World government -- why all the hate?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

This all makes sense. I don't see any rational objection in principle to working toward very slightly more organized governance structures in a world government. A minimalist entity focused on those large issues arising between states without authority to interfere in the internal governance of member states except when state governments engage in certain defined crimes (e.g., genocide) -- something the UN could evolve into.

I'm for sound and sane international law, just like I'm for international coalitions built toward the ends of dealing with imminent world crises.

Strong global executive and legislative bodies however would be terrible. To put it this way - bureaucrats have their own way of thinking, same with parliamentarians. You'd have typical government myopia, drawing of schematics and maps, and attempts to make the terrain fit the map and make the social and economic dynamics fit their pre-conceived schematics. One of the reasons why US politics are such a mess internally right now is you have a central government trying to make decisions for over 300 million people. One body of politicians having all 7 billion, bribing each other, loading their bills up with pork and various political poison pills, I'd think the world would be on fire and their ineptitude would make them irrelevant, ignored, and thrown out/replaced quicker than you'd know it. The worst part obviously, with all the chaos involved, we'd probably get back out of that in worse shape than we went in.

I don't believe there is a rational basis for this argument. Unless you can explain what is the optimal size for a community to become a sovereign state, I don' t think this argument has merit. I see political conflict in communities of a few thousand that are as entrenched and bitter as political conflict in nations of hundreds of millions.

The reason that US politics, like Philippine politics, Japanese politics, Irish politics, Serbian politics and El Salvadorean politics are a mess is that they are made of people and people are complicated.

It matters if the government pulls up too much state autonomy and those making the laws and regulations don't have as good of a grasp as they should on that states particular economic balance is, what kinds of resources it has where, and how it thrives best based on it's own geography and culture. You can get experts perhaps to speak before congress and address these issues but with the kinds of heavy handed lobbying we have in DC and political infighting it's unlikely that much of that would be listened to. Central government is good for national protection, enforcing things like uniform commercial code, establishing human rights in the country across the board, and making sure the individual states aren't balkanizing to the point of war with other states.

Admittedly a lot of people here can speak in depth about statistics, polls, etc., I've been avoiding politics lately because it's depressing and it's a lot of other people's cupidity that I have little control over so I haven't had my face to the grindstone much with that sort of digging. To try and press all of that into a more coherent point perhaps - any city of centralized government or place where a central body meets is a huge magnet for political and financial prostitution, so much so that it significantly impairs anyone's ability to get things done. The more spread out the actual functioning of government is, the more difficult it is for our modern courtiers and bureaucrats to tap the whole thing out, much like it's more difficult for one state's demands to make demands that are onerous to another state by trying to apply a set of rules that works great for them to everyone else. A weak world government that simply held bad actors accountable would be fine, a Washtington DC over 7 or 8 billion people OTOH would be an absurdity.

But take away religious institutions governments and corporations that want to use greed hate and fear, then we are one people. People, by themselves, seem to get along just fine.

L_Holmes said

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).

THE MAIN IDEA POSITED WAS: "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS TYRANNY" which is what the EU offers it seems.

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.

Yes, you totally speak for all people... seriously, how arrogant can this attitude get?

People have *always* had an issue with authoritarian psychopaths, if you don't why don't you offer yourself as their sacrifice or whatever political fetish you have...

In my estimation it all comes right back to plain, ordinary, fallible people full of the usual fears as anyone, who would seek to rule our world.

It should be immediately obvious the corporate involvement in government; either partial or complete control, depending on the country. It's filthy, despicable, what-ever-you-want-to-call-it but true never the less. Corporations buy people and governments through fallible people and their greed....we hear about it every day...and you only hear a small portion (only the people they catch).

Large corporations depend on people so the EU approach is to be able to move large groups of low paid workers from say...India or Somalia to other countries (for example Great Britain) to work for lower wages.
They feel this serves the WORLD better; this also means they make more profit.

I read recently 3 groups...Great Britain, Portugal, and Greece were the only countries that posted a decrease in living wage (GB lost 10.4% I believe) IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. All other countries in the EU stayed the same or gained. Kind of "evening out the playing field?"

Did the people of Great Britain have a choice in this??? No. The choice of how to do live and do business was taken away. Thanks EU.

As someone else has mentioned, just having politicians in D.C. make rules for people in Southern Mississippi is impossible enough...how can strangers a half-a-world away make these decisions??? The answer(?): They can only make sweeping generalizations which may or may not increase the well-being of the world, but can certainly negatively affect the lives of the people in Southern Mississippi....but this is the LEAST of their worries....after-all, they have a world to run....it is expected some (not the rich) will suffer in the process, and this is acceptable.

Yes Mikah....how can you speak for every man, woman, and child, to say nothing about the zygotes! !! REMEMBER THE ZYGOTES, will be our unifying cry.

But, seriously, I disagree. Trump?....Putin?.... and friends(Kim Jong-un perhaps)?
Seriously??????...You think "people wouldn't care much??????...YOU ARE WRONG!WRONG!WRONG! So wrong as to be ludicrous....and I don't use that term lightly.

And corporate despots/government shills with any other name?? Why would we have a reason to trust those cloaked in secrecy? Because they say: "Trust me?" All the more reason to distrust them.

P.S. Don't sacrifice yourself for our sake, please. I know Mootoo can be quite convincing, but PLEASE.

You two seem to have missed the point when I said this. That isn't a world government.



People don't give two craps if they are ruled by a despot or an authoritarian menace, if that menace is on their side. The Left were endlessly apologetic about the Soviet Union's practices and rule, they forgive the EU's authoritarian, anti-democratic nature and still defend it. The Germans who supported Hitler by-and-large didn't care one bit when he wiped out his democratic enemies and established a de-facto dictatorship. Most Russians don't give a crap about Putin's effective dictatorship.

The Brexit vote was the perfect example, those in power love democracy, until it turns against them. "The people must have their say" quickly became "The people are idiots and racists and old, let's ignore them".

You say: You two seem to have missed the point when I said this. That isn't a world government.

No??? How about if we throw in the existing premier of China?? No? If you mean "That isn't a world government because each and every country does not receive their equal representation...then it's true.

But if you mean a world government organization that essentially can control the doings of the world, then the line-up of the top rulers in the world would do very nicely.

Please define your terms better so we can know what you're trying to say.

The rest of your post seems nonsensical. To imagine a people being uncaring about these things makes no sense at all. And there is the fact you are unable to prove your wild suppositions.
But I do think people can be manipulated and forced to change....is this what you meant? The example of Hitler you give is apropos....he was a big fan of controlling the masses using psychological techniques....you must be aware of this. This is what all rulers (I believe) do these days.

As far as Brexit is concerned??????? Those in power are not the caricatures from the newspapers (as in your example), nothing so childish I'm afraid. These are large, cold, calculating people and organizations....you might agree. These powerful groups...believe it or not...have heard of having a "Plan 'B'" and "C" and whatever else they may need. The vote was surely taken in stride by these planners, in fact (covering my head) the whole Brexit thing could have easily been a scam to produce the exact results we have now. There is no way you would ever know...wheels within wheels within wheels, and all that you know.

I believe the crap going on with the European Union says it all. I don't want some foreigner telling me what I can and cannot do. Having said that, enjoy your Kool-Aid!

Hi Mongoose, I would think you had something like a point if it were true that a global body created for the purpose of handling the areas where international governance is required would have to be constituted like the European Union.

That is not the case and no Kool-Aid is being consumed. Carrying on battling that straw man if you will, but go easy! He's a master at rope-a-dope.