The political unity of Mankind

[Edric O]

Here's a question to spark some discussion: Do you support the political unity of all Mankind? In other words, would you support a political body with universal jurisdiction. For simplicity, I suppose I could call it a "world government", but that's not exactly what I'm talking about. First of all, I'm talking about universal jurisdiction, not planetary jurisdiction - this would be a political body with the power to make laws that are enforceable anywhere that humans live. Second, I'm not necessarily talking about a government in our sense of the world. It could be a political body with much more limited powers. For example, it could be a body whose only task is to create and enforce a list of basic human rights. Or it could be a body whose only task is to put some limits on the policy-making of governments under it.

So, would you support it?

Option 1 means you would support anyone taking over the world, as long as they brought peace and unity.

Option 2 means you would support the political unity of all Mankind only if it was under a government no worse than the ones we have today in "the West" (Europe, North America, Australia & New Zealand, and Japan).

Option 3 means that you support the idea of a united Mankind, but you have very high standards for any sort of united human government. It would have to uphold some specific ideals, which no existing government properly upholds. In other words, it would have to be far better (according to your idea of "better") than currently existing governments, in order to get your support.

Option 4 means you sort-of like the idea of a united Mankind, but you can't imagine yourself supporting it unless we lived in some utopian Star Trek-like future.

Option 5 means you would never support the unity of Mankind, even in the far future and even if there was an impending Borg attack.

As for myself, I'm somewhere in between options 2 and 3. On the one hand, I would only really support a socialist government with universal jurisdiction, or a universal council set up by a federation of communist societies. Part of its task would have to be guaranteeing that all means of production everywhere are under some form of public ownership. That would put me in option 3.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't mind a much less ambitious body that limited itself to enforcing basic human decency (banning slavery and child labour everywhere, for example), and prosecuting crimes against humanity, and perhaps enforcing some environmental standards. That would put me in option 2.

[Wolf]

I think it's more likely--and probably better, in addition to being more easily achievable--that mankind will establish some sort of Confederacy of Man. Modern Western democracies, even evaluated individually, seem unable to make themselves fully relevant and helpful to individual citizens because of their vast size and responsibilities. Barring advancements that make such a government tenable a la the United Federation of Planets, I do not think that a government with universal jurisdiction will be possible. The problem of managing the entire human system whilst maintaining regional and individual relevance and justice seems to me to be too vast. However, I think it is possible for all states to reach some sort of compact, and to enforce it between each other. Were the species ever seriously to invest in space flight and interstellar colonization, this would be a more logical government from a geographic standpoint--how would one enforce universal jurisdiction when generations pass between communications? In reality, I'm between Options 4 and 5, but because 5 is such an extreme departure from 4, I chose 4.

[Dante]

Now maybe I'm just a cynic (gasps of shock from the audience), but I don't really see how political unity could necessarily be a good or a bad thing for most people. Managers are still managers, no matter how large their jurisdiction. Anything that such a singular body ruled could presumably also be ruled by a group in consensus. Further, a good compromise leaves everyone dissatisfied; an all-encompasing ruling would almost certainly push some people to exclude themselves, or to water down legislation until it becomes ineffectual.

But if this didn't happen, and all legislation was unanimously passed for the good of all, then what point would such a large political body have?

My point is that decisions are more important than the entity that makes them. A singular legislative body seems more effort than it's worth if its tasks can be accomplished by other means. With that in mind, I'm not sure there is an option for me, since I don't think it's a bad idea in its own right, just not an important one.

[MrFlibble]

Both Wolf and Dante have good points. Personally, I believe that a multi-level, non-centralized system would be more appropriate and effective: local problems should be left to local authorities, while global problems can be dealt with by some international governing body. Call me a skeptic, but I think that the "global political unity of mankind" would end up producing so much red tape it'd become useless and burdensome (not to mention corrupted).

I'd rather prefer a global judicial authority that would act as a third party in resolving conflicts and preventing violations of law.

I've voted for option 4.

[Anathema]

I like the idea of an extremely loose (con)federation that spans the globe wich promotes peace and respect for human rights, so I voted #2.

That said, with the majority of countries today being dictatorships or oligarchies with abysmal human right records, I don't think such a union would be possible or even desirable for the foreseeable future.

[vota dc]

I voted 5 because even in a moment of great danger many countries could ally themselves with better result than a single big country.

[Dante]

Debatable. Centralised leadership and united objectives could (theoretically) make a single entity more workable in a time of danger. Provided it could administrate and delegate effectively.

[Wolf]

Sometimes even if it can't administrate and delegate effectively--USSR and the Great Patriotic War, anyone?

[athanasios]

Nothing more than the pure Athenian Democracy.

[Mr.Atreides]

2or3