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?
$5 says all the libertarians hate the idea :mrgreen:
$5 says all the libertarians hate the idea :mrgreen:
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.
Yes, damn freedom and personal liberty. :roll:
$5 says all the libertarians hate the idea :mrgreen:
This be it.
The individual factions, as well as, the abject, uncontrollable corruption would fester into a police state.
Libertarians, conservatives, most liberals...... :shrug:
Nobody has a sense of humor today
Nobody has a sense of humor today
Nobody has a sense of humor today
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.
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 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 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?
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.
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.
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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?