World Government: good or bad?

[Egeides]

I heard Caid Ivik mentioning it a few times but it's also an important topic elsewhere, should it be when they created the UN or in science fiction.

- Is a World Government a good or bad thing? Or is there a middle position that would be better?

- What is the future of the Nation-State?

- Should direction be local or global? To which extent should it be global, seeing what a global direction can do?

- What should be local and what should be global?

[Navaros]

a World Government is a great idea if *I* am the one to run it

otherwise, it would be good or bad depending how much the people in charge are exactly like me and stand up for what i and all moral people believe in.

[Caid Ivik]

I am sure I'm not only presenter of this way. It would be great idea, but only it will be done with some rationality. Nations want some souverenity, so it should be a confederal system, like EU, maybe rather more. Central law should be wider than just constitution. Confederal states will have own governments, parliaments, courts, social politics and security forces, Imperial Palace (well, that's a metaphore ;) ) should care for security with own army, which might be used by decision of Security Council.

That insitution should be changed as well. Removing vetoes and putting vote voices to counfederal parts for their participation on whole process of governing, maybe how many and how qualite laws they added. If the central government will be neutral to all, then it will solve this better, but that's impossible. Everyone is from somewhere.

Seems utopical, that's for sure, but UN should become THIS or perish. Economical globalisation is nearly on full scale, political should be too, or this will fall to anarchy, sooner or later.

[Egeides]

Caid, which powers would you give to a central organization (war, economic...), and to which extent (certain vetos on nations, independant nations...)? And what would you do with those who did not join? (like USA and others didn't joined what came before UN)

A global order (in opposition to dis-order) could also be put by agreements done by Nations, no? Thus, the UN could also evolve simply into some sort of legislator. But it would then need something to back it up, such as some Duniverse's Great Convention-like post-jihad treaty: there is a limit to armament, consequences to not following the agreements, etc. Would this work?

Personally, I see it as dangerous in the sense that if it goes the wrong way some day, then it's really going bad and is reversed with difficulty. Also, if some get to control it, trouble is coming since it gives tools to give trouble to weaker ones.

[nemafakei]

When the world is as split up as it is, then co-ordination between countries is difficult, and the problems of self-interest are acute. Global overrides are, at the very least, needed, to ensure the well-being of funds such as the World Health Fund (The US so generously gave the equivalent of 1.5 days' occupation of Iraq's worth of money for AIDS this year, Britain (one fifth the population, and even less the GDP) half that much...). At best, all of the world's resources could be pooled and properly managed to use them where most needed, and so most effectively combat the world's problems, rather than have them used wherever there is most profit, as now.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, today's UN may be the very best core of the unification process. But we can't look closer than 200 year future. Pre-WW2 League of Nations failed on fact, that it had no right to intervene under some "UN" flag. Nowadays we have UN with Security Council, which can send international forces to troubled area, but as we've seen in Bosnia and now in Africa, they still are only type of foreign overseers. Comparing to Duniverse, UN needs some "Sardaukar" army, not composed of member states' forces, but under one command. Status shouldn't be peace-keeping, but pacificational. Vetoes in Security Council should be erased as well.

Great Convention was a result of a revolution, something what fully changed the world. Like UN is a child of WW2. If there will be a new full-scale war, my predicted 200 years will be much shorter. But it is possible also by slow evolution process. Limits to armament are, slowly, gripping the national armies more and more. Most countries just can't afford much, USA will have to soon lower as well, or they'll fall to a civil war. These treaties won't be 100% filled never, but with creation of one world army it will solve this problem. National interests? For Lockheed it won't be important if F-22 will be flewn by Americans in USAF or Zambians in UNAF.

Main thing of whole process is to ensure balance between confederal parts and central institutes. Balance, that's the art of politics.

[Inoculator9]

A world government would fail. With the unity in name of countries coming from conflicting economic and religious backgrounds, financial distribution comes into question. Along with the obvious religious plays for power. Muslims in charge of a world government would probably not work out.

More on the financial distribution... with a united world, those countries, or provinces (states) as they would be in the world government, would feud over financial aid received. Those poorer former nations would require more wealth allocated to them, and would have a right to claim it. But the richer areas would not easily relinquish resources as it would result in a drop in the standards of living.

If by some miracle the poorer areas got what they wanted, a general recession would ensue with the constant fluctuations in the value of world currency.

I can explain more but I think my point is well made :)

[Caid Ivik]

In financial question it is easy: free market. Sooner or later, we stop labeling companies as national. Details can be made by confederal parts. About muslims it isn't as bad as it looks, even Israel lived some time in peace, when there were no fanatics.

[Edric O]

This free market is what causes the deaths of several thousand people a day, Caid. Not something I'd like to see in the future.

I find it strange that no one raised the most important issue about the World Government yet: What kind of government are we talking about?

A "World Government" could mean a worldwide nazi dictatorship. Or it could mean a universal democracy. You see, the whole question of whether the World Government would be good or bad rests on the nature of this government.

Of course, there is a certain group of people who have been struggling to unite Humanity for over 150 years now... ;)

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/attachments/comm_world.gif

In any case, if we are to have a World Government, our main concern should be to make sure that it won't be just another tool for rich countries to exploit cheap labour from the 3rd world, like in present-day globalisation.[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[Caid Ivik]

Every corner of my soul says, that if we have to create an ultimate central government, it must be democratic. Here we can't have any compromise. Problem of UN is that it hasn't some Tora, some sense why it exists. If the UN will be labeled as a watchdog for democracy and human rights, much problems will be solved. People have right to be free, but not to choose dictatorship.

EdricO, some groups tried everytime, but to unite it for themselves. Just since the WW1 it seems to be more cosmopolitic. That's the chance.

[Edric O]

OF COURSE it has to be democratic. Otherwise it would basically be an evil global empire.

Some groups have tried to unite ("Debout, les damn

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Problem with Democracy is, it could corrupt.

I think the only way the Humans can reach a perfection goverment;

Colonizing the planets and othe stars.

And if there will be other factions in the galaxy. ( Russia, England, America etc )

They could unite like Startrek. There will be still corruption, but it's still minimal.

[Caid Ivik]

And dictatorship cannot be corrupted? Utopical Aristoteles' aristocratic state may be more efficient, but fact I call it utopical does mean something. You can educate people for whole life, but seducement of power can corrupt anyone. Confederal system will minimalise this danger.

[Edric O]

Democracy can corrupt, but dictatorship is already corrupted from the start.

There is no question as to which one is better.

[nemafakei]

Dictatorship over a world society would fail miserably if it were dictatorship alone.

Either the dictator will be dealing in day-to-day affairs, of which there will be so many that the ruler will have no time to think, or he will be a figurehead - able to use his power, but unable to command composedly: Dictatorships are most effective when there is a single clear problem (usually an enemy group of people, but if it was a world system) to attack, where the dictator can single-mindedly take it on - that is what makes a dictator popular, and one person cannot consider many differnt problems at once.

On the other hand, a dictatorship whereby there is a different system in place, and the dictator is only invoked on exceptional circumstances may have some merits - among them great restriction on abuse of power.

A dictatorship with a purpose - as a means to establish a better, open-ended system - would also work, provided there was a clear agreement that at given point that everyone would just igonre the dictator and either go by the new system or find another dictator.

Oh, yes, and there's also the slight problem of making sure you've got a nice one.

[Egeides]

Nema, in a single-purpose situation, why would a dictator be more efficient than a democracy, council or else that's under the citizen's control?

Aren't dictators normally coming from high places, thus places that tend to have power and money to put a guy up, so he defends their interests?

[Edric O]

A dictatorship with a purpose - as a means to establish a better, open-ended system - would also work, provided there was a clear agreement that at given point that everyone would just igonre the dictator and either go by the new system or find another dictator.

This was already tried in the Soviet Union. The "dictatorship of the proletariat". It seemed to work well under Lenin, but then Stalin replaced him and everything went down the drain.

So this idea was already tried, but it failed.

[Acriku]

It would certainly get things done quicker...

[nemafakei]

Personally, I would prefer at least some delegation at the top, but a temporary dictatiorship *might* work if there were safeguards.

[Egeides]

Caid Ivik, how would you make a world government to be democratic? If it only answers to the leader's wishes, it's not gonna have a great citizen background, isn't it? What part should the corporate interests play in this, since they are so wealthy and powerful? Remember, if free market is in place, the bigger ones will take quite a place, and they wont necessarily stay in the economic place: they always tend to wish certain things more than some others, politically. Do company directors and shareholders have a bigger influence in a democracy?

[Caid Ivik]

Dictatorship with a safeguard is like USSR with with christian democratic party. As the democratic countries now hold the prime, until they are continuing, new UN is being forged by democracy. About corporations it is simple. More restrictions, more unease. When the new state will leave them doing their work, they won't try to have a big influence. See today's EU, this socialistic form won't last long. Companies influent from inside, on local governments, but very effectively.

[Edric O]

Ha ha ha, that's like saying that if only we didn't punish criminals so hard, they'd stop commiting crimes. ::)

If you abolish restrictions on corporations, you abolish democracy. With unlimited economic power, they will have unlimited political power. We will return to the "glory days" of 19th century capitalism, complete with 14-hour working days, sweatshops, child labour, and violent police actions against workers' demonstrations.

Corporations are a plague of our world, a cancer that eats away at liberty and justice. We will never have a unified world as long as they exist. At most, we will have an oppressive global corporate empire.

The only thing that can lead to a democratic World Government is communism. Communists do not talk of this or that nation. We talk of the human species.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, please stop with these phrases. You know I think about some balance. Things already made won't be destroyed, just improved by easier, less bureaucratic communication. Same should be for you. You can fight against them by ignoring their products or services. Only plague of the world is hate.

Nearly did so. Fortunately, Stalin died too quickly...

[Edric O]

"Things already made won't be destroyed"...? Errr, what are you talking about, exactly?

And it's a bit hard to ignore their products and services when they are the ONLY providers of those products and services, don't you think? A boycott is a great idea in theory, but in practice it never works. The only "choice" we have is a choice between different corporations.

[Egeides]

Caid, so you believe that puting no restrictions on corporations would bring something better? Isn't this similar to "put no restriction on criminal behavior and then you wont get any pressure by criminals"? Of course, you wont get pressure from corporations if you let them do whattever they wish, but is doing "whattever what" the best for a society?! :O

And why would corporations not go in politics if they have all the economical place? Politics gives more power in the economic arena: corporations are searching money, thus politics brings what they're searching for. For which reason corporations let go politics?

Caid, don't you believe that if an world organism has the right to attack for enfringement of democratic principles, it will be used by stronger ones to get reasons to attack? This is the notion of pre-emptive attack, and the last time it was used, except Bush, is by Hitler to invade Poland and around... (it was also asked by Bertrand Russell: nuke USSR so they can't attack and we'll get peace...)