World Government

[monkeysonmars.]

This is an essay I'm working on at the moment and I decided to make a thread because international relations theory doesn't seem to be discussed that much here and hopefully it will get some people thinking.

the question is about the comparative risks of a world government (of any form i guess) with the continued risks of international anarchy taking into account unipolarity (America's global hegemony).

Anyway just thought it would be interesting for people to reflect on it and muse where the world might be in 100 years or so. I'll post what I've come up with (read: stolen from books) tomorrow if the thread gets any posts.

[Mr. Ron]

Great idea, as long as its set up right. Very complicated issue.

[corb]

as long as it's centered around Jesus, amirite ron???

[griftadan]

i find it hard to believe that any kind of global unity necessary for global government will be created any time soon

[Give me Beer]

Please no, not more government. Worldwide collective action, sure, world wide government, no thanks.

[Independent_CA]

Well, if things continue the way they are:

MNCs and groups like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank will continue to gain more and more influence and will increasingly become a de-facto part (or possibly opponent) of any world government. Organizations like the UN that currently attempt to enforce some level of world governance are inherently flawed, and so are some of the ones mentioned earlier. They tend to enforce the imbalance between the haves (rich, industrial nations) and the have nots (poor/developing nations). Example; the permanent 5 members of the UN Security Council and the disproportionate power they hold over the other 180+ members. When any of the haves wants to oppose something, there is little if anything that everyone else can do about it. If a world government was to be successful, it has to nullify this kind of power and enforce equality among it's member states.

Now on the other side of the coin. Many of the conflicts today are caused or at least amplified by globalization, which is the same process that could eventually bring about a world government. It brings the ultra-modern world into direct confrontation with the traditional old world. The middle east and Africa are prime examples of this. Local populations suddenly find themselves and their daily lives affected by decisions made on the other side of the globe, and they may not like it. Environmental problems, resource scarcity, government instability, are all examples of what many in the developing world face as a part of globalization. Dealing with these issues is one of the other major problems any world government would have to face, and it is certainly no small task. How is a government in Geneva or New York going to be able to really deal with varying local problems spread out over dozens of countries in the developing world?

I also believe that we're going to see fiercer competition between the industrialized nations (including China and India) over energy, especially oil, in the first half of the 21st Century. That in and of itself provides a monumental challenge to any potential world government.

[Mr. Ron]

as long as it's centered around Jesus, amirite ron???

that would be theocracy.

People get so scared of this concept, and I can see why, but most of that is paranoia. If some sort of world council was formed with equal representation I think that would serve humanity pretty well and just bolster cooperation.

[J Rad]

that would be theocracy.

People get so scared of this concept, and I can see why, but most of that is paranoia. If some sort of world council was formed with equal representation I think that would serve humanity pretty well and just bolster cooperation.

Except it would still undeniably exclude certain members of the international community as a result of their lack of want to participate on the global level with western nations and their ideals.

[Mr. Ron]

Except it would still undeniably exclude certain members of the international community as a result of their lack of want to participate on the global level with western nations and their ideals.

Well, I did say its a complicated issue. I'm not sure how the little details would work out.

[monkeysonmars.]

Rawls has stated there will be no headway on international government/ governance until there is a wholesale acceptance of democracy but the question is do we have that much time.

[Mr. Ron]

That would take a very, very long time.

[J Rad]

That idea is flawed anyway because there are many nations that simply can't function and survive in a democratic system because their current government is strongly interlaced with their culture/religious beliefs.

[monkeysonmars.]

That would take a very, very long time.

yup, and if it's taken that a)there's a max of 100 years left to American dominance, b) no military strategist has yet to solve the problem of winning major war without resorting to thermonuclear weapons and c) in a world of multiple major players war is inevitable... it doesn't look good.

[Alcore]

I think a global expansion of liberty and human rights coupled with concerted efforts at tackling poverty to a global government which I think is not only very unrealistic but undesirable.

[Reaganista]

Rawls has stated there will be no headway on international government/ governance until there is a wholesale acceptance of democracy but the question is do we have that much time.
:confused:
who cares what rawls says

[monkeysonmars.]

because he's one of the most significant writers on philosophy and liberalism in...a seriously long time?

you don't have to care about Rawls though, it's pretty much an established fact in international theory that a democratic world government would require a sense of shared civic identity to function because peoples values and interests are shaped by the community they live in. It's pretty basic to liberal thought.

[Reaganista]

obviously we would do away with western democracy if we were going to have a world government

and rawls does not matter no one cares

[monkeysonmars.]

o.k

[Already_Taken]

There would be too much power in the hands of too few people. With a world government we would obviously set up separate states, probably based on culture and religion and they would be pretty close to the countries we have today. There would be trading, alliances, and wars between states, as if they were countries, but everything would be funneled through one government.

We obviously couldn't elect 1 president, as s/he would have way too much power, so we would elect multiple leaders (probably 1 per "state"). It doesn't seem like it will ever happen at this point, unless we are invaded by aliens and must unite to fight an extra-terrestrial foe.

[Independent_CA]

Let's get some of that goin then. We've been kicking the crap out of each other for so long that we've gotta be almost god-like masters of it by now. Maybe that's why aliens don't bother to contact us, they're scared. I say we develop our space-flight capabilities as quickly as possible. There might be a whole galaxy out there waiting to be pillaged and we could be missing out!

Unacceptable!!!!

:smash:

[J Rad]

We could be space vikings!!

[Against Miik!]

Well lets see. I think it depends on how far you want to take this. There are a lot of theories as to the extent as to which a global government will occur. We have current institutions, like the WTO, World Bank, and EU etc...But then there are guys like Alex Jones (sry) who see it being taken much further. He theorizes that the globe will be consoldidated into three geographic areas, being Europe (EU), the Americas (NAU), and Asia and the Pacific (Asian-Pacific Union or something). The United Nations will oversee the third world, as they kind of do now with peace keeping missions and such, and those areas will be further exploitated. If you want to take the conspiracy theory route, or at least touch on it, since it is pretty big, I would suggest watching Alex Jone's Endgame, which can be found on torrents or google video I thinks.

I see nothing but the evils of globalization, and am kind of in the conspiracy theory crowd. I mean, the EU was a long time in the making. It's existance was denied for a long time. At first, there were just economic agreements, before the EU was fully established. Now we see the same thing in the US. The NAU is being denied, but we have NAFTA. It kind of follows the same eventual path. A lot of people say that the Senate's unwillingness to back the building of a fence along the Mexican border is a precursor to the NAFTA Superhighway, which a lot of people in Texas know about because its being done in their backyard, but our government still denies existance of.

Who knows though, I'm kinda crazy I guess.

[monkeysonmars.]

so do people think this is something that nation-states will see as necessary? and at what point or what world event will it take for the superpowers to mutually agree that a partially loss of sovereignty is a price that needs to be paid for military, economic, bio etc security?

[Against Miik!]

Be sure to read up on The Council on Foreign Relations and read some stuff by Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is a smart guy, but believes a lot of ****ed up stuff.

My favorite Kissinger quote: "No foreign policy - no matter how ingenious - has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none"

Really relevant, huh?

[monkeysonmars.]

kk, tonight's reading 'kant - perpetual peace', 'waltz - man, state and war' and 'rawls - the law of peoples'.

[Independent_CA]

Be sure to read up on The Council on Foreign Relations and read some stuff by Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is a smart guy, but believes a lot of ****ed up stuff.

My favorite Kissinger quote: "No foreign policy - no matter how ingenious - has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none"

Really relevant, huh?

From what I've read of him, Kissinger is a jackass.

[Against Miik!]

Well he is.

Also read Ray Kurzweil's stuff on transhumanism. Actually, just read his stuff period because its super interesting.

[Smokey D]

Well lets see. I think it depends on how far you want to take this. There are a lot of theories as to the extent as to which a global government will occur. We have current institutions, like the WTO, World Bank, and EU etc...But then there are guys like Alex Jones (sry) who see it being taken much further. He theorizes that the globe will be consoldidated into three geographic areas, being Europe (EU), the Americas (NAU), and Asia and the Pacific (Asian-Pacific Union or something). The United Nations will oversee the third world, as they kind of do now with peace keeping missions and such, and those areas will be further exploitated. If you want to take the conspiracy theory route, or at least touch on it, since it is pretty big, I would suggest watching Alex Jone's Endgame, which can be found on torrents or google video I thinks.

I see nothing but the evils of globalization, and am kind of in the conspiracy theory crowd. I mean, the EU was a long time in the making. It's existance was denied for a long time. At first, there were just economic agreements, before the EU was fully established. Now we see the same thing in the US. The NAU is being denied, but we have NAFTA. It kind of follows the same eventual path. A lot of people say that the Senate's unwillingness to back the building of a fence along the Mexican border is a precursor to the NAFTA Superhighway, which a lot of people in Texas know about because its being done in their backyard, but our government still denies existance of.

Who knows though, I'm kinda crazy I guess.

The EU only exists as it does due to the complicity of its member states. I highly doubt the US will ever be williling to cede as much sovereignty as members of the EU has, but I don't necessarily see anything automatically wrong with it if it it did.

[Reaganista]

kk, tonight's reading 'kant - perpetual peace', 'waltz - man, state and war' and 'rawls - the law of peoples'.

i had that class two years ago
at least waltz doesn't suck but that's all like ancient history

[Smokey D]

kk, tonight's reading 'kant - perpetual peace', 'waltz - man, state and war' and 'rawls - the law of peoples'.

Stop namedropping like anyone you read in university is the the be all and end all of any topic.

[monkeysonmars.]

have you got some other reading for me?

[Smokey D]

That's not the point.

[monkeysonmars.]

well it is. i'd be grateful for any help from anyone on this but if you're just going to come in and bitch...

[Smokey D]

The point is that you citing authors and thinkers does not count as a meaningful contribution so stop it. Go ahead and use the arguments in the books to formulate an interesting response, but if you're going to tell us to 'read Rawls' or something, it's not appreciated.

And it certainly isn't up to us to tell you what books to read.

[monkeysonmars.]

it was simply meant as a preamble to exactly what you stated, either that or the final essay but that's not realistic anymore. i just find you get a lot of people that read something and state it as their opinion in a bid to look intelligent, i want people to know what formulated anything i say on the subject. Nor have i stated at any point 'read this' or 'read that' Against Miik offered some possible reading which was cool and appreciated but in no way demanded.

it's not up to you to tell me what books to read, it's up to you to make a meaningful contribution in the same way you would like me to. the difference is i have done so already with the exception of one post, you have not.

[Smokey D]

I may have missed your point and you were telling us what your reading list was, rather than what ours should be. If that's the case, I apoligise, and I'll tidy up the thread. But if not, 'read X' or 'I've read X; have you?' with nothing else will be treated as spam.