World Government

[Blind groper]

This is the first time I have deliberately raised this subject. But a couple of times in the past, I have innocently posted a comment that someone else has interpreted as advocating a world government, and has opposed with vehemence. Each time the "frothing at the mouth" respondent was American.

Now, it seems to me that a world government has a lot to offer. If the greatest military power was ensconsed in the hands of, for example, the United Nations, then it would finally be able to become effective in stopping aggression and preventing wars, and human rights abuses.

But the USA is violently against it. I suspect that China and Russia would also share this opposition. I suggest that the opposition is based on selfishness. That is, those people who belong to super-powers do not want any power to rise above them, in case their own ability to abuse and exploit others be curtailed.

It is noteworthy that the USA, China and Russia each have the power of veto in the United Nations, and have persistently and consistently prevented the United Nations from political actions to benefit those in great need.

I do not know myself if a world government, such as an empowered United Nations would be a great benefit to humanity, though I suspect it would. But my question is why it is that the USA in particular is so consistent in preventing anything supranational from arising that might be of benefit in preventing those wars and human rights abuses?

[klr]

This is the first time I have deliberately raised this subject. But a couple of times in the past, I have innocently posted a comment that someone else has interpreted as advocating a world government, and has opposed with vehemence. Each time the "frothing at the mouth" respondent was American.

Now, it seems to me that a world government has a lot to offer. If the greatest military power was ensconsed in the hands of, for example, the United Nations, then it would finally be able to become effective in stopping aggression and preventing wars, and human rights abuses.

But the USA is violently against it. I suspect that China and Russia would also share this opposition. I suggest that the opposition is based on selfishness. That is, those people who belong to super-powers do not want any power to rise above them, in case their own ability to abuse and exploit others be curtailed.

It is noteworthy that the USA, China and Russia each have the power of veto in the United Nations, and have persistently and consistently prevented the United Nations from political actions to benefit those in great need.

I do not know myself if a world government, such as an empowered United Nations would be a great benefit to humanity, though I suspect it would. But my question is why it is that the USA in particular is so consistent in preventing anything supranational from arising that might be of benefit in preventing those wars and human rights abuses?

Well, I have long advocated that the power of veto be removed, but I'm not sure what arrangement should replace it. For all the shameful use of the veto by each of the five permanent SC members, there have also been a great many occasions where they used it to block something nonsensical or even downright dangerous. All nations have their political agendas, and these can often be unsavoury (or much worse).

[Audley Strange]

I think you need to differentiate between a single world government and the application of international law through global policing. The problem with a single world government is that of absolute tyranny, which the fight against is part of the creation myth of the American Culture. For many The U.N. is seen as little more than a rhetoric puppet-show and in a country whose heroic "fight" for self determination against The Evil Empire makes up a large part of their political consciousness, as such an external force (such as the U.N.) which has not been democratically elected by the people which has influence over them is seen as anathema to them. They are not alone in that.

The odd thing is that as suspicious as they are of the influence of external forces, they seem to have a blind spot for trans-national parasite corporations, possibly being under the delusion that having invented them they control them.

[Blind groper]

There are many possible models for a world government, and it does not require national governments to disappear. A world government could be an overall law maker and a law enforcer, while still permitting national governments to run their own territory. Or a world government could be something else. It could be democratic in that the various democratically elected governments could then appoint their own representatives.

I would rather see decisions made on majority vote by the representatives of the 200 plus nations, than see them distorted by the veto of a few.

[klr]

There are many possible models for a world government, and it does not require national governments to disappear. A world government could be an overall law maker and a law enforcer, while still permitting national governments to run their own territory. Or a world government could be something else. It could be democratic in that the various democratically elected governments could then appoint their own representatives.

I would rather see decisions made on majority vote by the representatives of the 200 plus nations, than see them distorted by the veto of a few.

Should all nations get an equal vote, no matter how big or small? In most democracies, voting is based around roughly equal levels of presentation across the entire electorate, with some safeguards to help protect minority groups or territories.

Now that I think of it, the EU is probably the best real-world experiment in transnational government that we have.

[JimC]

BG, next thing you know you'll be piloting one of those pesky black helicopters that keep circling over Seth's place!

[PsychoSerenity]

Some proper form of world government could be a very good thing if possible. I think one of the problems it faces is the system we currently have is instead driving towards a world corporatocracy:



There are profits to be made in having nations competing on regulations, taxes, human rights and welfare; right now it's a race to the bottom.

[Blind groper]

One of the advantages of a world government making laws everyone must obey, is that the various corporations that keep politicians in their back pockets to pass business friendly laws rather than people friendly laws will find it much tougher. That is because they will be facing politicians with a much less parochial outlook. To buy off enough representatives on a world government would take a lot more money.

Of course, the military/industrial combine would oppose a world government with vigor, since it would mean the end of all those lucrative wars.

[Hermit]

The function of "World Government" is being increasingly usurped by transnational corporations, that is to say by the 1% of individuals who own the means of production. It's happening by via the burgeoning number of international trade agreements that have been implemented over the past few decades. The pinnacle of those will be the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). If implemented, it will strip the power of democratically elected governments to enforce a whole slew of laws, let alone make new ones, on the grounds that they impede free trade profit making. Libertarians of the right wing varieties of course rejoice. Yay. Teaparty time. For anyone lacking psychopathic tendencies and complementary asocial frames of mind, this is a cause of profound despair.

[FBM]

Hmm. Image a global economy managed not by governments, but by trade unions.

[Hermit]

Hmm. Image a global economy managed not by governments, but by trade unions.

Is that the only alternative to world government by the controllers of transnational corporations you can imagine?

[FBM]

Hmm. Image a global economy managed not by governments, but by trade unions.

Is that the only alternative to world government by the controllers of transnational corporations you can imagine?

No, my first thought was the abolition of all government, but I didn't think anybody would respond kindly to that one.

[Hermit]

my first thought was the abolition of all government, but I didn't think anybody would respond kindly to that one.

Interesting concept. Did you have anarchy in mind, a return to the tribalism of the stone age, or something else altogether?

[pErvinalia]

George Monbiot presents a case for an anarchistic-like global convention of some type in his book Manifesto For A New World Order. It's a good read, and quite positive. It must be absolutely fucking positive if I could see any positive in it...

edit: Actually, it might have been his book Age of Consent. They're both red and talk about globalising democracy. I get confused which is which.

[FBM]

my first thought was the abolition of all government, but I didn't think anybody would respond kindly to that one.

Interesting concept. Did you have anarchy in mind, a return to the tribalism of the stone age, or something else altogether?

Well, I'm studying anarchy (and other traditions) for a class, and I've learned that there are several proposed versions of anarchism. One is very individualistic, ascetic and minimally cooperative. Another is maximally cooperative, but all cooperation is fully voluntary. The latter does not preclude scientific or technological advancement. It's more focused on the abolition of wage slavery that plagues capitalist economies. I haven't decided what to make of them yet. Just exploring the ideas.