Would you support a single world government? What factors would sway you?

I, personally, do not believe that a single government for the world is a realaistic possibility. Afterall, people around the world have different ideas of what freedom and liberty mean.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

...and its not as if we've done a really bang-up job with our little national governments so far.

look at the closest attempt of implementing a world government to date. the mongol empire. i say no. the world is too culturally and ideologically diverse, and it would be impossible to expect the citizens of the earth to perceive their common interests as being similar enough to other parts of the world to legitamize a world government.

Thor, thanks for starting a new thread here to pursue this line of discussion. I would like my thread on Global citizenship in the War and Peace forum to focus on the concept of our common humanity, rather than this question of establishing a world government.

I think there are four broad considerations within this question.

The first is whether there is a rational basis for the idea of a world government. Think of this question in generic terms – Would it make sense for a planet to have a single government?

The second is whether it is a practical proposition on Planet Earth. What are the logistical questions at issue? Are they surmountable?

The third is whether it is a desirable proposition. What are the political issues?

And last but not least is…what is the alternative? No change? Reform the UN? Devise a new system? How should we manage world affairs?

Okay, some thoughts….

1) I would say that the idea of a planet having some form of unified administration is reasonable.

2) The logistical issues would be dependent on the model of government. In a democratic system, individual citizens would have the right to vote and to stand for office. The logistics of this would be a challenge today, but not impossible in the future.

3) I think there are both positive and negative aspects to the idea of a single world government. On the positive side, an international body can address issues that are outside the jurisdiction of individual nations. On the negative side, a world government may impinge on the sovereignty of individual nations.

4) I’m not sure if there is an alternative. The UN model has its own strengths and weaknesses. One of my concerns would be how to ensure a balance of power in a world government. I don’t know that we will ever see a day when nations do not exist, but there will probably always be competing interests, including competition between businesses or even individuals.

I am not sure that the fact that there are different ideological or religious beliefs would be an obstacle. These kind of differences exist within the major democracies and do not present a big obstacle to national governments.

But I do not have an idealistic expectation that a world government would be a bedrock of harmony and peace. It could evolve into a dystopia.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

hm...I tried a topic similar to this one before...
A world government will hurt a lot of economies, and a lot of bureaucracy. What will our poor paper pushers do with no borders to check? No one will smuggle anything. No one will write reports about non-existent armies. Basically, the current America would perish.

Well, I would support a world government. Just as long as that world government was small, and let its citizens mind their own business.

__________________
Sever the line to the guilty past
To the ones who brought us nothing
Spoke of futures brave and proud
And brought only hate and war.
Lined the roads with hollow praise
Marked the land with paper statues
Shadows fell on their futile ways
And then there was nothing more

I think as long as there is one single goal: survival. and not of the fittest, a one world government is feasible.

Some have cited cultural differences as an obstacle. This, I believe, is because we are used to Government dictating culture in such ways as decency laws and other moral legislation.

A single world government will be stratified sort of like it is within the US. You have Federal, State, County, City, etc. In a single government, there would be something like the UN with ambassadors.
,

__________________

It may happen in the future, but we are not ready for it yet.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I'd not like the idea of a one world-government. No escape to another land from persecution or tyranny from said government. Doesn't appeal to me very much.

Chang has suggested one which lets it's citizens mind it's own business, but must we forget the words "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Their power would extend all borders, so the possibility of extensive corruption is limitless here.

Maybe if humans evolve into something a little more feasible than their current state. But as it stands, I can see it being tried, but I don't see it working out - at least not in the favor of the citizenry.

No. And we won't ever let it happen (as far as America is concerned)...

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

only if the world is under american rule.

lol..

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7