Post no 3. It proposes politicians form all over the world to form a governing council. Read it and see if you find a problem with power distribution.
the problem is corruption its hard to get away from corruption thats fine , I understand , but it is hard if not impossible to find one leader in any country that represents all of the people , of that country above
IDK much about combating corruption. Maybe someone can answer this question. Anyone? It not countries its world regions - a council of each world region would make decisions and its chairmen would be in the one world government. So regional councils of half a dozen politicians [elected by popular vote, adjusted for population density] would represent worldzones: North America, South America, Australia and Pacific, Eurassia, Middle east, South and Far East, Africa + Council of top professionals - sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, economists, educational leaders would all contribute thier chairmen to this central governing councils - the main council would then be a cross-council co-opperation platform with some major rights and laws not allowed to the regional councils. Central Council > Regional Councils > Government Unions > Countries > States > Districts > down the chain. Central Council: Chairmen of: Councils of - NA, SA, Aus and Pac, EUR, ME, FarE, Af, Sci. Chosen by popular vote of regional people. Scientific council elected by vote of a united body of all scientific professionals in the world. There. Is that a better scheme?
You said there is one world government to whom all are it's citizens. Presumably this is an advanced government that respects the rights of all of it's citizens and so you don't use a MILITARY force, which operates under MILITARY doctrine on your own citizens. It's not allowed in the US so why would we agree to a World Constitution where it is allowed?
That's called a Trade War and can often lead to a real war. You gloss over the issue of getting all to join and your suggestion, just conquering them, suggests starting a major world war.
Call it what you may. A specialised force to prevent rebellions and insurgencies would be essential. US agrees to police, doesn't it? Then how about a special anti-insurgency branch of riot police. ^ Linguistic Acrobatics. Btw, why would a country [democratic] no want to join this one world government? Ps. Post#1, 3, and 24 are main discriptions of this government. Ok then, no trade or world wars. Just make some lucrative benefits available only to the joiners. Is that ok? Btw, can you suggest some of such benefits?
No, it's not linguistic acrobatics. The Police operate under a very different set of rules and mandate than do the Military. The Military is willing to accept reasonable collateral damage and doesn't have to wait for you to shoot first as just an example of the radical difference between the two concepts. Simple, because they don't think it is in their own best interests. Indeed one of the big questions I have is: Is this a rational way to govern 7 Billion people living in such different initial conditions and location? Do the same laws work in Afghanistan like they do in the UK? Well I think that's your suggestion, that we should do this because there are some lucrative benefits. Don't you have any?
Agreed. But police would not be the proper solution to insurgents and guerilla warfare - imagine some fat ass donut crunching NY cop against Osama and his troop of pray and sprayers. Humans are one species, and regardless of local conditions, everyone should be able to live the way they way, once they know all the available ways. Afghan women have to right to have slumber parties, no? Should they not have similiar laws to the UK or any modern democracy? They probably would, if they were not ruled by a fanatic theocracy. [Islamic republic - oh! The irony]. How about excellent education and occupation opportunities for poor countries [and large workforce countries like India and China would love this proposition]. Smooth economic trade, greater mobility of citizens [again, peacekeeping troops necessary], social equality, quick progress on underdeveloped regions, economic benefits to rich countries - one world government can have many useful features. If you may, can you think of any disadvantages so we can consider whether one world government [according to the proposed structure in this thread, or a modified version of you own] would be worth the trouble?
I voted no because I have no idea what such a government would look like or how it would work. Democracy is a terrible system for coordinating wildly competing interests, and the greater the disparity in the interests of the voters, the greater the difficulties seem to be. At least right now, I do not see a way to get impoverished nations and wealthy nations to cooperate enough to form a non-disastrous government...and wealth is only one of the possible disparities that creates problems. The problems of coordinating and finding common ground among the population of the entire world is a bit too daunting for me. I happen to think the US is so geographically and philosophically diverse that we already see diminishing marginal returns to having a common government regulating the affairs of the nation as a whole. That's not to say that we do not have some common interests that sufficiently closely aligned across the nation as a whole—we do—but we also have pointless clashes about basic political and cultural styles and philosophies that seem to me to be intensifying as the population grows. Imagine what happens when the "world government" tells the southern U.S. that all local government must offer Spanish language services, because the rest of the world voted on it. Imagine what happens when the world Congress tells the Holy See that abortion is legal there now, or Texas that it can no longer execute criminals. Also, taxes are going up on the "wealthy" (say, everyone earning $20,000 a year or more) because the third-world wants that cash to improve local conditions. The beauty of local control of government, is that it allows for nimble and targeted responses to local conditions. The bigger the central government and more diverse the issues it must tackle, the harder it is for that government to be effective. Congress and federal regulators do a terrible job at it and the U.S. does in fact have a common culture (making their jobs easier). Imagine trying to the same thing across many cultures simultaneously. It's a daunting challenge.
A one world government would be the mother load of incompetence, inefficiency and pure evil violence. Could you imagine the total amount of productivity that would need to be drained (using violence) from the real productive economy in order to support such a monstrosity? It'd be Hell on Earth
It will work, but not until after the current power structure breaks down. We have too great a disparity of wealth, power and military force, and no means of reconciling interests or resolving conflicts. The UN was a good idea (and, whatever its detractors may say, has done some good work) but too easily hijacked and derailed by the few mighty nation, to the detriment of the many helpless nations. Big federations, like the US and Canada are going to continue to break up, as the USSR has been doing. That's a slow, painful process, which we could usefully aid, rather than retard - but i don't think we will. I think it will happen because of various local political and economic crises, as well as the global energy and climate change catastrophes; war, famine, drought, epidemic, fire, flood, structural failure, etc. These crises will also result in a diminution of population and collapse of industry. Once all the regional units are established and relatively stable in their populations and territories, we can start building a new global federation, with a new constitution based on a current, universal understanding of human rights - this time, on a voluntary basis, rather than by conquest. In that way, we* could maintain regional character and culture, while also serving the common good and keeping the peace. (*By "we", of course i mean the youngest survivors among you. I'll be long gone.)
Well that only means it's time to come up with a better model for a world government. Currently I'm not to fond of any current examples. I'm curious about what work has been done to develop new models and what is the current leading contender?
I'm not about to take orders from any runt with a lower IQ. It would be a pretend fantasy like it is now. I gain nothing. The world isn't going to put me in control, because of fear of some maniacal power-hungry plutocracy that could result, without checks and balances. It would be a pretend fantasy like it is now. I gain nothing. We all like a world we can kick the foundation blocks out from under, if it ever gets out of hand. Just like the perfect situation we have in front of us. Whatever faction that takes control of the near-space around the Earth, will eventually control it's surface areas. Until that day, only a one-world control mouth (more likely from the 100 IQ majority) will contemplate micro-managing an earlier occurrence of the "one-faction Earth surface control" scenario.
With all the Christian and/or conservative empty-minded hand-wringing aside, a one world government would deny us [at least] three things: the ability to look from the outside in, an alternative working government, and free political "space" to experiment. For example, in the physical world, all land is now owned by someone or something. The frontiers are closed; no more homesteading; no more striking out on one's own; no place to start afresh. And, except for the tops of the Himalayas or the most remote basins of the Amazon, government decidedly rules everywhere. Likewise, once we yield, bow, succumb, etc to a one world government, we can never look from the outside in, have an alternative government, or have space to experiment politically.
The world government being proposed in this thread would not end any of the current governments only their sovereignty and even that would probably be a very slow process. As far as the frontiers are concerned, well that's what we have a space program for and I wonder how much further along we would be if we didn't have to pay for the most expensive military in the world.
I voted no, because a One World secular democracy would require protections against a tyranny of the majority, and I don't see how that's possible in your scheme. First you'll have enough on your hands dispelling with existing cultural and religious identities that get in the way, and even if you could do that, you would be handing over government directly to some of the most irresponsible people in the world who have the least ability and competence to manage their own affairs and coincidentally the most children on whom to dump the entire mess. Let's talk birth control first, before 90% of the planet runs out of clean water. Heck, China, the most developed nation of the 3rd world, can only manage "democracy" for about 10% of its population, and you want to talk about spreading democracy over the whole planet?
There are no new forms of government and no "leading contender" for the best political organization for a single world government, because no one imagines it to be a serious proposal right now. Political scientists don't sit around trying to develop new hypothetical political systems. The closest thing there is to it are efforts to imagine different ways to structure constitutions, but they all center around the notion of the constitutional republican model of government. If there were a leading contender for one world government it would probably be either some variation of one of the many constitutional reguimes or, and this is far more likely ti develop in the near term, ruthless domination from technological superior alien overlords.
