Is World Government Desirable?

[Prozac the Robert]

If we ignore politics for a moment, and assume that the majority of nations would give their full support to whatever would be best, then...

Would any form of world government be a good thing?

A centralised state which could raise taxes directly?

A federation in the style of the US, with a federal government and separate national governments with a medium level of autonomy?

A weak confederation, similar perhaps to the EU or the early US?

Or none of the above?

[Gil Hamilton]

The world is completely not ready for a single world government, I'm afraid. However, I do see the world breaking up into a handful of weak confederation EU style economic blocs.

[Lord Zentei]

A centralised state which could raise taxes directly?

Only if I get to be Emperor.

Seriously though, I agree with Gil; it's not a question of wether the World State is a good idea, but wether such a thing is even possible at present. Take a look at the EU: they had problems enough just getting their constitution organized and that is just one continent, and one that is very homogenous culturally when compared with the world as a whole. There would just be too many conflicting views and ideologies on what such a World State should be. There is also the problem of a lacking common identity. Humans are a depressingly tribal bunch.

The centralized state is not a good idea IMO: it would be way too large and cumbersome. The federation and confederation would be more plausible.

[Enforcer Talen]

it would have to be very lose, with perhaps half the world in it, to begin with. a nice federation which in a few generations will grow its own nationalism, on a much larger scale.

[PrinceofLowLight]

Identity is just as much what you're not as what you are. Unless we have splinter colonies or meet aliens, I doubt a world government would survive for any real length of time.

[Enforcer Talen]

one might say the same of eu, or usa. mergers can and do occur.

[Seggybop]

It's definitely a good idea. Nationalism is a stupid, archaic idea that doesn't deserve to exist. The only thing comparable to it in terms of needlessly killing people is religion.

A current government always serves the 'interests' of their own region, ultimately saying 'screw you' to everyone else, who do the same to them. This is such a pathetic waste. If the government was dedicated to serving humanity as a whole, instead of competing with other abitrary regions in order to increase the authority of a few people, everyone would be much better off.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

World government is not desireable right now. There are enough fundies in modern western democracies as it is. Do you want all the ignorant superstitious people from the rest of the world being able to vote and influence decisions as well? They'd overwhelm the educated completely and plunge us into a new dark ages, which coincidentally would tear this world-government apart like the HRE with corresponding bloodshed.

[Shinova]

A world government is a nice concept, but it'd be hard to implement with all the thousands of ethnicities and hundreds of nations bent on killing each or everyone else. That, or at least hating their guts.


You'd need an immensely powerful military to forcibly bring everyone to their knees, and then that same military to keep everyone in line, and several generations under close watch to eventually let those past hatreds and prejudices dissipate.

In other words, quite impossible, practically.

[Shinova]

Oh, and that also involves having a single unfallible ruler as well. A republic would be very difficult to implement with all the ethnicities and sentiments as I said before. At least not immediately.

Maybe after several generations of controlled growth, people will have let go of their sentiments enough to trust and work together again, albeit with some arguments here and there.

[Stofsk]

It's definitely a good idea. Nationalism is a stupid, archaic idea that doesn't deserve to exist.

Nationalism is actually a fairly RECENT idea. In the ancient world you were either a member of a city-state or empire-state. The concept of the nation came about IIRC as a reaction to the empire-state and how it was oppressing people all over the world. These people developed a national identity and decided to throw off their colonial masters.

So, you want a return to empire huh?

As for nationalism being a stupid idea, how do you figure that, exactly? What's your counter ideology?

[Seggybop]

It's fairly recent in the grand scheme of things, but by now it's long overdue to be expunged.

A counter-ideology? I would say 'humanism' but that word's already taken. 'Humanityism' sounds weird. Meh. Instead of working to forward a certain region, people should work towards improving the condition of all people regardless of their country. Right now resources are concentrated in certain regions so that those regions become vastly more powerful. Even the poor people within a rich country live better than those in impoverished regions. It's so arbitrary.

Basically, I would have the social programs of first world countries implemented everywhere across the world. Instead of a regional government taking all the money from a region and then redistributing it within that region, all of the resources of the world should go to a world government and that government should use it to help everyone.

I know that there's no way it would happen with the current state of affairs, but I still wish it would.

[Col. Crackpot]

Basically, I would have the social programs of first world countries implemented everywhere across the world. Instead of a regional government taking all the money from a region and then redistributing it within that region, all of the resources of the world should go to a world government and that government should use it to help everyone.

so instead of some people enjoying a decent standard of living we all live in shit? No thanks. Goddamn, i'm sick of starry eyed college kids thinking they can save the world.

[Gil Hamilton]

Basically, I would have the social programs of first world countries implemented everywhere across the world. Instead of a regional government taking all the money from a region and then redistributing it within that region, all of the resources of the world should go to a world government and that government should use it to help everyone.

The problem is that you can't help everyone that way. The disparity of wealth is so much that you can't redestribute wealth to help everyone equally without causing a massive drop in the quality of living for some (pretty much the industrial world) and for negligable gain for everyone else.

The only way it could possibly work is if everyone gets their own shit together first. Your idea, if it occured, would turn the entire planet into a third world country instead of some of it.

However, if it's any consolation, I think nationalism is shit too, simply due to the fact that it causes people to turn off their brains and stop thinking for themselves.

[Coyote]

World government does not scare me, probably because I realize that it is impossible anytime in the near fututure. We'll probably see regional economic and military blocs like the EU more and more, and things will most likely stabilize that way for a long time.

Regional superblocs would then band together to get things done for brief periods, and may even change the face of the UN (if it continues to exist) to reflec this new grouping arrangement.

Without some actual need (banding together in the face of a natural disaster or meeting aliens of unknown and possibly sketchy intent) I see the "regional superbloc" being the dominant world dynamic in the near future, with a handful of leftover independent nations and maybe one or two lone states that are superpowers in thei rown rights, such as the USA.

But even the lone states will have some bloc-like ties: the US will have a special relationship with Canada and Mexico, regardless of whethere they join a borderless entity or not.

[Enforcer Talen]

ja, Im betting superentity blocs like eu to crop up over the next few decades, until they form up as wel.

nationalism is not a bad idea - it was a useful tool to get us to where we are. but now we are here, its dangerous - nukes produced by the nationconcept have a tendency to used by the nationconcept.

[Symmetry]

None of the above I think. There is always a chance that any given dictatorship will cross over into democracy, or vice versa, but the competetive advantages of democracy make the later transition more likely in a world with several independant states. Or in other words, monopolies aren't good.

[StarshipTitanic]

ja, Im betting superentity blocs like eu to crop up over the next few decades, until they form up as wel.

nationalism is not a bad idea - it was a useful tool to get us to where we are. but now we are here, its dangerous - nukes produced by the nationconcept have a tendency to used by the nationconcept.

I agree. For example, the SACN.

[Lord Pounder]

I've always considered a one world goverment a flawed idea. IMHO the purpose of a goverment is to serve it's people and to make their lives better. A one world goverment would be too large to consider the interests of the voting public.

[Prozac the Robert]

ja, Im betting superentity blocs like eu to crop up over the next few decades, until they form up as wel.

nationalism is not a bad idea - it was a useful tool to get us to where we are. but now we are here, its dangerous - nukes produced by the nationconcept have a tendency to used by the nationconcept.

You don't think then that blocks like the EU would be as prone to pointless nationalism as individual nations?

[Lord Zentei]

A world government is a nice concept, but it'd be hard to implement with all the thousands of ethnicities and hundreds of nations bent on killing each or everyone else. That, or at least hating their guts.

You'd need an immensely powerful military to forcibly bring everyone to their knees, and then that same military to keep everyone in line, and several generations under close watch to eventually let those past hatreds and prejudices dissipate.

In other words, quite impossible, practically

Oh, and that also involves having a single unfallible ruler as well. A republic would be very difficult to implement with all the ethnicities and sentiments as I said before. At least not immediately.

Maybe after several generations of controlled growth, people will have let go of their sentiments enough to trust and work together again, albeit with some arguments here and there.

Eh, the "infallible" ruler idea has been tried again and again. There is no such thing. The "best available" ruler may exist and the "tolerably acceptable" ruler does exist, but you need negative feedback of some kind to find them. All the more reason the idea of the World State is "quite impossible, practically" as you said... unless we get various EU style conglomerations forming a loose confederation possibly using the UN as a kind of glue. People won't consider it a "government" though - and they'll be right.

I've always considered a one world goverment a flawed idea. IMHO the purpose of a goverment is to serve it's people and to make their lives better. A one world goverment would be too large to consider the interests of the voting public.

Indeed.

[UCBooties]

A version of option 2 where There is an Imperial government to ensure equality and human rights, and to arbitrate disbutes between the largely autonimous nation states. The imperium will guaranty democracy, prevent wars, and hold all nations responsible for human rights and equality. Also, the imperium would ensure that technology and econemy were shared between nation-states. I still have to figure out how to impose checks to prevent abuse from the Imperium.

[Lord Zentei]

A version of option 2 where There is an Imperial government to ensure equality and human rights, and to arbitrate disbutes between the largely autonimous nation states. The imperium will guaranty democracy, prevent wars, and hold all nations responsible for human rights and equality. Also, the imperium would ensure that technology and econemy were shared between nation-states. I still have to figure out how to impose checks to prevent abuse from the Imperium.

Question: how does an Imperial government guarantee democracy?

[Enforcer Talen]

I've always considered a one world goverment a flawed idea. IMHO the purpose of a goverment is to serve it's people and to make their lives better. A one world goverment would be too large to consider the interests of the voting public.

compare the original 13 colonies to the 300 million in the usa today. the govt tends to adapt to growth.

[Enforcer Talen]

ja, Im betting superentity blocs like eu to crop up over the next few decades, until they form up as wel.

nationalism is not a bad idea - it was a useful tool to get us to where we are. but now we are here, its dangerous - nukes produced by the nationconcept have a tendency to used by the nationconcept.

You don't think then that blocks like the EU would be as prone to pointless nationalism as individual nations?

one step at a time - 10 blocs that had merged within one generation are more open to additional mergers then 200 nations that have centuries of tradition behind them.