A World Government

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Karakoran, Apr 4, 2011.

  1. Karakoran Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    7,903
    Likes Received:
    640
    Trophy Points:
    193
    Location:
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Assume the grounds that a World Government is possible. Now, if it was truly achievable, then would it be moral to emplace it? Would it be efficient?
  2. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think that it's possible to assign a moral value to something as vague as a 'world government,' especially given that it's apparently possible in the hypothetical. More than anything else it would depend on the characteristics of the world that enabled it, and the government structure itself. A world government in the status quo is quite obviously undesirable, no matter the form it takes.
  3. RoyalAnarchist New Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    379
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Natural State
    If it was similar to the "Robert Nozick Utopia" where each individual could have his best possible "world" without having to forcefully/fraudulently taking it from someone else then it would be moral and also profitable.
  4. CrazyIvan New Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Message Count:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would be absolutely plagued with corruption.
  5. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap

    And that statement is based on what?
  6. Tito Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    I think there will eventually be some king of world federation or coalition of nations that make decisions together that effect that effect the entire world (or worlds, if we ever get to the point of colonizing other planets) for mutual benefit and the good of mankind.
  7. NeoGracchus New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A world government would be a great thing in my opinion for several reasons.

    It is probably the only way the interminable wars and instabilities which plague the world will be ended. Just think how much resources nations spend now in order to be prepared for a possible war.

    How innumberable are the cases around the world where one national/ethnic community is being oppressed or discriminated against because it is inside a state dominated by one national/ethnic community? If the context is the whole world then no one nation can dominate another, and all disputes could be settled by a disinterested third party.

    Also, true economic cooperation and freedom of trade will never be possible until there is a world government.

    There are probably others but those are the main reasons that stick out in my mind. At this point in our history however, it is extremely unlikely a world government will come to be anytime soon.
  8. Eridian Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    870
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    88
    The only way I could possibly imagine a world government working is this, having everyone run their own little area, kind of like how Italian city-states all were under the power of the pope.
    Someones corrupt? Remove them from power, if they refuse, "other means" may be necessary.
    Peasants unhappy? Must be for some good reason! Listen to them for gods sake! If you aren't making the people happy as a government, you aren't doing a good job. This is what those provisional leaders are for, you can't listen to the whole world at once, it's too much, if you broke it into France sized areas, and have the provisional leaders relay information, this shouldn't happen provide you remain competant. (Crack enough provisional leader skulls and this will stop)

    You end up playing UN that has a bunch of KGB agents working for it.

    Yeah, I've put some serious though into this. I guess that's not good.
  9. dylan522p New Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Message Count:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    EVERYWHERE!
    i would imagine areas like southerns and eastern asia would have most the power because it would have to be a democracy and India has tons of corruption so id imagine china also dose. or it could be a loose confederation like the EU+UN so it would give alot of the power to the usa and that would be terrible
  10. Jarl Oakenbeard New Member

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Message Count:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think a world government similar to your typical national government wouldn't work simply because of how huge and varied the world population is. Such a government would have to be huge itself, would inevitably be plagued by insane levels of bureaucracy and political infighting (especially among different cultural groups.) Our natural tribal mentality won't disappear just because we all have the same leaders much like the warring states era in Japan. The daimyo all technically followed the emperor, but there was still war and a lot of it. Not to mention the fact that you can't ask people from america or europe to fairly determine policy in say africa or europe where they have little to no knowledge of the day to day lives and backgrounds of that area. Overall I think that this type of government would cause more problems than it solves, and would eventually collapse under its own weight anyway.

    A government that determines policy but basically leaves governing up to the individual country could work to the extent that individual countries are willing to follow it. This type of government would have little power to enforce its policies itself. The only way they could be enforced is if the most powerful countries take it upon themselves to enforce the law. Of course then you have to wonder what is forcing those "most powerful" countries to follow the law. If, say, the US decided they don't want to follow a policy, the other countries probably aren't going to waste their manpower or ruin their economies trying to force us to. Inevitably what you'll end up with is a coalition of strong countries forcing weak countries to do what they want.
  11. Link NO SWAG

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,515
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    134
    Location:
    Koprulu Sector
    Italin states weren't under the control of the pope, and mostly weren't city states. Wtf are you talking about?
  12. Eridian Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    870
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Well the pope still had a lot of sway over them (everyone was hardcore catholic back then), if the pope said that you weren't going to do something, you weren't going to do it, and I probably should have mentioned I was talking about the renaissance period. Anyways, I did make a terrible analogy, didn't I?
    Condensed version, if want to run a world government, you need leaders running the day to day in a certain area, you basically need provincial leaders that answer to the grand leader.

Share This Page

Facebook: