User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 18

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    690

    Default one world govt v no world govt

    Are you pro or con on the concept of a one world govt?

    I've heard a couple of support and attacks against the idea.

    Some common support are more efficiency, world peace, free trade and exchange of ideas.


    A lot of people against cite tyranny, loss of freedom, no balance of power etc.



    Wut are ur thots?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    The social and economic differences between peoples of the world are too disparate for a single world government body to effectively govern. The needs and wants of people across the Earth vary far too much for it to work.

    As I see it the purpose of a government is to legislate, enforce legislation and arbitrate differences in interpretation of that legislation. Broadly speaking governments create two types of legislation: economic legislation and social legislation.

    There are still enormous differences in economic performance between developed countries, developing countries and what you might call "less developed" or 'undeveloped' countries (I am thinking specifically of many of the sub-Saharan African countries and some of the countries in southeast Asia). Developed countries seek to maintain their economies, developing countries seek to become developed countries and "less developed" countries eek out livings as best they can given their circumstances. The economic policies required to achieve these goals are completely different. As such you couldn't possibly enact broad economic legislation that would apply universally. It wouldn't work. You couldn't have the same policies that govern the economy of, say, Germany and Bhutan. They're completely different. Their industrialization is different, their standards of living are different, their costs of living are different. How could you hope to enact laws that would apply to both?

    The same problem occurs with social policies. The cultural differences between peoples of the world are so great, their social mores so different, that you couldn't hope to create social legislation that applies equitably and universally. Many countries can barely enact social legislation as it is, let alone a single political entity governing seven billion people.

    The only systems of government that would 'work' would be inequitable. Oligarchies and the like. You could really argue that's what we have now, with developed countries dictating the policies of less developed countries as it is. If a less developed country enacts legislation that the developed countries disapprove of the developed countries have the economic and social power to effect changes in those policies or to bar the less developed country from becoming more advanced. Take North Korea as an example. In effect are the developed countries not limiting their growth using trade sanctions because of disagreements with North Korea's economic and social policies? Same with Cuba.

    Unless one desires an oligarchy, aristocracy or authoritarian regime I don't see the point in considering a "one world government".

  3. #3
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    The further a government is removed from the people it is governing, the less effectively it governs.
    Last edited by Lateralus; 02-27-2012 at 10:42 PM.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #4
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    There are too many cultural differences in what government should be (among other things) for this to work well. Maybe if the world becomes more homogenous it might work in the distant future, but even then I doubt it.

    Also, a lot of countries turn over their governments like crazy so they'd probably just drop out.

    Also, some of the most populous countries have a governing style that I would not be happy living with...
    -end of thread-

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    I'd be more concerned with the bureaucracy that would arise from it, the lack of diversity among nations due to being under one rule, and the tensions of various leaders who would all combat for their own power. But realistically, I doubt a one world government would ever really work; at best nations can ally, but not entirely combine.

  6. #6
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    One world government is perfectly feasible, just not in the way you guys have imagined it.

    The one world government should be created to take care of those global issues that are difficult for individual nations to address.

    Nations and their governments would maintain their sovereignty, and the control of their domestic issues that they currently take care of.

    The only way it could work is if the global gov't is limited in scope to addressing global issues.

  7. #7
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    One world government is perfectly feasible, just not in the way you guys have imagined it.

    The one world government should be created to take care of those global issues that are difficult for individual nations to address.

    Nations and their governments would maintain their sovereignty, and the control of their domestic issues that they currently take care of.

    The only way it could work is if the global gov't is limited in scope to addressing global issues.
    That's essentially the UN already. "Global government" is the very opposite of "Nations and their governments would maintain their sovereignty".
    -end of thread-

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The only way it could work is if the global gov't is limited in scope to addressing global issues.
    In other words, it couldn't work.

    And they say NFs wear rose-colored glasses.

  9. #9
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    That's essentially the UN already. "Global government" is the very opposite of "Nations and their governments would maintain their sovereignty".
    In other words, it couldn't work.

    And they say NFs wear rose-colored glasses.


    Democratic Mundialization

    Mundialization is the name of one of the movements aiming at democratic globalization.

    Democratic globalization is the concept of an institutional system of global democracy that would give world citizens a say in world organizations. This would, in the view of its proponents, bypass nation-states, corporate entities, Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), etc. For some, democratic mundialization is a variant of democratic globalization stressing the need for the direct election of world leaders and members of global institutions by citizens worldwide. For others, it is just another name for democratic globalization.
    Proponents state that democratic globalization's purpose is to:

    expand mundialization in a different way to economic globalization and "make people closer, more united and protected"; (because of a variety of opinions and proposals it is still unclear, what this would mean in practice and how it could be realized).
    have it reach all fields of activity and knowledge, not only the economic one, even if that one is crucial to develop the well-being of world citizens. This implies some intervention not only in the economic and political life of the individual but also in their access to culture and education.
    give world citizens a democratic access (e.g., presidential voting for United Nations Secretary-General by citizens and direct election of members of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly) and a say to those global activities.

    [edit] Global democracy

    Mundialization also includes asking about Global Democracy, this is, global votings to elect the world leaders (specially, presidential elections for UN Secretary-General) and more democracy in international organizations (i.e., United Nations Parliament). Thus, it supports the International Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, that would allow for participation of member nations' legislators and, eventually, direct election of United Nations (UN) parliament members by citizens worldwide.
    Difference to anti-globalization

    Supporters of the democratic globalization movement draw a distinction between their movement and the one most popularly known as the 'anti-globalization' movement, claiming that their movement avoids ideological agenda about economics and social matters although, in practice, it is often difficult to distinguish between the two camps. Democratic globalization supporters state that the choice of political orientations should be left to the world citizens, via their participation in world democratic institutions and direct vote for world presidents (see presidentialism).

    Some supporters of the "anti-globalization movement" do not necessarily disagree with this position. For example, George Monbiot, normally associated with the anti-globalization movement (who prefers the term Global Justice Movement) in his work Age of Consent has proposed similar democratic reforms of most major global institutions, suggesting direct democratic elections of such bodies by citizens, and suggests a form of "federal world government".
    Procedure

    Democratic globalization, proponents claim, would be reached by creating democratic global institutions and changing international organizations (which are currently intergovernmental institutions controlled by the nation-states), into global ones controlled by voting by the citizens. The movement suggests to do it gradually by building a limited number of democratic global institutions in charge of a few crucial fields of common interest. Its long term goal is that these institutions federate later into a full-fledged democratic world government.

    And they propose the creation of world services for citizens, like world civil protection and prevention (from natural hazards) services.
    Proponents

    The concept of democratic globalization has supporters from all fields. Many of the campaigns and initiatives for global democracy, such as the UNPA campaign, list quotes by and names of their supporters on their websites.[1]
    [edit] Academics

    One of its most prolific proponents is the British political thinker David Held. In the last decade he published a dozen books regarding the spread of democracy from territorially defined nation states to a system of global governance that encapsulates the entire universe.
    [edit] Politicians

    In 2003 Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Green Party, has tabled a move for global democracy in the Australian Senate: "I move: That the Senate supports global democracy based on the principle of `one person, one vote, one value'; and supports the vision of a global parliament which empowers all the world's people equally to decide on matters of international significance."[2]
    The current President of Bolivia Evo Morales and the Bolivian UN Ambassador Pablo Solón Romero have demanded a democratisation of the UN on many occasions. For example Evo Morales at the United Nations, May 7, 2010: “The response to global warming is global democracy for life and for the Mother Earth.. … we have two paths: to save capitalism, or to save life and Mother Earth.”[3]
    Graham Watson (Member of the European Parliament and former leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) and Jo Leinen (Member of the European Parliament) are strong supporter of global democracy. They were among those presenting the “Brussels Declaration on Global Democracy” on February 23, 2010, at an event inside the European Parliament.[4]
    The appeals of the campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly has already been endorsed by more than 700 parliamentarians from more than 90 countries.[5]

    [edit] List of prominent figures

    Garry Davis (Peace activist who created the first "World Passport)
    Albert Einstein ("The moral authority of the UN would be considerable enhanced if the delegates were elected directly by the people.")
    George Monbiot ("A world parliament allows the poor to speak for themselves")[6]
    Emma Thompson
    Desmond Tutu ("We must strive for a global democracy, in which not only the rich and the powerful have a say, but which treats everyone, everywhere with dignity and respect.")[7]
    Peter Ustinov (President of the World Federalist Movement from 1991 to 2004)
    Abhay K ( "The mass availability of internet-connected mobile phones paves the way for planetary consciousness and global democracy.") [8]

    [edit] Grassroot movements

    Jim Stark has initiated a process for a Democratic World Parliament through a Global Referendum. As of November 7, 2010, 21,506 people have voted. So far, the votes are 95.5% in favor of creating a democratic world parliament. Portable voting booths are available at http://voteworldparliament.org/shadowbox/getballot.html. Online voting at Mr. Stark's website is at voteworldparliament.org. Mr. Stark has published a companion book to the online referendum entitled "Rescue Plan for Planet Earth".
    Cosmopolitan Demcoracy

    Cosmopolitan democracy is a political theory which explores the application of norms and values of democracy at different levels, from global to local. It is about what global governance of the people, by the people, to the people can mean. The academic advocates of cosmopolitan democracy include David Held[1], Daniele Archibugi[2],[3], Richard Falk[4], and Mary Kaldor[5]. In the Cosmopolitan Democracy model, decisions are made by those citizens that are affected by them, avoiding a single hierarchical form of authority. According to the nature of the issues at stake, democratic practice should be reinvented to take into account the will of stakeholders. This can be done either through direct participation or through elected representatives.[6]. The model advocated by cosmopolitan democrats is decentralized - global governance without world government, unlike those models of global governance supported by classic World Federalism thinkers, such as Albert Einstein.
    Origin and development

    The victory of Western liberal states ending the Cold War inspired the hope that international relations could be guided by the ideals of democracy and the rule of law. In the early 1990s, a group of thinkers developed the political project of cosmopolitan democracy with the aim of providing intellectual arguments in favour of an expansion of democracy, both within states and at the global level. While some significant successes have been achieved in terms of democratization within states, much less has been attained in democratizing the global system.

    In different forms, the necessity to expand democratic procedures beyond the nation-state has been supported by political philosopher Jürgen Habermas[7], and sociologist Ulrich Beck [8].

    Criticisms of cosmopolitan democracy have come from realist, marxist, communitarian and multicultural perspectives. Democratic theorist Robert Dahl[9] has manifested his doubts about the possibility to expand significantly democracy in international organizations, as he believes that democracy diminishes with size. Opponents of Dahl's approach point to the fact that bigger countries are not necessarily less democratic. For example, there is no correlation between voters' turnout and population size, in fact voter's turnout is smallest in countries with less than 100,000 citizens.
    Political programme

    The idea of cosmopolitan democracy has been advocated with reference to the reform of international organizations. This include the institution of the International Criminal Court, the institution of a directly elected World Parliament or world assembly of governments, and more widely the democratization of international organizations.
    What you guys are talking about is world government.

    Something I don't think is logistically feasible for reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread.

    What I'm talking about is an elected international body that handles international issues that are more easily dealt with by a single international body (not an international body composed of representatives representing their nations as we have now).

    Hopefully you guys can understand what I'm talking about.

  10. #10
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What you guys are talking about is world government.

    Something I don't think is logistically feasible for reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread.

    What I'm talking about is an elected international body that handles international issues that are more easily dealt with by a single international body (not an international body composed of representatives representing their nations as we have now).

    Hopefully you guys can understand what I'm talking about.
    ...no shit. I trust you read the OP?

    Nothing wrong with your interpretation of the question, but being condescending to people for answering the actual question asked in the OP (i.e. whether world government is possible) makes you look silly.
    -end of thread-

Similar Threads

  1. Are you an individualist or do you see us as one world community?
    By lightsun in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-24-2017, 03:28 PM
  2. INTJ? When you write a massive wall of text, and get a one-word reply like 'No.'
    By Retmeishka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-15-2015, 02:27 PM
  3. Survivor: One World
    By Anew Leaf in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 08:28 PM
  4. One World Government
    By Metamorphosis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-25-2010, 01:52 PM
  5. Which one of this models is closer to your picture of the world ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-08-2009, 07:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO