I support the idea of the world having one world government, but with some qualifications. The government I imagine would look something like this:
* It would be democratic.
* It would be composed of all the nations that wanted to be part of it.
* It would allow for entry but also for exit if dissatisfaction set in.
* It would be composed of national representatives in a central body, and a leader/president.
* It would include national bodies/member nations would keep their legislatures.
* It would make laws on trade, foreign policy, law and order, other areas as agreed on by members.
People argue against 1 world government as if it's the worst idea ever. Here are a couple of benefits to it:
* Poorer nations would have access to the technology, expertise, and frankly, the honest governments they so desperately need. It's a fact that most of the world's poverty is created. Most of the poverty and human rights violations are NOT accidental. They're the policy of bad governments.
The example from Iraq is quite telling. The public KNEW they were getting the abuse from bad leaders. They KNEW they could have a different government. And when the opportunity came by, they took the opportunity.
What lesson is there? Everybody wants honesty in government, and to lead themselves. If you can find a group you know for a fact wants bad government, then please list them in your replies, and the links so we can see this for ourselves. You can't, but don't let it stop you.
One world government would also solve the inefficiences problem. Why should neighboring countries that are basically the same country (Canada and the United States, Sweden and Norway, Australia and New Zealand) have redundant governments? Is there any GOOD reason for it? What?
This is 2005, not 1805. The world is about free trade, and free migration. Why does every country need it's own set of separate laws, and it's own separate parliament? There's no good reason for it.
Objections - when people argue against 1 world government, they tend to say the following:
Objection - "What happens if a one world government falls into the hands of another Hitler?"
Answer - obviously there are many ways to prevent a tyrant type from taking power. How many stable democracies have been hijacked by tyrants? It doesn't happen when you design the safeguards in. There is zero probability that somehow a Bangladeshi tyrant would take the world over. It's a silly idea.
I've already mentioned that countries can, with notice, come and go. There's no danger to any individual state.
Objection - "Politics is a process of evolution. How do you know your government is the best type?"
Answer - You never get guarantees. I've already mentioned that membership would be somewhat voluntary, and that alone is enough to keep the form adapting to the changing world. Also, the constitution of the 1 world government would be very flexible. It would allow for changes.
There are no real objections to the idea of 1 world government. Any danger is far outweighed by the huge benefits most of the poorer countries in the world would immediately get by being part of a larger, richer, and better run governmental system.
It's one world.
It should be one government too.
* It would be democratic.
* It would be composed of all the nations that wanted to be part of it.
* It would allow for entry but also for exit if dissatisfaction set in.
* It would be composed of national representatives in a central body, and a leader/president.
* It would include national bodies/member nations would keep their legislatures.
* It would make laws on trade, foreign policy, law and order, other areas as agreed on by members.
People argue against 1 world government as if it's the worst idea ever. Here are a couple of benefits to it:
* Poorer nations would have access to the technology, expertise, and frankly, the honest governments they so desperately need. It's a fact that most of the world's poverty is created. Most of the poverty and human rights violations are NOT accidental. They're the policy of bad governments.
The example from Iraq is quite telling. The public KNEW they were getting the abuse from bad leaders. They KNEW they could have a different government. And when the opportunity came by, they took the opportunity.
What lesson is there? Everybody wants honesty in government, and to lead themselves. If you can find a group you know for a fact wants bad government, then please list them in your replies, and the links so we can see this for ourselves. You can't, but don't let it stop you.
One world government would also solve the inefficiences problem. Why should neighboring countries that are basically the same country (Canada and the United States, Sweden and Norway, Australia and New Zealand) have redundant governments? Is there any GOOD reason for it? What?
This is 2005, not 1805. The world is about free trade, and free migration. Why does every country need it's own set of separate laws, and it's own separate parliament? There's no good reason for it.
Objections - when people argue against 1 world government, they tend to say the following:
Objection - "What happens if a one world government falls into the hands of another Hitler?"
Answer - obviously there are many ways to prevent a tyrant type from taking power. How many stable democracies have been hijacked by tyrants? It doesn't happen when you design the safeguards in. There is zero probability that somehow a Bangladeshi tyrant would take the world over. It's a silly idea.
I've already mentioned that countries can, with notice, come and go. There's no danger to any individual state.
Objection - "Politics is a process of evolution. How do you know your government is the best type?"
Answer - You never get guarantees. I've already mentioned that membership would be somewhat voluntary, and that alone is enough to keep the form adapting to the changing world. Also, the constitution of the 1 world government would be very flexible. It would allow for changes.
There are no real objections to the idea of 1 world government. Any danger is far outweighed by the huge benefits most of the poorer countries in the world would immediately get by being part of a larger, richer, and better run governmental system.
It's one world.
It should be one government too.
Speculation, but let's take it point-by-point:
