Why is a "One World Government" a good thing?

The diplomat · February 11, 2003, 12:31

Vel's super-UN idea in the "fix the UN" thread got me thinking. Is a so-called One World Government (OWG) really such a good idea?

Let's look at supposed benefits:

Advocates say that a OWG has the best chance of bringing world peace. There have been hundreds of conflicts during the tenure of the UN. War and conflict have not really diminished during the UN, but have simply changed shape. I fail to see how a OWG can bring us closer to peace. War is often the result of greed or economic disparity or territorial ambitions and disputes. Those problems are often the result of human nature. A OWG can issue rules and laws but it can't change human nature. To have a chance at creating world peace or something like it, an OWG would have to eliminate famine, disease, economic disparity, nationalism, patriotism, greed, all territorial disputes, all territorial ambitions, and all religious quarels, etc...
That seems like a pretty tall order.

Advocates say that an OWG would unite mankind and make us more mature and more evolved as a species. It seems to me that this idea has been planted in our minds by sci-fi but isn't necessarily realistic. TV shows like Star Trek represent mankind as a mature and unified species and we have come to believe that it is our future. Mankind is diverse with many different ideas and values. A OWG would certainly unify mankind politically but would we necessarily be more mature as a result? Maturity is a philosophical issue. A political organization cannot impose values to make mankind more mature. That is something that has to come from within.

The main problem with a OWG is the loss of national sovereignty.

As we have seen with the UN, a OWG must be more than a debating society. And even if it has authority to act, it can often just be the puppet of the strongest superpower. For a OWG to trully work, it must be above national authority. In other words, a OWG requires the end of national sovereignty. Isn't that what the pro-OWG want? Do they not say that national sovereignty is dangerous and obsolete and must dissapear for manking to trully evolve into a unified species?

I believe that national sovereignty is precious. Mankind is wonderfully diverse with unique culture and values. I remember when I was younger, watching the Spanish folklore dances called jotas. The dancers all had their unique clothes depending on what province of Spain they were from. In the south of France, I remember te French folklore, uniquely different from the Spanish dances. Many of these traditions and customs have now dissapeared as a result of the consolidation of the European Union. Europe is becoming more and more homogeneous. The European Union is dictating laws, curency, trade. For example, Europe now dictates to France how to produce their wine or cheese that they are so famous for.

Why can't peoples live as they desire? Why shouldn't the US do as it believes in, and the French live as they want, and the Arabs live as they wish? Is one culture better than another? of course not!

If you don't believe me that a true OWG would trample on national cultures and values, look at that soviet Union as a example. They established a centralized government where the collective good replaced individual rights. Gradually it became a more homogeneous society where unique values were suppressed. It is certain that whenever you centralize authority, you will suppress differences.

My point is this: what happens when a OWG decides that the death penalty is wrong or that drugs should be legalized? What do the people or nations that disagree with these decisions do? Should not each country have the right to decide these countries as they see fit?

Furthermore, using Vel's super-UN idea: what happens if certain nations refuse to join and refuse to accept the authority of this UN? This OWG would be forced to isolate or even wage war against these "Rebels". Would this not create serious problems?

I am not saying that a OWG would automatically lead to a dictatorship. However with the Soviet Union as a recent example, whenever you centralize political authority, a totalitarian regime is a possibility.

And a OWG is still a problem even if it never becomes a totalitarian regime. Nations represent unique cultures and should be able to decide their values themselves.

An OWG has serious issues to overcome:
-How do you prevent it from becoming a totalitarian regime?
-What role and authority would nations have in such a OWG?
-What if nations or groups of people disagree with a OWG decision? What appeal would they have?
-What if a group of peoples or nations revolt against the OWG's authority? Would the OWG simply isolate them or force them to join through force?

There are many problems and risks and concerns with the idea of a OWG. And the benefits are not certain.

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 12:40

Let me start with this question. Is culture worth war and class conflict?

Lorizael · February 11, 2003, 12:49

The idea that a one world government would make the species more mature is total bunk. It is true, however, that humankind would have to become more mature before a one world government could form

Assuming that a One World Government could be set up, there would be no wars. If we had a singular sovereign state, then there would be no other state for that state to war with. In the United States, the fifty different states may have conflicts, but they never resort to using military force, except in one major instance (the Civil War) and I'm pretty sure there were a couple conflicts under the Articles of Confederation.

The United States is also an example of a country wherein distinct peopoles can live, enjoy their own culture, and still contribute to society with little racism. Obviously it is true that hatred and bigotry still exist in the United States and throughout the world, but these issues are generally not as bad as they once were. Progress is being made.

Now here's where I'll get a lot of heat. A culture, in and of itself, cannot be right or wrong, good or bad. However, certain aspects of a culture can be to the detriment of humanity. There are certain rituals, traditions, and other such things which only cause harm. While the people are not wrong for doing them, and the culture is not inferior because of its practicies, the actions committed by the people as a result of their cultural upbringing can be wrong.

I don't know what setup for a world government would be optimal, but I think that if it could be done, and a totalitarian regime could be avoided, then it would be much better than what we have now.

David Floyd · February 11, 2003, 13:02

So long as the world government was run along Libertarian, laissez-faire lines I'd have little problem with it.

Maniac · February 11, 2003, 14:12

So lang as that world government would be run along libertarian, laissez-faire lines don't count me in.
In other words, while these ideological differences exist between major powers, a world government is extremely unlikely. Perhaps somewhere in the next century...

HazieDaVampire · February 11, 2003, 14:22

one world government can never benifit the common man, only the rich and welthy bankers.

The man/men/women at top will represent more people and will be unable to hear their veiws, but will easily hear the voice of corperations because they will always hold a large part of the world them selves.

Velociryx · February 11, 2003, 14:36

Home sick today, so forgive me if my thinking is muddy....if it is, I shall chalk it up to the Nyquil cocktail I drank this morning....

A one world government.

I think that it is an interesting concept, whose time has not yet come.

Ultimately, I think it is a *necessary* concept if we are to survive as a species.

My earlier proposals of a re-vamed "UN with Teeth" would amount to the first glimmerings of a OWG, but certainly not the whole hog, much as the current state of the EU is the first baby steps toward a "United States of Europe" (and we can see clearly that it's not there yet).

Given the current lack of authority of the UN, I think it an unfair comparison to look at the number of conflicts going on in the world today, and say that it's the UN's fault. The UN is powerless to prevent such conflicts in its current form, so of course they're bound to continue.

With regards to a OWG bringing about a higher level of maturity, I think that is a backwards approach. The first step is a greater level of maturity, and THEN OWG becomes a possibility.

Nonetheless, the opportunity is clearly there to take steps in that direction, and the UN can be given "teeth" to make its various resolutions actually MEAN something, its member nations can invest enough of their individual power into the UN that it can stand alone, and above any singular nation, so that it is not a puppet of the biggest dog on the block, and we can do all of this without destroying the notion of national soveriegnty.

We can go that far in the here and now, and I believe we should.

An empowered UN would be a stabalizing force. A force for peace. Not without dramatic reforms to its structure, that is certainly true, but it is doable, and in years to come, it may well form the basis for a one world government.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 14:48

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
one world government can never benifit the common man, only the rich and welthy bankers.

The man/men/women at top will represent more people and will be unable to hear their veiws, but will easily hear the voice of corperations because they will always hold a large part of the world them selves.

Hazie,

I think you are wrong. With nationalism the elite are more able to justify their rule. With no foreign enemies the working class would be much more hostile towards those who are clearly their enemies.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 11, 2003, 14:53

Obviously a one world government is a wonderful thing. It will signal the end times and finally put to rest struggle of mankind in favor of the second coming of Christ (after he deposes the antichrist who run the one world gov that is).

Bring it.

The afore mentioned message courtesy of too many reading of Lahaye.

Seriously,

I think what we have going on is a matter of sovereignty and soveriegn rights subjugated verses the rights and desires of other nation states.

A UN and one superpower nation that stand at cross purposes is likely to render each other ineffective.

It appears that the UN has been gaining the label of irrelevant.

The US has been labeled as crass and undiplomatic and unilaterist. Seems to me both have been taking a hit in terms of diplomatic power because they having been working against each other as opposed to with each other.

Which bring to mind several questions what levels of sovereignty exist. When does a nations self interest outweigh the interest of the global community. If acting in those same self interests, should one expect censure?

Az · February 11, 2003, 14:53

a one world government that is as centralized as, even the US, is not feasible at the current point of technology, and to some extent, of human geopolitical developement. It will rot from the inside out, and will crash in a bang that would send humanity a century or so back, in all terms. One could pull out a very decentralized one, but it's only difference from the UN would be actual functionality, and it's claim to be a united human government.

the UN can be reformed, but it needs a success story, a PR coup, that would also include real success. At the current point the UN is nothing more than a shell, a consortium of nations. There is no UN army, there is no UN government, there is no direct UN tax.
UN operations that have goals such as active participation and reconstruction are failing miserably, and we've become accustomed not to expect anything from it. We need a UN code of laws, that would be enforced. we need a true UN legislative, and a global police agency.

All these cannot be achieved as long as member states actively try to sabotage each other, and harm each other.

Federal countries are created for two:
De-Centralization:
a)a country/newly conquered empire is split into more effectively manageable parts, while still retaining a very strong and immensly important power to run interregional projects. ( the Russian federation, and it's soviet predecessor, many examples of empires )
Centalization:
b)nations wanting to share destiny, and unite. ( Germany, US, EU(?) )

Is there a true desire between, say, the US and China to unite under a single banner for all time in the interests of humanity?

TheBirdMan · February 11, 2003, 15:09

When ever I read about anything like OWG - I also hear the sound of the EmpireMarch in my ears.

One way I like the thought - peace to the world, pigs (sorry human) in space, etc.. continue yourself.....

Another way I fear it, would never like to live under such a government, which I think MUST control nearly everything to keep that peace. Ordinary people does not "count" - REALLY NOT count - guess subdue of minorities would be "natural", again in favour of the name of peace - kneefall to the REAL rich, no matter HOW they got rich (not because of peace but because of great money)... etc.. continue yourself.....

Sandman · February 11, 2003, 15:19

Quote:

I believe that national sovereignty is precious. Mankind is wonderfully diverse with unique culture and values. I remember when I was younger, watching the Spanish folklore dances called jotas. The dancers all had their unique clothes depending on what province of Spain they were from. In the south of France, I remember te French folklore, uniquely different from the Spanish dances. Many of these traditions and customs have now dissapeared as a result of the consolidation of the European Union. Europe is becoming more and more homogeneous. The European Union is dictating laws, curency, trade. For example, Europe now dictates to France how to produce their wine or cheese that they are so famous for.

1. National sovereignty is not the same as culture. The vast majority of countries have multiple cultures within them. In many cases, national sovereigty precedes culture, and the state manufactures a culture which is then taken as 'genuine'.

2. You are totally misinformed about the EU. The EU goes out of it's way to prop up local cultures, in a way that the unified French state most certainly did not. Believe it or not, the USSR also maintained ethnic 'gardens'; that's why it broke up so bloodlessly.

I'm something of a cultural libertarian. I don't believe that government should overly bother itself with 'preserving' 'authentic' cultures, since culture is a constantly changing thing, and a kleptomaniac attitude towards it will doom our species. It's not important in itself, it is simply a tool for our survival.

Thorn · February 11, 2003, 15:22

National sovereignty especially in Europe is a relatively new idea outside the examples of the ancient empires. Feudalism existed for most of the middle ages and the church was the only unifying force at work.

Az · February 11, 2003, 15:26

Quote:

I'm something of a cultural libertarian. I don't believe that government should overly bother itself with 'preserving' 'authentic' cultures, since culture is a constantly changing thing, and a kleptomaniac attitude towards it will doom our species. It's not important in itself, it is simply a tool for our survival.

One thing, though. You can dance to the sounds of Elephants taking a piss, and light dung candles at home, as long as your children go to the schools that teach real knowledge, and no part of your religion is discriminatory, or abusive.

Velociryx · February 11, 2003, 15:30

::starts dancing to the sounds of elephants taking a piss right NOW:: WhoooHoooo!

Dang, why didn't I think of that before?

Good one, 'zazel!

-=Vel=-

Sandman · February 11, 2003, 15:38

Quote:

One thing, though. You can dance to the sounds of Elephants taking a piss, and light dung candles at home, as long as your children go to the schools that teach real knowledge, and no part of your religion is discriminatory, or abusive.

I agree.

Az · February 11, 2003, 15:48

no problem. Just watch it with the candles.

Urban Ranger · February 12, 2003, 00:15

I think a One World Government is an excellent idea. In one swoop we eliminate most excuses for war. When there are no countries, nobody can point a finger to "Axis of Evil" or "the Great Satan." Patriotism will be a thing of the past - at long last humankind can truly look forward.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 00:37

Kingof the Apes · February 12, 2003, 00:54

An OWG would never work because it require everyone to be waaayyyy more tolerant of each other. The best OWG possible now is the UN.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 01:34

King fo the Apes,

The system of nations also requires people to be tolerant of each other. What's the diference?

GePap · February 12, 2003, 02:45

The notion the One true Sovereign is far older then that of multiple possible sovereigns, which is an interesting development given that there have been less and less distinct and independent Sovereign entities as time has gone bye. Now that we have the ability for One Sovereign that political ideal has vanished.

The Vagabond · February 12, 2003, 02:48

One good thing about "one world goverment" is that it is impossible.

Nature can't stand such kind of monopoly. Only an imminent and perceptible threat to humanity as a whole can offset this natural antimonopolistic drive.