World government -- why all the hate?

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps the proponents for a global government should identify and cite the likely benefits of such a government. Attributing only vagaries to such a government, like one of the moralistically bad episodes of Star Trek, serves no one in this discussion.

World Government = no place to hide. No, thank you. I will take a pass on World Government.

In the entire history of mankind there are only two kinds of government: Bad Government and Worse Government. There has never been, nor will there ever be a Good Government.

If we look at the rationale for government from an economic perspective, the justification for government is the provision of public goods and the management of collective action problems.

As such, several issues can be identified which could warrant some sort of global government:

- Nuclear Proliferation
- Global Warming
- International Law (including Maritime Law, Laws of Aviation, Laws of Trade & Laws of War)
- Pandemics
- Extinction-Event Meteor strikes
- Alien Invasions
- Invasions from Outworld by the hordes of Shao Kahn

Some regional issues may become so severe that they may de facto require a global response... The civil war in Syria, for instance, is regional in scope, but the refugee flows resulting from it has repercussions far beyond the borders of Syria...

However - there are already organizations in place to deal with many of these issues - IAEA, WTO and the UN (with the UN having several sub-organizations like the WHO). However, only the UN has a structure that resembles anything close to a "world government" - and an individual UN member can technically always invoke the right to self-defense wrt. article 51 when things get really messy...

So while there may not be a world government per se... it can be said that there is world governance... Incomplete, fragmented and flawed, of course, but not entirely ineffectual, either...

EDIT: Typos and grammar.

I believe individual nations should be able to maintain their sovereignty, and not have it interfered with by a "world government."

I really liked it when a Spanish person could emigrate to England for a job, and live there (under English laws). I believe strongly in cultural exchange. I just think it makes people better, over all. A person who is nationalistic and suspicious of other cultures tends to have a narrow view of things; whereas a person who wants to know other cultures tends to be a person with a wider scope of viewpoints--and therefore a person who can reflect upon all sides of an argument.

However, if we dissolve the sovereignty of nations via a "world government," we would lose the flavor of cultures. We need to maintain cultures, and not homogenize the world.

However, in my opinion, there should be a worldwide entity which deals with such things as genocide, the use of nuclear weapons, and other situations which might have dire worldwide consequences. To arbitrate matters BETWEEN NATIONS, rather than matters which occur WITHIN nations.

We need sovereign nations--but we also need an entity which oversees nations in order to prevent excesses.

My position largely echoes Viper's.

I'm in favour of world government, but it should be a small government, only dealing with issues that absolutely require international co-operation where the market is incapable of properly solving it.

The same should be true of all other forms of government. National governments should only deal with things that require national co-operation and where the market has failed, for example. In general, things work better when the government is as hands-off as possible, just providing protection and security and such.

I don't really buy "sovereignty" and "identity" arguments.

I don't see any reason why it isn't possible or why it would necessarily be a bad thing. People always seem to think it would be a totalitarian, dystopian type of government, but that seems to be more of an assumption than an idea based on logic.

Just from an evolutionary standpoint, it seems we're evolving to come together in larger and larger groups by merging the smaller ones. So it certainly seems like we'd continue on this way until it is just one big group.

And I'm pretty sure the US colonies, before they united, did not like the idea for very similar reasons that people don't like the idea of an international government. Yet it seems to have worked out fine (though I suppose that's debatable).

I think theoretically it's possible, and I'm not averse to the idea, but I could not see it happening anytime in the near or even distant future.

There should be provision for elected officials within a worldwide entity.

Like I said, I don't believe in a worldwide government--but I do believe in an arbitrator for international disputes (a MUCH better version than the United Nations). The UN is way too faction-ridden to be a really viable entity.

Why can't these arbitrators be elected, rather than appointed?

The sovereignty of nations, as presently constituted, should not be infringed with under the worldwide entity. No power should be granted to this entity to interfere with merely national, rather than international, concerns.

If there is a genocide occurring, something must be done to stop it. Screw sovereignty, in this instance.

If a nation is evidently proceeding towards using a nuclear weapon, that must be stopped, too.

This worldwide entity should have only judicial, rather than executive, powers.

And the members of this entity should be elected via worldwide suffrage.

If a genocide is occurring, then the worldwide entity should have the power to act executive-like.

If a genocide is occurring then it is up the peoples to stop it as it always has, nobody has ever stopped these genocides besides nations and peoples. There can be no world government without worldwide tyranny because world government mean nothing without worldwide authority, political powers grows out of the barrel of the gun. These supernational bodies are a joke, do you think NATO acts independently of the interests of the United States? Does the EU act independently of the interests of Germany? The Soviets were always a Russian dominated state.

How can you have worldwide government without worldwide liberal democracy? It's totally ridiculous as an idea and we've seen ourselves what happens when you force non-western peoples into western style liberal democracies, they states do not work and quickly degenerate. Communist China makes up like a quarter of the population on this planet, Islam makes a similar margin, like a billion people are illiterate, most marriages are arranged, our little slice of Western Civilization is an exception not the rule and any move to 'evening things out' will amount to destruction of Western Civilization.