World government -- why all the hate?

Post Reply New Topic

There is a lot of hate out there for the idea of any degree of world government, but this seems mad.

Surely, people who share a planet need some mechanisms for working out their interactions with neighbors in some sort of orderly way, no?

Isn't the alternative a Hobbesian "state of nature" but with nations and other powerful groups, potentially armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, waging the war of all against all? Not a thing rational people would embrace, would think.

As far as I can tell, the objections to the idea of world government stem from two primary sources:
fundamentalist Christian exegetical excess and a strain of extremist "libertarianism" that is really anarchism, not wanting maximum freedom and minimum government, but rather no government at all.

These don't seem like reasonable foundations for an approach to mediating global trade, boundary disputes, migration, etc.

I can understand that there is nothing to be done about religion injecting powerful irrational impulses into political thinking, but the degree of acceptance of (sometimes seemingly reflex adherence to) a position that any sort of global government is inherently evil seems bizarre to me.

Why all the hate for rational, organized relations on a global scale?

Who do you think runs a world government? It is not democratic in any way, do you like the IMF? Do you like the WTO? Do you think international bodies are doing a fine job of 'managing trade and migration'? I certainly don't.

The nation state in western civilization must be preserved or freedom on this earth will be extinguished forever, we are the extreme minority who must fight to preserve our way of life if not we be swallowed up by the billions of Chinese, Indians, and Africans. Do you want you quality of life averaged out with the rest of the planet?

The soveirgnty of the US is absolute, any move away from it is a step in the direction of tyranny.

Those that want world government want what? To ban guns? To ban fossil fuels? To ban whatever they don't like. World domination has long been the goal of all despots.

Simple. Let's take the United States for an example. If you have a complaint about something in your life and its community, you can seek an arbiter (generally, a local court) to resolve your complaint. If you disagree with the local court's opinion, you can seek a series of various appeals and reviews from the court's superior courts. If you end up disagreeing with all these courts, you can seek to change the laws that affect your life, or even choose to relocate to a nation which has friendlier laws as a reflection of its socio-political construct. But, with a one-world government to whom do to appeal (or, to which other nation do you relocate) if you disagree with with its final opinion about how you should live your life? While a multinational array of communal and legal choices are available to you in the first scenario, you have the only the choice of complying with the one-world government in the second scenario. Yes, we can debate angels, pinheads and such about both scenarios, but I would prefer having as many options in my life as I can, instead of simply one option dictated to me by a universal government which sees no need to yield to reason or morals, but expedience and facility regardless of my individual needs.

This answer seems simplistic rather than simple.

If you find some sort of federalism acceptable on the level of a super-state like the United States of America, why not extend that model?

Your objection presumes that it would be impossible to have representation or means of grievance on in such a system, but if it is true that you experience democracy and have systems of representation and redress at local, state and federal levels, why not advocate for a global system that affords the same sort of representation at local, state, federal and global levels?

Why not propose a global government with a constitution that places extreme limitations on it's authority to interfere with affairs at more local levels (nation, state, county, town)?

The assumption always seems to be that any global government would have to be totalitarian and intrusive, rather than limited and minimal, but there is no reason for this.

It's an article of faith for certain types of End Times Christian enthusiast and the anarchist wing of the Libertarians, but there is no rational foundation for that faith.

I think it's more the nature of that possible government that people don't like. If world government were just Trump, Putin and friends discussing possible cooperations over drinks while looking out for their own countries' interests, then people wouldn't care much. If the world government were to be some Lefty-run totalitarian abomination, intolerant of everything they hold dear - like America and the EU on steroids, that's when people get upset.

The US isn't something to be modeled after, it has not and will not be a smooth ride going forward. There is definitely a totalitarian and intrusive aspect of it and the only reason it works a little bit in this country is because there is a shared American identity, it isn't a super-state as it's state boundaries are more or less arbitrary at this point. A better comparison would be the EU which made many nations and many peoples which is crumbling before our eyes. A constitution means nothing when it only matters who interprets said constitution, it cannot and will not preserve freedom as our own constitution cannot be counted on to do.

This is not Star Trek dude, it never is going to be, to base your ideas on what the planet should look like on that is beyond foolish.

And if the world government were to be some Rightist-run totalitarian abomination, intolerant of everything they don't agree with - like Free Press, Free Speech, Free Assembly, and Free Thought - then that is when people will get upset.

So, extended to the local level, this logically implies that we should not surrender any degree of individual liberty to local, state and national governments because the political processes that bring them to power may sometimes result in our living under the rule of people with whom we do not fully agree on all points.

"I'll drive my car in any way I damn well please! You can't make me get a license or obey your signs and uniformed goons!" "I am a living man, protected by natural law--the only law I honor, etc."

There seems to be no rational principle that acknowledges the need for some sort of government on one level but rejects any sort of government on a global level.

If you don't want a global government that imposes restrictions on personal liberty, then design one that doesn't do that. To pretend that there is no need for any kind of procedure for ruling on relations between nations other than informal meetings of national leaders seems to ignore history. Willy and Nicky couldn't quite get it right in 1914 and there is no reason to suppose that Xi and Duterte would do any better today.

I prefer the assortment of governments and their laws that exist already. I like that, if I chose to do so, I could immigrate to another nation because its laws might benefit me more so than the laws of my current nation. Even if a global government might allow for nations to continue to exist (a pipe dream), such a government certainly wouldn't allow for the variations of such nations' laws that allow for (or welcome) their citizens or refugees to choose their nation of residence based on its different, but beneficial, laws. Existing global-governance treaties almost never allow for member nations to "adjust" the laws' requirements; why should a global government be any different?

Any global governance would mean global decisions meaning there would be millions/billions that disagree with whatever decision was made. You make the assumption that what is good for one nation is good for another when it's not, what's in our interests might not be in the global interest and if you disenfranchise people then you make violence inevitable. It cannot work, it is but a dream for the megalomaniacs of history to crave world domination.

The problem right now with a world government - we are not all yet one nation of people.

Adamantium, I don't have the intelligence or the language to argue as eloquently as the other posters here; I still don't even know what a libertarian is, and speaking for myself I'm not religious but rather an agnostic, and I don't know why you think Christians have anything to do with this.

But I'm assuming your topic springs from the EU situation. And it seems like you are another who is yourself assuming things about the EU, veering on the side of "It's a good thing, so why a system such as it appears to be, hated?"

The EU IS "intrusive" -- it has become, in a long-con, back-door way, an overbearing entity that it was originally never intended to be.

It started out as merely a trade agreement called the "Common Market," in the 1970s, with only nine member states. Those nine countries were still entirely their own entities in all other matters.

Over the years, the Common Market somehow morphed into "The European Union" and with it a great deal more than just free trade became part of the menu. Today it dictates at all levels, to a burgeoning number of countries that now do not have the full sovereignty of self governance that they formerly possessed for their entire histories.

Look, disparate countries agreeing to form bonds, alliance, and agreements on certain things -- trade, peace -- is a good thing in itself.

But does every one have to be part of a "World Government" or even an EU type entity for those beneficial things to happen?

No.

Following World War 2, the disparate countries managed just fine to no longer war with each other, and to form amicable trade agreements with each other, long BEFORE "the EU" was even dreamed of much later.

As to the EU specifically then, of interest is the news that the UK is not the only country dissatisfied with what the EU and the monolith of power it has become. Other countries have left it before we did, and other countries are wanting to leave it.

Also, keep in mind that one of the worst anti-democratic things about the EU is that nobody in the collective of nations even vote for the EU folks at the top who decide everything. How can anyone be aware of that fact and think that's all right in our world? That's literally the definition of a dictatorship, by any other name.

That's what's really troubling. We don't even know who these people are or get to vote them in or out.

I'm astounded that a system like this get so much passionate support. Really astounded. I can only think that people who see nothing wrong with it literally do not understand the situation. They've drunk the Kool Aid.

The thing about the EU is , that we support the idea, and would likely support the idea of a world government. That the reality is a bloody mess made up of entities that were nit originally defined and therefore, bizarrely, have no sefined limits of power, is abhorrent.

The EU is also falling apart because it is a monetary union without single taxation and wellfare system.
That's what screwed up greece.

But the thing is: we like having the option of just going somewhere and live and work there, because the weather is nicer or whatever. What Americans seem to forget is what tiny countries, what small minds used to be in Europe before. So they founded the EU in the seventies.

One more reason why I support the idea of a supergovernment is the economic superpower it creates, as globalization left us with global companies and global money-flows, but without giverning bodies that can have any meaningful influence on that.
However, the EU as it is now, is doing the exact opposite of what even those like me, who appreciate the idea, want and need it to do. And that is partially because it is made up of politicians who promised stuff in their countries, regardless of whether it would make sense for everyone else.
Petty german nationalism for example hinders greece from declaring bankrupcy, forcing it to stay in increasing, never solvable debt to the rest of Europe.

The EU needs an urgent redesign. A fractioning would shift the center of gravity away from the west, probably to china, and it'll stay there for several generations...

sameness stifles innovation and creativity.

To understand its current status and intent, it helps to understand the origins of the European Union. The complete U.S. Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 can be read here: http://operation-gladio.net/us-military ... -ew-pa-128 .

Many evangelicals who buy into the notion that Revelations is about the future, rather than things past, believe a one world government would be a creature of the Antichrist.