A world government

[Second Summer]

I was just reading an article about Garry Davis (see below). The idea is fascinating - why do we need all these governments anyway? Is a world government the best solution to the problems of the new millennium?

But then I have doubts. Will I have to give up all the benefits I currently enjoy as a citizen of a rich, prosperous and generally enlightened nation? Will my part of the world be swamped with hordes of refugees from Africa and Asia? Will there be people begging in the streets? A sudden increase in all sorts of crime? Will I have to move to a gated community and buy a gun? That isn't exactly the kind of future I had hoped for!

On May 25, 1948, a former United States Army flier entered the American Embassy in Paris, renounced his American citizenship and, as astonished officials looked on, declared himself a citizen of the world.

In the decades that followed, until the end of his long life last week, he remained by choice a stateless man — entering, leaving, being regularly expelled from and frequently arrested in a spate of countries, carrying a passport of his own devising, as the international news media chronicled his every move.

Garry Davis, Man of No Nation Who Saw One World of No War, Dies at 91 (NY Times, 28. July 2013)

The organisation he founded: http://www.worldservice.org/

 

[Clueless Git]

I don't think the "you guys are gonna have to stay poor 'cos these fellahs want to stay rich" party would fetch many votes in the global elections IS.

The "the world may well be a finite cake but all 6 billion of you can have a large slice if you vote for us but we can't explain the math untill after we get elected" party may fare slightly better though.

 

[Blobbenstein]

and what if that world government became corrupt? Who would fight them?

 

[Second Summer]

and what if that world government became corrupt? Who would fight them?

I assume it would be the same guys who fight corruption today. It's not like the current system isn't prone to corruption.

 

[Blobbenstein]

but how successful are they?

I wouldn't want to risk the whole world being run like China, but where there are different countries, and governments, one part of the world can criticised another part. A whistle blower from one part of the world can find refuge in another part of the world.

 

[rainforests1]

A government is capable of good and evil, and a world government is no different. I'm not sure where I stand.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I am even wary of a more centrally governed Europe. There could be good things about it, but I don't really trust the idea. Europe run as a collaboration of different countries seems like a safer bet. Different cultures, with the politicians closer, and more accountable to the people who vote for them.

Take how the French banned vegetarian options in schools and other state run institutes; that wouldn't happen here in the UK at the moment, but if we had a one government Europe, maybe it could.

 

[Second Summer]

I think a world government would need to be accepting of different cultures and customs, otherwise it would lack legitimacy and it just wouldn't work. At the same time, it should encourage and enforce certain shared values, such as human rights, transparency in government, freedom of expression. It should only concern itself with issues that transcend our current national borders such as stopping war, pollution, climate change, certain kinds of crime (crimes against humanity, environmental crimes etc.), dangerous contagious diseases, managing the Internet, and potential asteroid threats. Other issues could be handled at a more local government level.

Whistleblowers would have to flee to the moon though.

 

[Blobbenstein]

One world government..........plus North Korea.....

 

[ledboots]

I don't think the people would be happy with the allocation of resources.

 

[beancounter]

It just wouldn't work. there are too many people who are entrenched in their government and how it's run, and the benefits they are personally dereiving from it. They wouldn't risk compromising their power or position so easily.

 

[kibbleforlola]

A government works best, imo, when it's close to it's people. In the US, at least, we have state governments, and city and county governments. The closer to the people, the better - local governments have to listen to the people they serve, because that's their community - they have to face the people they govern regularly and they are faced with the repercussions of their choices on a regular basis (supposedly) means they are most likely to choose the choices that best benefit their constituency. Adding another layer of government will just add to the bureaucracy, another removed from the people.

On the other hand, a world government would hopefully mean no more war and no more biases against other parts of the world, but I doubt that would really truly ever occur, so I don't think it's worth it.

 

[peacefulveglady]

I think a government on each continent is fine with me but, we need to better these and limit what they are doing.

 

[AeryFairy]

We can have a world government if I get to run it

But, in all seriousness, I can't really see it working. We have things like the UN and the EU which can be effective on global issues, but I agree with KFL - it would be too far removed from the citizens it was trying to help to be effective.