AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → World Government

22 7059
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

''World Government is a good idea.'' Discuss.

Not that I even support World Government, but it would be interesting to see what people think about this. Carry on!

Just as a reminder, the UN is not a world government.

  • 22 Replies
paul_porsche
offline
paul_porsche
7 posts
Nomad

If the world was run by one government, culture and diversity would become dead, unless the UN ran the world.

The UN is not a world government just an organization of all countries for debates and solving problems in the world. The UN does have the power to become a world government though because they have so much power, (almost all the countries in the world are part of the UN)

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

The UN does have the power to become a world government though because they have so much power, (almost all the countries in the world are part of the UN)


Disagree completely. The UN has little actual power, and depends on the goodwill of the more powerful nations to survive, and enact policies.

Take a look at the Korean War. It was officially an UN interventions, but the USA contributed the vast majority of the troops and war material. Without such support, the UN's attempt would have been futile.

Furthermore, yes, the UN does comprise most of the world's nations; but it's a double edged sword since every nation has divergent views which serve only to divide not unite.
paul_porsche
offline
paul_porsche
7 posts
Nomad

[quote]Disagree completely. The UN has little actual power, and depends on the goodwill of the more powerful nations to survive, and enact policies.

I agree a little but take notice that the more powerful nations make a big influence in the world. For example: the American government says something, the whole world listens (doesnt mean they obey, but they do listen).

paul_porsche
offline
paul_porsche
7 posts
Nomad

Apart from the UN, the EU has a lot of say in Europe.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

I'm not sure whether it'd be a good thing or not; but I'm pretty sure that it isn't feasible. There are just too many cultural and political differencies right now for it to work. I mean just look at the problems that the EU has to deal with, and then apply that on the whole world. It wouldn't last long until it would split again.

aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

every nation has divergent views which serve only to divide not unite.

Ehh... I wouldn't agree with "only", but maybe I'm just being nitpicky.
But I do agree with your general point: the U.N.'s power is often compromised due to its members' (often) inability to function together.

culture and diversity would become dead,

Why do you say that? Just look at the U.S.- run by one federal government, but plenty of diversity between states, and even between cities.

Now on to the actual question:
There is nothing inherently wrong with having a world government. Well, there is nothing inherently worse about a world government as opposed to a "less than world" government.

What do I mean by "inherent"? I am referring to the basic concept of a world government. There is no fundamental trait of the concpet of governing that makes it "worse" when you govern 3 people instead of two. Now, if you think that any and all government forms are bad, then obviously you might disagree with me. But, even if this is the case, larger governments wouldn't be bad for different reasons than smaller governments, it is just the same reason but on a larger scale.

In other words, if we have 4 people governed by two governments (two people each), how is this worse than if they were all governed by the same organization? They are all still being governed. If the purpose of government is to keep people acting in a civil manner (whatever that means), it shouldn't matter how much you divide up the population.

In fact, it is guaranteed that there exists one government that is at least as efficient/fair/whatever as all the others. So, replacing all the other organizations with this one could only improve things.

BUT.

There is that old "good only on paper"* thing. In the real world, people have had their own governments and cultures for a very long time. Just because the Mexican system is more efficient in Mexico than the Cuban system is in Cuba doesn't mean the Mexican system would be more efficient in Cuba. Because, well, Cuba is not Mexico.

Then, there are economies of scale. I'm not sure if this is really applicable to governments, since many are already on such a wide scale that increasing their reach probably wouldn't have a great effect on efficiency. But it should still be considered. Maybe a World government would be too bogged down in its own bureaucracy to actually function.

But even with these issues, I am sure that there is some sort of world government that would largely solve all the issues of war, immigration, importation/exportation, etc. In this age, the entire world is our base of operation. Some way of coordinating efforts would go a long way. But, I don't think that any current government is fit enough to take on this problem. I am not sure what form this system would take.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Maybe a World government would be too bogged down in its own bureaucracy to actually function.


I considered that in the essay I wrote today. The USSR collapsed partially under the strain of its own top heavy bureaucracy for one.

Another point why a world government is not feasible is the fact that states, in a realist world, would refuse to give up whatever power or dominance they have, and become an equal power. I don't foresee, for example, the US being subservient to a higher authority.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Another point why a world government is not feasible is the fact that states, in a realist world, would refuse to give up whatever power or dominance they have, and become an equal power. I don't foresee, for example, the US being subservient to a higher authority.

The only way I would see this work (at first) was if each country would be declared equal, and each would send a certain number of ambassadors/deputy to a sort of congress, where all ambassadors of all countries would decide about the general questions through democratic vote. All smaller problems concerning single countries would be handled by the involved country/ies.

But again, I don't think this would be stable for very long.
44Flames
offline
44Flames
585 posts
Nomad

World Government could be a good idea but I doubt it.

First of all this would mean that every country would get the same health care and everything so this would help third world countries to grow and build and expand in technologies. But wouldn't this mean that we would have to pay more money for taxes in order to get enough money to help many other countries out.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

I doubt that, say there was a world government, it would enforce the exact same things everywhere; at least it shouldn't. aknerd made some good points about that, especially this one:

Just because the Mexican system is more efficient in Mexico than the Cuban system is in Cuba doesn't mean the Mexican system would be more efficient in Cuba. Because, well, Cuba is not Mexico.

Ideally a world government would make decisions depending on the involved country, and choose what is best suited to the involved country, not some kind of general solution. I just can't imagine a world government using only exactly one concept for each member state. It has to be flexible or else it will break apart.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I could see a world government emerging as a result of our increased inter-connectivity with others around the world. Cultural differences are mostly the result of different groups becoming isolated from one another. As technology advances that isolation becomes less and less. As a result those cultural differences will merge and eventually melt away.
I could see it functioning like a Commonwealth of sorts.

getanewhouse
offline
getanewhouse
44 posts
Nomad

Having a one world government is a good idea. It would unite nations that could not find common grounds. It would destroy oppressive regimes. It would make available basic goods, necessities, and common human/civil rights for all people. At least that's what we would hope for.

A one world government could also backfire by putting too much power in one group's hands. Power breeds corruption. That small group of individuals could decide there are too many people and start an agenda of genocide.

The real problem of creating a one world government would be convincing the people who this one world government would represent. And then choosing a name, how would you get 7 billion people to agree an a common acronym. Don't even get me started on the statehood and ethnic identities that would have to be given up for the common good. You know ol' Jethro up in the hills there will never give up his gun, so what nation's constitution would we adopt as the world constitution.

Now if we are visited by aliens or decide to occupy and settle another planet, we will have to form a one world government to represent our human interests in the galaxy.
God forbid us not be represented properly in the universe.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

The real problem of creating a one world government would be convincing the people who this one world government would represent. And then choosing a name, how would you get 7 billion people to agree an a common acronym.


A name doesn't seem that consequential. It could be as simple as "The World Government"

Don't even get me started on the statehood and ethnic identities that would have to be given up for the common good.


One wouldn't need to give up statehood or ethnic identities. Cultural differences would likely have to dissolve, but as I said earlier that could happen on it's own through technological advancements in communication.

You know ol' Jethro up in the hills there will never give up his gun, so what nation's constitution would we adopt as the world constitution.


It would likely have it's own brand new constitution.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

It would seem rather pointless without a strong central system, like a dictator, as any form of republic would just end up being what we have now.

The countries are different enough that having one common law in a democracy would be impractical. For example, Americans have a totally different set of values and beliefs then someone from Japan, so the laws would have to be more focused on the "State", which would essentially be the current countries. Since the majority of laws would end up going to the states, it would be essentially the same thing as the countries we have now.

Of course if a single human decides to take over and enforce universal law, that would have far different effect. That would make it far more efficient to put forth the cultural (Why would you want that?) and economic changes, assuming you have a decent and not totally cruel ruler that wished to take over the world.

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

I don't see how the concept of a world government could work in the way the world is going right now. It is pretty much the Middle East vs. The West & Israel. I mean, good luck getting Iran to agree to form a government with Israel. A world government is an impossibility at the time, but I like the concept of one set of laws for the world.

Showing 1-15 of 22