World Government?

[°Leprechaun]

33 day poll.
First of all Don't think of the UN, because there many problems with that model.
Second, Don't (necessarily) think of a model where indivual nations would cease to exist or give up all or most of the national sovereignty, unless you think that would be inevitable and/or you like that idea.
Think of any model that you like...
But basically, no fence sitters are allowed (although not voting is always an option) I basically want to see if the majority favors or opposes this idea.
I don't want to eleborate to much on what I envision in a world government, because the more specific I am the more likely people would vote no.

[°Leprechaun]

Please pardon all the spelling and gramatical errors.
I'm really not that stupid.
Obviously I type too fast.

[°Leprechaun]

Absolutely. We want to make great strides as a species, but cant even work with eachother. Imagine what we could do all working together!

Thanks... I couldn't have said it better myself.

[°Leprechaun]

Well look at what we have now. More and more nations getting nuclear weapons. How are we going to stop WWIII? Or do you think that it is inevitable?

[°Leprechaun]

Bono,
Do you think war is inevitable?
If not how would you propose we achieve world peace?
The thing that motivated me to start this thread was more about how do we achieve world peace than about how to achieve world government.

[°Leprechaun]

Bono,
So, in other words, you don't think the Libertarian party goes far enough?
Don't just have limited government, but eliminate it altogether?
Would we have traffic lights in such a world or a common currency?
Would we have police or would people protect themselves?

[°Leprechaun]

I would like to see at least three things if there ever were a world government.
1. It would not be headquarted in the USA.
2. Every nation would have the right to resign it membership.
3. It would be democratic and proportional. Not necessarily in the sense of proportional representation (although that is not a bad idea), but in the sense of larger countries being represented more proportionally than smaller, in terms of population. Not like it is in the UN where we have one country one vote which doesn't really make much sense.

[°Leprechaun]

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.

In theory, it need not be, although the term 'government' tends to be tied to such a connotation.

In theory, it could be democratic, with the explicit right for a nation to resign if such a nation were unhappy with the union.

It would, perhaps, be naive to think such an organization would be likely any time soon, but the concept is tenable, I would think.

[°Leprechaun]

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.

Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.

[°Leprechaun]

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.

In a few years, those protections would mean as much as the tenth amendment means now:0.
Anyways, this still fails to account for subsidiarity. As I said, and you have no answered that, I thought decentralization, that is, each community deciding at the lowest level possible what is best for her, was a liberal value. Apparently I'm wrong.


Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.

I think in some ways decentralization is a good idea. In some liberal churches, you have congregational polity whereas in the Catholic Church you do not... And the Catholic Church is hardly liberal.

[°Leprechaun]

I think that it all depends on how you define 'liberal'.

[°Leprechaun]

Well, don't governments also have the right to organize in any way they want?

[°Leprechaun]

I never knew governments to have any rights.

Don't governments have the ability to organize in any way which they want?

[°Leprechaun]

But under my model nations would have the ability to withdraw.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't think that the US would be likely to join an organization unless there were the ability to drop out.

[°Leprechaun]

Also, technically, membership in free nations is voluntary in the sense that a person has the freedom to leave and become a citizen of some other nation.

[°Leprechaun]

I am signing off for.. now.. perhaps I can return to this discussion at a later date.

[°Leprechaun]

Ditto, and even then I would prefer it to be a loose federation rather than having a strong central government.

Who said anything about a "strong central government"...
In my understanding "A loose federation" would still be a world government, (isn't the United States still, technically speaking, a 'federation')

[°Leprechaun]

at this point in time a majority (11-10) have voted yes