"The right to practice religion and be free from oppression because of your race/religion etc. would be the MAIN rule in my world government. Thus, if you were in the KKK or another racist group you may feel you views were being oppressed, because you do not believe in equality."
Thanks for the clarification. The way you worded it originally gave me the opposite impression however: "Any other laws could be made by the regions, and thus, you could move somewhere else from opression, unless you're in the KKK and the right to practice any religion is wrong , of course." Perhaps you should have said, "you're in the KKK and you think that the right to practice..." but I'm picking at nits here.
Anyway, that's fine and good that YOUR ideal world government would be democratic and ensure liberties--however to what extent would be my question.
However, if you witness the evolution of the US you will see a demonstration of how liberties tend to slowly but surely be diminished, chipped away piece by piece, when there is a powerful central government. This isn't new--it actually happens in most large democratic nations--because most people tend to look at short-term problems rather than long-term consequences of the "solutions" (often not really solutions at all) that they, often prodded by politicians, consent to out of the "needs of the moment".
I say that the best level of governance is the individual--who can decide almost everything by himself. Followed by community (municipal, county, etc.) government, where people actually KNOW each other in many cases, and care about one another, and share common concerns, and where individuals can TRULY have a voice (including physical presence at "town meetings" and such). Then there's state (or provincial, as it may be) government, where we begin to step into the impersonal but there is still commonality--and such governments traditionally deal in criminal laws to keep the anonymous public safe. Finally there is federal government--and in a large nation such as the US, the level is SO impersonal and detatched from the people that it should be VERY limited, i.e. providing for the common defense and little else. Again ideally, power should DECREASE in this sequence. I.e. the MOST power should be closest to the people, wherever they are.
So you can see that by the time we get to a hypothetical WORLD government level, it would be totally impersonal, the local ramifications of their decisions from afar could almost never effectively be judged from that distance, and each person would have only one five-billionth of the "voice" if it were democratic. And most of the people (or the representatives from their countries) would not KNOW fully what the effects of their vote would be halfway across the world--and an uninformed vote is as useless as tits on a boar. In fact uninformed votes can often be very DESTRUCTIVE.
SO, what should the role of this World Government be? Ideally VERY limited at best, perhaps refereeing international disputes if anything. And more importantly, how will we all ensure that it stays confined to that role? The US has a Constitution, and yet even THAT cannot keep the federal government in its intended confines. Someone here said that absolute power corrupts absolutely--HEED that time-honored quote, for history does and will continue to bear that out as fact.
And even if the WG is effectively confined to the "referee" role, will that still be fair? If many countries decide to "gang up" with their votes on a country or people that was wrongfully aggressed (Israel comes to mind, but the next example could be anyone's country, in the future), and thereby prevents that country or people from effectively defending themselves, would THAT be fair and right?
No, I suggested that treaties could be drawn up, and ratified by each country (perhaps the treaty could include a free trade clause that would give countries incentive to sign it) until they became universal, that would set down rules for conduct between nations--i.e. no initiation of aggression allowed, and maybe some other things--and would be enforced as a rule of law (violators get boycotted by all treaty signatories, and possibly get punished militarily depending on the rule violated), not at the whim of a voting body who may favor some violators over others. This arrangement would NOT require a world government, only the will and resolve of the nations to honor the treaty. And most would have that, so the few that do not honor it could be dealt with relatively easily.
Of course, throughout these posts we've been assuming that a hypothetical WG would be democratic, and would stay that way. Can we even ensure THAT? Remember that most of the world's people do NOT share the same democratic traditions that we in the West do.
If the WG were a libertarian one, with the mission of protecting the full liberty (i.e. more than anyone has in any country now) of every individual on the planet, that would be about the only case where I would favor it. But again, libertarianism is MY idea of perfection (well, as near to perfection as we can get). Everyone has different ideas. Since true libertarianism has never been tried, I would actually prefer to have a few countries (including my own) try it for a good length of time, and see how it does in relation to other systems. Same with any other system.
And would a WG really protect against wars? What about armed guerilla struggles against it? What about people or countries who do not wish to join? How will THEY be handled?
Before you parade this peace-and-love fantasy before us, PLEASE consider some of these things I've said here. Will we in our traditionally democratic countries become MORE free or less free under such a government? How can we ensure our freedom? If we find we are LESS free, what could we do about it once a WG is in place?
Let's not be rash....
At least Whiskey Priest can defend his position without resorting to pointless logical fallacies.
