What would be so bad about a World Government?

Brainache

Nasty Brutish and Tall
Brainache
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
17,795
Location
Canberra
I have been a fan of Science Fiction almost since I learned to read. One recurring theme of SF is that of a single government overseeing the whole planet.

My question to the JREF is: Would it necessarily be a bad thing?

I know our friends in the conspiracy world say it is part of some evil secret agenda, but why?

I'm imagining a democratically elected body that could ensure things like minimum wages and living standards across the globe.

I don't pretend for one minute that this idea is at all practical at the moment, but I do wonder why so many people find it so objectionable.

Are we in the west so greedy that we refuse to share our wealth?

Is it a question of sovereignty?

Racism?

Wouldn't bringing things like education and health care to the third world make us all safer and in the long run richer?

I describe my own politics as "Stark Raving Lefty" and I have no doubt that I am quite naive about politics. So I am interested to learn what kinds of opinions there are here on this issue.
 
It's a matter of nationalist cultures. What would the policy of a world government be on for example gay marriage? In the Netherlands it is accepted, in the US very controversial and in the Middle-East completely untolerable.

Different cultures often have incompattible political viewpoints, not to mention conflicting self-interests. Consider the political difficulties in the EU alone, then imagine an even more diverse conglomeration of countries.

Also note that you mention a "democratically elected body" and a policy which includes a certain amount of welfare. Have you considered countries where the people just don't appreciate democracy?* Or do you support imposing your will on them anyway? That's approaching a Western Democratic Empire. :)
The welfare you mention will either be considered pisspoor by European standards, or a tremendous waste by Americans. And that's between two cultures which are quite similar.

* If you don't believe there are people who don't appreciate democracy, consider that for democracy to function it is necessary to have freedom of expression about policy with a (potential) religious impact. Obviously there are many on this world who oppose such freedom of speech.
 
If there was a world government, the US government couldn't do whatever it wanted. That's what has held up the establishment of a meaningful world court to try war criminals.
 
Brainache said:
I have been a fan of Science Fiction almost since I learned to read. One recurring theme of SF is that of a single government overseeing the whole planet.

My question to the JREF is: Would it necessarily be a bad thing?

I know our friends in the conspiracy world say it is part of some evil secret agenda, but why?

I'm imagining a democratically elected body that could ensure things like minimum wages and living standards across the globe.

I don't pretend for one minute that this idea is at all practical at the moment, but I do wonder why so many people find it so objectionable.

Are we in the west so greedy that we refuse to share our wealth?

Is it a question of sovereignty?

Racism?

Wouldn't bringing things like education and health care to the third world make us all safer and in the long run richer?

I describe my own politics as "Stark Raving Lefty" and I have no doubt that I am quite naive about politics. So I am interested to learn what kinds of opinions there are here on this issue.
Click to expand...

I don't see the need for 1 world government, and it seems a bit dangerous in an "all our eggs in one basket" type way. How about 6 or so regional governments? That would give us most of the benefits of efficiency and scale without the danger of global dictatorship or mismanagement.

I am interested in encouraging almost all of the world's population to live in about 20 cities or so. I think it would be better for the environment, and for efficiency of knowledge and resource disbursement. Plus it would be cool to live in a city with 300 million people in it.:p
 
I am actually surprised that any red-blooded American can be against the idea of a World Government.

If the USA can work, why not a World Government?
 
CFLarsen said:
I am actually surprised that any red-blooded American can be against the idea of a World Government.

If the USA can work, why not a World Government?
Click to expand...

Well yeah. I wouldn't expect every country to adopt the same laws on every issue, but a general acceptance of something like the UN human rights charter.

I know democracy is anathema to some people/regimes, but a grassroots movement in that direction might be nice.

I don't want to impose western values over local customs, but I do believe that some things like slavery, torture and brutal repression really have no place in a world of seven billion people.

That's the thing, our population has reached a point where new ways of organising society need to be found, or we're all gonna die.

Call me an alarmist if you like, but I really can't see this going on much longer. Some parts of the world are starving while other parts are choking on fat. It's obscene and without some kind of centralised organisation to balance supply and demand, the future is pretty bleak.

Please note this is just a thought experiment and I think it would be pretty much impossible to ever bring about, but someone better come up with something soon.
 
There is a pseudo world government now. It’s called the United Nations. Look how well the UN works.
 
Brainache said:
Well yeah. I wouldn't expect every country to adopt the same laws on every issue, but a general acceptance of something like the UN human rights charter.
Click to expand...
Western countries aren't going to adopt Islamic law, Islamic countries aren't going to adopt Western liberal laws. What's the point of a world government if you're unable to agree on almost anything?

"Nice" does not equal "attainable"

I don't want to impose western values over local customs, but I do believe that some things like slavery, torture and brutal repression really have no place in a world of seven billion people.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that?
Saddam used torture and brutal repression to keep Iraq together for some 30 years, through two major wars and a decade of sanctions. It worked.

That's the thing, our population has reached a point where new ways of organising society need to be found, or we're all gonna die.
Click to expand...
We're all gonna die anyway eventually, so what's your point?

Call me an alarmist if you like, but I really can't see this going on much longer. Some parts of the world are starving while other parts are choking on fat. It's obscene and without some kind of centralised organisation to balance supply and demand, the future is pretty bleak.
Click to expand...
Throughout human history as well as for as long as there have been living organisms, some have starved to death while others prospered. You may not like it, but to say it can't continue is silly.
 
egslim said:
Western countries aren't going to adopt Islamic law, Islamic countries aren't going to adopt Western liberal laws. What's the point of a world government if you're unable to agree on almost anything?

"Nice" does not equal "attainable"
Click to expand...

How many Islamic countries are we actually talking about?

egslim said:
Why do you believe that?
Saddam used torture and brutal repression to keep Iraq together for some 30 years, through two major wars and a decade of sanctions. It worked.
Click to expand...

Because we let him. That's the dirty truth.

egslim said:
We're all gonna die anyway eventually, so what's your point?
Click to expand...

Do you plan for your kids? Are you concerned that their future will be safe?

egslim said:
Throughout human history as well as for as long as there have been living organisms, some have starved to death while others prospered. You may not like it, but to say it can't continue is silly.
Click to expand...

The question is: Why do we allow it to continue?
 
How would we be able to get every country to join? How effective could a world government be? How much autonomy would each country have? How could we keep countries from fighting with each other, starting a civil war?

I just believe that there are so many fundamental differences between each country that it would certainly prove impossible today. Give the world some time with globalization, mass media, etc... and it may one day become possible. However, I believe each country would lose a bit of their culture to do so. We'd become a McWorld of sorts, watered down to the point where we could stand each other.
 
egslim said:
Western countries aren't going to adopt Islamic law, Islamic countries aren't going to adopt Western liberal laws. What's the point of a world government if you're unable to agree on almost anything?

"Nice" does not equal "attainable"
Click to expand...

Like Claus said How many is that? I think a large percentage of the general population in those countries might be quite happy as long as noone stopped them praying or forced them to eat pork.

Who said anything about "Attainable"? I'm trying to find out why so many people object so strongly to the whole idea.

Why do you believe that?
Saddam used torture and brutal repression to keep Iraq together for some 30 years, through two major wars and a decade of sanctions. It worked.
Click to expand...

Living in small hunter-gatherer communities worked for a long time too. Doesn't mean it will always work. The Spanish Inquisition worked too, if you were one of the ones asking questions. Doesn't mean it was right.

We're all gonna die anyway eventually, so what's your point?
Click to expand...

I'd like my kids to live to a ripe old age. I also think it would be a tremendous waste if all the accumulated knowledge and culture of the last several thousand years was lost because a few fundamentalists don't know how to compromise when they need to.

Throughout human history as well as for as long as there have been living organisms, some have starved to death while others prospered. You may not like it, but to say it can't continue is silly.
Click to expand...

Well we might as well start burning the farms right now then. Seriously though I thought the whole point of having a civilisation was to avoid all that law of the jungle type stuff. You know protect the weak, make life better for the highest number possible and so on. Call me old fashioned, but I think we are able to improve things, so we should at least try.
 
The Painter said:
Yes. You take it. It's sitting on some prime real estate. Better yet, lets move it to Tehran. OK
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify.

bob_kark said:
How would we be able to get every country to join? How effective could a world government be? How much autonomy would each country have? How could we keep countries from fighting with each other, starting a civil war?
Click to expand...

Why would you need all countries to sign up immediately? The US was built in stages. Why not a World Government?

The Central Scrutinizer said:
You know how useless politicians are in the US? Imagine that times 100. See the UN for a good example.
Click to expand...

Would you rather have no UN?
 
CFLarsen said:
Why would you need all countries to sign up immediately? The US was built in stages. Why not a World Government?
Click to expand...
I didn't ask how you could have all the countries join at once. Even if it was performed in stages, how could you get all the countries in the world to join?
 
bob_kark said:
Good God man, what kind?!
Click to expand...

You have to ask?

201671455257RwYVw.jpg


AS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom