Why would a World Government be a bad thing?

[Naddig74]

Really, why?

Call me a naive optimist if you like, but it seems to me that:

Without nation states there would be no 'classic' wars (ie war for territory/ resources), as all territory and resources would lie within the control of the entire human race.

The divide between the richest and poorest would narrow as everyone would use the same currency, get paid the same minimum wage and be bound by the same financial checks and balances.

There would be no more problem with immigration, because moving to a different part of the planet would not increase your wages or opportunities, you could live where you liked and most people would probably decide where to go based on the scenery/weather patterns they prefer.

Human rights abuses would dwindle as brutal and oppressive regimes ceased to exist.

Massive amounts of currency and resources, freed by the obsolescence of national militaries, border agencies and so on, would be available to tackle taking control of our environment, improving healthcare worldwide and generally financing our development into a Type 1 Civilisation.

Is it really better that we struggle and fight amongst ourselves until stagnation and extinction?

 

[PB2007]

Even under One World Government (1WG) people would find reason to fight, kill, subjugate and oppress each other.... If people kill each today other over a dispite from hundreds of years ago why would dissolving nations fix it? Look at the Middle East / Northern Ireland. Are those people suddenly going to forget years of war because of 1WG?

The divide between the richest and poorest would narrow as everyone would use the same currency

In Europe many countries all use the same currancy, yet there are still rich and poor people. Why would everyone using the same currency get rid of that divide? People accumulate wealth to buy things they want, not because a different country uses something else.

get paid the same minimum wage

How? Everyone in the UK should get the same minimum wage, but i know they don't in practice. Again why would 1WG solve this problem?

be bound by the same financial checks and balances.

Corruption exists now and will exist under 1WG..... If not, why not?

 

[Naddig74]

Even under One World Government (1WG) people would find reason to fight, kill, subjugate and oppress each other.... If people kill each today other over a dispite from hundreds of years ago why would dissolving nations fix it? Look at the Middle East / Northern Ireland. Are those people suddenly going to forget years of war because of 1WG?



In Europe many countries all use the same currancy, yet there are still rich and poor people. Why would everyone using the same currency get rid of that divide? People accumulate wealth to buy things they want, not because a different country uses something else.



How? Everyone in the UK should get the same minimum wage, but i know they don't in practice. Again why would 1WG solve this problem?



Corruption exists now and will exist under 1WG..... If not, why not?

Are you saying that under 1WG nothing would change?

 

[PB2007]

I'm not sure. Somethings will get worse and some things better. However i don't think it'll be come the nice and happy place you think it will...

You made some points and gave my opinion. Why not tell us, in more detail, how these things you believe would come about and why...

 

[Naddig74]

I'm not sure. Somethings will get worse and some things better. However i don't think it'll be come the nice and happy place you think it will...

You made some points and gave my opinion. Why not tell us, in more detail, how these things you believe would come about and why...

Don't assume. I never said I thought world government would make the world nice and happy.

I asked why it would necessarily be a bad thing.

Your answer seems to be, on balance, that it wouldn't over all be better or worse than whats currently happening now. Or in other words, that it would not necessarily be a bad thing.

 

[drkitten]

Your answer seems to be, on balance, that it wouldn't over all be better or worse than whats currently happening now. Or in other words, that it would not necessarily be a bad thing.

The problem with one world government is not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but that it is overwhelmingly likely to be a bad thing.

Think of it this way. The United States (and most other First World countries) occupy a relatively privileged spot in the world, and enjoy the blessings of a democratically elected government that is reasonably responsive to their wishes and not especially responsive to anyone else's.

Which, given the wishes of the people and government of Iran and Pakistan, is probably a good thing. I don't particularly want to give Islamic fundamentalists a voice in how I live my life in Springfield, Anystate. Heck, I don't even really want to give Texas any more voice than it already has.

A world government would (with overwhelming probability) either be responsive to everyone (which means that the people who scream the loudest would get their policies enacted), responsive to no one (which means an autocratic tyrannical bureaucracy), or at best responsive to the group with the most votes (which means that China gets to tell everyone how to rule their own life).

None of which appeal to me.

 

[Ladewig]

1) Does this brave new world include the inviolate right to keep and bear arms? If not, I can name around 100 million Americans who would fight to the death to prevent such a change.

2) what is the highest marginal tax rate in this government?

3) when you say no immigration problems, does that mean Muslims can move to Israel until they outnumber Jews 7 to 1?

4) does this world government guarantee women all the rights that men have? What if local governments want to limit those rights because God told them that women should have fewer rights.

5) will the Chinese have the right to have as many children as they like?


ETA:

6) are homosexuals guaranteed the right to not be imprisoned?

 

[INRM]

Well here are the reasons I see it would be bad

- Lots of power concentrated in the hands of a very few people, potentially a number who are unelected.

- Such a government would have to have a massive amount of power to be able to effectively control the whole world.

- No external checks against such a world government's misconduct as there is no other nation.

- Complete control over the flow of information (if the whole world is under one government, the internet would be under it's control as well). This would open up all sorts of potential for complete censorship that could not be circumvented.

- The military would have no place externally to fight, so it's only useful application would be internally, thus it would likely merge with the police. It's not really good to have the military policing it's own people. The military has intelligence functions (DIA, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, and so on) as well which often operate in an extra-legal realm (All the intelligence capacities available would therefore likely be turned inward on it's own people in one way or another -- either from the start, or due to a perceived internal threat)

- Even if the country wasn't corrupt to begin with it would almost inevitably become such. If you've ever heard of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, you would know why. Once that would happen, there would be nowhere to run as there's no other country to run to

- If such a country became oppressive, there would be likely no way to restore democracy as
1.) They'd have complete control over the flow of information (internet, and TV) and you'd only see what they want you to see
2.) They would wield enormous surveillance power (oppressive countries almost always make use of extremely pervasive widespread mass surveillance) and data-mining capabilities. They would have the resources of the whole world at their disposal


INRM

 

[Naddig74]

1) Does this brave new world include the inviolate right to keep and bear arms? If not, I can name around 100 million Americans who would fight to the death to prevent such a change.

2) what is the highest marginal tax rate in this government?

3) when you say no immigration problems, does that mean Muslims can move to Israel until they outnumber Jews 7 to 1?

4) does this world government guarantee women all the rights that men have? What if local governments want to limit those rights because God told them that women should have fewer rights.

5) will the Chinese have the right to have as many children as they like?

ETA:

6) are homosexuals guaranteed the right to not be imprisoned?

I don't have the answers to these questions. I'm not proposing a model for world government. I'm asking why so many people think it would be a bad thing, and I'm getting some good answers.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Blah blah socialism, blah blah no reason to excel at anything without capitalism, blah blah take them from my cold dead hands, blah blah everything is peachy and change is scary, WHAT IF...?!?!?, blah blah I don't want to share my toys with the other kids, blah blah.

I'll give it a day then claim my $1mil prize.

 

[Naddig74]

Blah blah socialism, blah blah no reason to excel at anything without capitalism, blah blah take them from my cold dead hands, blah blah everything is peachy and change is scary, WHAT IF...?!?!?, blah blah I don't want to share my toys with the other kids, blah blah.

I'll give it a day then claim my $1mil prize.

Sooo...is that a yes or a no?

 

[drkitten]

I don't have the answers to these questions.

... and right there is the answer to your question.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Sooo...is that a yes or a no?

It would depend on what kind of government it was, if it was truly one world and had no outside pressures, and how it went about being created.

I think it would have to come about due to something like a devastating international even like nuclear war or a deadly plague, or from some kind of conquest.

As a few posts already show, some nations like America would not join such a group without force or massive upheaval. Others like Iran are not compatible enough to merge with most other population groups without enforced change.

Of course there is potential for a one world government turning bad and oppressive, but it would also fix lots of the insanely stupid problems we have that are purely capitalistic in origin.

Put me down for "the current system is broken, and I'd be willing to try a change." I think most here will be "things are broken, but it's as good as it gets, and it would only make things worse."

 

[drkitten]

Put me down for "the current system is broken, and I'd be willing to try a change." I think most here will be "things are broken, but it's as good as it gets, and it would only make things worse."

Actually, I suspect that most people here would be more of "things are broken, but this particular proposal will only make matters worse."

Being willing to try a change isn't necessarily a good thing. I'd like some assurance that the new system will be better than the old system. Change-for-change's-sake usually only makes matters substantially worse. We've spent something like 10,000 years building up a system that actually works quite well. The idea that the current system is sufficiently broken that we should try anything else out of desperation strikes me as very ill-founded.

 

[Sherman Bay]

There would be riots in the streets, along with gloom, doom and boom.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Actually, I suspect that most people here would be more of "things are broken, but this particular proposal will only make matters worse."

Good thing we never tried democracy, I mean monarchy is broken, but that proposal would have only made things worse.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

i think any world government should concern itself primary with governing the governments beneath it (logistically no world government can run everything directly, no current national government runs everything directly, there are always multiple levels of government) rather than governing the people directly, and its this distinction that i think will determine whether the government would be a good thing or a bad thing

1) Does this brave new world include the inviolate right to keep and bear arms? If not, I can name around 100 million Americans who would fight to the death to prevent such a change.

this is something that should be decided at lower levels of government, a world government should have nothing to say on the matter

downside: allowing one country/region/area/whatever to possess firearms, while its neighbor bans their possession would leave a possibility of wars between the areas, as one region might see another as weaker, but in possession of greater resources

also, a region with a lot of resources may not want to share with less rich regions, leading to them defending themselves against taxes (if they have guns) or be9ing invaded by neighboring regions (if they ban guns)

2) what is the highest marginal tax rate in this government?

this is an interesting question, i would say any resources required by the world gov should be paid by the national governments below it, and those governments would tax the people as needed

3) when you say no immigration problems, does that mean Muslims can move to Israel until they outnumber Jews 7 to 1?

the lower levels should be free to enact their own immigration laws

4) does this world government guarantee women all the rights that men have? What if local governments want to limit those rights because God told them that women should have fewer rights.

this is one of the things the world gov should be able to enforce

if women in a particular region feel god doesnt want them to have certain rights, they would have to choose on their own to not exercise those rights

5) will the Chinese have the right to have as many children as they like?

see above

although this raises another question, if you dont want overpopulation youd need some system to distribute contraception to the people and educate them on its use. this would probably require a global healthcare system and im not sure how i feel about that. people should have a right to opt out, but how many would opt out because their too poor to want to pay for it (and its the poor who would need it the most)

ETA:

6) are homosexuals guaranteed the right to not be imprisoned?

see above and above



i think i may have largely described the EU, but having only spent about 2 months there in the last 10 years im not up to speed on how it all works over there

a world gov is one of those things that could be a good thing if its done right, but the more i think about how to do it right the more it makes my brain hurt, lol

 

[drkitten]

Good thing we never tried democracy, I mean monarchy is broken, but that proposal would have only made things worse.

Except it wouldn't have. (That's a sufficiently blatant misrepresentation that you should be ashamed of either your lack of honesty or your appallingly bad reading skills.)

There were some very good arguments in place about why democracy should be better than monarchy. The founders of the United States, for example, were very familiar with the political writings of Hobbes and Locke and their analysis of what an ideal government would look like and why. They were familiar enough with those writings -- and more importantly, found them convincing enough -- that they considered it to be a good model to use for a government and wrote such a structure into the US constitution.

That's about as far removed from change-for-change's-sake as it's possible to get.

If you can produce a reasoned argument about why any specific model of world government is likely to be better than what we have now, I'll happily read it, critique it, and if appropriate, adopt and argue for it. But that's specifically what "the current system is broken, and I'd be willing to try a change" isn't.

 

[drkitten]

this is something that should be decided at lower levels of government, a world government should have nothing to say on the matter

Why not? Most people accept that the establishment and protection of fundamental human rights is one of the most important roles of government.

If possession of weapons is a fundamental right (as most Americans see it), then it's a fundamental right everywhere, and any world government that doesn't recognize and enforce it is deeply flawed, just as any world government that doesn't recognize and enforce the equality of women (to men) before the law is deeply flawed.

The fact that the current sociopolitical situation makes it extremely unlikely that any world government would recognize those rights is one reason a world government is currently a very bad idea.

 

[Naddig74]

Surely if a world goverment was to devolve responsiblity for law making, managing (and restricting) the movement of people, taxation and so on to smaller sections of the planet (lets call them 'nations'), and if those nations jealousy guard their territory and resources from others, by force of arms if necessary, then it isn't really a world government at all, but the UN by another name?