Global government- return to hangar

[amadeus]

It was actually a counter-strawman.

 

[timtofly]

OWG will only happen when a fair and balanced trade system is working globally. It will not happen to create such a trade system. That is why it keeps failing.

 

[Murky]

For those who obviously missed the point, the reality of a OWG is that would probably be better for most of the people who are currently living under a third world government dictatorship. It's true that people living in free societies now would not benefit as much and there is a possibility that it could all go horribly wrong. The real chances of forming a OWG are so small as to be nil so it's all just pointless speculation anyway.

 

[amadeus]

For those who obviously missed the point, the reality of a OWG is that would probably be better for most of the people who are currently living under a third world government dictatorship.

Probably? You can't say authoritatively that those people would be any freer. How do we know it wouldn't just be one North Korea writ large? You seem to be convinced that massive amounts of power in the hands of an uncontested few would be used wisely and justly.

 

[Murky]

Probably? You can't say authoritatively that those people would be any freer. How do we know it wouldn't just be one North Korea writ large? You seem to be convinced that massive amounts of power in the hands of an uncontested few would be used wisely and justly.

There's no way anyone would agree it to otherwise. If someone were to try impose a communists wold regime, they had better back it up with a lot of force. Even then it would met with such an insurgency that it would be too busy fighting to do much else.

Right now, even within Nation states, people have widely different views on what is the ideal form of government. Could you imagine what it would take to get 7 billion people to all agree on the same thing? I doubt if you could even get a majority to agree.

 

[Quackers]

But Murky, if we don't get them to agree we will all be in a North Korean dictatorship! (see post 27).

 

[Murky]

if we don't get them to agree we will all be in a North Korean dictatorship! (see post 27).

Wow, you still miss the point.

 

[lovett]

A worldwide government from which you could not escape? How could that possibly be a good thing?

Probably? You can't say authoritatively that those people would be any freer. How do we know it wouldn't just be one North Korea writ large? You seem to be convinced that massive amounts of power in the hands of an uncontested few would be used wisely and justly.

Your criticisms seem quite peculiar. You are arguing that because it is possible that a world government make its citizens unfree that it is thoroughly unconscionable to suggest that the world should be run by such a government. In fact, you cannot even conceive how any type of such government could possibly be a good thing.

This seems absurd. It is possible that our own governments turn oppressive tomorrow, thereby making us unfree. That does not mean all government should be abolished. It does not mean all government should be abolished because the alternative is more likely to leave even less room for freedom, at least freedom of a normatively important kind. We do not judge social systems by whether certain outcomes are merely possible; all outcomes are possible. We judge them on whether outcomes are likely. Precisely, we judge them on whether a worse outcome is more likely than a better outcome.

As it happens, there is no reason to believe that world government would be conceptually more susceptible to oppression that the modern system of nation states. If such a government were designed with appropriate institutions this is almost certainly not the case. For instance, if government was (as it certainly would be) significantly federal in a substantive manner. Institutional arrangements are one of the central reasons for the durability of our own liberal democracies and I do not see why, and you have presented no argument as to why, a properly designed world government would be necessarily more susceptible to tyranny than such democracies.

What we do know is what the alternative is. We know that 20% of the world's population earn less than $1.25 a day. 40% earn less than 2$ a day and 80% earn less than $10 a day. That is one and half, two and a half and five billion people respectively. We know that the burdens of war, famine, crime and conflict fall disproportionately on that worst off 1.5 billion people. We know that it is these people who labour under the most oppressive and the most damaging regimes and it is these people who suffer the most from curable ills and remedial shortages.

If you want to talk about freedom and injustice focus your gaze here. Billions of people who have no chance to live autonomous lives. They have no chance to live autonomous lives because they lack education and scrape a living on the very edge of catastrophe. If they have freedoms without autonomy (which they often do not) it is a normatively worthless type of freedom. It is not the ability to actually direct their own lives, nor even the ability to avoid the interference of others. In a substantive sense, these people are profoundly unfree in the same way the homeless are profoundly unfree.

And the injustice is that this situation, this situation of profound unfreedom and deep deprivation, exists against the background of a vastly wealthy western world. A world which enjoys its freedoms and individual autonomies. A world which enjoys unprecedented material wealth and an unprecedented access to all the things that bottom billion lack. A world which, with a relatively slight adjustment of income, could alleviate the awful deprivation of the global poor.

This is the normative case for world government. A world government could remedy this horrific injustice. It could give those bottom billions the chance to direct their own lives and the ability to be autonomous individuals. That is to say, it could give them what is valuable in freedom. It could do this by re-distribution and this is a small price to pay. Even a relatively large drop in our own income would impact our ability to direct our own lives rather negligibly. It would increase that of the poor incalculably. What is our inability to buy a new car or an updated phone when jutoxposed with the inability of a rural Kenyan to access clean water, malaria nets or primary education? Simply imagine telling such a person why you reject the normative case for re-distribution; 'My jacket was becoming a little threadbare, I wanted to watch sport in high-definition...' the justification is utterly hollow when compared with incalculably greater need.

If you value justice and value freedom a world government is one potent way to achieve as much. It would achieve as much by re-distributing from those who have everything to those who have nothing. After the process the former wil still live comfortable worthwhile lives. The latter will be lifted from misery and real incapacity and have their first chance at as much.

You can argue against this by stipulating that a world government would be oppressive. That a world government would not help the poor and would oppress the rich. But everyone will agree that government is bad. That is not the type of government any cosmopolitan would support or endorse. The type of government suggested by such people is always a democratic government. The argument you need to make to condemn this type of government is that world government will invariably slide into tyranny. But there is no reason to believe that anymore than there is reason to believe our own governments will invariably become tyrannical. If you believe institutional checks and civil society can prevent tyranny in the western world it is incoherent to assert such things could not be translated to the entire world.

The alternatives presented are between a system in which imperfect national governments carve up the world, some democratic and some not, and that in which an imperfect democratic government presides over the entirety of the world. If you accept that the poorest billion in this world have the same moral rights as the richest, the same rights to a decent life and reasonable autonomy, the re-distributive potential of the latter makes the moral case overwhelming. If you accept that the poorest billions in this world are equals and people, with all the rights that entails, you cannot make a normative case against re-distributive world government.

 

[amadeus]

tl;dr version—enslave the people in rich countries to subsidize the people in poor countries.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

oh nothing

 

[Traitorfish]

tl;dr version—enslave the people in rich countries to subsidize the people in poor countries.

When you use the word "enslave" as casually as this, you devalue it. Perhaps a less hyperbolic term would be more effective?

 

[lovett]

Perhaps a substantive point or, heaven forfend, a wit of moral sensibility would be more effective.

 

[amadeus]

When you use the word "enslave" as casually as this, you devalue it. Perhaps a less hyperbolic term would be more effective?

Call them prisoners? Since there'd be only one state, there'd be no escape.

 

[Murky]

Your criticisms seem quite peculiar. You are arguing that because it is possible that a world government make its citizens unfree that it is thoroughly unconscionable to suggest that the world should be run by such a government. In fact, you cannot even conceive how any type of such government could possibly be a good thing.

This seems absurd. It is possible that our own governments turn oppressive tomorrow, thereby making us unfree. That does not mean all government should be abolished. It does not mean all government should be abolished because the alternative is more likely to leave even less room for freedom, at least freedom of a normatively important kind. We do not judge social systems by whether certain outcomes are merely possible; all outcomes are possible. We judge them on whether outcomes are likely. Precisely, we judge them on whether a worse outcome is more likely than a better outcome.

As it happens, there is no reason to believe that world government would be conceptually more susceptible to oppression that the modern system of nation states. If such a government were designed with appropriate institutions this is almost certainly not the case. For instance, if government was (as it certainly would be) significantly federal in a substantive manner. Institutional arrangements are one of the central reasons for the durability of our own liberal democracies and I do not see why, and you have presented no argument as to why, a properly designed world government would be necessarily more susceptible to tyranny than such democracies.

What we do know is what the alternative is. We know that 20% of the world's population earn less than $1.25 a day. 40% earn less than 2$ a day and 80% earn less than $10 a day. That is one and half, two and a half and five billion people respectively. We know that the burdens of war, famine, crime and conflict fall disproportionately on that worst off 1.5 billion people. We know that it is these people who labour under the most oppressive and the most damaging regimes and it is these people who suffer the most from curable ills and remedial shortages.

If you want to talk about freedom and injustice focus your gaze here. Billions of people who have no chance to live autonomous lives. They have no chance to live autonomous lives because they lack education and scrape a living on the very edge of catastrophe. If they have freedoms without autonomy (which they often do not) it is a normatively worthless type of freedom. It is not the ability to actually direct their own lives, nor even the ability to avoid the interference of others. In a substantive sense, these people are profoundly unfree in the same way the homeless are profoundly unfree.

And the injustice is that this situation, this situation of profound unfreedom and deep deprivation, exists against the background of a vastly wealthy western world. A world which enjoys its freedoms and individual autonomies. A world which enjoys unprecedented material wealth and an unprecedented access to all the things that bottom billion lack. A world which, with a relatively slight adjustment of income, could alleviate the awful deprivation of the global poor.

This is the normative case for world government. A world government could remedy this horrific injustice. It could give those bottom billions the chance to direct their own lives and the ability to be autonomous individuals. That is to say, it could give them what is valuable in freedom. It could do this by re-distribution and this is a small price to pay. Even a relatively large drop in our own income would impact our ability to direct our own lives rather negligibly. It would increase that of the poor incalculably. What is our inability to buy a new car or an updated phone when jutoxposed with the inability of a rural Kenyan to access clean water, malaria nets or primary education? Simply imagine telling such a person why you reject the normative case for re-distribution; 'My jacket was becoming a little threadbare, I wanted to watch sport in high-definition...' the justification is utterly hollow when compared with incalculably greater need.

If you value justice and value freedom a world government is one potent way to achieve as much. It would achieve as much by re-distributing from those who have everything to those who have nothing. After the process the former wil still live comfortable worthwhile lives. The latter will be lifted from misery and real incapacity and have their first chance at as much.

You can argue against this by stipulating that a world government would be oppressive. That a world government would not help the poor and would oppress the rich. But everyone will agree that government is bad. That is not the type of government any cosmopolitan would support or endorse. The type of government suggested by such people is always a democratic government. The argument you need to make to condemn this type of government is that world government will invariably slide into tyranny. But there is no reason to believe that anymore than there is reason to believe our own governments will invariably become tyrannical. If you believe institutional checks and civil society can prevent tyranny in the western world it is incoherent to assert such things could not be translated to the entire world.

The alternatives presented are between a system in which imperfect national governments carve up the world, some democratic and some not, and that in which an imperfect democratic government presides over the entirety of the world. If you accept that the poorest billion in this world have the same moral rights as the richest, the same rights to a decent life and reasonable autonomy, the re-distributive potential of the latter makes the moral case overwhelming. If you accept that the poorest billions in this world are equals and people, with all the rights that entails, you cannot make a normative case against re-distributive world government.

Good post.

A unified Democratic world government would be better for those who currently do not have democracy.

We already do re-distribute some wealth through charity. More could be done to make it a more fair distribution of resources. We could certainly afford to make sure people have clean water and enough food to eat if we put our minds to it.

I still think a OWG a pipe dream because the rich and powerful nations won't want to give up anything. That and getting everyone else to give up autonomy would be near impossible.

Maybe instead of people seeing the idea of OWG as purely evil, it could open more minds to other possibilities.

Certainly, more can be done in the area of trade and cooperation.

 

[carmen510]

I still have concern as to how we would achieve a unified democratic world government that is able to spread democracy to places which do not currently have and are hostile to the democratic system.

For instance, how would we get North Korea or Syria to join this OWG?

 

[Winner]

I do not really see this as possible because of the Nationalist sentiments in many nations, namely the most powerful country on the planet. Some Europeans accept the idea of a unified government in Europe and may even be partial to a unified world government but I don't see that many people in the US being willing to accept such a thing. We would be partial to a world government if it were headed by the US but then it really wouldn't be a world government and I doubt that other areas of the world would accept such a circumstance.

So simply put the most organized and closest to a world government I could ever see would be something like NATO expanding into a governing body with a great deal of autonomy that still remained with the respective states.

That all depends on the power status of the US. Since it won't be on the top forever, I expect this attitude to change. Especially as the gravity of global problems grows and it becomes readily apparent to anyone with a brain that some degree of coordinated global action is necessary to protect civilization worldwide.

 

[Winner]

I still have concern as to how we would achieve a unified democratic world government that is able to spread democracy to places which do not currently have and are hostile to the democratic system.

For instance, how would we get North Korea or Syria to join this OWG?

Obviously it won't be formed in a day. I foresee it will come into existence pretty much like the European Union. At first a handful of important countries will form the core of it, and when the benefits become clear to others, more countries will join. In the meanwhile, the proto-government will acquire more powers. Eventually it will grow so powerful that joining it will be the only sensible course of action.

Petty dictatorships won't survive for much longer, so they're basically irrelevant. Once China and Russia achieve a degree of democratic governance, the rest will be easy.

 

[r16]

haven't read the whole thread but its Greek origins probably relate only to Papandreau who was in such trouble that he offered to give up the "historic Greek distaste" against certain people who live in a place that gets called Palestine a lot and those people Papandreau wanted to make amends to appear to have too much influence in Washington . This of course assumes those certain people actually have the money to save Grecee and themselves .

regarding one world goverment , well , it won't go anywhere .

 

[timtofly]

haven't read the whole thread but its Greek origins probably relate only to Papandreau who was in such trouble that he offered to give up the "historic Greek distaste" against certain people who live in a place that gets called Palestine a lot and those people Papandreau wanted to make amends to appear to have too much influence in Washington . This of course assumes those certain people actually have the money to save Grecee and themselves .

regarding one world goverment , well , it won't go anywhere .

Then it would be a multi world government.

The problem with re-distribution is not becoming "slaves". Most "rich" people do not work for their money, but not having any would not change their relationship to work. They would just be part of the rest of people getting a hand out. I am pretty sure they would not work for that handout. In fact if there was a true re-distribution like r16 said, no one would work and eventually it would collapse. BTW telling any one to work while others get an equal amount without working is a real motivational message.

 

[Tahuti]

I still have concern as to how we would achieve a unified democratic world government that is able to spread democracy to places which do not currently have and are hostile to the democratic system.

For instance, how would we get North Korea or Syria to join this OWG?

By not having them aboard until they are democratic and economically developed. I think that the OECD - if reformed into an EU style supranational organisation - would be a viable backbone for a future world government.