Global Government: Diversity vs Homogeneity

WinstonC

A one world government is a terrible idea for a myriad of reasons. While it seems a laudable goal, this perception is the product of shallow, optimistic analysis. The main reason people think it is a good idea is because it would, in theory, mean that wars were not possible. Obviously, however, this isn't the case. Civil wars and insurgencies have the same results as wars between nations: death and destruction.

In addition, imagine if the one world government became malevolent. As it stands, if our nation of residence is becoming oppressive we can simply flee elsewhere. Under a one world government, however, where could one flee to escape it's totalitarian clutches? Further, what force could oppose a malevolent world government? When Adolf Hitler set his sights on world domination it was only other nations that could stop him. Those within his empire had no such ability and even the French resistance required outside aid. The French resistance also only existed due to the fact that the French army wasn't entirely militarily crushed because they were conquered so quickly by the German Blitzkrieg. If there is a malevolent one world government, there will be no force that can oppose it and emerge victorious.

Further, one must think of the manner in which we have progressed as societies in the past. Different nations try different methods of rule and we can compare these to inform our manner of governance. One might find, for example, that giving one's citizenry greater freedoms results in greater productivity. This is a big reason why nations grant freedoms to it's citizens; in the interests of what is pragmatic, rather than in the interests of morality. Different nations and empires each found different methods of progression at different times and intentionally or unintentionally shared these. For one example, the renaissance is at least partially creditable to the manner in which the Medici ruled Florence, including their patronage of artists, inventors and other polymaths.

Finally, one must think about the ability to be represented by one's government and it's accountability to it's citizens. When one is governed on a smaller scale, one can be greater represented by their government. This is both because one makes up a larger percentage of the voting population and because different issues have different importance to people living in different areas. This is demonstrated by, for example, the cities of the U.S. being more left leaning while the countryside is more right leaning (Source 1). These contrasts are magnified when one considers the political and ideological differences between nations. It is also an immediately apparent fact that a government is more accountable to it's citizens when it is more local. A multinational government based in Brussels, for example, has less reason to be afraid of unrest in London than unrest in Brussels. Moreover, it is easily demonstrated that at larger numbers accountability and representation is reduced. If one has 100 citizens and one ruler, it merely takes ten outspoken citizens for a problem or concern to be made apparent. If one has one million citizens, however, it takes one hundred thousand protestors to have the same effect.

Sources:
(1) http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/political_landscape

MayCaesar

The stronger the entity, the more power it has, and the more potential for abuse exists. On a free private market it is mitigated by harsh competition and supply/demand balance, but on the "market of governments" as it exists now there is virtually no mechanisms preventing the government for doing whatever it wants. And in case of the global government, it is an absolute monopoly, with no competition from any side. The chances that it will not turn into a totalitarian dictatorship eventually are slim.

Instead of creating a strong centralised structure, I think it is more practical for governments to form egalitarian alliances with no overarching entities. Let the individual governments talk directly to each other and voluntarily agree on a set of shared rules, and do not introduce any further centralisation.

In case of the US, for example, I believe that abolishment of the federal government altogether and leaving all the power in the hands of the states, while still allowing them to remain in an equal alliance - would increase our individual freedoms significantly.

There are many more objections against global government I can make, including its inefficiency, lack of alternative, inability to take the interests of the individual groups of people into account and so on. But the power abuse one is probably the most decisive.

GeoLibCogScientist

As it pertains to what most would think is a one-world government, I'd agree. I agree more power should be in the hands of local government. However, I don't think it's incompatible with the idea of a one-world government if we expand the definition.

If the one-world government was a type of confederation, such as the United States had under the Articles of Confederation, I think it would be more feasible. Wars are, for the most part, much less common than in the past. Most governments, I would say, find value in negotiating before going to war. I mean, even North Korea is not interested in escalating to war, and for the first time in decades is trying to negotiate with the US for a permanent peace with South Korea. Right now, the greatest threat to peace, really, is the US. Most modern wars I would say were directly caused by the US or were as a result of a war the US started. Everyone else pales in comparison to the US military: I would say for the reason that they're generally not interested in massive warfare.

So, I think it would be possible to have a one-world government wherein much power resides in a city or local government, and as one goes up in the level of government, to province/state, to federal, and the confederal world government, each step would decrease dramatically in power it has. I'd argue each higher step should only serve as mediators between the lower forms of government, and that ought to be close to the extent of the more centralized governments' power. 

WinstonC

@GeoLibCogScientist "If the one-world government was a type of confederation, such as the United States had under the Articles of Confederation, I think it would be more feasible."

Do you mean an alliance of nation states or do you mean that there would be centralized powers? Once powers are centralized we face the downsides outlined in my post.

GeoLibCogScientist

@WinstonC

The thing about the AofC is that it's hard to say what exactly it was. I mean, technically the US was one country under the AofC, but the top government had almost no power. The only change I'd say is that it needs more power to negotiate and mediate disputes between the states within it. That was one of the more important weaknesses of the AofC, is while theoretically the federal government was supposed to settle disputes, it didn't actually have the ability to do so. So, that's what I'm suggesting for a one-world government: one similar to what the AofC was, but with the modification where it actually has the ability to mediate disputes between the federal governments that are beneath the confederal, world government. I suppose you could say it would be similar to the United Nations, but with a little more authority(since the UN is otherwise mostly useless) to mediate disputes more than the UN currently does.  But certainly, it ought not to pass laws, except for the things we already have like crimes against humanity. Other than that, all it should do is mediate disputes between countries.

Not sure if you'd consider that centralized. I wouldn't, as it would be missing many other powers federal, centralized governments normally have. It wouldn't have the power to tax, wouldn't have the means to levy a military, nor pass laws with the exception of typical crimes against humanity that a near-consensus of humans agree on. Pretty sure over 90% of humanity agrees genocide is a crime against humanity, so that would be one of the very few laws on the world level. 

GeoLibCogScientist

But, I'd again stress that local governments ought to carry the most power. If you want to know how I'd implement a situation where most issues would be local government issues, I could explain what I think would be a good idea.

WinstonC

@GeoLibCogScientist My problem is that once any power is centralized, the states beneath the central power can only differ insofar as the central power permits. It also seems that once centralization of power begins, it doesn't end, as in the cases of the AofC, or the European Union (which began as a free trade area).

Apologies that I reply to you so much, it's just that you speak on topics I am interested in often.

piloteer

@GeoLibCogScientist


I fail to see the need for a world government if their only real goal is to mediate between disputing countries. If countries are "not interested in escalating to war", then what would be the need of a world government if countries are not interested in war anyway. And if it's not actually true, and some countries do want a dispute to escalate, what power would a world government be able to levy if their only intended purpose is to mediate? None of this jives with me.