World Government United Earth

[Meridiani Planum]

Why does everyone assume that the World Government would be authoritarian in nature?

Paranoia.

A world government could be libertarian in the short run. However, if it were to gradually become authoritarian, there would be no escape, and no comparison that one could make to other societies. This would only encourage authoritarianism.

And combine that with the oligarchical tendencies of governments that have massively huge numbers of voters per representative. Any benefits of democracy are lost in such situations.

And combine that with having a World State cover vastly different cultures across the globe. You'd be including millions of people who may be culturally predisposed to accept dictatorship or theocracy. How would freedom-loving people on the other side of the globe be able to fight that democratically?

There are many rational and practical reasons to oppose the World State.

[Genivaria]

Only possible world government would be a conglomerate of megacorporations or some shit controlling the economy.

Of course, they would all be publicly owned, and therefore have their own shareholders to pander to.

So, we'd be no better off, really, as that's not even much of a government - more just an overarching neighbourhood bully to keep the third world in line, bribe the first world, and hire out the second world. A bully with serious multiple personality disorder.

And your reasoning for that is....?

[Genivaria]

Paranoia.

A world government could be libertarian in the short run. However, if it were to gradually become authoritarian, there would be no escape, and no comparison that one could make to other societies. This would only encourage authoritarianism.

Right, and then come the mass riots, armed rebellion and assassinations.
Giving people civil liberties is a FAR better way to keep the peace then to oppress them.

[Meridiani Planum]

Giving people civil liberties is a FAR better way to keep the peace then to oppress them.

Yes, that's why there aren't any authoritarian nations on this utopic planet of ours.

[Genivaria]

Giving people civil liberties is a FAR better way to keep the peace then to oppress them.

Yes, that's why there are authoritarian nations on this utopic planet of ours.

Yes and look at how unstable they are.

[Vortiaganica]

Only possible world government would be a conglomerate of megacorporations or some shit controlling the economy.

Of course, they would all be publicly owned, and therefore have their own shareholders to pander to.

So, we'd be no better off, really, as that's not even much of a government - more just an overarching neighbourhood bully to keep the third world in line, bribe the first world, and hire out the second world. A bully with serious multiple personality disorder.

And your reasoning for that is....?

Well, defining the world as all the territory on planet Earth, and a world government as a singular entity with the ability to enforce laws to a reasonable extent on its sovereign territory, the entity would have to be extremely fluid - i.e. not an authoritarian state. A single person at the head of a regime becomes much less effective as the regime becomes larger - corruption inherently follows.

A large government - a representative democracy - becomes much less efficient as the territory governed becomes larger.

A traditional political system /can't/ work as a world government because in general political structures are built around the existence of competing structures. A world government would be a fluid economic entity, or at the least an arbitrary collection of independent states with a nominal connection under a single flag.

EDIT: An authoritarian, non-democratic system of government with a group of people at its head or much better division of labor than most other dictatorships (case in point: Nazi Germany divided bureaucracy into politics, which Hitler controlled, and military, which Hitler controlled, and economic policy, which Hitler controlled - one man controlling everything consolidated his power to the loss of the system as a whole. Then again, during those periods where he stepped back, the various conflicting individuals in charge of that state just drove themselves into the ground.)

[Meridiani Planum]

Yes, that's why there are authoritarian nations on this utopic planet of ours.

Yes and look at how unstable they are.

And this is supposed to argue in favor of a World State... how?

Collapsing states don't automatically replace themselves with healthy and free states.

[Genivaria]

And your reasoning for that is....?

Well, defining the world as all the territory on planet Earth, and a world government as a singular entity with the ability to enforce laws to a reasonable extent on its sovereign territory, the entity would have to be extremely fluid - i.e. not an authoritarian state. A single person at the head of a regime becomes much less effective as the regime becomes larger - corruption inherently follows.

A large government - a representative democracy - becomes much less efficient as the territory governed becomes larger.

A traditional political system /can't/ work as a world government because in general political structures are built around the existence of competing structures. A world government would be a fluid economic entity, or at the least an arbitrary collection of independent states with a nominal connection under a single flag.

It would likely start out as a Confederacy of a sort.
And I'd say that modern communications and transportation technology make governing large territory far easier then it was in the ancient world.

EDIT: An authoritarian, non-democratic system of government with a group of people at its head or much better division of labor than most other dictatorships (case in point: Nazi Germany divided bureaucracy into politics, which Hitler controlled, and military, which Hitler controlled, and economic policy, which Hitler controlled - one man controlling everything consolidated his power to the loss of the system as a whole. Then again, during those periods where he stepped back, the various conflicting individuals in charge of that state just drove themselves into the ground.)

.....ok?

[Genivaria]

Yes and look at how unstable they are.

And this is supposed to argue in favor of a World State... how?

Collapsing states don't automatically replace themselves with healthy and free states.

Your the one saying it would be authoritarian not me. Its far more likely it would be a representative democracy.

[New Rogernomics]

A light form of Federalism would work, so long as there are separate police/military forces and administrative divisions; anything else is doomed to failure. if you want to see how bad a centralized world government would be: Just look at the UN.

[Divair]

A light form of Federalism would work, so long as there are separate police/military forces and administrative divisions; anything else is doomed to failure. if you want to see how bad a centralized world government would be: Just look at the UN.

You can't compare the UN to a world government.

[Radiatia]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and it is doable, albeit difficult.

I don't have time to stay and discuss this but, in brief, I would propose that the UN Security Council is immediately abolished. We replace this with a UN Parliament, which would be elected by all the people of the world in proportion to a certain population.

The UN would be set up a universal tax system and welfare system, and it would be called upon to create a world police force and ensure that all peoples of the world are fed, sheltered and educated.

With this in mind, the newly educated people would either overthrow dictatorships, or else it wouldn't matter anyway as those dictatorship governments will be bound to something higher.

As said, this is very, very brief as I am in a rush and don't have time to discuss the matter further.

[The Jewish Master Race]

Ideally, it will destroy the Chinese.

Ideally, The Chosen people will be the political leaders. We will have a secular world government, without religious terrorism plaguing the world, and stirring up hatred, and fear. A world without islam, and a world in which Jewish people will never again have to fear a holocaust, or a pogrom, or intolerance and persecution.A one world government will promote multiculturalism, and integration for the masses, and freedom from oppression for Jewish peoples.

[New Rogernomics]

A light form of Federalism would work, so long as there are separate police/military forces and administrative divisions; anything else is doomed to failure. if you want to see how bad a centralized world government would be: Just look at the UN.

You can't compare the UN to a world government.

Yes you can, the UN is based on the principle of nations under a single centralized body trying to work together and failing. This is contrary to World Federalist movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federalist_Movement

The World Federalist Movement (WFM) is a global citizens movement with member and associate organizations around the world. The WFM International Secretariat is based in New York City across from the United Nations headquarters. The organization was created in 1947 by those concerned that the structure of the new United Nations was too similar to the League of Nations which had failed to prevent World War II, both being loosely structured associations of sovereign nation-states, with few autonomous powers. Supporters continue to advocate the establishment of a global federalist system of strengthened and accountable global institutions with plenary constitutional power and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

The Movement has had Special Consultative Status with the ECOSOC since 1970 and is affiliated with the UN Department of Public Information (DPI) and a current board member of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO). It currently counts 30,000 to 50,000 supporters.

[Divair]

You can't compare the UN to a world government.

Yes you can, the UN is based on the principle of nations under a single centralized body trying to work together and failing. This is contrary to World Federalist movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federalist_Movement

The World Federalist Movement (WFM) is a global citizens movement with member and associate organizations around the world. The WFM International Secretariat is based in New York City across from the United Nations headquarters. The organization was created in 1947 by those concerned that the structure of the new United Nations was too similar to the League of Nations which had failed to prevent World War II, both being loosely structured associations of sovereign nation-states, with few autonomous powers. Supporters continue to advocate the establishment of a global federalist system of strengthened and accountable global institutions with plenary constitutional power and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

The Movement has had Special Consultative Status with the ECOSOC since 1970 and is affiliated with the UN Department of Public Information (DPI) and a current board member of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO). It currently counts 30,000 to 50,000 supporters.

The UN has no authority. A world government would.

[Divair]

Ideally, it will destroy the Chinese.

Ideally, The Chosen people will be the political leaders. We will have a secular world government, without religious terrorism plaguing the world, and stirring up hatred, and fear. A world without islam, and a world in which Jewish people will never again have to fear a holocaust, or a pogrom, or intolerance and persecution.A one world government will promote multiculturalism, and integration for the masses, and freedom from oppression for Jewish peoples.

[New Rogernomics]

Yes you can, the UN is based on the principle of nations under a single centralized body trying to work together and failing. This is contrary to World Federalist movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federalist_Movement

The UN has no authority. A world government would.

If you want economic aid, and to negotiate land rights (among other things) then the UN has substantial authority; a world government would merely extend these powers. If you are describing an absolute centralist government, then yes it would not be a world government; but no nation in existence would ever agree to an absolute central government - most likely such a government would be a dictatorship rather than a democracy.

[Divair]

The UN has no authority. A world government would.

If you want economic aid, and to negotiate land rights; among other things then the UN has substantial authority; a world government would merely extend these powers. If you are describing an absolute centralist government, then yes it would not be a world government; but no nation in existence would ever agree to an absolute central government - most likely such a government would be a dictatorship rather than a democracy.

I'm sure regions of current nations would have said the same thing a few hundred years ago

[New Rogernomics]

If you want economic aid, and to negotiate land rights; among other things then the UN has substantial authority; a world government would merely extend these powers. If you are describing an absolute centralist government, then yes it would not be a world government; but no nation in existence would ever agree to an absolute central government - most likely such a government would be a dictatorship rather than a democracy.

I'm sure regions of current nations would have said the same thing a few hundred years ago

About what, there wasn't a League of Nations* or a United Nations a hundred years ago, let alone the idea of global governance; instead bickering empires and nation-states largely based on religious, racial or 'nationalist' divisions.

Edit: Though you could argue from 1918 onwards where there were genuine political movements like the League of Nations.

[Divair]

I'm sure regions of current nations would have said the same thing a few hundred years ago

About what, there wasn't a League of Nations or a United Nations a hundred years ago, let alone the idea of global governance; instead bickering empires and nation-states largely based on religious, racial or 'nationalist' divisions.

Think about how divided European countries were a few hundred years ago. And then how divided Europe was.
Regions in Europe (i.e. Burgundy, Normandy, Prussia, etc) would have never thought they'd combine into countries, let alone a political and economic union across an entire continent.

Just because something seems impossible now doesn't mean it will be 100-150 years down the line.

[New Rogernomics]

About what, there wasn't a League of Nations or a United Nations a hundred years ago, let alone the idea of global governance; instead bickering empires and nation-states largely based on religious, racial or 'nationalist' divisions.

Think about how divided European countries were a few hundred years ago. And then how divided Europe was.
Regions in Europe (i.e. Burgundy, Normandy, Prussia, etc) would have never thought they'd combine into countries, let alone a political and economic union across an entire continent.

Just because something seems impossible now doesn't mean it will be 100-150 years down the line.

The European Union is Federal*, not Centralist.

*A confederation, my bad.

[Divair]

Think about how divided European countries were a few hundred years ago. And then how divided Europe was.
Regions in Europe (i.e. Burgundy, Normandy, Prussia, etc) would have never thought they'd combine into countries, let alone a political and economic union across an entire continent.

Just because something seems impossible now doesn't mean it will be 100-150 years down the line.

The European Union is Federal*, not Centralist.

*A confederation, my bad.

But the EU does have authority, as does the US Federal Government. The UN isn't federal. It has almost no authority beyond telling nations they've been a bad boy.

[Gigaverse]

Good ol' authoritarianism.

[Divair]

Good ol' authoritarianism.

Why couldn't a world government be libertarian?

[New Rogernomics]

The European Union is Federal*, not Centralist.

*A confederation, my bad.

But the EU does have authority, as does the US Federal Government. The UN isn't federal. It has almost no authority beyond telling nations they've been a bad boy.

You are getting confused between the Human Rights Council and so forth, its the administrative bodies that you have to look at.