Fantasus

From another thread a discussion about the following emerged:
To a start we assume it is possible. What is to be said about its possitive or negative potentials, pro or contra?
Some suggestions:
"Economy of scale" may be an argument for, the same for getting rid of wars (except civil wars).
Against it:That errors and their consequences become larger with scale. That what works in some part of the planet may not do so elsewhere.

coldshot

Well... I have to put my two cents since my thread inspired your cent...

The convenience of a world government depends on the way it is stablished and what constitution it gets...

For a world government to be positive it must fill the following requirements

1.Being democratic (the most direct it can be the better)

2.Being secular

3.aim at improving human relationships without

4.It must have a multiparty system (with no party being allowed to have a religious affilitation of any kind)

5.It must not have an electoral college but unmediated voluntary elections

6.They must serve humanity, not corporations

dagul

That is simply an intrusion over the sovereignty of each state, so no, I don't like it.

Fantasus

Sovereignity in factr depends upon might. The powerfull states decides among themselves what level of "independence" the less powerfull should have.

Fantasus

Ultimately the interests of corporations are interests of - som -humans.
And how do we establish the interests of "humanity", not particular groups of humans?
One of the biggest potential problems as i see it:For a world government to find out errors and failure and to getnmrid of them, would be much more difficult than for any other type of state (except a very isolated one). The reason is there would be no alternative to compare with, no example from outside of how things could be made better.

dagul

I do agree with you that the power of a nation to impose its sovereign will in the international arena depends on the might, but, I as Filipino who hails from a militarily weak country, marvels the sovereignty of the Philippines, and I enjoy the liberty and freedom that I have as a citizen of my own nation, so, I do not like a world government that may intrude unto the sovereignty of my state.

coldshot

It does not need to be an intrusion if every individual participates in assigning those in control

I said human relationships, not interests... As for the lack of external examples... That problem already happens, we cannot see anything better than those countries that have the best propaganda (The US for instance sells itself as the best country in the world and uses this to maintain hegemony)... We can always look back at history.

Haven't you seen how your freedom is diminished by the action of more powerful countries? Really? Or corporations?

Fantasus

The lack of outside example would be much more extreme. And I am not so sure a world government would be any solutions to internal problems of the system, like power abuse, all kinds of erratic decisions, bad leadership etcetera. It could as well be much more of it. The big potential gain I could imagine is that international problems or external as we know them would disappear.

Linschoten

Awful idea, it would tend to reduce cultural variety, and not to have alternative forms of government is surely a threat to freedom. Imagine if we were all trapped in a world state with a self-appointed government like that of China.

USMC

I think it could happen, to a certain extent, on an economic (currency) basis. I do not believe one would have a hope in hates to get all the people in this world to move in one common direction.