• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World government

How about a world goverment?

  • Yeah, I want it

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • No, never

    Votes: 31 67.4%
  • It depends (on what)

    Votes: 9 19.6%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.5%

  • Total voters
    46

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Please, feel free to discuss anything related to the idea of world government.
 
I am a proponent of world government.

I am what I would call a "Humanist" or "Globalist".

It is my belief that eventually humanity must unite on this Earth or we will fail and die out as a species.

How to achieve planetary government?

Well it is my belief that it will take time, ALOT of time. The nations of the Earth must reach a relative equal status in order to be able to unite into a world federal government.

Now if you're some American "AMERICA USA #1 don't take my soveriegnty away" person then don't bother discussing this subject with me, your emotions on the subject are irrelevent.

Soveriegnty will be a finicky subject at the opening stages of World Government. But it is my belief when I say the Earth will reach an equal status, that technology and the creation of unlimited electrical production will eliminate most of our needs and allow us to pursue our wants. But that's another story all together.

The structure would essentially make countries "Provinces" or "states" under a planetary government who's mandate it would be to provide peace and security in the world. Meaning that if there's a problem in Ivory Coast, then a planetary detachment would be sent to sort it out.

But that leads me to my next point. To actually be part of what I have coined as the "World Union" you would have to meet a set of criteria. Habeous corpous, democratic institutions, the allowance of free and fair elections and so on and so forth... those would be the conditions of entry.

And it is my belief that with all these nations forming together into a United Coalition of World Nations pursuing the idea of a United. Free. Fair. Just and Democratic Earth, that all other nations who were not originally part of the World Union would eventually become part of it, leading to world government who's job it would be to simply look out for the interests of Humanity and not nessecarily decree to a child in Peru that he must Learn Eskimo Poetry about Alaska...

Of course any institution created by humans has the ability to be broken down, destroyed or twisted.

But it is my belief that one day the borders shall dissolve, and humanity shall realise that this great planet is too small for us, and we shall then go out... and seek broad, bright new worlds.

This is a very thin explanation of the things I wish to see, I am actually in the process of writing a manifesto on the subject, and I believe it's actually a workable plan.

That's the word. I stick to it.

Jetboogieman :peace
 
I am a proponent of world government. However I can understand why many Americans (some conservatives) would be against it.

World government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. - Irving Kristol

Also, Americans with more nationalist attitudes would likely be upset at the United States surrendering some of its sovereignty to a world government.
 
Voted no. I happen to think the USA is the best nation in the world.
 
Only if us earthicans can somehow nominate Richard Nixon's head along with the headless body of Sparrow Agnew as VP.

In all seriousness, this is not something I think would be even close to beneficial or capable until some significant technological leaps are made
 
Only if us earthicans can somehow nominate Richard Nixon's head along with the headless body of Sparrow Agnew as VP.

In all seriousness, this is not something I think would be even close to beneficial or capable until some significant technological leaps are made

Zyph: I'm not sure what technology has to do with it. Could you elaborate further?
 
If we are concerned for humanity, we would be against it.
 
Zyph: I'm not sure what technology has to do with it. Could you elaborate further?

I think the ability for some sort of reliable, inexpensive, quick mode of transportation and the proliferation of communication and connectivity technology across the globe would be needed for a one world government to have any kind of significant success. When we can communicate with groups in almost any segment of the world (likely with video, in groups, with programmable audio-translation) and when we can go from one side of the globe to the other for about a bit less than the amount of time and money it takes now go go from something like New York to Dallas or LA, then it may be doable. Right now, the geographical differences mixed with the economic issues make it an almost impossible venture.
 
I think the ability for some sort of reliable, inexpensive, quick mode of transportation and the proliferation of communication and connectivity technology across the globe would be needed for a one world government to have any kind of significant success. When we can communicate with groups in almost any segment of the world (likely with video, in groups, with programmable audio-translation) and when we can go from one side of the globe to the other for about a bit less than the amount of time and money it takes now go go from something like New York to Dallas or LA, then it may be doable. Right now, the geographical differences mixed with the economic issues make it an almost impossible venture.

So you think our current transportation and communication infrastructures aren't up to the task of adequately administering such a gov't. Not sure if I agree, but I can see where you're coming from.
 
So you think our current transportation and communication infrastructures aren't up to the task of adequately administering such a gov't. Not sure if I agree, but I can see where you're coming from.

Well, at least, not yet.

The whole scenario seems more apt in at least a couple hundred years. You would be talking about the single greatest transformation in human history and that takes quite a bit of time to adjust to the fact that the political and social identity will change dramatically.
 
I would not support a world government if it were organized along the lines of the U.N. or EU and I would not support it using the traditional Western system of democracy. Having a majoritarian system where representatives are elected by the people from multiple political parties is simply not a good idea on a global scale. Naturally, it must be a democratic system for me to support it, but it also has to be viable democratic system. Without a viable system of democracy you will inherently have such a government descend into some form of global oligarchy.
 
Well, at least, not yet.

The whole scenario seems more apt in at least a couple hundred years. You would be talking about the single greatest transformation in human history and that takes quite a bit of time to adjust to the fact that the political and social identity will change dramatically.

I can somewhat agree with this; I think it would in a large part depend on what form such a government would take and to what extent its powers are devolved to lower levels.

However, I'm still not sure if I buy the "our technology isn't up for it" argument.
 
As globalization picks up pace and more countries develop their economies, eventually a world government will become both necessary and desirable. But we're (at the very least) many decades away from that.
 
Please, feel free to discuss anything related to the idea of world government.

LOL,

the World Government is already exist, the name of it is Leftists Mafia.
 
The worlds culture and beliefs are far to diverse and complex to let it happen...it would just allow an even smaller amount of people to be influenced by people like the Bildeberg group and corporations, not making the most ethical decisions to positively influence humanity.
 
Why itd have to be some government with a founding document full of negative rights or something...
 
I don't believe it's possible. The differences in culture, language, religion, philosophy and political systems is just too great.

I totally agree.
If there is to be some world government it would be tyrannical. :roll:
 
I said never but I do see it being an eventuality. I believe mankind is to corrupt-able for a single world government to be a good thing. Those in charge could maneuver themselves into a dictatorship style government much more easily if they know they have no rival government to contend with.
 
I don't envision a "United States of the World" emerging anytime soon. Rather, I see it as a loose confederation...the successor to the United Nations, World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and various regional trade blocs like the EU, NAFTA, CAFTA, and Mercosur.

I don't think that a single currency and a single set of fiscal policies based around taxing-and-spending will emerge. But some sort of global governing body that sets the international standards for trade and human rights will eventually be necessary IMO.
 
I can somewhat agree with this; I think it would in a large part depend on what form such a government would take and to what extent its powers are devolved to lower levels.

However, I'm still not sure if I buy the "our technology isn't up for it" argument.

Well, you don't buy it by itself, but you would buy into that notion if you consider other things that must come before hand, occur concurrently, and things that must follow. Hardly anything is that simple to nail it down to one or two things. "Technology" in bureaucratic and product terms is immensely important. With its relative absence, consider some of the impact that had on the United States when it was still in its colonial days in terms of social and political identity. It was quite British, but on the other hand, it really was not..in part due to the geographic distance and technological abilities of the time.

The international system as it exists now, is both a myriad of structure and non-structure. Technology in any sense would be a reasonable way to suggest it could greatly help in making the world more cohesive and what we have now is certainly impressive, but it does seem rather foreign to state we have what it takes shortly to bridge these gaps.
 
Last edited:
Am totally against the idea of world government.
 
There are so many things to be said about this that I don't think I could collect all of my thoughts in one post... let me share a few of them, however...

I don't think we are ready for world government in the near future. For me, any feasible world government would have to be based on republican principles to protect the rights of the people of the world. Many current-day states are clearly not ready for this. And Europe, which does have a heritage of democratic/republican principles has a difficult time getting on the same page despite a system that isn't even truly federal (more confederate, though in some respects it has aspects of both) in nature. A workable global government would have to be federal in nature.

Having said this, it shouldn't happen in my lifetime. I could see democratic states and groups of such states (i.e. the European Union) increase in cooperation and start setting up the framework of transnational government, but I would adamently OPPOSE any clearly non-democratic/republican states from participating in such a nascent transnational government.
 
It will happen eventually as a natural consequence of globalization. Because all nations are becoming inextricably interconnected, sooner or later their governments will be as well and we'll have a one-world government. It's not something we can avoid and the idea that because Joe Blow lives on a particular piece of dirt, he gets to be a part of a particular tribe which he thinks is better than everyone else is really primitive thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom