 degree unit is based on the equation of time.  15 degrees equals 1 hour.

 

Simply saying it won't work is a cop out.  Probably an indicator of despair.

[hym 358]

The problem is that there is too much diversity of opinion for such a thing to work well. There are people in this world who still aren't ready for a basic democracy of their own people, let alone one government that forces them to compromise with a bunch of random folks on the other side of the world that they may not even like.

Diversity cuts both ways.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

True.  Like I said, it will take a long time.  Some generations may actually have to have passed from the scene before this can even be talked about before the general public. 

 

Because of the current communications technology, however, I think it will become inevitably obvious in the end.  The time for sitting in a puddle of our own pee and crying is ending.  The world needs to grow up.

[fan o SC4 128]

Would not want a worldwide government, if we gave one entity so much power we could be helpless when it comes to holding it(the government) accountable. At least when a single country goes bad you can try to leave, a worldwide government means nowhere to hide for people who disagree with it. Besides that leaders from even small countries would not give up sovereignty and power, a small country usually can better represent the populous. I mean if "absolute power corrupts absolutely" , then a worldwide government would be awful for everybody. Also smaller countries would inevitably lose representation, for instance, the votes of China would always swamp the US and Europe altogether, so people in small countries like Ghana or Holland would have no way to get any degree of accountability from the central state at all.

[jmsepe 2,038]

Not possible given the huge differences people have. That pretty much summarizes everything.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Would not want a worldwide government, if we gave on entity so much power we could be helpless when it comes to holding it accountable. At least when country goes bad you can try to leave, a worldwide government means nowhere to hide for people who disagree with it. Besides that leaders from even small countries would not give up sovereignty and power, a small country usually can better represent the populous. I mean if "absolute power corrupts absolutely" , then a worldwide government would be awful for everybody. Also smaller countries would inevitably lose representation, for instance, the votes of China would always swamp the US and Europe altogether, so people in small countries like Ghana or Holland would have no way to get any degree of accountability from the central state at all.

Wall of text syndrome.  How about fixing up the grammar errors and adding some white space between the ideas and points.  And did you read the rest of this thread?

 

 

Not possible given the huge differences people have. That pretty much summarizes everything.

That's why it won't happen while generations with this kind of thinking are still alive. 

 

Anything is possible but it requires uprooting a lot of people from their comfortable pews, and getting rid of some millennia-old concepts such as being tied to some corner of land. 

 

IMHO, it will take WW III.

[blade2k5 1,523]

A one world government is nothing more than a pipe dream dreamed up by a bunch of fools.  It'll never happen because it's in human nature to dominate everything and everyone and until we wipe out that natural survival instinct we'll always be at each others throats.  Like Aerosmith said some 40 years ago, dream on.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Thanks a lot.

[jmsepe 2,038]

 

 

<removed>

 

Not possible given the huge differences people have. That pretty much summarizes everything.

That's why it won't happen while generations with this kind of thinking are still alive. 

 

Anything is possible but it requires uprooting a lot of people from their comfortable pews, and getting rid of some millennia-old concepts such as being tied to some corner of land. 

 

IMHO, it will take WW III.

 

 

Hahaha. A war they say is a prerequisite to change. Oh well, but even so A Nonny, you have to remove all existing systems to create a unified government and I don't think that a war is enough, it's more like what we need is hypnotism. 

[fan o SC4 128]

 

Would not want a worldwide government, if we gave on entity so much power we could be helpless when it comes to holding it accountable. At least when country goes bad you can try to leave, a worldwide government means nowhere to hide for people who disagree with it. Besides that leaders from even small countries would not give up sovereignty and power, a small country usually can better represent the populous. I mean if "absolute power corrupts absolutely" , then a worldwide government would be awful for everybody. Also smaller countries would inevitably lose representation, for instance, the votes of China would always swamp the US and Europe altogether, so people in small countries like Ghana or Holland would have no way to get any degree of accountability from the central state at all.

Wall of text syndrome.  How about fixing up the grammar errors and adding some white space between the ideas and points.  And did you read the rest of this thread?

 

 

Not possible given the huge differences people have. That pretty much summarizes everything.

That's why it won't happen while generations with this kind of thinking are still alive. 

 

Anything is possible but it requires uprooting a lot of people from their comfortable pews, and getting rid of some millennia-old concepts such as being tied to some corner of land. 

 

IMHO, it will take WW III.

 

Man, sorry about the spelling errors, I was just trying to make a point and my brain went faster than my hands, that happens sometimes, I'll try better next time.

 

But still I agree, people are just too diverse and different to ever reach total unity. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

As Mr. Einstein says, after the next world war, there will only be sticks and stones left to fight with.  That's the time things could be reorganized.  To see how this might fail take a look at H.G. Welles "Shape of Things to Come".

 

There will always be dissent or we would be a different species.  General amicability is not a built-in feature of H. Sap.

 

The present rampant capitalism is a bust, communism doesn't work, socialism goes broke very quickly.  It is true that production is the only way to create new values, but what if the proceeds of production were better distributed?  If so, how in the face of the current mess?  The tax mavens want to tax the rich, but Robin Hood is a myth.

[LexusInfernus 908]

If you want an alternative to the plutocratic capitalism we now 'enjoy', something has got to give.  Parochial sovereignty is surely one of them.  Creating a constitutional, representative world government with powers as outlined above would be an interesting goal.  Whether this could be accomplished by peaceful means is a good question.  It won't happen very soon, but we need to get on with fixing the present mess.

 

If the UN is a bad example, surely we can do better than that.  The problem with the UN is lack of power and true unity.

 

Consider creating electoral districts based on simply dividing the world into sectors of, say, 15 degrees on a side.  Some of these would be empty, some sparsely populated, and some heavily populated.  Ignore existing 'national' boundaries.  The upper house would get one representative for each populated sector.  The lower house would get one representative (elected) based on sub-divisions by population within each sector, and no monkeying with sector boundaries.  The 15 degree unit is based on the equation of time.  15 degrees equals 1 hour.

 

Simply saying it won't work is a cop out.  Probably an indicator of despair.

Those national boundries exist for a reason. Most countries exist for a reason. And that reason being natural selection. They have survived up till now in one of the toughest competitions ever. That is not something you just do away with. 

 

Furthermore, one government, with all those laws would have to please both deeply religious Muslims in the Middle East as well as secular humanists in the West as well as Hindus in India and Buddhists in South East Asia. Good luck finding rules that we can all agree on. Failure to do so would result in civil unrest and secessionist movements. This will only work after a mono culture has been established and everyone everywhere shares the same values. And that will take a while. 

[Wiimeiser 436]

What would the capital be, though?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@LexusInfernus:  Yes, it will take more time than I have got.  I don't expect to live more than another 20 or 30 years.  Nevertheless, something has to be started to fix the current mess.  Religion is one of the great barriers because it is full of answers that may not be questioned.  Best to have a totally secular state and not bother with how people spend their sacred days.  Most national boundaries in Europe haven't changed much since the fall of the Roman Empire which frankly went broke.  One of the big mistakes among the Romans was having a state religion.

 

@Weimeiser: Capital?  Trivial question really.  Something to be sorted out at the constitutional convention.  How about some convenient spot of land along the prime meridian?  Greenwich, U.K. as it is currently known.  It could be in the centre of any sector the drafters like however.  Maybe some place with a nice climate somewhere in the Pacific.  How about Christmas Island?

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem is that there is too much diversity of opinion for such a thing to work well. There are people in this world who still aren't ready for a basic democracy of their own people, let alone one government that forces them to compromise with a bunch of random folks on the other side of the world that they may not even like.

 

Not only that, but you also have the first world versus third world problem. You really can't set very much in the way of global standards when standards of living in different parts of the world are night and day compared to each other.

 

 

I generally tend to be of the opinion that things should be managed on as low a level as practically reasonable. As it is in the US, we have a system of a federal government and state governments... in theory the federal government's role is to handle matters that directly affect the whole country, and to ensure that states cooperate with each other. In practice it tends to exceed this mandate whenever it can get away with it. I have no doubt a "world government" would do the same. So, I like the separate sovereignty of different nations, thanks.

 

That said, I don't really like borders. While countries should be free to do as they please, passage between two countries that are on good terms with each other should occur with as little impediment as possible. Schengen is a great model for this. We would benefit from having more borders like that. US/Canada, anyone? Shame the US feds are too paranoid to ever allow it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Borders:  Ah yes, we used to have the longest undefended border in the world but then some damn fools in the U.S. congress pissed on it.  Americans now have to have a passport to re-enter the United States and I have to have one if I wish to enter the United States.

 

All this expensively taxed documentation is a chip out of freedoms we used to have.  We are heading into a police state just because some fools in Congress go off half-cocked.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Unless we encounter extraterrestrials a unified world government wouldnt make sense. Then again organisations like the UN could operate in a parliamentary manner and create worldcourts and a globalpolice. Dissent exists among nations. It also exists between cities. Between neighbourhoods. Within homes. Government isnt about controlling micromanagement. It purely exists for macromanaging. Thus all we need is a stronger UN. Im all for individual sovereignty of lands towns men. I voted ukip.

[CapTon 592]

People like diversity and one world government is not diverse.

[Sim Shady 32 16]

well guys I had to ring in on this one... Lets all really think on this " One World Government" Simply the name itself Is a Failing proposition. We have Too large of a Governing body now, And is causing corruption to run wild!.... Also Just remember You Cannot Have it both ways You have to give up TOTAL soverenty To join this OWG. Its those freedoms that give us the right to even sit here and speak on this matter, witch I might add that not everyone is able to do. Lets not fall prey to the oldest Bait and switch in history. Our system in America Isnt Perfect But at least I still have choice to decide whats best for me and mine. Over the past few decades the left and the right working together to create this, slowly destroying our ways To just come in later to point out how its not working and we need them to give us something better! Please lets get back to personal freedoms and land ownership without these your just a number. PLEASE I BEG ALL OF YOU TO READ AGENDA 21... find out for yourself what this means for ALL of us YOU included... Not what your being told!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Unfortunately the present situation is becoming intolerable, especially in the U.S.  The European effort is showing serious cracks as certain stiff-necked parties are showing symptoms of doubt in the union. 

 

The intent is to, over time, disenfranchise the local idea of patriotism and promote a more global approach.  "My country, right or wrong" in this day of instant communications is wrong.  Things are becoming more chaotic, and something has to be done to bring some cohesiveness or we will all go down.  We have to hang together or we will hang separately, twisting in the breeze.

[metarvo 710]

No.  Just no.  Isn't one-world (or for that matter, one-galaxy) government how Emperor Palpatine rose to power in the Star Wars franchise?  With that reference aside, I dare to say the results of implementing such a system IRL could be quite similar.  You could essentially have a world leader with absolute power, and we know what they say about absolute power.  People in Country A might be ruled by a leader in Country B that either hates Country A or just has nothing in common with the people of the said nation, and the results could be oppressive.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ One must take a long view.  It is unwise to choose examples from fantasy.  May the farce be with you.

[hym 358]

^ One must take a long view.  It is unwise to choose examples from fantasy.  May the farce be with you.

 

Many of us are taking a long-term view, and we still don't see anything except oppression, dystopia, etc.  There is no magic zone where, if the government survives long enough, it is impossible that it will eventually degrade to an oppressive government.  Where does one run and hide when the whole world is out to get you?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

After hubris comes nemesis as we are all well aware.  The U.S. government has been giving itself airs since 1945, and now people are getting tired of it all, especially considering the performance in 2008 and later.

[CapTon 592]

Many (if not all) Americans enjoy their freedoms and rights. If a one-world government is formed, how will anyone decide whether or not the citizens should have freedom and rights or should be held under a dictatorship?

 

And another thing: not many countries can agree and get along with one another nowadays. What makes anyone think that bringing them together in one government will get them to agree on anything more? It may cause even MORE outrage, frustration, and disagreement.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Who said anything about a dictatorship?  I believe the proposal was for a bicameral legislature duly elected, with a head of planet with a term of 10 years.  I would prefer that no fixed term for the lower house be declared but a mandate limit of five years be stated with the possibility of an earlier election should confidence be lost.  The upper house is appointive by the sectors who may use any method for selection.

 

As for freedoms, that is why there has to be a constitutional convention.  You may like the U.S. Bill of Rights.  I like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I am sure there are others.  Let us choose the best of all that can be found.  Nobody has it quite right yet.

 

Creating a new system of government to look after the whole planet is a very long row to hoe, and begins with an agreement for the constitutional convention.  Since this would not be done in any kind of emergency if it is started now, there is leisure to get it right the first time.  The U.S. constitution and several others were drafted under the duress of revolution and war.  Let's not wait until this is the case.

 

I think one of the initial goals of the organization should be at least 60% literacy world-wide per sector.

[CapTon 592]

I can see this sort of government leaning towards dictatorship due to the massive amounts of land and people there are to manage. It would make it much easier on the people running the government to manage everything and everyone by just forming a dictatorship (this is not implying that I would want this).