Considering global government.

[biostem]

Lately, I've been feeling increasingly sympathetic toward the idea of a global government, at least partly due to the constant divisions and threat of war (including nuclear war) caused by national divisions. Now, I have no illusions that a global government would eliminate all conflict. But it would allow for a united global response to conflict and other global problems and lessen the chances of a nuclear exchange massively.

My main misgiving is the concentration of power and lack of alternatives posed by a single government ruling all of humanity. But its such a long term goal that I realistically expect that we will be on other worlds on a large scale before it comes to pass.

Note that I am not talking about one country conquering the rest of the world. That is an insane, infeasible delusion in my opinion. I am talking about a global organization, basically a more centralized and authoritative UN, that encourages nations to join voluntarily.

Now, you're welcome to debate the practical feasibility of this. I have great doubts myself. But I'd be more interested in discussing, as a theoretical exercise and in true RAR thread fashion, how you would want to see such a thing implemented if you were in the position of doing so.

Edit: Also, my apologies if this is the wrong forum for this. I have no idea where its best suited to go. I could make a more or less equally strong case in my mind for News and Politics, Off-Topic, or even Science Fiction. So move it if you see fit.

Here's the problem - let's say, for instance, that one of this government's laws was that you must respect the equality of the sexes. That basically throws out any government that is ruled under Sharia law. Now let's say that you also had laws against cutting off someone's hand for stealing, or that adultery or blasphemy aren't crimes, (covered under freedom of speech) - there's no way you could get large segments of the world to agree to operate under such a system. Unless you were willing to setup a police state, (which I'm very much against), or otherwise force secular education for all children, including factual and unbiased education in different world religions, then you would just end up with certain "states" under this world government being problem areas... just under a different name.

[The Romulan Republic]

I fully acknowledge that their are governments (not just Muslim ones, incidentally), that would not comply with or join such a system today. I fully recognize that if it ever comes to be, it will be a long term effort, likely decades or even centuries in the making.

This is why I said that as a first step, a league of democratic nations could be created, with voluntary membership, in the hopes of eventually expanding and getting more nations to join.

However, it is obviously not necessary to have a police state or force every child to have a secular education to have a secular state, though admittedly their is no precedent for a state on a global scale.

All you need is laws which prohibit religious discrimination, a majority of the total population that supports them, and the will and means to enforce them.

[biostem]

All you need is laws which prohibit religious discrimination, a majority of the total population that supports them, and the will and means to enforce them.

Let's say you have 2 different groups with diametrically opposed beliefs, how do you allow freedom of religion while also protecting members of one group from the other? Wouldn't you have to, by definition, infringe on at least some of their beliefs?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, yes. In America, for example, we infringe on certain beliefs, or rather the practice of certain beliefs (polygamy comes to mind). That's the distinction I'm making here. It is quite legal to believe that polygamy or stoning people or human sacrifice is the will of God- as long as you don't act on those beliefs or tell others to do so (yes, I'm probably oversimplifying the law here, but you get the idea).

The guideline should be, in my opinion, that you have the right to believe pretty much whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anyone or infringing on anyone's rights.

You are free, but so is everyone else, so you cannot exercise your freedom in a way that takes away someone else's.

[K. A. Pital]

League of (Democratic) Nations... Do you even stop to think about it? We have been down that road. As we have witnessed, the leagues last as long as their members see fit. And enemies of "democracy" could be found everywhere, behind every corner.

With a structure so large and vast the dystopia factor is immense. With inequality hardwired into your system, the result is entirely predictable - now or in a hundred years. Who are you trying to fool?

What are you going to do when you disagree with the government in ways that cannot be reconciled? Are we to believe a global Guantanamo is going to be more benigh?

Besides, what even makes you guys think a global government would be that atheist vessel of progress and secularism, thinking about infringement on rights the way you do now? The fact that Rodenberry said "everyone" (meaning the government first and foremost) is atheist and better off that way in the future? Sure, a comforting thought, but is it really true?

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, straw men and unsubstantiated assumptions galore.

League of (Democratic) Nations... Do you even stop to think about it? We have been down that road. As we have witnessed, the leagues last as long as their members see fit

The name notwithstanding, I am quite obviously not proposing a copy of the League of Nations, and so see no reason to assume it would experience the same fate.

For one thing, the addition of the word "democratic", which you try to minimize, is quite significant.

And enemies of "democracy" could be found everywhere, behind every corner.

It is possible for the state to behave despotically in any system. Measures must be put in place to counteract that possibility. But the possibility of abuse does not automatically invalidate the idea.

With a structure so large and vast the dystopia factor is immense. With inequality hardwired into your system, the result is entirely predictable - now or in a hundred years. Who are you trying to fool?

The world is far more interconnected than it once was. I'm not sure size is an automatic barrier to success.

And what inequality? Or at least, what inequality that is greater than that of the existing global order?

What are you going to do when you disagree with the government in ways that cannot be reconciled? Are we to believe a global Guantanamo is going to be more benigh?

I'm sorry if you feel the only possible response to dissent is something like Guantanamo. But I certainly argued for no such thing. Straw man.

Besides, what even makes you guys think a global government would be that atheist vessel of progress and secularism, thinking about infringement on rights the way you do now?

What makes you assume that it would not, particularly if such a government were founded from the outset on democracy and required a nation to be democratic to join?

And when did I say anything about atheism? I'm not proposing a state which favours atheism.

The fact that Rodenberry said "everyone" (meaning the government first and foremost) is atheist and better off that way in the future? Sure, a comforting thought, but is it really true?

Yeah, right, I must just be a Star Trek nerd who copied all my ideas from Roddenberry.

Come up with a better ad hominem next time.

Frankly, I was reluctant to even respond to this post because its so lacking in quality substance.

[The Romulan Republic]

Regardless, I am not asserting that such an idea would definitely work. More saying that I see some benefits if it can be made to work, and would like to discuss how best that could be achieved.

[K. A. Pital]

For one thing, the addition of the word "democratic", which you try to minimize, is quite significant.

You can call this monstrosity what you like. The DPRK also adds the word "democratic". There were names that were meant to unite democracies that were strong enough for global police actions. "Coalition of the willing" sure rings a bell. You have not explained just how the hell your global government is supposed to be better.

You have not paid attention to my questions on the first page. Where would a future Snowden run? Is there any safe harbor beyond the reach of this global government, or there is none?

I am sorry, but you have not answered - what options do the opponents of your global rulers have to escape them? Be serious. This is not a strawman. This is a very important question.

[SMJB]

I'm instinctively suspicious of one-world governments because, as Purple said, monopolies are bad and such a thing would have a monopoly on violence.

This is just a hypothetical situation, though, so why let that stop the fun? Let's take a crack at this.

Firstly, association with this body must be voluntary and associated states must have the ability to secede whenever they feel like it. The 1WG gains nothing but internal strife from going about conquering people. There need to be strict requirements on joining the 1WG; to join our club, you must (1) be a secular democracy, (2) recognize and defend universal human rights, and (3) ratify the 1WG constitution.

Now we get into the tricky part. The 1WG federal government has to be strong, otherwise what's the point, but also have it's power sharply defined and limited, as no one's going to join if it means giving up too much of their sovereignty or seeming to just get rolled into the largest member.

I imagine it'll be a very small government indeed, possibly little more than an oversight body with veto power and an army, because this next bit is going to be a potential poison pill to the smaller countries--I'm imagining a liquid democracy.

A liquid (or delegative) democracy is one in which, rather than casting a vote for a representative, voters delegate their vote to a, well, delegate, who can then delegate on or use it. A member of the electorate can vote or delegate as they choose and can divest a delegate of their vote at any time they wish, and a delegate's power is based on how many votes they have invested in them and can further divest portions of their vote, so that if they're not an expert on subject X they can invest their votes on X-related things in a close ally who is, and the only barrier to becoming a delegate is in getting people to invest their votes in you. On top of being a generally superior form of government, there will be no districting necessary.

Why do it like this when, as I said, I know it'll be a tough pill for many to swallow? Because we're trying to create a new nation here, not an alliance, and eventually those imaginary lines on the map are going to have to be done away with. Better to soldier on through than have a constitutional crisis a century or two down the line where people are bickering over what the Founding Parents intended.

IDK, that's what I can think of right off the top of my head.

[SMJB]

You can call this monstrosity what you like. The DPRK also adds the word "democratic".

And what of it? Most people can tell the difference between a real and fake democracy.

There were names that were meant to unite democracies that were strong enough for global police actions. "Coalition of the willing" sure rings a bell. You have not explained just how the hell your global government is supposed to be better.

Well, considering the fact that finding out a way to make it better is one of the things this whole freaking thread is about...

[Adam Reynolds]

You can call this monstrosity what you like. The DPRK also adds the word "democratic".

And what of it? Most people can tell the difference between a real and fake democracy.

Considering that TRR claimed the name had significance, it is a relevant objection.

In any case, the fact that it is a democracy is no guarantee that it will do the right thing. In 2003 the US populace was massively in favor of the Iraq war. Just this year, the US seems completely unwilling to allow Syrian refugees in because the people don't want it.

If you give this massive "democracy" power over states that are not, what will they do with it? The US is supposedly the world's strongest democracy and what have we seen it do.

[Starglider]

In any case, the fact that it is a democracy is no guarantee that it will do the right thing. In 2003 the US populace was massively in favor of the Iraq war. Just this year, the US seems completely unwilling to allow Syrian refugees in because the people don't want it.

In polics there is no 'right thing'. There is what you want and what they want. In a democracy, they get what they want and you don't get what you want if there are more of them (subject to fudging with propaganda). In a autocratic state, you get what you want if you are well integrated into the ruling power structure. You say letting refugees in is 'the right thing', other people say keeping them out is 'the right thing', clearly if there was an obvious objective 'right thing' there wouldn't be an argument in the first place.

[Adam Reynolds]

In any case, the fact that it is a democracy is no guarantee that it will do the right thing. In 2003 the US populace was massively in favor of the Iraq war. Just this year, the US seems completely unwilling to allow Syrian refugees in because the people don't want it.

In polics there is no 'right thing'. There is what you want and what they want. In a democracy, they get what they want and you don't get what you want if there are more of them (subject to fudging with propaganda). In a autocratic state, you get what you want if you are well integrated into the ruling power structure. You say letting refugees in is 'the right thing', other people say keeping them out is 'the right thing', clearly if there was an obvious objective 'right thing' there wouldn't be an argument in the first place.

I suppose right thing was the wrong wording, but the point is still that democracies operate on the will of the people that are easily manipulated. That is not to say it is worse than other systems, but the point remains that giving any single state too much power is a recipe for disaster.

[K. A. Pital]

"The right thing" is simply behaving morally in this case, it is not an objective right thing, I suppose. In this case I am certain invading Iraq and causing megaslaughter there doesn't look moral; and objective "right" is not relevant here either.