The environment doesn’t recognize international boundaries. Vast dust storms from China blow over neighboring countries and reach as far as the United States. Israel and neighboring countries squabble over water rights. U.S. coal plants create smog in Canada. Most important for the coming decades, global warming emissions affect countries around the world. The continent with the fewest emissions, Africa, is likely to suffer the most from drought, disease, and desertification.
Why, then, do we as a planet remain divided into nation states with artificial boundaries? Language and culture may have something to do with it, but in numerous places boundaries slash across common ethnic groups, as the troubles in Iraq attest. And, although humans are a common species with common needs and emotions, national and ethnic divisions continue to create strife and bloodshed. Why stick with a dangerous and outdated system? One reason is fear of change, of the unknown, that a world government would harm local rights. Paranoid groups even see conspiratorial plots for a world dictatorship.
The antidote, though, isn’t turning our backs on world government but creating better world governance systems. Economically, environmentally, and even politically, we are one world. The question is whether decisions will be made by small, secretive groups or in wider more democratic forums.
Unfortunately, today’s global institutions are also extremely flawed. The United Nations Security Council allows five countries the permanent right to veto the will of the vast majority. In the General Assembly, nations of vastly different size have the same voting power. Even worse, dictatorships, such as Russia and Libya, have the same vote as democracies.
Global financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Foundation, also have tremendous power, yet are run by small elites who conduct their business behind closed doors. Such institutions naturally pay far more attention to the wealthy and neglect labor rights. Indeed, the World Trade Organization, although run by business and economics professionals without environmental expertise, is empowered to decide international environmental cases.
The founders of the United States, deeply aware of history from classical times onward, understood that all institutions become corrupt. To guard against this, they instituted a system of checks and balances, with three branches of government and a free press. Over the years, despite many problems, the breadth of this system has been extended, while democracy has spread around the world. It is now time to work for a true international democracy, a world system of direct democratic representation that invites all countries in.
Imagine the dilemma of, for instance, China, if, to gain representation in a crucial world body, they must first allow free and fair elections. This would be a far more effective method of spreading democracy than any now employed.
How to get there from here? We must try to work with existing international bodies if possible. Advocates of global environmental governance have suggested that the current United Nations Environmental Programme be replaced by a stronger World Environmental Organization, and this would be an excellent first step. Similarly, international financial institutions should, as much as possible, be persuaded to become more open, democratic, and environmentally responsible.
This evolutionary approach may or may not work. An alternative would be to create a new world body of democratic countries. Certain neoconservative organizations, such as the Project for a New American Century have proposed something similar, but in a perverted way. They believe that democracy can be created through nondemocratic means, through heavy-handed United States “leadership,” including a low standard for the use of force.
Such bluster undermines the idea of a world government, which must not redo past mistakes of over-centralization, lack of access, and violence. In the twentieth century power gravitated too much to the national level. Utopian schemes to return power solely to the local level will not work in the 21st century; indeed local power has historically led to local exploitation and abuse, to small-time warlords, to slavery and exploitation. Power should be dispersed at local, regional, national, and international levels, and as much as possible be highly democratic and open to a variety of voices and interest groups.
With the novel threat of global warming, in conjunction with such other environmental dangers as water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and land degradation, the planet can’t keep waiting, debating, and equivocating. Globalization has taken a wrong turn and it’s time to change that. We must mobilize to work toward the right kind of global government.
Ethan Goffman, Politics and Environment Correspondent:
Ethan’s column, Environmental Connections, published on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month to Gather Essentials: Politics is a discussion of environmental matters from local to global, covering transportation, smart growth, environmental justice, green buildings, climate change, energy independence and other topics.
Ethan is a writer and editor based near Washington, DC
Keep up with Ethan’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network -- just click here http://www.egoffman.gather.com/ and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page
You’ll find Ethan and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at politics.gather.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 70
1) If our "democracy", with its checks and balances, has difficulty keeping the government out of special interest' hands, how will a global body do this?
2) Is global society mature enough to celebrate our differences? If we bring ourselves together to the extent you suggest, will we lose the brilliance and joy of these differences?
3) Do our diverse cultures lend themselves to "one world government"? or are we most able to contribute to solutions by advising world committes to treaty (as the UN was designed to do)?
I completely agree with the concept of working together, by requirement as necessary, on common issues. But I respectfully separate on the idea that a world government would make our global creative process more effective in dealing with our challenges.
What is the right kind of global government, Ethan?
Then points for starting this discussion, Ethan. Allow me to make one comment on where I would rephrase one of your sentences. Instead of what you say above, I prefer the following: A global frammework of direct democracy that respects people's rights.
We already have powerful people making decisions with global implications behind closed doors. It's better to make the process as democratic and inclusive as possible. We also have certain decisions that must be made collectively, such as how to control carbon emissions.
People have some reason to distrust government, but why trust corporations any more? Big business and big government both have their place, as does small business and little government.
We are far from the point where global society obliterates the local. Cultural diversity is good, violent conflict between cultures is not. The balance is very tricky and complicated.
Gather is about to go down for the night, and I'm busy all day tomorrow.
What I fear is that many calls for a world government to govern the world are implicit calls for national governments to take over business functions from local businesses, and to effectively start running those businesses. Instead, I believe that politicians should put in place the right political conditions to let market mechanisms improve the situation. In many ways, government now stands in the way and is the cause of many of the problems we are in, as government keeps indemnifying both its own departments (that bear so much responsibility for this situation), as well as the businesses that are polluting the world. Politicians should not run businesses, nor play favorites, but should instead allow and encourage businesses to come up with solutions.
The only real possibillity of a solution for this problem is laid out in "Invisible Hand" being published on Gather a chapter at a time at my site hariseldon66.gather.com
or you can read / download the entire book from:
http://www.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html
it's free both places and at the unc.edu site there are no ads.
This solution is far broader than just polution abatement. It also eliminates poverty, unemployment, taxes, government controls, inflation, organized crime and homelessness without using any punishments at all. It is a solution of neither left nor right, not religious nor spiritual.
Read my book to see how those greedy and power-mad people can be put in a situation in which they will do as much good for others as they possibly can.
We can really turn a human failing into a virtue.
http://www.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html
If you really think that total world government is the answer then you should really take a hard look into how badly the current regional form of one-size-fits-all government is working out in the case of the European Union. FYI, the system is rapidly deteriorating into totalitarianism under Brussels. It's been a disaster, and it's only going to get worse. The E.U. must end in either tyranny, economic chaos or race warefare because the individual nation states no longer have control over their own monetary policy, their own trade policy or their own immigration policy. Over such a wide aria of such diversified customs and interests, standardization of law and racial intergration can only be achieved by totalitarian means.
Also, the coming legal code for the E.U. people (and for the USA if we fully go into a North American Union) is something dredged up from 13th Century feudalism called "Corpus Juris". You should Google that term and you'll be horrified when you find out exactly what Brussels has in store for it's slave population.
FYI, the nation state has always been a firewall limiting the spread of tyranny. For example, when Hitler rose to power, smart Jews were able to escape tyranny and the holocaust by moving to either the U.K. or America. However, if we willingly submit to world government, and when that government finally degenerates into a state of tyranny and genocide, then peaceful people of the world will have no safe place on earth to escape to. Are you sure that you really want to set up conditions where all the various peoples on the surface of this earth are then reduced to being faceless slaves living under the same generic form of government? It's a recipe for disaster!
You're argument, for world government, is totally invalid........
You seem to be in need of some serious re-education and enlightenment! Please visit my blog at:
www.totalenslavementusa.blogspot.com
Why shouldn't they be, after all look at the historical activities of those powers involved in pushing for world governments? As I stated in my articles on people like the Rockefellers have been known to finance eugenics as well as fund & trade with the Nazis. How then can one trust such people in power as part of any world government? Furthermore, one need not put look far to discover the fact that conspiracies do exist for these are put best in the words of the conspirators themselves:
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - From Rockefeller's "Memoirs", (p.405).
Poorly researched works on conspiracies often tend to begin & end by pointing out at dollar bills & symbols which do not indicate the true extent of harm being brought about by them.
"The antidote, though, isn't turning our backs on world government but creating better world governance systems."
Absolutely not!!!The antidote to any form of governance is to ensure that is free from abuse or that such occurrences are minimized as far as possible. As far as a world government goes, we should make sure that those corrupt powers currently pushing for one are dethroned & detached from current institutional interests & positions of power, before we can possibly even think of one. There is no doubt these guys will rape all of mankind once they've got a world government in place. One of the critical areas currently demanding a solution is the printing of money. Private controlled central banks such as the bank of England & the Federal Reserve should be abolished & a state/national bank instead put in place, whereby the printing of money is backed against assets & where this power is ultimately in the hands of the people/citizens.
"The continent with the fewest emissions, Africa, is likely to suffer the most from drought, disease, and desertification."
So what's the solution then??? World government!!!??? Which kind and proposed by whom? And for what purpose??
Gordon brown has already stated that we need a world order to fight global warming, the Rockefellers have said they want a world government and the list goes on & on. Do you think a bunch of people who have financed eugenics & have proposed population control could care less about disease. Prince Philip, another environmentalist, says he would rather be a virus so that he could solve the problem of over population. Are these the guys we're going to trust???
The fact of the matter is that it is these same interest that put the most amount into & have created the green movement/revolution and surprisingly no one seems to question the motives of this green movement when it known that the financial backers (Rockefellers) of these were known to have associations with the Nazis & were financing eugenics programs around that time.
And yet another thing most people don't care to take note is the relationship between the green movement & big oil although they are often projected & viewed as having opposing interest when in fact they are both one & the same. The Rockefellers were the guys who set up standard oil that is now Exxon, incidentally they are also the ones who financed the green revolution. The green GAME definitely has more going on than most think.
I have presented all this information in my article on global warming:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977065384
Lastly, if someone is to suggests to a world order as a solution to all problems, I would first ask for an assurance that current central banking & world institutional powers are first dismantled, then I may think about it after that.
You said this:
> The question is whether decisions will be made by small,
> secretive groups or in wider more democratic forums.
I am sure decisions will always to a large extent be made by a
small group. As the system evolves it always gets more complex
and the people get more specialized leading to branching and
diversity, like evolution. Whatever system we have will need to
be able to find a way to unify all people, but we all know how that
will lag reality, leaving a place for the "carpetbaggers" who are
in the right place and the right time with the right stuff to take
advantage, like many corporations have used the new things
like the Internet or Globalization to exploit new ways to make
profit.
This is the big challenge and it is also the major driver of this
trend I think. Look at the antiquated systems of Russia, China
and the Middle East struggling to maintain themselves in today's
world ... it is hard enough for the US and Europe to stay together.
Great article, great subject.
Although expanded forums create broader and more insightful discussions, they also too often get bogged down with greater in-fighting and slower, less-effective progress, especially when it comes to decision making and action taking; as our experiences with the U.N. have shown.
Instead of a One World Government, I'd favor the creation of a One World Agency to address the largest detriments to human life on our planet; hunger, poverty, pollution and disease.
Health and Environment issues need to be tied to all other global concerns so that they can be addressed equally and equitably. They all need to be addressed in concert. Creating a powerful, one world organization to address all these issues would be much more effective.
Science and logistics, not market economics or personal and national opinions, should decide what solutions could and should be put to solving our greatest problems; hunger, disease, pollution and poverty.
Great Discussion. 10
I always thought there could be some way to put standards into law that say that any public system has to be basically understandable by say a high school graduate.
That way when someone tries to institute a system of doubletalk that is too complicated or reinterpretable by the "experts" the government or the people could say, forgetaboutit! That way if we want more complexity we are incented to improve our education.
Are you going to trust a bunch of mad guys who are bent on destrpying mankind? A global order is exactly what the big powers need to implement their policies globally. How can one ensure that current institutional powers historically well known for their unethical practices, adopt policies that are to the benifit of citixens of this new world order. Below is a link that shows that the rockefeller foundation started funding of eugenics years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
for more information on the rockefellers, see my article on global warming:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977065384
A world government is a different issue altogether, but suggesting the implementation of one while these guys are in power is absolute suicide.
It won't. It will only make things worse. More of the same. Different day, same old crap!
It is unfortunately a tough sell to get nations to cede their authority over their own environments. If we cannot achieve a world government at this moment, I think one avenue is the WTO. Another is unilateral leadership. If the USA is willing to invade Iraq over a trivial threat to our future, why are we not willing to put economic pressure on China to stop building coal fired industries which poses a grave threat to our climate future? Well, of course they would ignore us until we show willingness to reduce our own use of coal. But if we were to reduce our use of coal, it would be harder for them to ignore.
Leadership is I think one requirement for improvements in this area- leadership that is not obviously motivated by sheer selfishness.
> Perhaps we should wait on this at least unitl the
> majority of people are governed by freely elected officals.
I think the unspoken discussion here is about how to bring
that about. Personally I'm pro-inventionist if we can get
better at it and it can be done in time to avert a planetwide
catastrophe.
Dar, your fear of eugenics is probably valid, but if we are
to eventually get the planet to a steady state many people
believe the population should be lower, so we have a
"genetic" issue already, not to even bring economics into
it.
I have always believed that the fairest, best most non-
violent way to accomplish this is to offer greater social
safety net incentives to those who reproduce responsibly
and to tax "breeders" a bit more to pay for themselves.
Have and incentive plan for population as well as
abiding by the law.
"We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God. We do this for the sake of the world. The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. We will use whatever means we must to make this act of destruction as quick and painless as possible to the one half of the world who are incapable of evolving... The selection process will be quick." Barbara Marx Hubbard
"Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend.... One-fourth is destructive [and] they are defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a 'natural death.'... Now as we approach the quantum shift from the creature-human to the co-creative human -- the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers -- the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body.... Fortunately, you are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death." --Barbara Marx Hubbard
http://www.barbaramarxhubbard.com/Public/AboutBarbara/Bio/index.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Marx_Hubbard
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977065384
(See the "Agenda" section)
And then there are scientists like Dr Eric Pianka who claim that the worlds population should be exposed to viruses so that conservation might prevail & the earth might be saved. Do I need to go any further???
I've seen enough to know these guys do not want a world order to "avert a planetwide
catastrophe", they instead "wish to create one". I think if people begin to keep their ears & eyes open, they'll hopefully begin to realize this fact as has always been suggested & acknowledged by the words of the elite themselves. Some how I feel the world is filled with a significantly large number of idiots who are willing to give the elite exactly what they want. "Oh a new world order will save us" yeah right, and I hope you'd stay consistent enough in maintaining the same once you all have managed to put the devil into power.
The following paragraph must be added to what you've quoted, immediately after "... The selection process will be quick."
"This statement is meant as symbolic of the "death" of our old state of awareness and our birth into a new higher state, and not intended to mean the litteral physical destruction of people. Those who understand it in a literal way and would like to see it come to pass will obviously not enjoy a higher state of awareness, but indeed a rather "Grim" one."
Having been a charter participant in "Conscious Evolution" thinking and planning with Dr. Marx-Hubbard and her forward looking staff, I know you are twisting what you read to your own purposes. You should be more concerned about the Armageddonists who wish to hasten the Biblical prophecy of devastation by any means possible.
Let's say we can get beyond that, the next question is: whose form of government are we going to accept? We can barely agree in our own country on that issue.
> First of all, lower population or not, no one has the
> right to control population numbers other than
> people themselves by their own choices.
That is one of the most short-sighted, ignorant
closed-minded, backward, regressive ...
things I have ever heard. But typical of what
people believe about this stupid idea of life and
reverence for it.
Either we do it in a fair way to all or nature and
destiny will do it for us as they did for the
people of Easter Island, Greenland, the ancient
American Southwest, and any number of places.
For a good overview of this reference the book
"Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
apparently im not responible for changes that take place on wikipedia, i did however quote her words & those seem to be intact as they were present earlier on as well.
What youve quoted above was neither present when i observed the webpage sometime ago (of course i still have the quote & the link saved elsewhere) nor does it form part of her quote at all. Who ever has edited the webpage has provided a posible interpretation of her words in the form of what youve quoted above.
Moreover, the writer/editor of the page himself/herdelr has recognised/acknowledged limitations in interpreting these quote since prior to both the interpretation & the quote itself, he/she state:
'APPARENTLY BUT in realty HOPEFULLY NOT in agreement with the plans for a New World Order to drastically reduce the world population by any means, in one of her books -The Handbook of Co-Creation- she wrote:
"We come to bring death...." '
Also now that i read the page once again i find something else suggested by the writer that wasnt there before, ofcourse this in light of what has already been mentioned above:
The importance of population control is also a recurrent theme in Hubbard's work. In The Revelation: A Message of Hope for the New Millennium she writes:
[In 1966] I saw, perhaps most fundamentally of all, that the vast effort of humanity to "be fruitful and multiply" would have to be curtailed in our generation. One more doubling of the world population will destroy our life support system. Our Mother will not support us if we continue to grow in numbers! We must stop.
Of course this was not i'm only eleborating at this point, but in suggesting "all" of the above stuff, it is apparent that i made an error when i stated:
"....suggested quite clearly that it would soon be the duty for an elite one-fourth to eliminate three-fourth of the worlds population"
There is no mention of three fourth anywhere and i was myself trying to recall the quote at this point. In any case the quotes are as they are above and it is also important to observe the ignificance of the statement "We are the riders of the pale horse, Death", for the mention of this pale horse occurs elsewhere.
"You should be more concerned about the Armageddonists who wish to hasten the Biblical prophecy of devastation by any means possible"
In the past, I havent exactly been kind to corrupt evangalists, miracle illusionist, or for that matter even the corrupt catholic church. The "popes"(not pore) have also called for a new world order in recent times & ive criticised them for their role in aiding the nazis against the jews (as well as allowing top nazi officials to escape to other countries having been given vatican passports). Of course the list doesnt end there, so yes i criticise the vatican/church elements of the new world order too.
people believe about this stupid idea of life and
reverence for it."
Bruce what can i say, it seems you you'll fit in well in & with the new world order.
First of all, nobody said that a world government would be some monolithic power. It could be a federalist power, much like the EU (which i working out rather well actually) where there is a general constitution, a common currency and trade policy, etc., but where the individual contries still have the majority of the power. Having a system similar to the EU wouldn't be too bad of an idea.
Another plan would be for the U.S (for example) would start to form governmental partnerships with other countries with similar economies and ideals. I think we should trend closer to a smilar policy with Candada and the EU.
No bruce, it is you who don't get it, whether you can fight the devil or not is not the point, you don't go around suggesting that the devil is actually good you when you've got a recorded history of his past actions. Look at the title of this article, "Why We Need World Government". The point is, we know who are in power right now, we know of their past actions, we know it is them that want a new world order, we know why they want it and therefore we know what kind of new world order it is that they want. Are we then going to bend over on all fours and say take what it is you want. Apparently it appears many will & are willing to. These guys don't get their power just by default, there has to either be a lack of resistance, lack of knowledge or an eager willingness to follow the policies of these people. We should therefore only consider the cretion of a world order if:
1) We know sufficiently well enough that we are transferring absolute power into the hands of a trustworthy or reasonably uncorrupt people (unlike the learers of today)
2) We can account for abuse by adopting checks for preventing against abuses from those in power.
"I suppose you want to continue to see the educated people controlling their birth rate and lowering their population while the poor starving people keep increasing theirs"
At what point did I suggest this and since when did I advocate against education & family planning. I am talking about the wider scope of population "control" practices within the context of those desired by the elite to achieve their objectives. Some of these are included in the list (links) below and some are not. These include genetic modifications to increase the impotency levels of human beings & extend up to eugenics which include death, infanticide & genocide as well as other control mechanisms such as chipping people with rfids biomatix technology. Furthermore we should not over emphasize our desires regarding world populations since it not up to us to define the intentions of the elite who have made it fairly clear as to that they want to happen to world populations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
We have more than a gracious plenty of humans on this ball of rock already, and to pretend otherwise is sappy at this point. Eugenics is barbaric, yes, but pretending that the problem will get better without governments pursuing policies to incentivize small families is foolish.
This is just what people like Ethan are advocating for the citizens of The United States of America. Everything that our forefathers fought for will go down the drain as well as the freedom that our soldiers have fought for. Everything that we have worked for will be flushed down the toilet. We will all become slaves of our government..plain and simple.
Don't listen to this propaganda. There are people being paid to spread this propaganda on Gather as well as other websites.
Chris W. ... wow, I really have to disagree. Everything is connected and if China had not reduced population and they still should be doing, do you think that sooner or later it is going to affect paychecks in the US .. or worldwide. I don't think it is a good thing to amp population up to the point that regular working people worldwide are willing to work just so they can die less fast. China did a very smart thing, and we all should be putting in place policies that reduce population and concentrate on quality and investment in people.
Timothy ... what can I say, you can kiss my ass if you think your pseudo-patriotic words are going to get the job done as far as fixing this world. The only problem with this is when people do not accept responsibility and contribute to retaining liberty and rights.
Great article and one requiring substantial intestinal fortitude to post! This subject brings the worst of fears to many people and from certain religious groups who perceive it as a direct threat.
I think that the only way to have a world government is through a federation of independent nations. I don't believe you will accomplish it other than by the recognized need for a collective effort to prevent some of the world's worst threats. The highest of these, IMHO is nuclear war. We simply cannot afford to have one of these and we are coming very close. Just look at events in Pakistan, with the crazies having so much influence!
There are other issues but of the bat, no country is going to relinquish their sovereignty in favor of a world government so it must be through treaties to give the world power very limited power and resources to accomplish only the ends on which all nations can agree!
Who wants to be King?
control as we are. We need to find a better way to work together with neighbouring countries
to accept our differences and cultures.
One world means that we give up our language, and the very things that make us
who we are. So many small islands are trying
to desperately hold on to their way of life,
that has kept them together for generations,
they are not a drain on the world and take so little out of it.
A world government is inevitable. Whether I'll live to see it or not is anyone's guess but it is still inevitable if the world is to survive with us in it. However, it can be a Federation of nations, assembled to address only the problems unsolvable with a nation and to maintain peace. It doesn't require all nations giving up the language, culture, history resources and sovereignty!
One solution I have heard, in fact it was suggested by Benjamin
Nettanyahu of Israel when he was asked to testify before
Congress on terrorism and how to deal with it after the US was
attacked on 911.
He pointed out the problems with the UN, and said ... and this
is my translation of his idea, not his words, but the problem
was that the UN had non-democratic nations in it.
If the West was to replace the UN with a NATO like organization
consisting of democracies, and then apply activist pressure
to non-democracies as possible we would have a path to
a unifed world, at least unified interntionally through a
body that would work instead of the crappy UN.
I think this made a lot of sense. I agree with some who
say that concentrating so much power in a world government
could be dangerous, but moving along the path the
American states did before we have a federal Constitution,
in a democratic confederacy that was allied to turn
tyrannies into democracies and bring them into the
union over time would be the solution to the world's
poltical problems.
That way the democracies could enforce laws against
China in environment, labor, trade, and also moderate
the US unilateralism a little as well.
Why would we EVER turn authority of these united states to an outside entity? Isn't there a reason that so many people lost their lives to win independence this type of external control before?
Bruce, I would kiss your ass if I knew where to start. You pretty much look like all ass to me, so should I kiss your hair? Your eyebrows" Your mouth ( which is pretty much like your asshole since all that comes out is bullshit )? Your chest? Your abdomen? Your leggs? Your arms? Your fingers? Your toes? I left out your nose because it is so far up in ' Little Georgie's ' ass that it would take the Jaws of Life to pull it out!
Suck on that one Bruce!
In any case i'm kind of surprised as to certain foolish remarks, on one hand, criticising the (earlier mentioned) bodies for their failure but seem confident with the success of a world government.
It is the same people who created these institutions who wish to have a world govt and who have created these as transitional bodies moving into a world order. So the people are the same, the corruption/failure is visible with what theyve done so far, what makes you think the a world government created by them is going to be any different (if not worse)? And dont give me the stupid argument that a world govt is inevitible & we cant fight it. The point is should we be calling for one, knowing fully well into whose hands we're going to be transferring all power to (Dont be so ignorant & foolish, ive pointed out in my earlier comments the kind of people who would be running a world government, if there's going to be one)?
The title of this article is "why we need world government" and that is the question here. I stated clearly that weather a world goverment is good or not, we simply can not have one or beg world leaders for one while absolute corrupt leaders continue to rule us today. Centraliztion of such a fashion would only mean that these guys would get the opportunity to centralize an already corrupt process in ruling over us (which is exactly wht they want.
Lastly , let me briefly go back to when the IMF and world bank were set up, these were set up with the intention of providing other nations with aid & faciliting developing activities & progress of under developed nations. Instead, since then there has hardly been any nation that has ever been better off, on the contrary many have been far worse off with a number of nations in debt amounting to a global debt problem. Look what hppened to africa for instance (& this i only one case). Moreover when these guys have created debts (tht too by lending out money that doesnt exist) from then on there is no escaping an "obligation" by the counter party. Either the nations have to be drained of their reources to pay, change/adopt economic/domestic policies in favour of the interntional bankers or allow these bankers access to resources of these nations. Nothing is free and loans are never forgiven for nothing, theres always a price to pay somewhere.
If these are the people you want to have runing a world government, then please say so clearly, cause we're not going to have one without them right now. And if a world government is inevitable in any case, that by itself does not amount to a reasonable justification for having one. The question is not if this is going to happen or not, it is whether you think the occurnce of this (keeping in mind the existence of our ruling elite class) is good for our world.
You can go through governments and businesses at all levels, from local to national, and find all kinds of brutality and corruption. This is because humans are inherently fallible, corruptible beings. The solution isn't to end all government or end all business, but to have more democracy, checks and balances, free press watchdogs, etc. Power also needs to be distributed at local, national, and global levels.
Currently I believe the nation-state is too powerful, and we have more global integration, along with global problems--particularly environmental--than ever before. Unfortunately our global institutions are not particularly democratic. My proposal therefore is, first, to greatly democratize global institutions, and second, to migrate some of the power of the nation-state to global institutions--which has already happened regarding economic issues, but not enough regarding environmental issues. This does not mean giving up local input and control over many issues, nor does it mean giving up local cultures, languages, and traditions.
Secondly, on just a smaller note, people like bush are pretty much bird brains and neither have the brains nor the power to take any actions without institutionalized powers who work in the background. It is not bush that should concern us but the influence of such institutions & those interests who have a stake in such institutions. There's a whole hierarchy & different groups of bodies (some formal &informal ones) I'd like to get into but for the sake of the common man, publicly known institutions to watch out for are the global rogue institutions such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, BIS, oil companies, pharmacy, green institutions (the core elements) and banking interests that tend to oversee & control all of these. The international bankers have already bankrupt European nations & they have done the same with America as well (since 1913; yes it's a debt based, credit based, fiat system which they can collapse anytime they want; America [the nation] has been running on credit ever since). Extending their powers over world at large would mean they would not only be able to exercise such abusive powers but also materialize obligations by debtor nations created by the use of such practices.
"Currently I believe the nation-state is too powerful"
NO!!!, it is the global interest groups within national set ups (national interest groups have long disintegrated; which is why leaders such as bush Sr, Gordon brown & others have long been calling for a new world order) that have far too much power. Currently they lack a global platform whereby their abusive policies can implemented the world over & can apply to all levels of society. Why do you suppose they're continually centralizing, integrating trade blocks, creating new ones (like the current proposal of the north American union), common currencies (Euro and the current proposal of the amero) and integrating corporate & so called non corporate non governmental organizations.
"My proposal therefore is, first, to greatly democratize global institutions, and second, to migrate some of the power of the nation-state to global institutions"
So in translation, you are then for sure a globalist and not a nationalist. Secondly you have indicated you are ready to transfer power in the hands of the blood stained global interests. Yes "blood stained" indeed, it is the bankers who print Americas money (of England & some European countries too) & who dominate America's national & corporate policies. It is these very people who would be beneficiaries to transferred world powers and not the world citizens. For those who wish to see a "few" of the many things these international bankers are responsible for, please follow the following link:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977065384
Humans make very good humans, but they make very poor gods. One example is what I believe Dar is trying to point out; Those who become part of a global government, or it's formation, are bound to be those most obsessed by power. Which is to say; Those who have a great faith in their ideas about people. Essentially then, the most deluded by the illusion that what they "see" in their imaginations, is a valid representation of the world.
There is a ubiquitous myth of a "them" which are so wise and well informed, that within their mind, there is a "realistic" view of the world and all it's people and problems. We think, Hey, let's elect them! They don't exist. You just imagine them.
Systems such as our Forefathers established in this country, which retard the silly notion that humans actually can imagine things like other people accurately, and make rational judgments based on those images, are about all "we" as sane humans can hope for. Of course democracy sucks, cause folks tend to vote based on self interest (which these days generally means voting for those who fulfill best their iconic images based on motion picture heroes), but as was well stated from the first; it's better than the alternatives.
The concept of World democracy is appealing, if we assume that there will not be oodles of ways powerful people can "fix" the various aspects of such a government, to benifit themselves (which is to say their images of themselves). If we assume those willing to lie to get elected, will not have a huge advantage over those not so willing. If we assume somehow all the lies "wash out" if we sample enough mind's opinions, which is utterly ridiculous on it's face. If we assume this vast government sees only facts and truths, and not what this or that powerful manipulative voices tell them. Etc., etc. etc.
In short, if we assume what we already know is not true.
You have made a good point, and if one researches who has been working toward one world government for years and years, and would certainly be involved in it coming to fruition, one should be afraid, very afraid.
A very good treatise! And a good summary of the problems facing any government over a broad area of land, including the United States.
We are dealing in this article and comments about more than one thing. First, is a world government a good idea? Second is a world government at this time a good idea? And lastly, what are the drawbacks and problems facing such a thing.
That world government would be good is unmistakable as is the fact that it could be horrible! There is an illusion that we shouldn't have a world government because of the weaknesses in existing governments. That's like we shouldn't have the United States because the states are imperfect! And unrealistic!
Does the whole world have to be democratic or have the same form of government throughout in order to have a global government? Not at all! It is possible for the government do be dedicated to matters of world concern only and not eligible to have a voice in culture, trade, religion or any of the various things in which large differences exist.
Do I think we should have a world government now? Heaven no! It would mean upheaval and discord with hatred and jealousy like the world has never seen if it's implemented tomorrow!
What is true is that democracy cannot be imposed from outside the country because it will still be up to the country to support it. That is a problem facing Iraq and we don't want it throughout the world.
Each member nation must be left to it's own devices with the exception of international law and international force. Each nation is much closer to its people and can know and represent the desires of those people. In nations not choosing to have a democracy, they can more closely represent the will of the religious authority or whatever tends to be their guiding force. Though much of the world has already chosen some form of democracy with a capitalistic/socialistic bent, there is no reason why all should be required to do this.
As John Knight has so aptly pointed out, humans seem to make lousy Gods! And even if they did better there is till the matter of figuring out just which groups or persons should be the Gods.
No, a world government must be the result of all the nations of the world being willing to invest their security and appropriate funds in a mutual union with others to secure the necessary things which cannot be resolved by reasonable governments.
When the UN was formed, there was far too much fear of others to allow it any such power! It has struggled through the decades with the problems it has faced and has had mediocre success with some and abject failure with others. It's most important function of success has been as a sounding board and place to discuss world problems but even that has taken a beating because of this administration's unwillingness to wait till it was through with its inspections of the possible weapons locations in Iraq before invading.
There are no infallible "knows all" persons on this planet. So no one is willing to give up their authority to others that they are afraid will let them down. It may take a cataclysmic event, such as a nuclear war, to get the world to the point where they actually seek that which could be both an effective and non-intrusive means of living together on a shrinking planet.
What is the most powerful argument against a world government. I believe the fact that the world is not ready for it is a powerful and convincing argument here! Is it a good idea? I'll say yes, it is imperative and not too long in the future or there won't be a future for most, if not all, of us. But not now. The third world nations are not used to governing and not prepared to be equal partners in a world government. The major powers are all to used to governing and would want or insist on being the governing body in such an assembly. That's why we have the UN. The five security council members are effectively maintaining control over all the rest. We could live with that at the end of WW II. But it will quickly wear thin for some of the non blessed nations.
We will never be without "manipulative people" or others who would advance themselves for personal or group gain without concern for the wills of the other nations or people. We've many of them in our government today. In both parties, I might add. So the existence of such people is not the basis for rejecting world government. We even have nations who act like they've been appointed God!
US us not able to take care of it's own needs, (ie) education, healthcare, national debt,
will a world government solve these problems?
Who supports the UN actions in the world now? Good old Uncle Sam. And we've been a part of the UN military before. When we went into Korea, we fought a very bloody war as part of the UN contingent to that area.
While I'd agree that the UN is the most productive and safe thing going for us right now, I believe that a federation of nations of the world will someday replace it and there will be no "security council" with veto power for five nations only. Any thing more than a federation of nations would be, I'm afraid, simply a world dictatorship by the dominant nation or nations, and result in dissatisfaction and rebellion by the other nations.
The needs you mention would, for the most part, remain within the various nations. There are such great differences in the world that a solution in Armenia and a solution in the United States would have to be much different and should be kept close to the people involved by their own government.
With war in Iraq and possibly Iran soon, the United States is taking on the entire burden of the peacekeeping which saps our ability to address the needs you've mentioned, and relieves other nations of their responsibilities!
Interesting idea; but it seems someone's beat you to it: "Sovereignty and Globalisation (Council on Foreign Relations)
Come to think of it, you should look into getting a slot with the CFR, perhaps a "scholar" or a "fellow." Or have you already?
I think a representative world government is inevitable and overdue -- so many important human decision are being made in unaccountable ways by barely understood institutions and groups.
But democracy may not be the way to do it.
Elections require candidates who can communicate with electors. Communication requires money. Money entails the tune being called by those with the gold.
American elections are now obscene.
The embarrassment of filling the Obama senate seat by auction to the highest bidder is only the latest reminder that our system is now fully corrupted.
The role of both parties -- with politicians from each completely complicit in bringing us the current economic crisis -- in creating our problems exceeds their usefulness in correcting their/our collective mess.
Public financing of election campaigns would help. But the whole idea has Constitutional problems and immense workability issues -- for example, how does such a system decide which candidates are worthy of such funding.
The Athenians once had a better plan. Then they turned to elections.
We should go back to their first concept. It worked well for 300 years. During that time they selected their government leaders the same way we now select juries -- by lot (among those thought to be qualified candidates).
The Apostles of Christ chose a successor for Judas by lot -- from among agreed upon qualified candidates.
Members of a future world parliament should be chosen by lot from among those who have successfully completed some form of tertiary education. The means of selection should be manual, not electronic...maybe by a world wide selection day played out in larger meetings all over each region.
Perhaps this plan should be tried locally first somewhere in the world.
Imagine a world parliament with one man and one woman selected by lot from each of, say, 500 equally populated regions. The US might merit 24 of those regions.
Such "senators" might serve for a single term of, say, ten years.
I might not work. But the current system is not working either.
But then again it might.
Warm regards, Larry K.