NationStates Jolt Archive

As long as we'd find something to spend a massive amount of our energy on, it would work. Space travel would probably be the best bet.

New World Order.

I am a strong supporter of the entire world uniting into one entity. I hate that there are 193+ countries that fight an quibble over everything. A world government brings peace, order, and unity. Much money spent on armaments is being wasted. How would it be achieved? How would it be run? Would you support it? Would you rebel?

I think over time nations will join together, one language (likely English) will dominate, and we will happily exist together. I think it is very possible by 2500 and hope to accelerate it myself. :)

But I must hope.

I think over time nations will join together, one language (likely English) will dominate, and we will happily exist together. I think it is very possible by 2500 and hope to accelerate it myself. :)
Based on the current geo-political situation, I'd put more money on Chinese than English.

That's one of the reasons we need te be unified. So when the aliens come...

I guess that when aliens come and we're unified that they're here to bring democracy :p

That's one of the reasons we need te be unified. So when the aliens come...

...we can all work in concert at the grand banquet and there are no two people wearing the same dress, which would be a dreadful embarassment in front of our new found friends.

As long as we'd find something to spend a massive amount of our energy on, it would work. Space travel would probably be the best bet.

That's one of the reasons we need te be unified. So when the aliens come...

Humanity should never be unified.

Our strengths lie in competition and acquisition of power - over our environment, our lives, each other.

Gradually, all governments degenerate into dictatorship. Proper construction and conceptualization can delay that, for centuries, perhaps millenia, but it is inevitable.

A world government would find it necessary to stifle creativity and competition in the name of stability. It would come to see the status quo, and it's maintenance, as more important than the well-being of it's people, as it makes the classic error of assuming the two are one.

And when the dictatorship came, as it inevitably would, there would be no outside force to topple it or replace it. I don't know how long such a system could last - but dictatorships are all too often horrifyingly stable.

And when it fell, I fear humanity would not survive the carnage.

I'd very much favor a mad scientist world technocracy consisting on a dictatorship on the very top, and a meritocracy on the levels below it, power to those to potentially reach a certain level being granted by the above according to their evaluations.

This is an issue very close to my heart. I whole heartedly wish for there to be one day a unified world government that resides over an era of peace, equality and prosperity.

Hell no.

I support the idea in principle, but I don't think we are capable of forming a world government any time soon.

Based on the current geo-political situation, I'd put more money on Chinese than English.

I thought something similar, but the Chinese are learning English and will one day overcome the US as top English nation. English is already setup for it, and it is far easier than Chinese. Notably the script.

Hell no.

:D <3

(:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Pancake :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: )

Checks and balances carefully made to ensure nothing gets more powerful than tho other.

As far as how the world government could be set up, the United Nations may be a suitable foundation. It is an international organisation that has a sprawling bureacracy around the world, recognised by every nation, recognised by many in the world as an organisation of peace, equality and unity, has founding documents that are similiar to written constitutions such as the declaration fo human rights, which is effectively the international bill of rights.

It has representatives from nearly every country in the world, and is capable of doing so in a parliamentary sense. There have been proposals in the past to create a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) which would be the first world body to be said to represent the population of the world, in a much fairer way than the General Assembly does now, which simply represents states.

I actually have a book about that has realistic ideas about how to set up a world government through the UNPA kicking about. If I'd finished reading it before now I could probably give you all a more compelling argument.

Actually, Chinese as a written language is huge with thosands of charactors and is incredibly complex.

no, i would be against it.
first of all it would be impossible. just look at my country, almost constant fights between the two 'states' it is made up of. and we're not that different. think about the conflicts between angola and denmark for instance.
imo a government should also be as close as possible to the people it rules. obviously a world government would be as far away from it's people as possible.

i wouldn't mind a large forum like the UN, but better, though.

I would be against it. A world government could easily become an oppressive regime a la INGSOC. How could you possibly know if your government is acceptable or not when theres no other governments to compare it to? The citizens of a world government could be living in 1984 and not even know it.

I've always liked the idea of a World Government, as if it actually had real power in the first place, could go a long way to world peace and eradicating poverty.

That's one of the reasons we need te be unified. So when the aliens come...

QFT. Imagine where we could be at now relative to where we are in reguards to space exploration and technology if the USSR and the US had spent the duration of the Cold War working together?

Humanity should never be unified.

Our strengths lie in competition and acquisition of power - over our environment, our lives, each other.

Gradually, all governments degenerate into dictatorship. Proper construction and conceptualization can delay that, for centuries, perhaps millenia, but it is inevitable.

A world government would find it necessary to stifle creativity and competition in the name of stability. It would come to see the status quo, and it's maintenance, as more important than the well-being of it's people, as it makes the classic error of assuming the two are one.

And when the dictatorship came, as it inevitably would, there would be no outside force to topple it or replace it. I don't know how long such a system could last - but dictatorships are all too often horrifyingly stable.

And when it fell, I fear humanity would not survive the carnage.
Problem is, the same carnage could happen even with the current UN system when (NOT if) it falls:rolleyes:; which, I should remind people here if they don't already know, functions (so to speak) surprisingly like the brief Continental Confederation system did for the first 11 years of the US' existence. Why we call the Continental Confederation a 'government' and the UN not is, of course, just a matter of international convenience. If it walks like a lame duck, quacks as loud as a lame duck, and even tries to convince itself it's a functioning duck in spite of all evidence to the contrary; then for the sake of argument let's consider it at least a proverbial 'primitive waterfowl of some sort,' shall we?
Also, do keep in mind rulers like King Cyrus the Great of Persia, or his Macedonian emulator Alexander the Great, before claiming that somehow a world dictatorship would be inevitably an 'evil' thing. What of a truly secular and cosmopolitan ruler, especially a simple dictator rather than anything so elaborate as an emperor or such? They could rule with utmost flexibility and objectivity over all nations and creeds, and with utmost power to crush any defectors as well. With that sort of power, rather than obstructing global-scale infrastructure like new canals or the hypothesized Bering Straits Bridge, might not such a world regime actually get them done instead of talked to death in this or that UN or national-government committee. In short, rather than hindering our mastery of the Earth, might not a 'Human Dominion' of sorts actually be the vehicle by which such mastery is made complete?
Democracy, in the sense of 'representative populism' at least, can be nice. It does help to 'know who rules you' after all. But often the first form of every society must be a dictatorship, because no constitution in history has ever foreseen its own replacement for obvious reasons of basic national chauvinism. To the Greeks, the Persian Empire seemed an 'impossible' constitution itself for its diversity, and such as the US (even with its flaws I have intimate experience of as a citizen) was utterly unimaginable. I sense a similar conceptual block here; but government of large geographic regions became quite possible once printing was invented, efficient postal systems either discovered or rediscovered where they (frequently:headbang:) fell into disuse, and mechanized transport such as railways became available. With the advent of a truly global economy now and the communications to support it, I actually think we're governing below our capabilities to; by a continental order of magnitude at least. All that is required is the will, the sheer philosophical commitment as human beings, to decide such capability is in our interests as a species. But how is this will to be obtained?
Hence, if progress is to come, in my mind it will likely have to be at the point of a bayonet; once the world's leading nations come to realize that pooling their sovereignty under a mutually-agreeable hegemon is preferable to seeing it torn apart by thousands of disagreeable ethnic pretenders (as looks to be the current trend), and either withdraw their support from the UN or forcibly disband it in favor of a more explicitly state-like organization. If my choice is an honest global dictatorship or a world of pseudo-democratic, monoethnic and xenophobic city- or region-states, I know which option has both my voting and shooting arm behind it. Frankly, I know which of the two worlds is the only sustainable system without enduring the umitigated horrors of a global technological and population crash first...

How could you possibly know if your government is acceptable or not when theres no other governments to compare it to?

History? Also, I think we've already established some objective markers of bad government so I'm sure we'd know. Of course there is the potential for it to fall into corruption and all those distopian ideas of evil government, but if there are enough safe guards such as the make-up of the houses or however it is organised, as well as enough power being retained by individual states I think it'd be right.

History? Also, I think we've already established some objective markers of bad government so I'm sure we'd know.
History can be changed. As well as those objective markers.

Of course there is the potential for it to fall into corruption and all those distopian ideas of evil government, but if there are enough safe guards such as the make-up of the houses or however it is organised, as well as enough power being retained by individual states I think it'd be right.

I don't, all I see in a massive centralized government that is omnipresent is the potential for abuse and oppression. I wouldn't even begin to feel safe unless there were massive external organizations that had enough power to challenge the government, I.E. Corporations with private armies, local militias that were major military powers, ect.

How would a world government be able to bring about peace and prosperity? We have our own little governments already and we can't do that.

The kind of world government I would like to see would be in the form of a World Confederacy, where each country gets to govern over it's own local affairs, but each country pulls their resources, labour and knowledge together for the benefit of all countries.

Each federal state government would have it's own devolved parliament that could decide on taxation and other local affairs, but would be ultimately subject to the world parliament and would uphold international laws such as the Declaration of Human Rights amongst others.

How would a world government be able to bring about peace and prosperity? We have our own little governments already and we can't do that.

Our own little governments however are waging unproductive wars and economically screwing other nations and resources. If all our governments pulled together their countries for the common good of the citizens of the Earth, peace would reign without war, and general prosperity would develop when countries stop economically subdueing other countries.

Absolutely not. And for only one reason.

The people are no longer the government.

I'm not sure exactly when this happened - it was probably very gradual, at different rates in different countries, and more then likely never true in the first place; however, the people today are not the same as their government. The vote has been reduced to a pathetic shadow of it's former self, merely a periodic show piece to justify the people who abuse and demean it; laws are made regardless of public support OR constitutional principle, but rather to serve the government's own interest; agencies untouchable by the people are given free reign to regulate all aspects of life; and nations are bent to the will of multinational corporate interests and circuses of semi-sovereign groups of other nations. Amplify this to the point of a singular, universal world power and you as a citizen are left with absolutely nothing. There would be the Government... and everyone else. The latter subjugated, demeaned, and striped of every scrap of power and individual and human rights, would be left to suffer whatever is willed by the former.

Very, very bad idea.

Hell no.

I don't want to be in the same government as some Frenchies, or Canadians are.

Hell no.

I don't want to be in the same government as some Frenchies, or Canadians are.

I pray this is sarcasm.

I pray this is sarcasm.

Your face is sarcasm.

I am a strong supporter of the entire world uniting into one entity. I hate that there are 193+ countries that fight an quibble over everything. A world government brings peace, order, and unity. Much money spent on armaments is being wasted. How would it be achieved? How would it be run? Would you support it? Would you rebel?

I think over time nations will join together, one language (likely English) will dominate, and we will happily exist together. I think it is very possible by 2500 and hope to accelerate it myself. :)

Not gonna happen.

People are too different, and that's not such a bad thing. However, when you put different types of people under one government - a la Rwanda or Iraq - bad things happen.

Parliament would be hilarious though.

Not gonna happen.

Care to explain why?

Your face is sarcasm.

:rolleyes: Go sit in the corner, adults are talking.

What book?





Manifesto for a New World Order by George Monbiot.

I support secession in the US. Do you think I would support a World Government?

They are causing war by being seperate. No, being separate avoids wars. Wars occur when someone decides he wants two or more countries to be unified under one rule.

Kind of like the one-world-government model, really.

But what do we have in common with Tanzanians or New Guineans, that either of us would stand to gain anything by sharing a world government? Best to let the little (metaphorical) guys run their own turf without being quashed under majoritarian tyranny, no?

They are causing war by being seperate.

and how would a world government stop civil war?

I actually have a book about that has realistic ideas about how to set up a world government through the UNPA kicking about. If I'd finished reading it before now I could probably give you all a more compelling argument.

What book?

How would a world government be able to bring about peace and prosperity? We have our own little governments already and we can't do that.

They are causing war by being seperate.

...

Hawt

and how would a world government stop civil war?

War between nations. There is so much money wasted on stuff like nuclear weapons.

Manifesto for a New World Order by George Monbiot.

Thanks *buys*

They are causing war by being seperate.

Within one government there is still civil war.

Within one government there is still civil war.

What kind of civil war are you talking about exactly? A civil war within a federal nation or a world-wide civil war?

I oppose, because if it becomes a corrupt and/or psychotic dictatorship we are all screwed.

One ring to rule them all,
One ring release the Gaint Killer Gerbals that shall he who wields the ring to conquer ze world.

I oppose, because if it becomes a corrupt and/or psychotic dictatorship we are all screwed.

If that happens if it's a Confederate government, then federal nations could secede.

If that happens if it's a Confederate government, then federal nations could secede.

whta?

Absofuckinglutely not.

I support secession in the US. Do you think I would support a World Government?
You could always mutate into one of those disgusting "liberventionists". ;)

A one world government sounds okay in theory- freedom of movement, global access to information, easy communication, more efficient in aid, perhaps less warring factions.

But I really do not think it would work out so well at all. Even without a one world government, HALF of the world's languages are already going to die out. There will almost positively be insane cultural imperialism. The ideas of one region would surely dominate- an to even greater extent that is going on now.

I don't support something huge and rather homogenized like the United States- one language, one leader, one over reaching culture. I support a bit more autonomy- like the EU. But (unfortunately) I don't live in any of the EU countries so I don't know how that actually is working out.

Within one government there is still civil war.

Not when there is prosperity. The US and Western Europe is not in a civil war. UAE is not in a civil war. People blame their poverty on other groups.

Not when there is prosperity. The US and Western Europe is not in a civil war. UAE is not in a civil war. People blame their poverty on other groups.

but prosperity does not last for-ever

but prosperity does not last for-ever

Neither does milk.

Not gonna happen.

Hawt
@ Johnny B Goode: Why do I suspect the ruler of Naqada would've said something similar prior to his conquest by the forces of King Scorpion II of Nekhen; unifier of Upper Egypt?:rolleyes: Or that the last king of independent Lower Egypt would've said the same prior to Pharaoh Narmer's unification of the two halves of the Nile Valley into one?
Every nation believes they embody the absolute truth and pinnacle of human political achievement, and all are wrong in varying degrees; as basic logic and observation of the world political situation demonstrate. Democracy alone has solved nothing, independence alone has solved even less, and capitalism alone would only seal our doom; as we grab for whatever tech and luxuries aren't nailed down on the way down, to Napoleonic-era poverty or worse. The conditions of progress may evolve naturally, but in the end progress is either made by those with the vision and strength to carry it out (such as King Scorpion), or those peoples unwilling to find that strength or vision within are themselves unmade (such as the Classical Maya of King Eighteen Rabbit-Snake's Calakmul) by the failure to make it. With all due respect to the innovative culture in its time that was the Maya, guess who we're acting more like now; King Scorpion II and Narmer's united Egyptians, or Eighteen Rabbit-Snake's feuding Maya?
@ Sel Appa: Thnx!;) I try...

You can count on me buying a lot of guns if this happens.

Why do I suspect the ruler of Naqada would've said something similar prior to his conquest by the forces of King Scorpion II of Nekhen; unifier of Upper Egypt?:rolleyes: Or that the last king of independent Lower Egypt would've said the same prior to Pharaoh Narmer's unification of the two halves of the Nile Valley into one?
Every nation believes they embody the absolute truth and pinnacle of human political achievement, and all are wrong in varying degrees; as basic logic and observation of the world political situation demonstrate. Democracy alone has solved nothing, independence alone has solved even less, and capitalism alone would only seal our doom; as we grab for whatever tech and luxuries aren't nailed down on the way down, to Napoleonic-era poverty or worse. The conditions of progress may evolve naturally, but in the end progress is either made by those with the vision and strength to carry it out (such as King Scorpion), or those peoples unwilling to find that strength or vision within are themselves unmade (such as the Classical Maya of King Eighteen Rabbit-Snake's Calakmul) by the failure to make it. With all due respect to the innovative culture in its time that was the Maya, guess who we're acting more like now; King Scorpion II and Narmer's united Egyptians, or Eighteen Rabbit-Snake's feuding Maya?

Can anybody say 'Johnny got owned (http://johnny-justgotowned.com)'?

Care to explain why?

The nations are too busy bickering. World government would be a state of perpetual civil war.

You could always mutate into one of those disgusting "liberventionists". ;)

I think that would be a little hard, seeing as how I distrust every single act of legislation ever, even the ones that purport to be "free market." :D

History can be changed. As well as those objective markers.

I don't, all I see in a massive centralized government that is omnipresent is the potential for abuse and oppression. I wouldn't even begin to feel safe unless there were massive external organizations that had enough power to challenge the government, I.E. Corporations with private armies, local militias that were major military powers, ect.

Hmm, I think it definately depends on how we view a world government, as in how much power it has. I imagine we'd still have local, state and federal government as well as electing members to the world government. Here is a question, if there was a world government, what would it ideally rule over? Obviously they aren't gonna be in charge of filling pot-holes, so what then?

Based on the current geo-political situation, I'd put more money on Chinese than English.

Chinese does not find itself in the widespread state that English is, though. Instead it is a highly localized language, with limited foreign knowledge of it.

Hmm, I think it definately depends on how we view a world government, as in how much power it has. I imagine we'd still have local, state and federal government as well as electing members to the world government. Here is a question, if there was a world government, what would it ideally rule over? Obviously they aren't gonna be in charge of filling pot-holes, so what then?

Can you imagine how colossally bureaucratic, inefficient, and wasteful a world-wide federalist state would be? It would take them a quarter of a century to decide what letterhead to use, and they would overspend billions on printing it.

Humans can mess up any kind of government. At least when the government's power is weak, we can get rid of it when it gets too bad. Then again, one could argue that the worst governments inevitably collapse.

Human nature (or is it nurture?) is what causes all the problems, not the kind of ideological basis for the government (which arguably would include its scope).

Here is a question, if there was a world government, what would it ideally rule over? Obviously they aren't gonna be in charge of filling pot-holes, so what then?

I would support a U.N. that had teeth and could pass resolutions and enforce them. I would support them intervening in wars, natural disasters, and other calamities. I would not support an international entity legislating the civil law of another country or a business. In short: Fix wars and other international crap, stay out of the decision making in our separate countries.

Chinese does not find itself in the widespread state that English is, though. Instead it is a highly localized language, with limited foreign knowledge of it.

And English is HIGHLY adaptable and has been so for centuries. That is part of why it has stuck so well. It just absorbs languages. It will preserve the many languages it overtakes inside it.

And English is HIGHLY adaptable and has been so for centuries. That is part of why it has stuck so well. It just absorbs languages. It will preserve the many languages it overtakes inside it.

Quite true!

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle [sic] their pockets for new vocabulary."
– James D. Nichol

Quite true!

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle [sic] their pockets for new vocabulary."
– James D. Nichol

I think I read that once before.

I would support a U.N. that had teeth and could pass resolutions and enforce them. I would support them intervening in wars, natural disasters, and other calamities. I would not support an international entity legislating the civil law of another country or a business. In short: Fix wars and other international crap, stay out of the decision making in our separate countries.

Doesn't work that way, though. After fixing the mess, the UN would then want to ensure that it doesn't happen again, but without legislation that couldn't happen.

I am a strong supporter of the entire world uniting into one entity.
I have lost what respect I had for you.

I hate that there are 193+ countries that fight an quibble over everything.
Adversity breeds innovation.

A world government brings peace, order, and unity.
Under and iron fist and booted heel.

Much money spent on armaments is being wasted.
The Space Race started out as part of an arms race and both used the technologies generated by that arms race as well as contributed new technologies to it.

How would it be achieved?
With an iron fist.

How would it be run?
Like a totalitarian dictatorship.

Would you support it?
Not even if Hell froze over.

Would you rebel?
Yes.

I think over time nations will join together, one language (likely English) will dominate, and we will happily exist together. I think it is very possible by 2500 and hope to accelerate it myself. :)
You truly are a fool.

Desperate Measures, are you insane?!

Hmm, I think it definately depends on how we view a world government, as in how much power it has. I imagine we'd still have local, state and federal government as well as electing members to the world government. Here is a question, if there was a world government, what would it ideally rule over? Obviously they aren't gonna be in charge of filling pot-holes, so what then?
The basic stuff of governance everywhere, only planetary-scale this time. Managing planetary defense against planetary "threats," such as asteroids, rebel/'rogue' nuclear arsenals, &c (remember that the first militias and city walls were probably built as much to ward off packs of remnant Ice Age predators as bands of rampaging men); or keeping planetary law-and-order, such as by stamping out genocide and enforcing personal rights aggressively, even if at the expense of local/cultural 'sovereignty'; or maintenance of planetary infrastructure such as the Panama and Suez canals, plus the speculative Bering Straits Bridge that would need building if we're ever to become a Coruscant-style world-city; or preservation of minority cultures below those of the recognized sub-governments, probably regional rather than national so as to deprive potential rebels of something easily seized (remember the fate of Prussia after World War II?:p), and within the scope of overriding adherence to worldwide human rights law; or even supervision of world-scale scientific projects, such as certain aspects of the Large Hadron Collider and next-generation space sensor platform experiments. And those are just the so-called 'domestic' challenges worthy of a world government; no need to involve "ET-as-such" in the slightest, as one may notice in his absence from that list.;)
In fact, just so long as any federalism involved (virtually a necessity, as most of the good 'emperors' of the ancient world actually knew) was a "federalism of responsibility" rather than a "crony federalism," one that preserves some nations unchanged while sundering others and almost certainly provoking insurrection there right away in the process, the responsibilities a world regime could usefully discharge are fairly numerous without even invoking the old bugaboo of malign extraterrestrial contact. And if contact is made, of whatever diplomatic context hostile or friendly, a recognized government for mankind more effective than the moribund blue-flag would be a must if we're to be taken seriously at all in any larger community of sentients. Again, whether as friends in the best case, or simply as "people to be neither trifled with nor tread upon" in the neutral or worst cases.

I couldn't imagine any way it could work in the foreseeable future. Could you imagine Texas and France operating under the same government in any fashion?

Perhaps in the far, far, far future when information technology has allowed worldwide communication long enough for a global culture and society to develop. Of course, this very likely won't occur for centuries, if ever.

I would not support it.

Ultimately the bigger richer areas of the world would continue to become rich and the small, fragmented areas would remain poor.

No. What works for one nation will not work for another. I would rebel.

No. What works for one nation will not work for another. I would rebel.
Of course, you're assuming two things here; both valid, but only so long as the assumption behind each holds.;) One: that nations as currently constituted would form the administrative units of a world regime; something I find both unlikely and, if done by an emerging world regime, suicidally unwise because what you claim (both parts) would happen and have reason to happen (b/c of lingering favoritism towards those nations with the biggest political stake in the union:headbang:). Adopting a continental/regional administrative basis (unite coastal West Africa as one region, but split Russia into several regions; under one possible example) could both steal nationalism's thunder and rationalize regional governance according to the honest local conditions, economic or environmental or whatever else.
Culture would of course be a problem, but your sub-assumption that national/local cultures are somehow static or eternal is wrong on its face. Alsace and Lorraine, though both French-speaking even before Louis XIV annexed them, had distinct cultures before their absorption into the "natural boundaries of France" and do still even after several swaps between France and Germany depending on who was winning what war at the time. This also ignores the fact that culture itself is constructed; very gradually, on a multigenerational basis that can't be so much controlled as anticipated and (hopefully) stimulated in a desirable direction, but constructed all the same. Why should a cosmopolitan 'Human' culture be any different, or mean the automatic extinction of local sub-cultures?
And then there's assumption two, the implication behind "what works for one nation will not work for another": That once the global regime is established it would completely standardize/collectivize everything, including culture and wealth, like some global parody of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Frankly, this is a non-starter, for the obvious reasons why command economies/propaganda cultures don't work for more than a generation or two; and even I, unabashed leftist and world-union partisan to the death that I am, would rebel against such a system. Note, my rebellion would be with the objective of establishing a better world system, rather than regressing to the even more broken multinational system of before, but I'd revolt all the same. And that also goes for a global regime I'd structurally like but which commits acts I consider too bloody or arrogant, or (especially) both.
Even the relatively muscular sort of union I'd fight for (in terms of political and military power, again a true "Human Dominion" or such) would have fairly limited responsibilities; and thus couldn't become such a pseudo-Stalinist monster because it wouldn't have all the local control mechanisms necessary. Common global monetary, security, basic rights and suchlike laws are of course obvious tools such a state would have; and even gradually emerging on their own now without a regime-as-such to enforce them (currently). But again, I see no reason a global republic couldn't allow non-sovereign Sultans/Kings/Emperors &c to serve as honorary public figures, perhaps under an arrangement in which the powers of a local throne were bequeathed to the world body's representatives in their region (a "viceroyalty" or "governor general" approach) like with several non-sovereign African kings today. Nor equally any reason why a global empire-as-such couldn't have subordinate republics under its command, whether as elective or military fiefdoms. Rome had several subject kings (e.g. Herod of Judea) ruling cultures VERY different from Latin or Italian derivation, so long as the local Roman prefect (e.g. Pilate) was unquestionably the power behind the throne. Provided the local heritage was sufficiently respected, and the regional/global government focused on basic good-governance and responsibility matters rather than any unnecessary social engineering, I see scarce reason this proven approach couldn't work again equally well.
Overall, I see no reason why a world government would ipso facto mean the death of cultural or economic diversity, and even less so the death of political liberty. Anyone care to explain further why these assumptions keep popping up?:confused: It honestly boggles me whenever I hear them since, frankly, I sense a contradiction-in-terms between the localists' simultaneous claims of weak cultures and rights in danger of being overwhelmed by proverbial 'godless cosmopolitanism' on the one hand, and yet world domination being doomed to fail by the power of the supposedly-righteous 'unconquerable peoples' on the other...:rolleyes:

No. A nice idea, bt let's look it at how it works in practice. This government can very easily fall into the 51/49 trap, Benjamin Franklin's (I think...) "Two wolves and a lamb decide what to have for dinner". In order to stop this from happening, you need a law against it. But a parliamentary assembly could modify that law, so the trap is still there. Unless of course we have some kind of unammendable passage to the constitution, and then who will write the constitution? Who can we trust to write what will be our laws forever?

Besides, there's a simpler reason. I'm a Britisher. The thoght of common petty criminals roaming the streets with guns, of thes small-mindedly malicious chavs who throw insults at me getting their hand's on dad's pistol, chills my blood. But I'm sure people in Georgia must think the same about leaving the house unarmed. In the Netherlands, soft drugs and euphanasia are legal. In a world assembly, moralistic US southerners could block this even if most of the Dutch were in favour of it.

This is why I'm a nationalist. And before I have to evoke Godwin's law, go and look up what "Nationalist" means.

There are already only two nations - America and the Rest of the world. We even have our own flag. Exactly the same as the American flag, only on fire.

Nice idea for the rest of us, but leave out the USA.

There are already only two nations - America and the Rest of the world. We even have our own flag. Exactly the same as the American flag, only on fire.

Thank you.

No. A nice idea, bt let's look it at how it works in practice. This government can very easily fall into the 51/49 trap, Benjamin Franklin's (I think...) "Two wolves and a lamb decide what to have for dinner". In order to stop this from happening, you need a law against it. But a parliamentary assembly could modify that law, so the trap is still there. Unless of course we have some kind of unammendable passage to the constitution, and then who will write the constitution? Who can we trust to write what will be our laws forever?

Besides, there's a simpler reason. I'm a Britisher. The thoght of common petty criminals roaming the streets with guns, of thes small-mindedly malicious chavs who throw insults at me getting their hand's on dad's pistol, chills my blood. But I'm sure people in Georgia must think the same about leaving the house unarmed. In the Netherlands, soft drugs and euphanasia are legal. In a world assembly, moralistic US southerners could block this even if most of the Dutch were in favour of it.

This is why I'm a nationalist. And before I have to evoke Godwin's law, go and look up what "Nationalist" means.
Oh I know what "nationalist" means, whether in the simple sense of 'believing in the values and identity of one's nation, as being most proper for those of that nation' in the dictionary sense; not to mention the stronger British National Party sense, of course (no assumptions, mind, just covering all bases;)). And indeed, nationalism is the necessary prior step to true cosmopolitanism just as city-statehood and divine-right imperialism were the necessary predecessors to nationalism itself (the synthesis of their antitheses, local citizenship versus universal authority). Combine nationalism with globalization, two dialectically opposed forces, and the idea of political cosmopolitanism as the next logical synthesis naturally emerges. I should probably mention that I do believe philosophically in Hegelianism/Marxism, moreso older "Left-Hegelianism" than Marxism on account of the former's greater flexibility, which is why I speak so often in terms of "dialectics" and "historical/cultural transitions."
In a world assembly, US Georgian representatives probably couldn't block Euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, to use your (good) example, not in my mind. Not only would it judicially-speaking be beyond the jurisdiction of the local courts in each case, whether gun rights in Georgia or euthanasia rights in the Netherlands, but on a global legislative level the European and European-aligned regional representatives could probably block the measure anyway unless other regions (such as the middle east, say) backed Georgia in sufficient numbers.
Also, you make two very dangerous assumptions there with that bit about "who will write the constitution? Who can we trust to write what will be our laws forever?", good sir. Considering how closely all the yes and no votes here are (if you pool the various "yes, but as..." votes into one bloc), and if we assume this poll to be representative of actual humankind-wide opinion on the matter, you might want to take a look at my earlier "coup-by-collusion" against the UN idea. It's not my favored means, not least for the risk of enshrining a "crony federalism" or such that would probably need to be dealt with on its own later; but if enough influential people feel it has to be done to avert the disaster mankind's current dithering between nationalism and globalization is courting, then it will be done and the question "to stop us, are you willing to fight a world war that may very well destroy all you wish to preserve?" falls upon the nationalists' shoulders to answer.
And your second dangerous assumption: that a written constitution as such is even necessary. Again, see my worst-case scenario above; it is entirely possible (if self-destructive) for a government to paraphrase King Louis XIV's "I am the State" attitude, for such a government could see itself as all the constitution it needs. And though I too find such reasoning childish, I'd support such a regime for at least so long as needed to put a global political infrastructure in place. That way, once the regime rots itself sufficiently, freer minds can take over in a coup of their own and win the world for themselves, rather than having to reconquer everything as would be necessary if nationalists sabotage everything first. In short, such laws wouldn't necessarily be "forever;" I in fact don't believe the first global government would survive very long, or need to frankly, since all that's required is a "proof of concept" regime to show others that it can be done in principle (and thus done better in practice by saner people in a saner time).
Neither may be particularly "legitimate" in your eyes I'm sure, but they get the job done; and I honestly feel humanity is either in that dire an economic/environmental position now, or is rapidly approaching it and still largely blind to the fact. If you have a solution that could gradually construct a human political community within the estimated timeframe for oil use we have left (leaving out alternative power sources so as to cope with potential "worst-case" scenarios), believe me I'd be ecstatic to hear this. A humanity-wide civil war is the worst thing I can imagine too:(; even if I feel ethically compelled to follow a "what must be done, must be done" attitude regarding the possibility, nonetheless.

<3 Wagdog.

I'll try to take of the first "insane" regime. :D

You never know...;)

I think that we should have a world government that regulates space, the environment, international trade, human rights, and perhaps other global concerns but none others come to mind.

I think that we should have a world government that regulates space, the environment, international trade, human rights, and perhaps other global concerns but none others come to mind.

The problem with this (the US federal government is the perfect example) is where exactly do you draw the line as to what constitutes a 'global concern'?

Bureaucracies inexorably like to expand their powers, so over time you will have increasing encroachment into every aspect of governance.

Space: the use of satellite communications would lead to the regulations of pretty much all broadcast communications in the world. This of a worldwide FCC. Not to mention this sort of thing was already talked about back in the 70s when some people would setup very high powered transmitters just south of the border in Mexico and broadcast into the US.

Environment: this is an obvious one... everything has an environmental impact. Everything.

International Trade: the US eventually twisted the commerce clause (meant to keep free trade between the states) into being able to control every aspect of the economy. Tariffs, tax structures, product labeling, production methods, regulating everything could fall under regulating international trade.

Human rights: this is another twitchy issue. What exactly constitutes a violation of human rights? Different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes a human right, and thus you leave yourself open to all sorts of problems if you have one governing body for the entire world.

While slippery slope arguments are fairly weak, this concern is well founded in historical examples of the creep of bureaucracy.