NationStates Jolt Archive

So the other day my friend throws this at me -- We are never going to see a strong world government. Proof by contradiction: If we had such a government, the some of the first laws to be passed would be those that would redistribute wealth (from rich to poor). For measurement, let's use GDP per capita. Countries that currently have wealth US, UK, Australia, Japan, etc., would be pitted against populous countries such as China and India. Needless to say, if votes were allocated by only population, the more massive countries have the distinct advantage in setting this policy. Even if there were a system like the senate where every country has the same number of votes, there are far more countries that would vote against the rich few. Ergo, the rich countries would never join a strong government as they would lose wealth/power.

I wasn't really convinced. What about the U.S.? Even though there is a disproportionate wealth distribution, we do have a rather strong federal government. And by comparisons to other countries, our social programs are much less funded. Furthermore, a majority voted to reelect republicans into office ensuring there will be even less wealth distribution. So if the U.S. has not turned into a welfare state, why would a world government?

My friend counters by claiming that the U.S. is an exception to the rule in this respect. Look at the strategies of the political parties. They convince people to vote against their economic class interest by bringing up moral/legal issues - gun control, abortions, flag burning, etc. By using these arguments, people vote for what is "right" rather than what is in their best interest.

Assuming that the world government would be given such power of broad taxation and assuming that votes would be distributed in such a way as you suggest then yes that government would probably never come to pass.

Of course, that doesn't say that a world government would never be formed only that that particular world government wouldn't be formed.

So the other day my friend throws this at me -- We are never going to see a strong world government. Proof by contradiction: If we had such a government, the some of the first laws to be passed would be those that would redistribute wealth (from rich to poor). For measurement, let's use GDP per capita. Countries that currently have wealth US, UK, Australia, Japan, etc., would be pitted against populous countries such as China and India. Needless to say, if votes were allocated by only population, the more massive countries have the distinct advantage in setting this policy. Even if there were a system like the senate where every country has the same number of votes, there are far more countries that would vote against the rich few. Ergo, the rich countries would never join a strong government as they would lose wealth/power.
If you're going to argue that there will never be a strong world government, you can't base your argument on the assumption that immediately prior to it coming into existence, the world will be exactly as it is now - all that tells you (if the argument was otherwise correct) is that there won't be a strong world government in the next, say, century.

My friend counters by claiming that the U.S. is an exception to the rule in this respect. Look at the strategies of the political parties. They convince people to vote against their economic class interest by bringing up moral/legal issues - gun control, abortions, flag burning, etc. By using these arguments, people vote for what is "right" rather than what is in their best interest.
Your friend is right and misses the point at the same time.

It is entirely possible for nations to be affected by the same type of things that affect individuals.

All nations tend to work in their own self-interest. However, sometimes some of them rise above that.