The Debating Society
Hobbies & Interests
A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.
World Government
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
Could mankind ever create a global union or single worldwide government? If so, what steps could be taken to establish it? And would having a worldwide government be a good thing?
Never gonna happen, because in many cases even highly educated people can't agree on everything, never mind the mass of uneducated people out there... (that fact we have a debate group here and that sometimes highly educated people have come to blows on certain topics here prove my point, not saying that's a bad thing though)
There's too many difference in religion, race, social, political, and economic beliefs for different groups to unite for any period of time (just look at the UN).
Doubt we would ever see a world government. I imagine unions of geographically close nations, much like NATO and the EU, would appear in time.
assuming that humanity manages to colonize other planets and considering that there are already unions of certain countries, it isn't impossible for a one world government to be established.
A world government is the biggest ******** ever. It is just impossible. Look how politicians on a national level have no quality. I think in Germany its even worse: our representatives in the Bundestag dont get their job really done well, in the EU it is even worse and maybe there is a huge chance that the system is highly corrupted. A world government would mean a really dark future to me. A dystopia.
What can and should be on a world wide level are a set of law. A constitution that counts for all of us. And in my opinion it is a good thing to give local government more power, so most of the local decisions can be made local.
A world government using any current political theories i think is unlikely (democracy and all that)
Planetary unity is only possible when civilization spans across a multitude of planets. This condition being met assumes the first planet got its **** together in some vague sense and is on the same page or at least reading the same book.
Imagine a democratic global government having to pander to Islamic culture, you'd have to allow some **** anyone in the west would say no to without any thought. Some places are just too archaic to bring into the fold.
I don't really see it as being as impossible as some people believe it to be. With mankind having progressed from individuals to tribes to kingdoms to federal governments, a global union of some sort seems to a certain extent the natural next step. The jumps in society recently (such as a large defeat in sexism, racism, and other prejudices in the last century, or really just the last half-century) and major ideology shifts with the decline of religion, nationalism, and social differences in general matched by increasing communication between all people leads me to think that mankind is becoming more united as a species.
I imagine that a global union could begin as a sort of confederation, or just a beefed up UN, between the developed nations of the world. The first world countries are rapidly becoming more and more similar to one another, so it seems sort of useless to maintain strictly divided countries when all 1st world citizens everywhere become practically the same. Such a "first world union" could gradually grow more and more powerful and become a semblance of a world government, starting programs to uplift other countries and absorb them into the global union, almost like a form of benevolent colonization. Over a span of centuries, a world government or at least a world confederation could peacefully envelop the planet.
That, or we just have a cataclysmic event that wipes out half the planet and we have to unite to survive. Let's lob meteors at the Earth for world peace!
I think it is possible, after all how individualistic can a nation stay in today's world? Basically what happens here has effect there, you want to fight a war and sooner or later it becomes global with media coverage and just about every nation in the world dipping their beans in the matter.
The way I see it, we are already a global community with some exceptions and without being labelled that way. But like Mr. Walrus points out, we need to fix some problems first and cultural differences, except not everyone wants to accept a single culture.
I for one love my homeland of Serbia, the Dutch love their Holland. Even in our highly westernised world, it will take a few more years until we have that united culture which will make the borders vanish. Of course, this cultural shift can be accelerated by economic rise.
Everytime some people joined and actually did something, it was against common enemy. Napoleon, Hitler,...
Going from this point, we need an immediate, apocalyptic and certain out-world thread to join our hands and minds. Which is quite delicate process, we must face extinction, yet have enough time to solve it. Not exactly aliens (haha), but some really nasty disease, or asteroid can do well.
Perhaps even more important that the question of a world government's plausibility is the question of what its effects would be. Would a united global government be for better, or worse? Would it be the beginning of global prosperity, or the end of humanity as we know it?
I think that humanity has only two choices in the future: unite, or face a man-made apocalypse. We live in an era where aggressive nations, led by insane leaders have weapons which are capable of destroying the world. If a global union is not established making peace across all of mankind in the relatively near future (a couple centuries), eventually a situation will line up which results in self-annihilation.
So whether a world government would be good or not, I'm not sure- it could be complete tyranny. However, I think it is necessary- without it, it is highly likely that we will destroy ourselves.
Perhaps the optimal situation is a loose union of mankind; a confederation of the Earth, where countries or zones of the planet are states which each have a voice. Essentially like the early United States government on a global scale. That way it'd be very difficult for a tyrannical force to arise, but disputes could be settled and worldwide policies be implemented by the world government if needed.
This is the point where you are utterly wrong. Look at current nations. A global government would be so incredibly static, you dont get any **** done especially then we would have a super-police-******-nation. Not to mention that we can learn from biology at this point.
Well, I hate to admit it but religion makes something right: it sets ideals. For us to unite means to set something that is not controlled by a small population of people, but by a majority. Ideals and laws that count FOR ALL humans around the world, no matter where, what race, what gender, whatever you are. Im not suggesting a global religion or something, but rather a global "bill of rights" to put it that way. Everyone, no matter what nation you belong to, should be granted the same rights and duties. Period. Not like in the current days where an accedently killed moslem is worth a few hundred dollars, but a killed american a few millions or so, both lifes should be worth the same, as human lifes.
Localized governments are more stable but much more flexible to local situations. As we have seen in Wörgl, my prime example.
Insane leaders only gain power if the people are unsatisfied. Something we could observe throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. An additional advantage of local governments is that a leader who is falling away from the ideal line can be brought back more easily. Like instead of dealing with the whole Iraq the US troops only would have to deal with Bagdad. The weapons to use is another essential subject, but I guess you get my point anyway.
I'm rather confused as to where I'm wrong o_O I agree that a global government could be very static, however that doesn't dismiss the issue of potential self-destruction by quarreling governments without a global union.
I basically said that a goverment on top of us all, a bunch of people above us all, wouldnt solve the problem, but causing more. Espeially thanks to our current money system, it would simply flow to where it isnt necessary and would be missing where its needed most. I point to the EU and probably it wouldnt be wrong to point to the US as well.
My solution was an idealistic law-system instead and much smaller communities of a global government. I belief and I am highly convinced that this divide would give the small people more power over their government, economy ect. and would lead us/them out off our passive and powerless attitude. Not to mention that many small economy systems are more stable than one big, thats just a fact.
You are right at the point that we need something that unites us to prevent war and self-destruction, but a omni-government of a few hundreds of people is IMO not a good solution for it. For this we already have the United Nations (UN). Also the Internet and a free press are very important for this since its more neutral and we dont have to rely on uber-retarded personalities to lead us... *looking retrospectively to Merkel and Bush meetings and start facedesking*
I agree that the mega-government which dictates all actions of mankind is not a good idea. It does take the power out of the hands of the people, because there can be only so many representatives- and along with that, notions of progress have to go through a massive bureaucratic system, if it ever goes through at all, and nothing ever gets done.
While I do rather like the idea of mankind being united under the banner of one grand government and working for the same goal, it is unrealistic, and have never imagined that such a level of world government would be possible.
HOWEVER, some semblance of a world government is needed, far more powerful than the weak United Nations (Don't invade this nation or else we'll wag our fingers at you and make a condom embargo! How will you ever face down our might?!). If we hope to ever progress as a species, we cannot be constantly threatened by war and international hatred.
Yeah, true. The UN concept have to be redefined and thats also what I meant by making more powerful local governments. None the less the UN allows some information exchange and global policy, thats why I mentioned it.
After all, my plan would be like this: local governments are elected, just like village/town/city mayors for example, those would be part of a national congress (for exchanging information, acts of solidarity e.g. after a tornado attack among governments, issues on a national level), which are electing one or a hand full of representatives for a world wide congress (which has the same purpose as the national ones just on a global scale). From up their the information are running down the road to the local government who then can make their own decision. For example: The NY mayor wants to help the Badgad mayor to defend his land from an evil terrorits organisation from russia, so he can send troops, gives a note to the national government which can lead other mayors in the congress to send troops themselves or dont and this can go even onto global level where mayors all over the world will sind a couple of troops to help out. Just a fictional example.
So we would have a democratic system (it cannot run without anyway) with many small, but powerful individuals, and we can fight corruption at its roots. Thats my thought behind it.
Sadly my idea would not work either or lets say it would be just as utopic as yours, if not more. The problem is that our current nations are already too static to adapt any new concept, so it would mean you have to break those chains first and not only for a couple of nations, but for all. And it will be escalating in a war, cause governments like that of China, USA or Russia would fight it with all they got, they dont want to loose power, they dont want to give the people the power. For me thats a despicable aspect of human nature.
Not for another few billion years.
Anyway, if it did happen, it would have to be states within states ruled by one massive state.
By that, I mean 'murica
the U.N nowadays is similar to a world govt. its the closest we have ever gotten.
however i see the U.N. as something similar to the articles of confederation of America.
If we ever have a world govt it will need the force of arms to back it's laws. something similar to an American civil war.