World Federalism - An approach to World Peace

[Deuce]

Well if you're going to preface this with "clear and effective," sure, why not? World peace, yay!

Can I also have a unicorn?

 

[Naburus]

Well if you're going to preface this with "clear and effective," sure, why not? World peace, yay!

Can I also have a unicorn?

Why is it not within the possibility of the human mind (or in this case many human minds) to create a clear and effective World Government, if we dedicated ourselves to the task and took an intelligent approach to creating it?

 

[Coronado]

Why is it not within the possibility of the human mind (or in this case many human minds) to create a clear and effective World Government, if we dedicated ourselves to the task and took an intelligent approach to creating it?

Look, the only way to achieve world peace is for every last human to be dead. If you were somehow able to superimpose a world government over all humanity, all you would be doing is changing what is now a war between two countries into a civil war.

War is just in our nature. Therefore, if you want to have peace in your little corner of the world, you have to make the cost of someone attacking you greater than the benefit gained from attack. In other words, a good defense is a strong offense. But for everyone to somehow come together and live in harmony under one government is highly unrealistic.

 

[Naburus]

Look, the only way to achieve world peace is for every last human to be dead. If you were somehow able to superimpose a world government over all humanity, all you would be doing is changing what is now a war between two countries into a civil war.

War is just in our nature. Therefore, if you want to have peace in your little corner of the world, you have to make the cost of someone attacking you greater than the benefit gained from attack. In other words, a good defense is a strong offense. But for everyone to somehow come together and live in harmony under one government is highly unrealistic.

Then why is it that we do not have civil wars in the united states on a regular basis? We have people from every possible walk of life in this country, completely integrated. It is obviously possible to do this. You would prevent civil war, by there being a law against it. Removing military from local government control, and putting it the hands of a larger entity that will mediate your issues in a court of law, rather than mediating them on the battlefield.

 

[Coronado]

Then why is it that we do not have civil wars in the united states on a regular basis? We have people from every possible walk of life in this country, completely integrated. It is obviously possible to do this. You would prevent civil war, by there being a law against it. Removing military from local government control, and putting it the hands of a larger entity that will mediate your issues in a court of law, rather than mediating them on the battlefield.

At this juncture, the reason we don't have civil war is because there has been no issue that people feel passionately enough to risk their place in society to fight for. I would venture to guess that there is a direct relationship between a society's average individual wealth and it's likelihood to descend into civil war.

 

[Naburus]

At this juncture, the reason we don't have civil war is because there has been no issue that people feel passionately enough to risk their place in society to fight for. I would venture to guess that there is a direct relationship between a society's average individual wealth and it's likelihood to descend into civil war.

I think that is definitely an over-simplification. But, I do agree, so long as its citizenry is adequately provided for, there is no reason for a civil war. Are you then suggesting that under a world government we would be unable to provide the basic necessities to the citizens of the world?

We could probably provide basic necessities to most people with just half of the world military budget.

Obviously people do not need to be of equal wealth to prevent civil war, as the income distribution in our country alone is abysmal. A lot of our country survive off of what we consider to be the basic necessities in this country. But, they aren't rising up to topple the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets' of society for being so excessively wealthy.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

World peace would be an unmitigated disaster. War is one of the driving forces behind every aspect of human development-- from technology to the arts to the human genome itself. War is a vital component of the human species, and I would oppose any proposal to eradicate war on that principle alone.

World government is even worse. People belong to their nations, and they are not interchangeable. An American is not a Hindi is not a Chinese is not a Nigerian. Different peoples have different governments for good reason; their governments are suited to them and would not operate properly if applied to different nations. A world government would have to be uniquely fitted to thousands of different peoples, and such a thing is impossible. There are too many humans, and too many human cultures, for a single government to properly govern all of them. It would only be possible through the eradication of all the world's cultures and the imposition of a bland, generic human culture.

That too, I would oppose to my dying breath.

 

[Naburus]

World peace would be an unmitigated disaster. War is one of the driving forces behind every aspect of human development-- from technology to the arts to the human genome itself. War is a vital component of the human species, and I would oppose any proposal to eradicate war on that principle alone.

I will agree that war has been a driving force for human invention and innovation. However, there are other things that have been equally useful in developing new technologies, such as space travel and exploration. We will always find something to apply our minds to, whether it be war, or something that improves society, rather than destroying it. There will always be battles to fight, whether it be with uprising groups, or drug cartels, the police will still need state of the art technology. So, I don't expect that outlet for innovation to disappear regardless of what happens.

World government is even worse. People belong to their nations, and they are not interchangeable. An American is not a Hindi is not a Chinese is not a Nigerian. Different peoples have different governments for good reason; their governments are suited to them and would not operate properly if applied to different nations. A world government would have to be uniquely fitted to thousands of different peoples, and such a thing is impossible. There are too many humans, and too many human cultures, for a single government to properly govern all of them. It would only be possible through the eradication of all the world's cultures and the imposition of a bland, generic human culture.

That too, I would oppose to my dying breath.

I'm not sure if you've read over my other posts on this thread, but I've pretty much covered this topic. How many of the nationalities and cultures that you've mentioned reside in the united states? Once they moved here, did they lose their culture? I completely agree that there are unique circumstances that will require unique approaches to society from different governments. Which is why I referenced the world government, not as an all encompassing American/European style government, but extrapolated to the whole globe. But, instead, as more of an overseer for the rest of the world to operate as it prefers within the confines of allowing all human beings an agreed upon set of specific Human Rights. The organization I've described will do nothing to destroy the rich cultures created around the world. But, should more likely allow them to thrive and more easily be learned and understood by the rest of the world.

I can not promise that things would turn out how I am proposing they might, as no one has ever attempted to create this sort of system before, therefore we have no idea how it would turn out. But, it is definitely worth a try. If we as a people thought it out thoroughly it could be a fantastic thing for the world.

Please, re-read what has been written on the other pages of this thread, then tell me specifically why you still think this is incorrect. Then, please tell me where you get your evidence that you would need to eradicate culture and create a bland and generic culture in order to be able to properly govern the people?

 

[Civil1z@tion]

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.

The reason why leaving the world government in the hands of states is superior is to tackle the one big problem that can crop up in a federal government: the gradual expansion of central authority and power. The only way that such diverse cultures as those that exist on Earth will be able to live together with one government is if that government does not expand its power. Peruvians are never going to consent to having the follow the cultural ideas of China in the laws they follow. Russians don't want to live under the same system as South Africans. The objectives of world government need to be kept as limited as possible, so that people will actually consent to its existence. No one is going to consent to actually being governed by not only another nationality, but a completely different civilization. When the government is completely in the hands of member states, they have no interest in expanding the world government's power because that would mean a consequent loss of their own powers. But if the people directly control the world government, then they are much more likely to want to expand that government's powers either against their own local government or, likely the more common result, against other governments. This would inevitably lead to a break up and quite probably civil war as member states and indeed entire cultures try to retain their distinctive identities. Thus, you've solved nothing.

Think about what happened in US history. Since the Revolution, the people have gradually pushed the states away from any influence in the national government. Even in the relatively culturally homogeneous US (relative to the world or even to Europe) this was a major contributing factor that caused the Civil War (the single biggest issue by a long shot in this states' rights conflict being slavery, of course). Eventually, state legislatures even lost control over the appointment of Senators meaning state governments had no direct influence on the federal government. This happened in 1913 and what has been the result since? Constant degrading of state powers in favor of the federal government (in a few cases like segregation for a good cause, but just as often, like the national speed limit or drinking age, for bad ones). That can work in the US because we identify ourselves as Americans, but far too few people seriously self-identify as "global citizens" (at least not in a meaningful way such as supporting some currently non-existent over-arching "global culture") for that too work on a global level.

By the way I did not why confederations would work in this case (namely lack of external competition). Confederations don't fail because of internal problems, they fail because of internal problems when threatened by outsiders. Otherwise, there is no pressure on them and they can be as inactive as they want for as long as they want.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

World peace would be an unmitigated disaster. War is one of the driving forces behind every aspect of human development-- from technology to the arts to the human genome itself. War is a vital component of the human species, and I would oppose any proposal to eradicate war on that principle alone.

War is hardly the only driver of innovation. Indeed I'd assert that it can delay useful innovation by diverting technologies from commercial purposes that actually help people to military ends before they ever get released to the public. The first vacuum tube computer was put to use determining artillery shell trajectories when it could have been used to help the economy by solving accounting problems or helping crunch numbers for scientific research. If the researchers who made the computer hadn't been hired by the government they could have been in private industry driving the kind of innovation that brought about the industrial revolution and its continuation to the present day.

Frankly, I see this as an off-shoot of the broken window fallacy.

World government is even worse. People belong to their nations, and they are not interchangeable. An American is not a Hindi is not a Chinese is not a Nigerian. Different peoples have different governments for good reason; their governments are suited to them and would not operate properly if applied to different nations. A world government would have to be uniquely fitted to thousands of different peoples, and such a thing is impossible. There are too many humans, and too many human cultures, for a single government to properly govern all of them. It would only be possible through the eradication of all the world's cultures and the imposition of a bland, generic human culture.

That too, I would oppose to my dying breath.

You are right only if that government actually has the power to effectively govern. All a world government should have is the power to prevent violence between states. In such an instance cultural diversity can be preserved and so can peace at the same time.

 

[Goshin]

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?

World peace is a fantasy in the remotely foreseeable future.


I am not intrested in world unity. My culture has too little in common with too many others in the world to be governed by any worldwide body. Good intentions aside, it would lead to tyranny.

No thanks.

 

[Naburus]

World peace is a fantasy in the remotely foreseeable future.


I am not intrested in world unity. My culture has too little in common with too many others in the world to be governed by any worldwide body. Good intentions aside, it would lead to tyranny.

No thanks.

I appreciate you coming to this thread and reading what I started off with. However, before making a comment which you can probably imagine has already been made and debated, please take some time to look over the rest of the thread. Unlike a lot of other threads I've been a part of on this site, this one has some pretty good debate going back and forth in my opinion.

 

[Shadow Serious]

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.

Or it can be done by those in power who see advantage gained by creating a more expansive Meta-national Government. Or maybe the ones in power are ideologues or the ones in power are actually puppets of some international cabal or such. My view is that if there is any "groundswell" from the Polity for an additional layer of Government and surrender of sovereignty then it is likely that it is orchestrated by those in power. For those who want to use the Tea Party as an counter example I point out that at best they want to reduce spending at a central level and at worst decentralize the government which is the opposite of the OP.

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.

More likely the national governments would have to repress people opposed to this and yes that will cause a lot of bloodshed.

But, it could certainly be accomplished diplomatically as well.

This would only apply to countries in each other's pockets. Or at least those in power.

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.

If by democratic countries you mean Democratic Republics then it is at least plausible if you can get the countries to agree on taxes, jurisprudence, appropriate partition of representation, minimal standard of Citizenship, the recognized Language(s) of that meta-government in which it writes its laws and Constitution, the Status of Religion and whether is there a pro forma State Church, the Currency what type and how it is regulated, need i go on?

I think that one can only get a Confederation of Nations when it is said and done and I would not hold your breath on it be granted any tax powers on its own. Or police powers. Or Judaical Review Powers for courts involving decisions involving a nation's internal matter. Or most of what i did say may be required to make a meta-nation.

And why would "small countries" want to join the big league countries? If they join they would likely be swamped. If they remain independent but are cooperative with the meta-nation they could be useful in some instances also when the meta-nation breaks apart they would not have the headache of disruption of economy or not as much.

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.

If that big country is a Demo or Demo Republic and the Polity support a meta-nation then it not a holdout. If it is a authoritarian government then there would be a bloody revolution which would very likely have to be supported by the meta-nation to be successful so it would be a war basically, which is going to be expensive. This means that the ones in power will have to do a disinformation campaign to build popular support for this. Which means a concentration of power to the government and more Central as opposed to Federal which leads to a less Democratic government. Which brings us to . . .

I don't understand why people can ignore what history has taught us and say that centralized government ruins everything.

It ruins freedom, liberty and prosperity. The Roman government had a very good Central Government system. There were no freedom, liberty or prosperity in general. They were responsible for the growth of piracy while they were in power. The ones who benefited the most were Roman Citizens and then mostly the wealthy Romans.
And why have a central government if the majority and I mean super-majority cannot benefit?

 

[Shadow Serious]

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.

This statement only would make sense if you are describing hunter-gather societies when two groups meet it means direct competition. When you get to agricultural societies and beyond that there doesn't necessarily have to be direct competition. Where there is direct competition then yes there is war.

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.

Or we can put the world population to good use and build a world in a way that one would not need a central government to control everything and leave agriculture to those interested in it and people then can lead peaceful and prosperous 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

If you do not want to lose the scientific advancements then it cannot be "agriculturally" based. You must have inferstrucure to maintain and yes expand scientific developments not to mention the utilization of such. Otherwise those discoveries that did not deal with "agriculture" would eventually be forgotten.

It takes a blind man to think if you remove central government we'll all live together peacefully.

All that is required of people to live peacefully together is respect for ones fellow man, and belief of rule of law. Without this even a "central" government will not be able to keep different factions from killing each other. Just mute it somewhat.

"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

I call B.S. on that between equals there is generally peace maybe a grudging peace but peace none the less. It is between unequals where the greater power will war on the weaker. Parties of equal Power do not war with one another without good reason, the benefits do not out weigh the cost.

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.

Here you are describing non democratic States and the ruler could be deciding to do a war because he is demented or because he is told that the other party is a pushover when they are not. Or a Cabal wants it for its own reasons. Or the ruler is a d***wad who need to demonstrate his virtility. Or whatever.

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.

Maybe, Counter-factual history is Counter-factual.

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?

The first sentence doesn't make sense unless your point is that people want to rule over one another. For the second sentence by definition there would be no war with only one government but there can be insurrection, civil war and sectionalism.

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?

We are much closer to a Police State than we are to a limited government that most of our founders envisioned. Furthermore imagine the probable result of just the so called North American Union. Mexico would be depopulated and the corruption there would endanger the rule of law in that meta-nation. Imagine what a World Government Would do. USA would have a population near India and China and would lose its culture very soon after.

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?

Power corrupts and as long as there is some competition it means that it keeps corruption in check. One World Government means no Check on Corruption.

We seem to put no faith in the ability of human beings to create anything useful nowadays.

There is little faith for GOVERNMENTS to create anything useful, there is plenty of faith that individual people working in concert outside of government channels can create something useful.

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.

They were for the most part moral and honorable and were not for the most part professional politicians. Most of those in government now are professional politicians and dishonorable and immoral and thus is worse for the general Polity.

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?

Maybe, Counter-factual history is Counter-factual.

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.

It depends on what you mean by peace, having 99.97% of the world population under the thumb of a Totalitarian World Government will likely result in peace. But it would not be a good life to live. Peace is valueless if life is not worth the living.

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.

While we have examples of people who work every day (they generally die early), we do not have any examples of a "World Government" and its results. Personally I say give the majority of the world about 500 years and maybe a world government will be feasible after tribalism is ended and we figure how to eliminate the development of "Big Man" would be dictators, and have structures to blunt strongly monomania of various stripes. I would add things like Bayesian Analysis, multi valued logic, and other methods to avoid conceptual illusions would need to be ingrained in society in other words, we are not anywhere near ready yet.

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 reason there is not a dictator now is due to the due diligence of the people of this Republic. Those who are in power want to accrue more power and must be resisted constantly.

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.

In societies where the rule of law is an ingrained value there doesn't need to be a constant police presence. Police are an investigatory institution and do not use force as much as you imply to maintain peace. The use of force by Police is necessary but not central to the maintenance of peace. The courts and penalties there are used to inhibit violations of peace. In society which values rule of law the jury trials will seek to maintain the peace.

BTW giving prior statements that democracies are the ones that will start it you then go to what appears to me a Fascist slant. So why do you think the democracies will start it?

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.

In general, I do not think that a World Government should be instituted just for world peace or as one of the reasons for world peace. Hopefully, one of the results would be world peace but that would be due to conditions that would exist in the world.

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

Maybe you have a Thread focusing on World Government and a Poll with a general topic on World Peace. No one wants to answer a Poll with the OP and the Poll being on different topics.

While making this reply I decided to answer "I do not care about World Peace"

 

[Naburus]

The reason why leaving the world government in the hands of states is superior is to tackle the one big problem that can crop up in a federal government: the gradual expansion of central authority and power. The only way that such diverse cultures as those that exist on Earth will be able to live together with one government is if that government does not expand its power. Peruvians are never going to consent to having the follow the cultural ideas of China in the laws they follow. Russians don't want to live under the same system as South Africans. The objectives of world government need to be kept as limited as possible, so that people will actually consent to its existence. No one is going to consent to actually being governed by not only another nationality, but a completely different civilization. When the government is completely in the hands of member states, they have no interest in expanding the world government's power because that would mean a consequent loss of their own powers. But if the people directly control the world government, then they are much more likely to want to expand that government's powers either against their own local government or, likely the more common result, against other governments. This would inevitably lead to a break up and quite probably civil war as member states and indeed entire cultures try to retain their distinctive identities. Thus, you've solved nothing.

I agree with you about how the system may function in the hands of either a federation or a confederation. However, as we've seen with the UN security counsel, and the prior League of Nations. These systems have no actual power to do anything, since the member states are still of equal sovereignty, including the sovereignty to leave the "union". The unfortunate part of instituting a World Government, is that, leaving the union cannot be allowed to happen, lest you ruin the entire system. The world government would need the power to protect its citizens against possible tyranny from their national governments. Standing armies in individual member states would have to be abolished. As this is counter-productive to the peace of the whole. I accept that differing cultures do not want to have the views of other cultures imposed upon them, and that is fine. We would need to implement a system with basic freedoms that prevent the forced encroachment of another culture upon the existing culture of individual citizens, similar to the US constitution. Disputes about this encroachment would have to be taken up at an international level court. If it is found that a policy is causing an issue, the court can decide if that policy must be stopped. I also accept that people definitely would not want to be ruled by another civilization entirely. I would not envision a world government being run by any one country. It would have to include members of all member states, similar to our senate/congress. This would prevent the voice of any member state from being drowned out completely. Part of the purpose of creating the World Government is to usurp a certain level of power from all member states, for the greater good of humanity. Now, I do no suggest implementing social programs, or economic regulations at this level, at least in the beginning. During its first phase it would only be there to control the army, and enforce basic human rights globally. However, I also feel that over time, as the rest of humanity gets up to date with education and understanding of the world. It would not be a bad idea to have it begin creating relevant global legislation that protects people from some of the terrible things that happen in a market driven purely capitalistic society. I believe there are good aspects to many different forms of government and economic policies, as well as there are bad. Why not take as many of the good parts and merge them together, to make a new type of government/economy? Just because I do not agree with all aspects of capitalism does not mean I do not believe capitalism is a good thing, for example, and that I would prefer a communist society. ( I would not.)

Think about what happened in US history. Since the Revolution, the people have gradually pushed the states away from any influence in the national government. Even in the relatively culturally homogeneous US (relative to the world or even to Europe) this was a major contributing factor that caused the Civil War (the single biggest issue by a long shot in this states' rights conflict being slavery, of course). Eventually, state legislatures even lost control over the appointment of Senators meaning state governments had no direct influence on the federal government. This happened in 1913 and what has been the result since? Constant degrading of state powers in favor of the federal government (in a few cases like segregation for a good cause, but just as often, like the national speed limit or drinking age, for bad ones). That can work in the US because we identify ourselves as Americans, but far too few people seriously self-identify as "global citizens" (at least not in a meaningful way such as supporting some currently non-existent over-arching "global culture") for that too work on a global level.

I don't personally see how we would have benefited from leaving these rights in the hands of the state governments rather than in the hands of the people directly. Why would the state legislature be in control of appointing senators, when people are just as capable of choosing who to best represent them? Where would there be a benefit to the overall country if we put powers back in the hands of the individual states, which have been usurped by the current federal government? I don't personally see a federal drinking age, or a national speed limit, as necessarily being a bad thing. Though we could probably lower the drinking age, since everyone over 18 drinks anyways. When people first came to America I doubt they self-identified as Americans as well. It would take time to obtain that sort of identity. But, people would eventually embrace it. I will say, if we were to discover an equally intelligent and powerful alien race tomorrow, people would certainly start embracing being global citizens, or citizens of earth. Because suddenly the world wouldn't feel like such a big place.

By the way I did not why confederations would work in this case (namely lack of external competition). Confederations don't fail because of internal problems, they fail because of internal problems when threatened by outsiders. Otherwise, there is no pressure on them and they can be as inactive as they want for as long as they want.

By the sounds of your original argument our confederation failed because of quarrels over states rights, namely slavery. That is an internal, not external, problem. So, you can't follow that up by saying confederations only fail in the face of external pressures. If I'm interpreting what you're saying, our confederation and states rights dissolved because the North said the South cannot have slaves, which they took exception to. This is a human rights issue as I have described the World Government needing control over. If it was in the hands of the states and not the people, how long before an internal war occurs when the middle east is unwilling to stop oppressing women?

 

[Naburus]

Or it can be done by those in power who see advantage gained by creating a more expansive Meta-national Government. Or maybe the ones in power are ideologues or the ones in power are actually puppets of some international cabal or such. My view is that if there is any "groundswell" from the Polity for an additional layer of Government and surrender of sovereignty then it is likely that it is orchestrated by those in power. For those who want to use the Tea Party as an counter example I point out that at best they want to reduce spending at a central level and at worst decentralize the government which is the opposite of the OP.

At least from the point of view of an American I don't actually believe as a citizen I would be surrendering any sovereignty in the creation of a World Government. Rather, I would be gaining sovereignty. As currently we are restricted by individual governments and subject to varying sets of laws, which can be confusing and counterproductive to global trade, and travel. I agree that it is possible to create a world government by means other than mobilizing the majority of humanity. However, the possibility of every current world leader being an ideologue is nearly as impossible as all world leaders being puppets of an international cabal simultaneously. I feel it is much more likely that pressure to change our political and social environment is come from humanity as a whole, or at least as a majority.

More likely the national governments would have to repress people opposed to this and yes that will cause a lot of bloodshed.

I don't know of many people that would oppose being given additional rights, or basic freedoms, and no longer having to deal with or worry about war. However, I do know of many governments that would vehemently oppose this. That is where you could see some bloodshed, assuming that the citizens of those governments agree to fight that war. However, since we have no way of knowing what will actually happen, its almost pointless to argue over it, whether cynically or optimistically.

This would only apply to countries in each other's pockets. Or at least those in power.

Why?

If by democratic countries you mean Democratic Republics then it is at least plausible if you can get the countries to agree on taxes, jurisprudence, appropriate partition of representation, minimal standard of Citizenship, the recognized Language(s) of that meta-government in which it writes its laws and Constitution, the Status of Religion and whether is there a pro forma State Church, the Currency what type and how it is regulated, need i go on?

I don't actually think that the meta-government/world government should have control over all of these aspects of government. One thing you mentioned being language, which I do believe is important. Even before forming a World Government we should implement a global auxiliary language. I don't really care what language it is, though in my studies "Basic English" originated by Charles Ogden, makes a strong case to fill this position. It is important that all of humanity be able to communicate ideas to one another at least on a basic level. In order for any unity to be realized in the future. I do not believe it is good to replace native languages, instead to supplement them with a second auxiliary language that is easy to learn and very "light" in its vocabulary. Another difficult one to figure out would be appropriate partition of representation, however, I do not feel this is an impossible feat to accomplish, will just take some dedicated thought. Outside of basic rights of humanity, auxiliary language, adequate representation, and control of the military, I think the World Government would be best suited to remain a very lean organization with as few responsibilities as possible.

I think that one can only get a Confederation of Nations when it is said and done and I would not hold your breath on it be granted any tax powers on its own. Or police powers. Or Judaical Review Powers for courts involving decisions involving a nation's internal matter. Or most of what i did say may be required to make a meta-nation.

I think we have tried a confederation of nations many times in the past and even still today to solve global problems affecting humanity as a whole. Overall, its a failure. Very little is accomplished, and people really don't care what the opinions of other nations are on matters of internal nature. A confederation of nations retaining their national sovereignty will not work and isn't even worth attempting any longer.

And why would "small countries" want to join the big league countries? If they join they would likely be swamped. If they remain independent but are cooperative with the meta-nation they could be useful in some instances also when the meta-nation breaks apart they would not have the headache of disruption of economy or not as much.

This position already assumes a failure of the World Government branch. If people expect it to fail from the beginning it will never be able to accomplish anything. The small nations would want to join to gain access to the vast resources controlled by the larger nations, in my opinion. But, this is just conjecture and I have no way of knowing how this system would occur. This situation was only an assumption to how it may come about through diplomatic means, it is no way me acting as if I know for sure how this may happen in reality.

If that big country is a Demo or Demo Republic and the Polity support a meta-nation then it not a holdout. If it is a authoritarian government then there would be a bloody revolution which would very likely have to be supported by the meta-nation to be successful so it would be a war basically, which is going to be expensive. This means that the ones in power will have to do a disinformation campaign to build popular support for this. Which means a concentration of power to the government and more Central as opposed to Federal which leads to a less Democratic government. Which brings us to . . .

Why would the larger nation promising world peace and increased sovereignty need to create a disinformation campaign to convince people who only recently joined into the World Government to gain these same things that they need to go to war with a country that is oppressing its citizenry? If anything in my opinion the hold-out country would need to create a disinformation campaign to convince their citizens who are currently under authoritarian rule, that they do not want the increased freedom and possible happiness promised by the meta-nation. Without the hold-out country convincing their citizens of this, why would they shed their blood for this authoritarian government?

It ruins freedom, liberty and prosperity. The Roman government had a very good Central Government system. There were no freedom, liberty or prosperity in general. They were responsible for the growth of piracy while they were in power. The ones who benefited the most were Roman Citizens and then mostly the wealthy Romans.
And why have a central government if the majority and I mean super-majority cannot benefit?

I don't understand how you get the facts for your argument here. I believe that to draw a distinction between what I'm suggesting and ancient Rome, is not comparing apples to apples. Rome did not have the infrastructure or the resources to effectively govern its conquered territories. Which led to newly "conquered" territories not receiving adequate support from the central government. While the spoils of winning those wars filtered into the capital and subsequently to the Roman citizens. In relation to today, with our increased ability to communicate and effectively transmit resources over long distances, in short time periods. I do not think we would see a similar situation. Beyond that, the motivations of the Roman Empire while expanding were never to assure human rights to all humanity and end the need for war. Which would be the main motivation of this World Government. Why would we create a government to assure human rights only to ignore the people we wanted to provide basic protections to?

 

[dadman]

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
. . . . TO FORCE IT

Is the world ready for the Antichrist? What single cataclysmic event could catapult the peoples of the world into the arms of the man of sin and his one world government?
World War III would bring destruction beyond belief to the human race.
According to the Bible, one person out of 3 on the earth will die in this war of all wars!
Entire nations will cease to exist!
After this prophesied global holocaust, people will beg for a strong man from somewhere to lead the way out of the chaos and destruction and into peace and security.
Such a man does exist, and, at the right moment, he will step onto the world scene.
He will offer leadership and direction, but his price will be absolute obedience.

World War III. The stage is being set right now . . . . continue

 

[Civil1z@tion]

I agree with you about how the system may function in the hands of either a federation or a confederation. However, as we've seen with the UN security counsel, and the prior League of Nations. These systems have no actual power to do anything, since the member states are still of equal sovereignty, including the sovereignty to leave the "union". The unfortunate part of instituting a World Government, is that, leaving the union cannot be allowed to happen, lest you ruin the entire system. The world government would need the power to protect its citizens against possible tyranny from their national governments. Standing armies in individual member states would have to be abolished. As this is counter-productive to the peace of the whole. I accept that differing cultures do not want to have the views of other cultures imposed upon them, and that is fine. We would need to implement a system with basic freedoms that prevent the forced encroachment of another culture upon the existing culture of individual citizens, similar to the US constitution. Disputes about this encroachment would have to be taken up at an international level court. If it is found that a policy is causing an issue, the court can decide if that policy must be stopped. I also accept that people definitely would not want to be ruled by another civilization entirely. I would not envision a world government being run by any one country. It would have to include members of all member states, similar to our senate/congress. This would prevent the voice of any member state from being drowned out completely. Part of the purpose of creating the World Government is to usurp a certain level of power from all member states, for the greater good of humanity. Now, I do no suggest implementing social programs, or economic regulations at this level, at least in the beginning. During its first phase it would only be there to control the army, and enforce basic human rights globally. However, I also feel that over time, as the rest of humanity gets up to date with education and understanding of the world. It would not be a bad idea to have it begin creating relevant global legislation that protects people from some of the terrible things that happen in a market driven purely capitalistic society. I believe there are good aspects to many different forms of government and economic policies, as well as there are bad. Why not take as many of the good parts and merge them together, to make a new type of government/economy? Just because I do not agree with all aspects of capitalism does not mean I do not believe capitalism is a good thing, for example, and that I would prefer a communist society. ( I would not.)

I don't personally see how we would have benefited from leaving these rights in the hands of the state governments rather than in the hands of the people directly. Why would the state legislature be in control of appointing senators, when people are just as capable of choosing who to best represent them? Where would there be a benefit to the overall country if we put powers back in the hands of the individual states, which have been usurped by the current federal government? I don't personally see a federal drinking age, or a national speed limit, as necessarily being a bad thing. Though we could probably lower the drinking age, since everyone over 18 drinks anyways. When people first came to America I doubt they self-identified as Americans as well. It would take time to obtain that sort of identity. But, people would eventually embrace it. I will say, if we were to discover an equally intelligent and powerful alien race tomorrow, people would certainly start embracing being global citizens, or citizens of earth. Because suddenly the world wouldn't feel like such a big place.

This all seems to come down to one issue: whether there is a universal "good" set of laws and policies that apply to everyone. That answer is a definitive no. If states don't have the power to adjust the laws and regulations of the area under their control as they see fit, then you wind up with a set of policies that in the end reflect the needs of no one. The closer to the individual you can put most (though not all) legislative powers, the better tailored to the needs of the people the laws will be. That is why states rights matter.

If laws are being determined for 7 billion people then you are having to try and take into account 7 billion different situations, millions of little community situations, tens of thousands of more provincial/regional situations, and hundreds of national situations. There is no way to be effective when that many different variables are at play. The US federal government screws this up a lot and its dealing with one nation of 300 million. Giving power to the people doesn't help as the average person is less knowledgeable of the needs of a wide variety of people, more knowledgeable of their own needs, and therefore going to support laws that have to apply to 7 billion people that benefit themselves. That's not a good system.

By the sounds of your original argument our confederation failed because of quarrels over states rights, namely slavery. That is an internal, not external, problem. So, you can't follow that up by saying confederations only fail in the face of external pressures. If I'm interpreting what you're saying, our confederation and states rights dissolved because the North said the South cannot have slaves, which they took exception to. This is a human rights issue as I have described the World Government needing control over. If it was in the hands of the states and not the people, how long before an internal war occurs when the middle east is unwilling to stop oppressing women?

I have no idea where you got that idea. Our system was federal when the Civil War happened. The minute we adopted the 1787 Constitution we were a federal not a confederate system. We have simply moved towards gradually less federalism over time.

 

[Naburus]

This statement only would make sense if you are describing hunter-gather societies ... Where there is direct competition then yes there is war.

It is unfortunate but generally accepted as true that is human nature to want more than you have. Most of human history from Egyptian times on into Medieval times, was majorly an agricultural society. Yet, there were many wars waged during this time.

Or we can put the world population to good use and build a world in a way that one would not need a central government to control everything and leave agriculture to those interested in it and people then can lead peaceful and prosperous lives.

This is a more far fetched ideal than a World Government. It is extremely unlikely to have a global system where people live their lives in peace and leave one another alone. Without the need for a central governing system. People from as far back as human history goes, have had conflict, pretty much entirely over resources. Considering the finite amount of resources on our planet, that is not going to change. Without a centralized government to make sure these conflicts do not escalate. If everyone in the world could be provided with all of the resources they need, then sure, we could have a world where everyone lives in peace and there is no conflict, but, that just isn't the case.

If you do not want to lose the scientific advancements then it cannot be "agriculturally" based. ... Otherwise those discoveries that did not deal with "agriculture" would eventually be forgotten.

I actually have zero interest in being part of an agricultural society. I've made my living off of technology, and my career is based solely around it. Without it, who knows what I'd be doing. If I can, I'd like to keep modern technology around.

All that is required of people to live peacefully together is respect for ones fellow man, and belief of rule of law. Without this even a "central" government will not be able to keep different factions from killing each other. Just mute it somewhat.

Oh, is that all? Not to be sarcastic, but, there is no such time, that I'm aware of, at any point in history where people just live peacefully together, respect their fellow man, and maintain a strong belief in the rule of law. WITHOUT a centralized government. Whether it be on a small scale, with a tribal chief, or a large scale with a central government. Who creates the rule of law for you to have a belief in, and who enforces it, if there is no government?

I call B.S. on that between equals there is generally peace maybe a grudging peace but peace none the less. ... Parties of equal Power do not war with one another without good reason, the benefits do not out weigh the cost.

The quote I posted did not speak of war between people of equal social status and power. It spoke of people of equal sovereignty. These are two dramatically different things. I agree that hypothetically if everyone was of equal social status, and power, there would probably be no need for war. However, that is a system that will never be accepted by society. Especially considering the population on this planet. If we equally distributed resources and power to every individual we would all be living in poverty. Doesn't sound like my ideal world, free of war, or not. However, when people are in contact of equal sovereignty but differing levels of social status and power, war is an eventuality.

Here you are describing non democratic States and the ruler could be deciding to do a war because he is demented or ... need to demonstrate his virtility. Or whatever.

I agree that there could have been a variety of motivations for why these wars erupted. However, it doesn't change the fact that they occurred at all times between units of equal sovereignty. War doesn't occur unless there is a void of a greater law to guide the actions of the men/women involved. At least from what I've seen/read about in history.

Maybe, Counter-factual history is Counter-factual.

You make this statement multiple times. As if most of what our conversation has been about isn't counter factual. Most of our discussion is based on individual assumptions and hypothesis of what could and may or may not happen. I didn't say that war and revolts would definitely have occurred, but, based on our history prior to uniting the states, the odds are good additional conflicts would have arisen between states over time.

The first sentence doesn't make sense unless your point is that people want to rule over one another. For the second sentence by definition there would be no war with only one government but there can be insurrection, civil war and sectionalism.

The point is not necessarily that people want to rule over one another. But, that people have varying motivations as you've described before to begin conflict with one another. It could be as simple as a man murdering another man for sleeping with his wife. If that occurred between the Democratic Republic of 929 Tripoli Street, and the authoritarian regime of 930 Tripoli Street. That would be considered a war. While this sort of conflict still occurs in current society, there are legal ramifications to it. Which prevent the general populous from engaging in those sorts of activities.

We are much closer to a Police State than we are to a limited government that most of our founders envisioned. ... Imagine what a World Government Would do. USA would have a population near India and China and would lose its culture very soon after.

I want to use your counter factual history quote, though this would be future. But, I will not. Where does it say that our founding fathers envisioned limited government? Also, why should we care what our founding fathers envisioned? Society is something that evolves and grows as time passes. A set of laws and beliefs originated in the 1300s generally did not effectively apply to life in the 1800s, just as a set of laws and beliefs from the 1800s does not generally apply in their entirety to our modern times. If America joined with Mexico and Canada, why would everyone leave Mexico and come to America. If we're all one country? Why wouldn't they stay in Mexico and take advantage of the new infrastructure which would be created there? Surely America and Canada would not agree to unite with Mexico only to watch it sit there unpopulated and unused. We would work to improve its infrastructure and utilize its useful real estate for production of goods and services. Just as we've done in our own countries. But, what then again, who knows what would happen. Being afraid of what could happen is no excuse for not trying something. Fear is the biggest emotion that maintains the status quo in this world. Fear of the unknown, fear of what might happen, and fear of things not working as planned. Living our lives in fear of the unknown will never help us to progress as a people to a better state than we currently live in.

Power corrupts and as long as there is some competition it means that it keeps corruption in check. One World Government means no Check on Corruption.

Incorrect, the citizens are the check on corruption. We just have to empower ourselves to change the government if it not working. Just as we do in the US. We rely on the citizens and the media to make sure corruption does not run rampant in our politics. When we see corruption we do everything we can to eliminate it. This could be extrapolated to a global scale. Beyond that, my proposition for the limited role of this World Government would inherently limit corruption of it in my opinion.

There is little faith for GOVERNMENTS to create anything useful, there is plenty of faith that... Most of those in government now are professional politicians and dishonorable and immoral and thus is worse for the general Polity.

Which is where my argument comes from that this system would need to be created by people and not governments. However, to say that being a career politician is necessarily a bad thing, it probably incorrect. I do not envision all politicians as corrupt. Some general want to improve society, and work to accomplish that. But, some are corrupt, and they have certainly made a bad name for politicians in this country.

I do not see any historical evidence that our founding fathers were any more moral or honorable than the average person today. I do agree they weren't professional politicians, and probably because of this they were more in touch with which general citizens rights needed to be protected most. But, that is just conjecture, I don't have any facts to back up that claim.

It depends on what you mean by peace, having 99.97% of the world population under the thumb of a Totalitarian World Government will likely result in peace. But it would not be a good life to live. Peace is valueless if life is not worth the living.

I completely agree, why would we create this as a totalitarian world government? I don't think that would be something we need to worry about.

While we have examples of people who work every day (they generally die early), we do not have any examples of a "World Government" and its results. Personally I say give the...illusions would need to be ingrained in society in other words, we are not anywhere near ready yet.

I will need to read up on Bayesian Analysis, and multi-valued logic, as I am not familiar with these terms. But, 500 years is an exceptional length of timed compared to modern history. There are things that need action now, we do not need to wait 500 years. Too often we take a wait and see approach to solving problems. People too much lack the boldness to take action, and accept failure if it occurs. By saying this I do not say lets jump into it and see what happens, because I'm fearless. But, I do say, we can immediately start working to create this system, implementing it on a small scale immediately and letting it grow over 500 years as people become ready for a fully democratic, world government. We do not need to wait to start working.

The only reason there is not a dictator now is due to the due diligence of the people of this Republic. Those who are in power want to accrue more power and must be resisted constantly.

Who are they resisted by? In the case of the US, it would be other people in power. More than it is the citizenry, since we have a relatively small amount of influence on what laws pass and do not pass in our country. There is not a dictator because people in this country value their freedom, from the politicians which we elect, all the way through to the blue collar workers. There are some who do not, but, the vast majority do, and in a society like ours, typically the majority rules.

In societies where the rule of law is an ingrained value there doesn't need to be a constant police presence. ... The courts and penalties there are used to inhibit violations of peace. In society which values rule of law the jury trials will seek to maintain the peace.

I disagree, police presence is important. They do not enforce laws by force, but by the threat of force. Depending on the law being broken, they may be more investigatory than forceful. But, in either situation, whether the force is actual physical harm to you, or, force by removing all of your government protected freedoms (going to jail). It is still a form of force, or I guess more accurately a form of punishment.

BTW giving prior statements that democracies are the ones that will start it you then go to what appears to me a Fascist slant. So why do you think the democracies will start it?

Where do I pick up a Fascist slant? I don't know that anything about the system I've proposed throughout this thread and in my responses to you suggests Fascism at all.

In general, I do not think that a World Government should be instituted just for world peace or as one of the reasons for world peace. Hopefully, one of the results would be world peace but that would be due to conditions that would exist in the world.

This world government I propose isn't to create world peace, but to guarantee basic human rights to all human beings. So, I think we've got that covered.

*Disclaimer - some meaning has been lost in quotes which have been shortened due to size restrictions on the length of a post. Please find the quote in Shadow's previous post if you are curious what exactly he said.

 

[Naburus]

This all seems to come down to one issue: whether there is a universal "good" set of laws and policies that apply to everyone. That answer is a definitive no. If states don't have the power to adjust the laws and regulations of the area under their control as they see fit, then you wind up with a set of policies that in the end reflect the needs of no one. The closer to the individual you can put most (though not all) legislative powers, the better tailored to the needs of the people the laws will be. That is why states rights matter.

In relation to this, I am going to agree and disagree. I will say there is no universal "good" set of laws in their entirety that resides with any current system of government. However, I will assert that there are a universal set of laws that could effectively be applied to each human being. Mostly as I've referenced many times, in relation to human rights issues. I also agree with your later statement that if the member states of this world government have no freedom to govern themselves, then, they will not be effectively suited to their geographical area and cultural restrictions. However, as I've proposed, member states would need to be democratic in the end, they may not need to start off that way, but all member states in the final phase of this system would need to be internally democratic. Just as it is in the US. We have state legislation, which applies to the people within our states, but then we have federal laws, which overrides state legislation when a conflict exists. So long as the World Government is kept extremely limited in its ability to legislate, and member states are maintaining a government that listens to the voice of their people, it doesn't matter who holds the power over the World Government. If its a confederation of nations as you've suggested, or some other form. If it starts as a confederation of nations and evolves into a direct world democracy based on internal pressures from citizens of the world. That is fine by me. So long as it is kept relatively restricted in its power to legislate, but all powerful in its power to prevent fighting between member nations.

If laws are being determined for 7 billion people then you are having to try and take into account 7 billion different situations, millions of little community situations, tens of thousands of more provincial/regional situations, and hundreds of national situations. There is no way to be effective when that many different variables are at play. The US federal government screws this up a lot and its dealing with one nation of 300 million. Giving power to the people doesn't help as the average person is less knowledgeable of the needs of a wide variety of people, more knowledgeable of their own needs, and therefore going to support laws that have to apply to 7 billion people that benefit themselves. That's not a good system.

That is an effective point, and definitely in current times it is absolutely correct. Maybe in the future we will become more knowledgeable of the world affairs, and this system would certainly help to accomplish that. So, lets leave the nations power in the control of the people residing withing them. But, leave the World Government power in the hands of the people running the individual nations. What do you feel about that?

I have no idea where you got that idea. Our system was federal when the Civil War happened. The minute we adopted the 1787 Constitution we were a federal not a confederate system. We have simply moved towards gradually less federalism over time.

I misinterpreted what you were saying. I apologize, I definitively have a lack of specific knowledge in relation to American civic history. I guess my question to you would be, what was better about the pre 1787 times, as opposed to the post-1787 times? I would like to delve a little deeper into this subject, if possible, as I have limited knowledge in this area and it will help me to learn about how the two systems work more effectively.

 

[Shadow Serious]

At least from the point of view of an American I don't actually believe as a citizen I would be surrendering any sovereignty in the creation of a World Government. Rather, I would be gaining sovereignty.

Interesting, I wonder what your definition of sovereignty is. It is different than mine. I define sovereignty as the state of being separate and independent of another authority. I do not use the term sovereign in respect to my self or in what i believe the Polity should be but liberty. That there are areas that no government or other origination should trespass.

As currently we are restricted by individual governments and subject to varying sets of laws, which can be confusing and counterproductive to global trade, and travel. I agree that it is possible to create a world government by means other than mobilizing the majority of humanity.

We have international trade organizations to fill the roll of that. I do not want a lowest common denominator system of health or safety standards. I do not want some other foreign standards to apply which are culturally based or make no sense with our own situation here. I also believe this applies to our federal government to the states. Why have yet even more of the same internationally?

However, the possibility of every current world leader being an ideologue is nearly as impossible as all world leaders being puppets of an international cabal simultaneously. I feel it is much more likely that pressure to change our political and social environment is come from humanity as a whole, or at least as a majority.

A lot of world leaders are ideologues not all of them. A lot of leaders have similar political/social/economic views. And such pressure to cause a World government is not likely to come from the people as a whole until the worlds countries that are dictatorships are ended and the tribal worldview is done away with. Maybe after that then the people might want a world government but then might not.

I don't know of many people that would oppose being given additional rights, or basic freedoms, and no longer having to deal with or worry about war.

Rights are not given, privileges are given rights are inherent.

Some people do not worry about war, they worry about the door being kicked in by thugs from their "government.

However, I do know of many governments that would vehemently oppose this. That is where you could see some bloodshed, assuming that the citizens of those governments agree to fight that war.

You mean whether the citizens will revolt against their government to overthrow it so they can join the world government.

However, since we have no way of knowing what will actually happen, its almost pointless to argue over it, whether cynically or optimisticalyl.

Then what is the point bring up the OP at all?

Why?

Because countries that have similar interests and already have mutual understanding between them can act as an aggregator for a larger entity i.e. a meta-state.

I don't actually think that the meta-government/world government should have control over all of these aspects of government.

Then what aspects of government do you think they should have? In post #1 you stated:

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.

You mention that the military would be removed now what else if not a international currency, international Judiciary, some basis of revenue if not tax, or if some sort of representational government is not done is representation appointed?

One thing you mentioned being language, which I do believe is important. Even before forming a World Government we should implement a global auxiliary language. I don't really care what language it is, though in my studies "Basic English" originated by Charles Ogden, makes a strong case to fill this position. It is important that all of humanity be able to communicate ideas to one another at least on a basic level. In order for any unity to be realized in the future. I do not believe it is good to replace native languages, instead to supplement them with a second auxiliary language that is easy to learn and very "light" in its vocabulary.

As long as lawyers write the laws and as long as the bureaucrats muddy them up with their additions the "Basic English" will not be light in its vocabulary.

Another difficult one to figure out would be appropriate partition of representation, however, I do not feel this is an impossible feat to accomplish, will just take some dedicated thought.

I'm aware of one version with a Tri-cameral Legislature in which there is Senate with and equal representation like the Senate a second with a proportional representational like the House of Representatives and a third based on the proportion of the Gross World Product that country has.

Outside of basic rights of humanity, auxiliary language, adequate representation, and control of the military, I think the World Government would be best suited to remain a very lean organization with as few responsibilities as possible.

Like the U.S Federal Government, and look how that turned out.

I think we have tried a confederation of nations many times in the past and even still today to solve global problems affecting humanity as a whole. Overall, its a failure. Very little is accomplished, and people really don't care what the opinions of other nations are on matters of internal nature. A confederation of nations retaining their national sovereignty will not work and isn't even worth attempting any longer.

I understand, don't even try to use a confederal government system must be federal.:roll:

If people do not care what the opinions are on internal matters of nations why do want to eliminate them? If you believe most people do not care about the internal opinions of nations i believe you are wrong about that. Even if true do those people really believe their own opinions about the internal laws and such of there own nations are of no or little concern.

Why would the larger nation promising world peace and increased sovereignty need to create a disinformation campaign to convince people who only recently joined into the World Government to gain these same things that they need to go to war with a country that is oppressing its citizenry?

How can a larger nations promise increased sovereignty when the point is to eliminate the sovereignty of nations? What if we have a democratic government who says no thank you?

If anything in my opinion the hold-out country would need to create a disinformation campaign to convince their citizens who are currently under authoritarian rule, that they do not want the increased freedom and possible happiness promised by the meta-nation.

No doubt this is true.

Without the hold-out country convincing their citizens of this, why would they shed their blood for this authoritarian government?

Maybe "the devil you know" opposed to "the devil you don't know"?

I don't understand how you get the facts for your argument here. I believe that to draw a distinction between what I'm suggesting and ancient Rome, is not comparing apples to apples. Rome did not have the infrastructure or the resources to effectively govern its conquered territories. Which led to newly "conquered" territories not receiving adequate support from the central government. While the spoils of winning those wars filtered into the capital and subsequently to the Roman citizens. In relation to today, with our increased ability to communicate and effectively transmit resources over long distances, in short time periods.

I was using Rome as an example of something close to what you were espousing. I'm pointing out at this time mostly the well connected will be the ones that would benefit since they would be the ones guiding any formation of World Government. One needs no Conspiracy Theory if one were attempted now that the wealthy and powerful would use their influence to shape it.

I do not think we would see a similar situation. Beyond that, the motivations of the Roman Empire while expanding were never to assure human rights to all humanity and end the need for war. Which would be the main motivation of this World Government. Why would we create a government to assure human rights only to ignore the people we wanted to provide basic protections to?

Maybe some people think there are people that are more equal than others?

 

[joe six-pack]

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.

People will always fight each other, that wont ever stop. But having fewer Governments simply concentrates power in the into the hands of fewer people. The only way a World Federal Government would work, would be if every country in the world became a "State" with maximum self-governing power and the Federal Government had minimal power--and couldn't, legally, gain more power over the States.

In the US, the Federal Government has gained more and more power since Lincoln. I honestly don't see how a Federal Government, in charge of all the worlds armies, could possibly be constrained by anyone or anything. But that's not the biggest problem.

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.

The "military" is designed for warfare. Soldiers aren't police. A soldier is trained to eliminate the enemy, not to deal with civilian issues.

But think about the role of this new world-military. It would be "security," so the target would be the civilian population. Suppressing uprisings, maintaining order, martial Law. That's a really depressing image.

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?

Human nature would dictate that "world peace" is not achievable. Peace is not natural.

I think a better route to your goal would be putting a giant computer in charge of all the world Governments. Then disarming all the worlds nuclear weapons. Then disarming all the worlds chemical weapons. Then just sit back and let the robots take over. They can't be corrupted by greed or jealousy or vendetta. Human beings make bad wardens of the worlds power.

I think the pros of a "one world government" controlled by a Computer would be an end to Government waste and the casualties of war. I think the cons would be that the human population would explode and we'd have to deal with that problem (limited food, fresh water). Again, my solution would be a giant computer, but that's another subject.

 

[Naburus]

I apologize for not addressing these last couple arguments, I just recently returned from a vacation and am trying to get caught up at work, and with school. I know this is probably out of the minds of those involved by now, but, I will try to address these recent statements if I find some time.