We often think of a world goverment as a conspiracy theory? A one world government would be very helpful once we become a truely space-faring race [moon base, men on mars]. And a world government would make co-operation between regions easier [unlike the current UN, which doesn't help much at all], boost development of poor countries and efficiently tap the workforce of large countries like India and China. It would also make regional discrimination much more arbitrary and conflicts over religion and territory would be much easier to resolve. Of course, there are risks. For one, there is a chance that developed countries' leaders would get oppressive and go all 'imperial' on the poor countries. But good policing by political leaders can easily prevent this. Cutural indentities will be lost, of course, but we can document all activities of a society so that we know of its former diversity in the future. Then indenties can become utilitarian, people indentify their groups by all those who globally share their part in the human endeavours [science, art, etc]. Is there something wrong in this? In a time when we have been to the moon and sent our probes beyond our solar system, it's rather dis-heartning to see people divinded within small country {like, for e.g., Ireland}.
I don't have a problem with a one government world. I just can't see how we can get from where we are today to that one government without some major strife and pain and suffering for a lot of people. But one might argue that there is going to be a lot of pain and suffering anyway, so why not bite the bullet and get it over with? Oh! I forgot to ask what type of government did you have in mind?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A democractic secular government similiar to the one envisioned by the founding fathers [of america]. It would be headed by a group of a dozen or so leaders form all over the world by popular vote [adjusted for population density] and they would control the judicial system, make laws and pass major bills, oversee global economics and trade and use military force for peacekeeping. The regions would not nominate their leaders to the council of the dozen or so leaders [As in the UN]. Each nation would, through internal elections, nomiate a few leaders to run for this council and then all people of the world would vote for the top dozen leaders they would want in the coucil. The ones with the most nomitations to be in the top 12 [or top x number] will constitute the council till the next elections. The nations [like US] will be the same as states [Like Kansas] are today. They will have limited versions of the main government rights. No ruling body, at any level, would be allowed relgious favouring, all political institutions, at all levels, would be totally seperated from the relgious ones. That what I think the government would be like. Any comments anyone?
I think the first step would be to get existing governments to agree to the same Global Constitution guaranteeing basic human rights such as in our Bill of Rights and the EU convention on human rights.
Insurgencies, rebellions, etc would happen. There would of course be radicals at least somewhere. Peacekeeping troops are a necessity. Also, police would be required to prevent crime. Law enforcement will be no more obsolete than it is today.
I think once all current world leader can agree to the constitution and set up some basic rules and power, any country who does not become a 'province' of this government should be conquered: Military force, economic/political pressure or threats to isolation. That's the only way some theocracies would allow for their citizens to be free [in a secular, humanitarian way].
Police yes, to control civilians, but Military troops no, because by definition there would be no opposing military forces.
OUCH What if the US is the hold out (you know, like we are with Kyoto)? You think it's worth an all out war with the rest of the world to force them to join?
Doesn't have to be a war. Just tell US, join or else no trade with you. Faced with a choice between obesity and teamwork, I think the US president would make the right choice. Once enough countries would be a part of this, the rest will have to follow or be left out. They might form opposite camps, of joiners and non joiners, which would be a stalemate, but even then, the number of governments would be only 2, maybe 3-4.
cultural diversity is really the essence of our survival , in the big picture , the Universe each culture has a way of looking at nature , enviroment and thinking that is important , they expand our thinking
further it would take away our sense of individualism , our personal dreams or goals our individual vision star-treck does this , where there is no need for money , no individual weath everything is paid for , sounds good but that puts the vision in the hands of a few rather than in the hands of the many and the many has a much larger diveristy and therefore much more chance of survival for Humanity
The underlying problem As a Utopiate, the problem I see with a one world government is that humanity is nowhere near ready for the commitment. Even setting aside the proposition of beliefs—there are presently, for instance, cultural outlooks that despise the notion of equality—everything is presently systematically organized according to competing paradigms. Nations, currency, and especially corporate institutions are designed to compete with one another, not cooperate. We have much work to do, and a good deal of that work will be to convince the competing interests to cooperate. A one world government is a generational challenge. It is pretty much inevitable, but we are at least a century out from even beginning that discussion.
That's an interesting point. But what I am proposing is not international co-operation, its moving the givernment structure one level up. So currently: UN>EU>UK>States>Districts>lower authorities. However, the UN is just a club, like EU. What is propose is: One Govt>EU>UK>down the chain. The countries [now provinces of the one government] can compete just like states do today. No diversity we be lost either.
you forget the power that would be handed to the EU , UN , EK , NA ( north america ) look whats happening now , in Europe and the US , economically and you want to give these people more power ?
