NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been reading this book by George Monbiot (a British columist for the Guardian) called "The age of consent, a manifesto for a new world order"

His idea is basically that we hold elections to a global parliament which over time grows in power and eventually takes over running the world for the good of the people rather than the good of rich countries.
He says how the UN is flawed because it doesnt view the world as a collection of people but as a collection of countries, and even then the small guys are getting screwed over by the big guys. He says the best way to do it is to ignore countries and found a world government which truely is one man one vote thus removing the nation state from the equation. I wonder what all you guys think of this proposal, feel free to comment constructivly.

I'm not opposed to the idea of World Government, but it has to be a democracy, I know people will argue with me, but I like the US's style of Democracy. A Congress/parliment(depending on where your from), an executive officer( President/Prime minister) and a Supreme Court working together to balence eachother.

I'm opposed to all world governments but one--my own. :D

I would prefer a benevolent dictator myself - much like what Julius Caeser was.

I would prefer a benevolent dictator myself - much like what Julius Caeser was.
The Plutonian Empire is at your service! :D

[QUOTE=Warlike Texas]I'm not opposed to the idea of World Government, but it has to be a democracy, I know people will argue with me, but I like the US's style of Democracy.

World government sounds like a great idea, but I don't know how the actual world would accept it. Communist governments and dictatorships probably'd chuck out the idea, and if it were put in motion, should anybody succeed in taking over that World government, they would be in almost complete power over the entire world.

I would prefer a benevolent dictator myself - much like what Julius Caeser was.

Julius killed over a million Gauls, and started civil wars to safegaurd his own life. He had opponents killed, mobs hired to intimidate voters, and bribed and borrowed his way into power. For this he earned the title "Benevolent."

Be careful what you wish for.

yay world government.

god i'm tired.... that's about as good a sentence as i can string together...

World government sounds like a great idea, but I don't know how the actual world would accept it. Communist governments and dictatorships probably'd chuck out the idea, and if it were put in motion, should anybody succeed in taking over that World government, they would be in almost complete power over the entire world.
Powerful democracies, like the US, UK, France, Germany, would also oppose it because their population is too low to push any laws through a proportional representation parliament. They would have to compromise a lot and they are not used to that.

The UN is a perfect example of what would happen if we actually did create a world government. Corruption would be a MASSIVE problem, as well as administration. It's hard enough upholding laws and statutes from a national perspective, imagine it at a global one.

Centralization can be good, but too much leaves a country (or a world-country) very prone to crime, corruption, and ultimately anarchy.

A World Government would lead to GREAT problems within the social aspects as well. Racism/Religionism (cause Religious intolerance isn't racism, and i dont' know the correct term for it...) would be a major dilemma.

-Neo Nuria

Planetary government? Absolutely NOT!
If there's anything we should have learned by now, it's that centralizing governmental power leads to tyranny, intentional or not. That holds true on the world level.

In a world government you're just taking the political power of the people one step further away from themselves. I would gladly fight to prevent the formation of this planetary government.

To all those who support it: have fun with your New World Order.

Julius killed over a million Gauls, and started civil wars to safegaurd his own life. He had opponents killed, mobs hired to intimidate voters, and bribed and borrowed his way into power. For this he earned the title "Benevolent."

Be careful what you wish for.

And yet the Roman masses loved him....

I've been reading this book by George Monbiot (a British columist for the Guardian) called "The age of consent, a manifesto for a new world order"

His idea is basically that we hold elections to a global parliament which over time grows in power and eventually takes over running the world for the good of the people rather than the good of rich countries.
He says how the UN is flawed because it doesnt view the world as a collection of people but as a collection of countries, and even then the small guys are getting screwed over by the big guys. He says the best way to do it is to ignore countries and found a world government which truely is one man one vote thus removing the nation state from the equation. I wonder what all you guys think of this proposal, feel free to comment constructivly.
It's inevitable, but not in the form you might expect.

I would have to fight any world government. I know that I and my side would lose and most likely die but I would have to do it. I am appalled by the thought of a one world government. The large national governments we have are corrupt and bad enough.

I've always liked the idea, but firstly there needs to be sufficient regulation on it to prevent any minorities gaining sole control over the decision-making process. Put simply, there would need to be an excess of members elected to this government by fair means, there must be no single member in charge of confirming actions (though a moderator and a series of clerks to monitor procedure would be reasonable) and Political Parties must be either banned or rigidly controlled (by which I mean a party may not force all of its members to vote in a particular way or make decisions as a single entity without fairly polling its members). However, if it didn't set out immediately to rectify the issue of poverty in the Third World, then eradicate organised crime as its second act, it would fail almost instantly.

Plus, they'd need an incredibly potent yet controlled armed force to act as the policing body of the world; almost oxymoronic in its very nature. Get an army that could control the world and yet be governed by a comparatively small (though still numbering in the thousands) group of elected officials and your New World Order will fall into place nicely. Of course, the chances of that are slim at best. >_>;

I haven't read the "Age of Consent" but I have read other books by George Monbiot and I support many of his socialist ideas about a completely united and democratic world. A world government on its own of course has the danger of being corrupted and taken over by the ruling classes in whose interest it is to exploit the working people for their own financial gain which is what has happened in most capitalist societies. That is why, as I'm sure Monbiot would agree, this world government would have to be combined with a new democratically run economic system which exists in order to provide for the needs of humanity and not the other way round.

I would have to fight any world government. I know that I and my side would lose and most likely die but I would have to do it.
Then lets fight the good fight, shall we?
:mp5: :mp5: :sniper:
:mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

We'll then be laughing at the one-world tyranny from our graves. Not to mention our deaths might spurn hope and action into the minds of the oppressed.

Then lets fight the good fight, shall we?
:mp5: :mp5: :sniper:
:mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

We'll then be laughing at the one-world tyranny from our graves. Not to mention our deaths might spurn hope and action into the minds of the oppressed.

Oh to be a martyr, to be the meteor of the war. . .

John Brown's body lies a moldering in the grave. . .

The way I see it, the more people you involve in a government the less efficent it would be come. If you don't like your government, then you'd probaly hate a world government. Basically, when you personally know your rulers the have a very strong reason to abide by your desires (in a democracy/republic), but when your rulers are media icons you get a media icon. I wish it would wor, but I don't think it can.

Another note to all you people who support a one-world government:
Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely

Worst. Idea. Ever. :rolleyes:

I think the idea is that we're already moving towards a single world government but not in the way Monbiot wants, he speaks of a "dictatorship of vested interestests" which is basically big business running the world and screwing over the little guys. like it or not we're not too far away from that now.

I mean consider this fact: 75% of ALL trade in the world takes place between only 200 companies .... think about it thatd 200 CEOs who have the power to bring the world back to the stone age effectivly. Now tell me the world isnt ruled by big business. What Monbiot wants (and I agree with him) is an elected world parliament which at first has no power and acts only as a lobby group but slowly over time gains influence and support and eventually becomes the logical ruling body, assuming the parliament is elected democratically, (and I mean REAL democracy, so not like in the UK and NOTHING like the US where basuically the media, read Rupert Murdock, decides who becomes president) then it will at least be representative of the majority of people, The US government opposes the plan (naturally) saying they're not comfortable with 1.3 billion chinese people having a 1/5 of the say in the way the world is run ...... this is missing the point, they are looking at the world on a country basis, they assume that all 1.3 billion chinese people will vote the same way, this is stupid in the extreme, Monbiot says we should cut out the nation state and deal directly with the people.

It should happen, but it should have only the following powers;

Enforce laws
Disaster relief
(If aliens show up) interplanetary defense.

Laws are;

No killing, stealing, rape, or anything else which directly impinges on another's freedom.
No cruelty to animals.
No corruption or fraud.

Obviously, all more properly phrased than that. Mainly I'm pro one-world government because I want a global economy, and I want trade and movement barriers destroyed.

It would only end up with everyone trying to drive their own local interests. It wouldn't work.

Besides, i'm so fiercely patriotic that i can't stand the entire idea. And UN in it's current form sucks desperately.