• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World Federalism - An approach to World Peace

If there was a clear stategy to effective World Peace, would you take part?


  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .

Naburus

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
41
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I recently read "The Anatomy of Peace" by Emery Reeves, which was written following WWII. In this book he attempts to show what he feels is the most logical path to world peace and unity. He makes some good points for World Federalism, as the only way to truly unite all humanity in a common direction.

What are the opinions of this forum on a World Government?

I personally think if done properly, it would help move us toward a more peaceful world. I would imagine this government maintaining in tact, local democratic governments, such as you see in the US with local and state government, but a higher level of federal government. This would just go one step further to uniting the federal governments under a world government which would have power to enforce laws of a human rights and prosperity nature.

I accept that the whole of humanity is not educated enough or ready to handle involvement in a world democratic government. I also accept that in democratic fashion the US would lose a lot of power giving democracy to the entire world, since we have a relatively low population compared to the world. But, the process would obviously need to be thought out, maybe even weighted in some fashion. But, we would take control of the military out of local federal governments and put it under the control of the world federal government. So, all military would now be world military instead of local "state" military. This new form of military, no longer having an authentic use as a defensive force per country, could then be used as a world police force, just as our local police operate in the US. I will stop my conjecture on how the system might operate here, this could be discussed in more detail later.

What do you think would be the pros and cons of this system?

What do you think is a better route to World Peace?

What other factors do you think are important to realize global peace?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I recently read "The Anatomy of Peace" by Emery Reeves, which was written following WWII. In this book he attempts to show what he feels is the most logical path to world peace and unity. He makes some good points for World Federalism, as the only way to truly unite all humanity in a common direction.

What are the opinions of this forum on a World Government?

I personally think if done properly, it would help move us toward a more peaceful world. I would imagine this government maintaining in tact, local democratic governments, such as you see in the US with local and state government, but a higher level of federal government. This would just go one step further to uniting the federal governments under a world government which would have power to enforce laws of a human rights and prosperity nature.

I accept that the whole of humanity is not educated enough or ready to handle involvement in a world democratic government. I also accept that in democratic fashion the US would lose a lot of power giving democracy to the entire world, since we have a relatively low population compared to the world. But, the process would obviously need to be thought out, maybe even weighted in some fashion. But, we would take control of the military out of local federal governments and put it under the control of the world federal government. So, all military would now be world military instead of local "state" military. This new form of military, no longer having an authentic use as a defensive force per country, could then be used as a world police force, just as our local police operate in the US. I will stop my conjecture on how the system might operate here, this could be discussed in more detail later.

What do you think would be the pros and cons of this system?

What do you think is a better route to World Peace?

What other factors do you think are important to realize global peace?
I think the potential monstrosities commited in the name of world peace would be worse than any peace you did find.

I don't want a government, where I am more represented, by people I have no knowledge of.
If anything there needs to be less centralized states.

I have no personal desire to seek world peace at this time.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,714
Reaction score
22,300
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
$5 says all the libertarians hate the idea :mrgreen:
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
It'd never work, the people in government would need to put aside their national loyalties for the 'greater good', and that'll never happen, wasn't it Bernard of Clairvaux who said that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". If you couple absolute power with bureaucracy the world would implode, democracy could not function on such a large scale, and a single leader could never work for the good of all, and eventually, no matter what path you took, it would inevitably lead to a police state.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It'd never work, the people in government would need to put aside their national loyalties for the 'greater good', and that'll never happen, wasn't it Bernard of Clairvaux who said that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". If you couple absolute power with bureaucracy the world would implode, democracy could not function on such a large scale, and a single leader could never work for the good of all, and eventually, no matter what path you took, it would inevitably lead to a police state.
This be it.
The individual factions, as well as, the abject, uncontrollable corruption would fester into a police state.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
This be it.
The individual factions, as well as, the abject, uncontrollable corruption would fester into a police state.
Yeah, people'll disagree over anything, they'll make money off anything, and the only way to keep the peace would be to force it, Saddam-esque.
 

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
2,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No way this would lead to a more peaceful world. Imagine the presidential election of 2000 on a worldwide scale. You'd be looking at World War III, no question about it.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No way this would lead to a more peaceful world. Imagine the presidential election of 2000 on a worldwide scale. You'd be looking at World War III, no question about it.
And THAT was just one state of <5 million votes.
 

Naburus

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
41
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It is obvious that a World Government would never be created by the people who are currently in power, it would have to come from a groundswell created by the individual citizens of these countries. Why would someone who already has power, give some up for the greater good. It's not typical of politicians or dictators.

I accept that in its initial phases maybe there would have to be revolt and bloodshed to lay the ground-work for the original structure. But, it could certainly be accomplished diplomatically as well. If all of the democratic nations banded together first to show its ability to work, their combined power and influence could get a lot of the smaller countries to join. Then you have a few hold-out large countries, where if the citizenry accepts the idea, you probably could accomplish it with little to no overall bloodshed.

I don't understand why people can ignore what history has taught us and say that centralized government ruins everything. The only reason things were so peaceful before centralized government (and they weren't actually, there were countless horrific wars during all times in human history, up to and including the current times) is because people weren't required to be in contact with one another. If we could reduce the world population dramatically and return to being an independent agricultural society, maybe we could remove centralized government and all return to peaceful lives. However, I do not personally want to reject the countless scientific advancements since our time as an agricultural society. Nor do I want to kill billions of people to accomplish it. It takes a blind man to think if you remove central government we'll all live together peacefully.

"1. From the teachings of history we have learned that conflicts and wars between social units are inevitable whenever and wherever groups of men with equal sovereignty come into contact." -- Emery Reeves, Anatomy of Peace pg 253

There was a passage in the Anatomy of Peace that either preceded or followed the quote above which broke this down pretty accurately. It described history in Europe, at all times when people of equal sovereignty came into contact war was an eventuality. It was not until those units were brought under a higher level of law that war subsided between them. They took this from the lowest level, from farmer to farmer conflict, being stopped by wealthy landowners ruling over a group of farmers, to wealthy landowner conflicts being stopped by the rule of law created by the king. There would probably have been several revolts and wars in the US within the past 100+ years of relative peace, if we hadn't united the states.

It is easy to see in our own lives, when people of equal sovereignty are in direct contact, war is often the result. If we were united under a centralized World Government, what would be the reason for war?

Also, why do people always seem to assume that giving power to a government will automatically equate to a police state? Democracy already functions on a large scale, are we saying that one of the largest countries in the world, and governing 300 million people is not a large scale? By what logic does it lead to a police state? For what reason would we experience any larger scale of corruption than we already experience on a regular basis? Why is it not within our power to create a system which is opposed to corruption?

We seem to put no faith in the ability of human beings to create anything useful nowadays. What made the founding fathers of the US any better or more intelligent human beings than those you see today? Do you think there was not opposition to what they created? But, in the end it was the best thing to have ever happened to a group of people. If we had allowed the North and South to remain separate during the Civil War, can you imagine the weakness of our now great country that would have followed?

I agree that a lot of people hate the idea, but it seems that everyone who opposes it doesn't have a good reason why. They just oppose it. Please if you think its the worst thing ever, tell me why, but provide evidence for your answer. I can just as easily say going to work everyday is automatically going to lead to you turning into a pumpkin in 5 years, but I don't have any proof to back that up, so it has no meaning.

If we do not create a system that allows for a dictatorship than a dictatorship will not exist, just as it does not exist in our country right now. The only way we currently keep the peace is to force it, the only way to keep the peace in any situation is to force it, with police. If I break the law, I go to jail. There is no functional civilization in the world where laws are not enforced with police.

So, please, if you disagree, provide evidence for your argument, don't just give me a gut reaction, that doesn't help me to re-assess my own position.

Also, why isn't anyone responding to the poll?
 
Last edited:

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
The democratic governance of 300 million people whom share a common identity, history, language, culture and increased chance of heart disease is a distinctly different concept from uniting a planet full of diverse cultures, and diverse standards within those cultures, say you base this world government on present day American society, are you going to fine or police every Australian because they're used to 18 been the legal drinking age, but the world government proclaims it to be 21, will all nations with an indigenous minority population be required to adopt Canada's confusing legislation? And that's just differences between western democracies, how will you solve thousand year old feuds between countries or tribes without resorting to brutality? How will you be able to command respect and co-operation for the government if you resort to brutality? The problem with a world government is that it would be incapable of pleasing everyone, and it would be forced to control dissent, and that would inevitably lead to more dissent, until you cowed the world through copious bloodshed, or the world revolted.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Frankly, its too conceptually daunting for me to want to discuss. It depends to greatly on what you believe. Would we have to overthrow private interests, would the economy be planned in a larger sense, how loose is the government, etc.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is obvious that a World Government would never be created by the people who are currently in power, it would have to come from a groundswell created by the individual citizens of these countries. Why would someone who already has power, give some up for the greater good. It's not typical of politicians or dictators.
I don't see it as a greater good.
For one, you have to believe that most people understand to some degree how the world works.
Wanting a world government is not part of that.

Humans thrive under small social constructs.
Small socio-political environments.

Creating a world government, creates a larger disconnect.

I accept that in its initial phases maybe there would have to be revolt and bloodshed to lay the ground-work for the original structure. But, it could certainly be accomplished diplomatically as well. If all of the democratic nations banded together first to show its ability to work, their combined power and influence could get a lot of the smaller countries to join. Then you have a few hold-out large countries, where if the citizenry accepts the idea, you probably could accomplish it with little to no overall bloodshed.
I would commit violence to prevent this from happening.
Now normally, I'm a peaceful person but you're inciting violence by trying to establish world peace, which is pretty utopian.

I don't understand why people can ignore what history has taught us and say that centralized government ruins everything. The only reason things were so peaceful before centralized government (and they weren't actually, there were countless horrific wars during all times in human history, up to and including the current times) is because people weren't required to be in contact with one another. If we could reduce the world population dramatically and return to being an independent agricultural society, maybe we could remove centralized government and all return to peaceful lives. However, I do not personally want to reject the countless scientific advancements since our time as an agricultural society. Nor do I want to kill billions of people to accomplish it. It takes a blind man to think if you remove central government we'll all live together peacefully.
Those centralized governments exploited there people, sure there may have been less internal conflict but exploitation of your citizenry is not an acceptable alternative.

Now to mention that most of the world that is rated under the corruption perception survey, is in the red.
Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many/most of them are centralized authoritarian nations.

Many of those in the between aren't all that great either.

"1. From the teachings of history we have learned that conflicts and wars between social units are inevitable whenever and wherever groups of men with equal sovereignty come into contact." -- Emery Reeves, Anatomy of Peace pg 253

There was a passage in the Anatomy of Peace that either preceded or followed the quote above which broke this down pretty accurately. It described history in Europe, at all times when people of equal sovereignty came into contact war was an eventuality. It was not until those units were brought under a higher level of law that war subsided between them. They took this from the lowest level, from farmer to farmer conflict, being stopped by wealthy landowners ruling over a group of farmers, to wealthy landowner conflicts being stopped by the rule of law created by the king. There would probably have been several revolts and wars in the US within the past 100+ years of relative peace, if we hadn't united the states.
Those farmers were exploited, their worked value taken, under excessive taxation for "protection", no different than paying the mafia protection money.
Similar things would happen under this world government, you'd pay excessive taxes for "protection" because there is no alternative.
You can't leave a world government if you're unhappy with it.

What you're really paying for is the authorities to not take your stuff.

It is easy to see in our own lives, when people of equal sovereignty are in direct contact, war is often the result. If we were united under a centralized World Government, what would be the reason for war?
To resist the world government, to establish separate nations.
Universal rule making is not good for humanity over the whole world.
We need choices and room for experimentation.

Also, why do people always seem to assume that giving power to a government will automatically equate to a police state? Democracy already functions on a large scale, are we saying that one of the largest countries in the world, and governing 300 million people is not a large scale? By what logic does it lead to a police state? For what reason would we experience any larger scale of corruption than we already experience on a regular basis? Why is it not within our power to create a system which is opposed to corruption?
There is no escape from a world government, if you aren't happy, you're stuck.
Since your choices have been limited, there is no reason for this government to not be exploitative.

We seem to put no faith in the ability of human beings to create anything useful nowadays. What made the founding fathers of the US any better or more intelligent human beings than those you see today? Do you think there was not opposition to what they created? But, in the end it was the best thing to have ever happened to a group of people. If we had allowed to North and South to remain separate during the Civil War, can you imagine the weakness of our now great country that would have followed?
I put faith in my ability to do good, I do not put people in power to do good on my behalf.
All that does is make more wrongs.

I think the U.S. should be divided into many separate nations.
There is to much inadequate and unequal representation.

I agree that a lot of people hate the idea, but it seems that everyone who opposes it doesn't have a good reason why. They just oppose it. Please if you think its the worst thing ever, tell me why, but provide evidence for your answer. I can just as easily say going to work everyday is automatically going to lead to you turning into a pumpkin in 5 years, but I don't have any proof to back that up, so it has no meaning.
I've come up with a few above.
History has shown that centralized governments tend to be authoritarian and when you add in the "no escape" alternative, you're screwed by this world government.

If we do not create a system that allows for a dictatorship than a dictatorship will not exist, just as it does not exist in our country right now. The only way we currently keep the peace is to force it, the only way to keep the peace in any situation is to force it, with police. If I break the law, I go to jail. There is no functional civilization in the world where laws are not enforced with police.
The police state will develop to protect this failing world government.
It would be a behemoth, unwieldy and eventually destructive.

So, please, if you disagree, provide evidence for your argument, don't just give me a gut reaction, that doesn't help me to re-assess my own position.

Also, why isn't anyone responding to the poll?
I don't like polls, I prefer fill in the blank.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not so pessimistic about the prospects of world government as some on here, but we are talking about a herculean task. As I see it to make such a government viable would require a revolution of immense proportions all over the world including in the so-called democracies of the West.

Personally, I cannot see a viable world government any time soon. The required shifts in culture and politics are just too massive. We also lack an appropriate system of democracy that can insure the fullest possible representation for all.
Some here are obviously presuming a world government would take the form of our failed system of Western Democracy, which would definitely be a disaster. Rather I think one would have to look to China to find the emerging democratic concepts that could make world government plausible.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
:lol:


This would not lead to "world peace"

The Good Reverend keeps his bolt carrier well oiled for the day they try to bring may day to his town. :gunsmilie:
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think that there is a potential way such a government could be done correctly, but it would be rather tricky.

For one thing, let's get this straight: a centralized government of nearly 7 billion people for hundreds of nations and thousands of cultural backgrounds will not work. It would tear itself a part in a few months. But a government that is strong in exactly the right ways and weak in all others could be manageable. The EU is a good tool to demonstrate how not to go about this (the only reason the EU has stayed together is its economic success, which was a given considering it was initially a union of rich nations to begin with...and yet they still haven't been as successful as the US in many ways, combined with common threads in European culture and even then the stronger the EU gets the more unstable it seems as the recent Euro scare shows). The EU is strong in controlling the European economy, but very weak in controlling European foreign policy and military forces. I propose to do the opposite. The purpose of the world government is only to keep peace between nations.

War is always used as an excuse to go to a command economy (like WW2 did) and thus minimizing war should be a goal of any libertarian (or indeed anyone not a communist or fascist). Without some overall power keeping everyone in check, wars increase, freedoms decrease, the economy is more controlled, and people are slaughtered. Just for instance, consider what has happened since the end of the Cold War. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, there has been a 40% drop in the number of world conflicts. This is in large part because the numerous proxy wars that happened no longer have the US and the USSR backing them. The US is often derided as war-mongering and while the US has fought since the end of the Cold War, US hegemony in general has meant less war in the world. If there is no one challenging the military dominance of one power then there will be fewer reasons to fight. If you go one step further and have a militarly dominant power that actively stops ongoing conflicts then warfare would probably go rapidly extinct. Furthermore, much less money would have to be spent on the military world wide, allowing for more productive use of humanity's resources. This lower amount could be low enough that the federal government would not have the manpower or firepower to occupy the world and impose its will, but enough to put a stop to any brush-fire wars that might crop up before they get serious. The threat of intervention of a force stronger than anyone else would deter conflict, but would not be enough to allow the confederate government to have control over member states.

I'd also like to note that this government should not be a federal government but a confederate government. The difference is subtle but crucial. A federal government is responsible to both the people at large and to the component states (like the US). A confederate government is responsible only to the component states. Why is this important? A federal government has a mandate to do the people's will as well as the states will. Over time, this means that the states gradually are increasingly ignored and the government changes from being a federal government to a centralized government. If the states have all the control then the confederate government will never encroach on their rights.

Now you may be thinking, "didn't the US try a confederate government with the Articles of Confederation and it failed?" Yes it did, but there is a key difference: the US had external competition. This confederate world government would have no equivalent level competition. The US needed a federal government because otherwise it would be too fractured and weak in the face of foreign invasions and foreign economic competition. But this government already has enough power to handle internal squabbles and does not need to come together to face foreign threats. There would be no foreign threats. Thus a weak and squabbling confederate government would not only be acceptable, it would be ideal. In essence, its only purpose is to say that violence is not an option when dealing with disputes. Every other power is retained by national governments. Trade relations, economic policy, social policy, tax policy (the confederate government would be funded by the member states), even the form of government is left to the member states states, but inter-state warfare is banned. In essence, think the idea of the UN, lacking a security council, with a military, and without strict rules for its actions, the violations of which would cause member states to rebel thereby removing incentive to violate the rules (basically only intervene when inter-governmental combat begins).
 

Naburus

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
41
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Alright, rather than quoting and replying I am going to attempt to summarize your position, as I go along, including quotes as necessary. But, I will start by asking, what evidence do we have that humans thrive under small social constructs? How can small social constructs be extrapolated to make them useful to modern society?

When I state World Peace, I'm not discussing the utopian vision of world peace. I'm discussing peace as we are used to it in the US. People in the US would generally agree that we co-exist in a relatively peaceful environment. Conflicts between groups can break out from time to time, but these are eventually mediated by the local law enforcement.

Those centralized governments exploited there people, sure there may have been less internal conflict but exploitation of your citizenry is not an acceptable alternative.

Now to mention that most of the world that is rated under the corruption perception survey, is in the red.
Corruption Perceptions Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many/most of them are centralized authoritarian nations.

Many of those in the between aren't all that great either.
There is a definitive difference between a centralized government oppressing people and thriving through corruption, and a centralized government elected by the people to serve their interests. I agree there is a level of corruption in our government and probably in most if not all governments. That is why we elect many individuals and not only a couple to govern the nation. The odds of the majority being corrupt is low, and with the minority being corrupt, the government can generally function as intended. Considering the limited scope of authority over laws that I believe the World Government should be given, I believe this would be a non-issue. I don't like to get into details of policy because then people get wrapped in hypothetical details and avoid the big picture under discussion, but, so long as the World Government only has control over Human Rights issues, and enforcing the localities laws. This would limit to an extent the corruptability of the highest level of government.

In almost all forms of government the people pay the central government for protection. Even if we dispersed the US gov't you would still be paying your local municipality to maintain a police force. This doesn't change. In no case can you leave it up to individual citizens to protect themselves from one another without a centralized set of laws they need to abide by. They will not do it. If you want to see true exploitation of the citizenry change to anarchy and let people do whatever they want. Then the people who currently have resources will exploit those that do not to continue their growth. The same as wealthy land-owners did in medieval times. You can not escape it, government or not.

Your main point in opposing a World Government is that if you do not like you cannot leave. There are a great many people that do not like the American Government, and an even greater number of people that do not like their respective governments in the Middle East/Africa, these people aren't just up and leaving these countries to solve their problems. It's not so simple now to up and leave if you do not like how you are treated. The only way to change it is through a group effort by those being governed. If a World Government were in place and at any point in time we felt it was exploitative and destructive to society, we could dismantle it and start fresh. Just as the declaration of independance says we should do in our country.

You aren't actually paying for the authorities to not take your stuff, as much as you're paying for the authorities to prevent other people from taking your stuff. Though there are certainly occasions when the authorities will take your stuff if you do not pay, such as with property taxes, or federal taxes on income. But, if you aren't willing to pay someone for provided the services and infrastructure that allowed you the opportunity to create the wealth and obtain the property, they should have the right to remove what you've gained under their protection. Doesn't make sense that you could enjoy all the niceties of our country at no expense to you. That sounds more like utopia than the traditional image garnered by speaking of World Peace.

To resist the world government, to establish separate nations.
Universal rule making is not good for humanity over the whole world.
We need choices and room for experimentation.
Why would people want to start wars to fight against being given what should be universal humanitarian rights? Why would they want separate nations, when they can already establish local laws similar to the US? Based on my original statement that this world government would not be created to control all facets of life, but only to control the military and implement laws related Human Rights, why would this be so opposed by the residents of the planet? There are many people in this world that would love to spend 10 years of their life not having to worry about militant wars, or local militias coming in to kill them. There are some people in this world that have spent their entire lives not sure if they are going to die tomorrow, because of the constant war their faced with every day. America is at "war", but our citizens living in the US do not leave their house every morning wondering if we're going to get shot with an RPG, or gunned down by a militant group.

Do you think the US doesn't exploit its citizens because they could move to France? I doubt it, we don't exploit our citizens (for the most part) because our citizens wouldn't stand for it, and our government is set up in such a way that we will remove officials who are seen to be exploitative. There are methods in place to remove officials from office that are being exploitative. A World Government would have to follow a similar policy.

If you do not put people in power to do good on your behalf, why do we vote people into office? To ruin our country and create havoc across the globe? I don't think so. I have faith in my ability to do good, and by extension I attempt to put people into power who I feel will reflect my positive image on world through their policies.

I agree there is unequal and inadequate representation, but, rather than solving this by moving back 100's of years wasting everything we've worked so hard to create, by breaking up into smaller nations. How would we solve the problem of unequal and inadequate representation? In another thread I suggested creating a Hybrid Direct and Representative government. (please read over it, I would appreciate more discussion on the topic.) I think this would be at the very least a good first step to improving our representation in our current government. Aside from dismantling our union, how else might you improve our representation? Two other suggestions I've made are to limit or remove Gerrymandering, and to alter the Electoral College. I have also agreed with someone else that we might want to impose term limits on senators/congressman. What are your thoughts on these topics improving representation?

How do we know that a World Government will be huge and bloated and so uncontrollable that it will destroy itself. That sounds more like apocolypic fear-mongering than scientifically based deductive reasoning. We have never tried a World Government, especially of the lean nature I am suggesting, and have never seen it fail, exploit, or create a police state. So on what basis can we make these assumptions about it?
 

Naburus

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
41
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think that there is a potential way such a government could be done correctly, but it would be rather tricky.

For one thing, let's get this straight: a centralized government of nearly 7 billion people for hundreds of nations and thousands of cultural backgrounds will not work. It would tear itself a part in a few months. But a government that is strong in exactly the right ways and weak in all others could be manageable. The EU is a good tool to demonstrate how not to go about this (the only reason the EU has stayed together is its economic success, which was a given considering it was initially a union of rich nations to begin with...and yet they still haven't been as successful as the US in many ways, combined with common threads in European culture and even then the stronger the EU gets the more unstable it seems as the recent Euro scare shows). The EU is strong in controlling the European economy, but very weak in controlling European foreign policy and military forces. I propose to do the opposite. The purpose of the world government is only to keep peace between nations.

War is always used as an excuse to go to a command economy (like WW2 did) and thus minimizing war should be a goal of any libertarian (or indeed anyone not a communist or fascist). Without some overall power keeping everyone in check, wars increase, freedoms decrease, the economy is more controlled, and people are slaughtered. Just for instance, consider what has happened since the end of the Cold War. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, there has been a 40% drop in the number of world conflicts. This is in large part because the numerous proxy wars that happened no longer have the US and the USSR backing them. The US is often derided as war-mongering and while the US has fought since the end of the Cold War, US hegemony in general has meant less war in the world. If there is no one challenging the military dominance of one power then there will be fewer reasons to fight. If you go one step further and have a militarly dominant power that actively stops ongoing conflicts then warfare would probably go rapidly extinct. Furthermore, much less money would have to be spent on the military world wide, allowing for more productive use of humanity's resources. This lower amount could be low enough that the federal government would not have the manpower or firepower to occupy the world and impose its will, but enough to put a stop to any brush-fire wars that might crop up before they get serious. The threat of intervention of a force stronger than anyone else would deter conflict, but would not be enough to allow the confederate government to have control over member states.

I'd also like to note that this government should not be a federal government but a confederate government. The difference is subtle but crucial. A federal government is responsible to both the people at large and to the component states (like the US). A confederate government is responsible only to the component states. Why is this important? A federal government has a mandate to do the people's will as well as the states will. Over time, this means that the states gradually are increasingly ignored and the government changes from being a federal government to a centralized government. If the states have all the control then the confederate government will never encroach on their rights.

Now you may be thinking, "didn't the US try a confederate government with the Articles of Confederation and it failed?" Yes it did, but there is a key difference: the US had external competition. This confederate world government would have no equivalent level competition. The US needed a federal government because otherwise it would be too fractured and weak in the face of foreign invasions and foreign economic competition. But this government already has enough power to handle internal squabbles and does not need to come together to face foreign threats. There would be no foreign threats. Thus a weak and squabbling confederate government would not only be acceptable, it would be ideal. In essence, its only purpose is to say that violence is not an option when dealing with disputes. Every other power is retained by national governments. Trade relations, economic policy, social policy, tax policy (the confederate government would be funded by the member states), even the form of government is left to the member states states, but inter-state warfare is banned. In essence, think the idea of the UN, lacking a security council, with a military, and without strict rules for its actions, the violations of which would cause member states to rebel thereby removing incentive to violate the rules (basically only intervene when inter-governmental combat begins).
In your first three paragraphs I pretty much entirely agree. Though the "military" or police force, commanded by the World Government would have to be semi-large but as you said not occupationally large. It would still have to be large enough to stop several areas from banding together and causing a dispute between nations. It would have to have the power to tell China, "you will not be developing nuclear weapons" and have china listen. On a large scale weapons production would go down dramatically, and you wouldn't need constant research into new fighter jets, and stronger atomic weapons. This would save us tons of money and as you said allow us to use our resources more efficiently.

Where I get slightly disconnected is with the confederation. I dont quite understand why leaving the power with the states (comprised of the people), is better than with the people directly? How would the states have all the control? I am not sure, is there anywhere that operates as a confederate government now, successfully? I will do more research on Confederate and Federal governments, thanks for bringing that up though. I do however think that is important for someone to be listening to the people, whether it be the world government directly, or the individual states comprising the world government.
 
Top Bottom