Could you ever support a worldwide elected parliament?

[mvd10]

Yes, but I doubt that trustworthy free elections could be held on a worldwide basis anytime this century.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that the European parliament first election was in 1979, less than 40 years after WW2, and less than 25 after the EEC was founded

And what exactly does the European Parliament do? Something with bananas and the occasional trade deal?

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Under no circumstances.

[Former President tack50]

Yes, but I doubt that trustworthy free elections could be held on a worldwide basis anytime this century.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that the European parliament first election was in 1979, less than 40 years after WW2, and less than 25 after the EEC was founded

And what exactly does the European Parliament do? Something with bananas and the occasional trade deal?

Pretty much, but it's not like a hypothetical "UN parliament" would be much more powerful than that.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

No, not if countries like Russia and North Korea participate in their current forms.

[FairBol]

Hell no.  Speaking of which, I support the idea of charging the UN rent (they say their HQ is on "international land", but that land is within the borders of the US....so there!)

[FairBol]

Damn.  We got some globalists up in here! LOL.

[mvd10]

No, not if countries like Russia and North Korea participate in their current forms.

Russia is hardly the worst on individual liberties compared to a whole lot of other countries. Heck, even China is a magnitude worse than Russia on these things. We're all very lucky to live in the few countries where liberties and human rights are respected. Forgive me my use of words, but the vast majority of the world population actually lives in a sh**thole country.

[America Needs R'hllor]

No, not if countries like Russia and North Korea participate in their current forms.

Russia is hardly the worst on individual liberties compared to a whole lot of other countries. Heck, even China is a magnitude worse than Russia on these things. We're all very lucky to live in the few countries where liberties and human rights are respected. Forgive me my use of words, but the vast majority of the world population actually lives in a sh**thole country.

Yep, and it's not even important. People should read the post before commenting- the OP specifically said that this is a hypothetical scenario where:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RINO Tom]

This is the ultimate goal. This will be the end of history. And it will be perfect.

You make a great parody of yourself.

[politicallefty]

Could I? Yes, but I don't think it's realistic in this century, as much as I might theoretically like the idea. A lot would depend on the powers as well as the checks/balances on said Parliament. If we could get the Chinese and Indians to adopt most Western ideals, I think we should go for it. Otherwise, I'd be too fearful of the dominance of very regressive countries (particularly in Africa and the Middle East).

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

This is the ultimate goal. This will be the end of history. And it will be perfect.

You make a great parody of yourself.

But actually, that's my sentiment.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Damn.  We got some globalists up in here! LOL.

I mean, globalism exists with or without my proposal. The difference is that in the status quo, power is not vested in transparent, accountable individuals but in inscrutable groups with shadowy interests: intelligence agencies, multinational corporations and a small crew of fragmented regional elites that enjoy the benefits of humanity's fragmented nation-states to maintain and boost their own priviliges.

[IceAgeComing]

We already have a world where there are massive international organisations that hold significant amounts of power - the IMF is a perfect example of this; if it were at all possible I'd rather have a democratically elected institution to oversee them rather than the current system where there isn't really any oversight of them.  I don't know if this counts as a "one world government" or not but I wouldn't say so: its democratic oversight of powerful organisations and that's hardly a government.  Even if it was then, well, I'm a socialist and I don't see the idea of a vaguely powerful global government as automatically a negative thing - "one world government" is a misleading term in many ways since it implies a unitary state and that would never happen because its impossible to not have significant devolution of power in that situation.  In some ways the EU model probably is the one to look at in terms of rough structures and powers if nothing else: someone to set basic standards for things like workers protection and human rights with a court system to enforce them and also taking care of key global issues like Climate Change but with lower levels of government responsible for important issues which it would be stupid to do globally like building roads and managing education systems.

Yes, but I doubt that trustworthy free elections could be held on a worldwide basis anytime this century.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that the European parliament first election was in 1979, less than 40 years after WW2, and less than 25 after the EEC was founded

And what exactly does the European Parliament do? Something with bananas and the occasional trade deal?

More than you'd think: especially post-Lisbon where they now have a say in the vast majority of EU legalisation, basically everything bar the stuff that's done intergovernmentally.  Sure most of it is incredibly boring stuff about fishing quotas and regulations on the safety of washing machines but it is stuff which national governments would have to do and it makes sense for safety standards for things to be done Europe-wide.  Just because they don't pass much stuff on sexy issues which we all care about doesn't mean that they aren't important; the boring issues are also often crucial as well.

[Green Line]

When the world is ready for it, sure, why not?  The nation state is the best form of government for the current times - it's not religion though.  When humans evolve beyond it, that's a good thing.

[TJ in Oregon]

When the world is ready for it, sure, why not?  The nation state is the best form of government for the current times - it's not religion though.  When humans evolve beyond it, that's a good thing.

Eh, I'd say the nation state is more closely connected to human nature than it an ideology. I don't think it's a great idea to literally invest all of the world's political power in a single body like that, and I also don't think that's something that can ever really change, given the selfishness of man.

[Green Line]

When the world is ready for it, sure, why not?  The nation state is the best form of government for the current times - it's not religion though.  When humans evolve beyond it, that's a good thing.

Eh, I'd say the nation state is more closely connected to human nature than it an ideology. I don't think it's a great idea to literally invest all of the world's political power in a single body like that, and I also don't think that's something that can ever really change, given the selfishness of man.

Sustained contact with another advanced species would probably change that, but until then, yeah, human nature will probably prevent it from happening.

[TJ in Oregon]

When the world is ready for it, sure, why not?  The nation state is the best form of government for the current times - it's not religion though.  When humans evolve beyond it, that's a good thing.

Eh, I'd say the nation state is more closely connected to human nature than it an ideology. I don't think it's a great idea to literally invest all of the world's political power in a single body like that, and I also don't think that's something that can ever really change, given the selfishness of man.

Sustained contact with another advanced species would probably change that, but until then, yeah, human nature will probably prevent it from happening.

In that scenario, the worldwide government would no longer hold all political power since it would have an external rival again. So I'd agree.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

When the world is ready for it, sure, why not?  The nation state is the best form of government for the current times - it's not religion though.  When humans evolve beyond it, that's a good thing.

Eh, I'd say the nation state is more closely connected to human nature than it an ideology. I don't think it's a great idea to literally invest all of the world's political power in a single body like that, and I also don't think that's something that can ever really change, given the selfishness of man.

Sustained contact with another advanced species would probably change that, but until then, yeah, human nature will probably prevent it from happening.

If that did happen, we would probably have to form an interplanetary parliament to keep the peace.

[DavidB.]

Never. The majority of the countries in the world are in a bad state, and the majority of the world population hold trash opinions. I'd rather not allow them to drag down living standards in our precious fortress of the West.

More theoretically, I believe that the world population is divided in nations (albeit with blurred boundaries; one can belong to multiple nations, and the differences between some nations are negligible whereas the differences between others are enormous) and that nation-states are the best instrument to create prosperity and just societies. Nations should democratically decide on their "path forward" in terms of public policies. What's good policy for one country may not necessarily be the best option for another nation.

[Torie]

That seems like a plan for China and India to rule the world.

[MAINEiac4434]

Ultimately this should be humanity's goal.

[Lechasseur]

No

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Yes, but I doubt that trustworthy free elections could be held on a worldwide basis anytime this century.

I agree with you, but keep in mind that the European parliament first election was in 1979, less than 40 years after WW2, and less than 25 after the EEC was founded

And Europe is not the rest of the world.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

That seems like a plan for China and India to rule the world.

But (assuming classical economics are correct), they'd move in massive amounts to Europe and America, so as to make the GDP per capita of the world roughly equal regardless of where someone lives.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Absolutely not