Considering global government.

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

[Adam Reynolds]

There are a few ideas I have with regard to something like this. The first is the utter failure of attempts in this direction like the United Nations and to a lesser extent the EU. The problem with such bodies is that they tend to be dominated by whichever state is the hegemony in that system. So you end up with Germany dominating the EU and the US at least attempting to dominate the UN. For a truly global state, it would require that the top nations are in agreement as to the direction of the world. The problem with that idea is that historically that almost never happens as a result of the fact that every nation is generally attempting to get the best for themselves at any cost to other states.

Another issue is that due to the nature of tribalism it would be extremely unlikely to ever really exist unless there was a larger enemy. Like Mars and the Belt suddenly succeeding(as occurs in The Expanse series) and forming their own states that would require Earth to unify to deal with them. Or first contact with an alien race that required a unified planet for any diplomacy to be carried out(like in Mass Effect or Star Trek).

Another related though is based on the idea of an international military that genuinely acts like a world police force in that they have a monopoly on legal use of force. The fundamental problem with that concept would have all of the same flaws as real life police forces but on a larger scale. Things like a body that was easily corrupted and biased towards one faction or another. Not to mention that they would likely develop a sense of tribalism based on the inherent superiority of their personnel at the expense of others, in much the same way as modern police departments tend to value the lives of their officers over civilians. This would likely lend to problems with collateral damage over time. Though perhaps not any worse than existing militaries, especially if such a group has recruits from various areas, including those in which they are policing(which is an inherent flaw in urban American law enforcement, the tendency to act like an occupying army).

In terms of the idea way to have it operate, one possibility is that this body would be the only one authorized to maintain nuclear weapons. Any nation attempting to do so would suffer immediate military consequences. Though that would tend to have the same problem as the Empire had with the Death Star in Star Wars, who would you entrust to pull the trigger and would they do so against their homeland if it became necessary? Or for the other problem, if such a body would never actually use such weapons, it would make them gutless unless they also had a large enough conventional military to challenge any nation. Which would then lead to the question of who they are accountable to and which nation would be willing to pay the bills by cutting their own military. If it requires an international vote, then it would have problems with the governing body of nations deciding which group to support.

[Starglider]

A global government based on democratic principles would be substantially less liberal, progressive and secular than Europe, or even the United States. As such be careful what brand of global hegemony you wish for.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, authoritarian nations might not join a genuine global government based on democratic principles. But their should be a procedure for expelling or otherwise censuring member nations that violate those principles. Which makes the whole concept of global government rather difficult, but this would be a long term project, after all.

Their would have to be certain democratic principles established constitutionally, obviously. To join, a nation would have to comply with them. Ideally, as more nations joined, the hold outs would be isolated and modify their policies toward something more egalitarian.

I think a good first step would be an alliance of democratic nations. How exactly "democratic" would be defined is a question I'd like to explore further. From their, the alliance could always be expanded.

However, I would also point out that many people in less democratic nations would like to see their nation move toward greater democracy. I don't presume that the majority globally would choose secular liberal democracy, but I do think that if one conducted a global poll on the subject, where the people of every nation had an equal say, the numbers might be closer than just looking at the government of every nation would lead one to believe. However, I acknowledge that I cannot prove that suspicion. I doubt anyone has ever done an accurate global poll on the subject, and if they have, I'm not aware of it.

Edit: Out of curiosity, what measures do you think would best help mitigate the concerns you raised?

[Adam Reynolds]

A global government based on democratic principles would be substantially less liberal, progressive and secular than Europe, or even the United States. As such be careful what brand of global hegemony you wish for.

How could that work given that no single religion has a majority? In that respect it would likely be more secular than the US where a single general religion is dominant. Though if enough religious groups got together they could allow whatever religion is dominant in each area to have whatever religions laws they liked.

I do agree it would be less liberal and progressive regardless of exactly how the religious angle plays out.

[Zwinmar]

There would still be wars only now called police actions or some other useless euphemism. Nothing would really change that much, human nature being what it is.

[Bedlam]

There would still be wars only now called police actions or some other useless euphemism. Nothing would really change that much, human nature being what it is.

Maybe, although I think they'd rather be referred to as civil wars although there might be a scale issue.

I'm thinking of the US, its sort of a federation of lesser countries (states) there has been, and still are, disagreements between states and small groups who was to secede. However, there is only one incident commonly referred to as a civil war to date.

[Adam Reynolds]

There would still be wars only now called police actions or some other useless euphemism. Nothing would really change that much, human nature being what it is.

Maybe, although I think they'd rather be referred to as civil wars although there might be a scale issue.

I'm thinking of the US, its sort of a federation of lesser countries (states) there has been, and still are, disagreements between states and small groups who was to secede. However, there is only one incident commonly referred to as a civil war to date.

Civil wars already make up the overwhelming majority of armed conflicts. Things like Syria, or Ukraine certainly qualify, even if there are also outside influences. Having a global government wouldn't change this unless it had an absolute monopoly on force, down to the last rifle company. But even that would only work so long as militas didn't form, which could promptly begin fighting on their own regardless. In the event of a truly global governance, I would highly suspect that this would occur to some degree even without civil war. While the global government could indeed crack down on such problems, they would then have the problem that they begin acting like an occupying military around the globe.

Especially when it comes time to vote on whether to authorize the use of force.

[The Romulan Republic]

There would still be wars only now called police actions or some other useless euphemism. Nothing would really change that much, human nature being what it is.

I believe I did acknowledge from the start that a global government would not gauruntee an end to all conflict. But it would make it far less likely, in my estimation, that that conflict will go nuclear, and would help ensure that a truly global response could be made, as opposed to, say, the half-assed, at odds with each other response of the people trying to fight IS.

[Starglider]

A global government based on democratic principles would be substantially less liberal, progressive and secular than Europe, or even the United States. As such be careful what brand of global hegemony you wish for.

How could that work given that no single religion has a majority?

This is enough commonality in the Abrahamic religions to motivate most global voters to institute a considerably more regressive environment than the US.

In that respect it would likely be more secular than the US where a single general religion is dominant. Though if enough religious groups got together they could allow whatever religion is dominant in each area to have whatever religions laws they liked.

All of them would certainly demand anti-blashemy laws and a major curtailment of freedom of speech vs Western countries.

[K. A. Pital]

A global government based on non-democratic principles will quite likely make you eat a drone missile one day and nobody will even know why.

[Starglider]

A global government based on non-democratic principles will quite likely make you eat a drone missile one day and nobody will even know why.

Thus global government would be a bad idea at this time, or any time soon.

[Adam Reynolds]

This is enough commonality in the Abrahamic religions to motivate most global voters to institute a considerably more regressive environment than the US.

Indeed, but only if they work together enough. Which I'm not entirely sure would happen, at least initially. In the US, such an event only occurred after Roe vs Wade caused the various religious groups to cooperate so as to avoid losing to the secular minority.

All of them would certainly demand anti-blashemy laws and a major curtailment of freedom of speech vs Western countries.

I suspect that would be put into the equivalent to a constitution that Islamic nations would require as a condition to join any sort of global government. Otherwise most Islamic nations(or those with large Muslim populations) would never join such an organization.

A global government based on non-democratic principles will quite likely make you eat a drone missile one day and nobody will even know why.

I though the idea here is that it would be at least nominally democratic. Though this scenario could still happen in a quasi-democracy if the security forces were somewhat autonomous and biased towards the more powerful nations within the body. Which is of course exactly the situation we have today with the US.

Thus global government would be a bad idea at this time, or any time soon.

Indeed. I suspect the only way we could ever have any sort of true global government is what we see in science fiction, a scenario in which Earth is forced to unify against an outside threat. Without an enemy, the tribal nature of humanity would never allow such a thing to exist.

[Elheru Aran]

Roe v Wade is pretty much the only thing that really got the Religious Right to cooperate, and even that is mostly largely led by the Southern Baptist Convention and the various fundamentalist denominations, which are generally some narrow stripe of Baptist-ish Protestant. The anti-gay movement is another one, but that's lost a lot of steam in the past few years, and since the Supreme Court's recent decision has pretty much ganked itself. About the only thing they have left now is advocacy of various far-right principles, which is too blatantly political to really pass muster with a lot of people. Abortion is the only serious fight they've got, and they're going to go for the throat on that.

Ahem. Anyway, while it's nice (from a certain point of view) to think that the various Abrahamic cults would cooperate, I don't think that's *that* likely. The Jews are statistically insignificant compared to the global population of Christians and Muslims, and most of them get along when it comes to daily life... but would stab each other in the back in a heartbeat given provocation. Just look at the Liberty University story that's in N&P right now.

[K. A. Pital]

A global government based on non-democratic principles will quite likely make you eat a drone missile one day and nobody will even know why.

Thus global government would be a bad idea at this time, or any time soon.

A global government - as things stand now - is a remarkably bad idea. Inevitably it will be the rule of strong over the week; wolves guiding and ruling the sheep. Maybe it is a bad idea alltogether. Democratic principles are not even valued that much by most of humanity, so I am not sure a global government would be all that democratic. Still, there are some arguments in favor of it: freedom of movement and extension of citizenship rights to all of mankind, for example.

[The Romulan Republic]

A global government based on non-democratic principles will quite likely make you eat a drone missile one day and nobody will even know why.

Thus global government would be a bad idea at this time, or any time soon.

A global government - as things stand now - is a remarkably bad idea.

I actually agree with that statement, although I feel that we should probably start trying to move towards global government now regardless, as it will be a long time before it is achieved.

Inevitably it will be the rule of strong over the week; wolves guiding and ruling the sheep. Maybe it is a bad idea alltogether. Democratic principles are not even valued that much by most of humanity, so I am not sure a global government would be all that democratic.

A bit more cynical than my take.

I would like to see statistics to back up the claim that the majority of humanity doesn't care about democracy- while I'm not saying you're wrong, as a matter of principle I'd like to see you provide evidence.

Still, there are some arguments in favor of it: freedom of movement and extension of citizenship rights to all of mankind, for example.

Among other things, presuming said government respects those rights.

A unified global response to global problems such as climate change and IS is another argument in favour. As is the elimination of war between countries and with it the main risk of a nuclear exchange.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would suggest as a starting point the creation of a "Federation of Democratic Nations", with membership being entirely voluntary. All members would be equal, unlike the current UN. Nations would initially retain most of their sovereignty, but would pledge to abide by certain standards and cooperate on certain issues. A member who violated these terms could be expelled by, say, a two thirds vote.

Essentially, it would be like a mega-NATO, only with less of a focus on a military alliance that might draw its members into dubious wars and more on non-military matters such as trade, human rights, and the environment.

Edited to fix an embarrassingly mistyped word.

[Adam Reynolds]

A bit more cynical than my take.

I would like to see statistics to back up the claim that the majority of humanity doesn't care about democracy- while I'm not saying you're wrong, as a matter of principle I'd like to see you provide evidence.

China alone provides evidence that the Western concepts of freedom and democracy aren't as universal as we like to think. Despite the increasing prosperity, there isn't a strong push towards democracy.

A unified global response to global problems such as climate change and IS is another argument in favour. As is the elimination of war between countries and with it the main risk of a nuclear exchange.

Under such a global government, who would have access to nuclear weapons? At least in the short term.

As for submitting to an international body to fight climate change, which version of "fairness" will it use. Will it decide that all nations need to curb use of fossil fuels evenly or that developed nations will have to take the lead? In either case the two largest polluters(US and China) will not by happy.

I would suggest as a starting point the creation of a "Federation of Democratic Nations", with membership being entirely voluntary. All members would be equal, unlike the current UN. Nations would initially retain most of their sovereignty, but would pledge to abide by certain standards and cooperate on certain issues. A member who violated these terms could be expelled by, say, a two thirds vote.

You have successfully screwed over large states at the expense of small ones with this idea. Monaco has 37,800 people against China's 1.373 billion. That means that a citizen of Monaco would have nearly 37,000 times as much of a vote as someone from China(not that China would join under this current system, but it is the idea).

This is already a problem in the UN general assembly, coalitions of small states tend to get their way in votes. Imagine how much worse that would be if this body was actually capable of enforcing its rulings to any real degree.

Giving proportional representation a la a parliamentary system or the US House of Representatives is also bound to fail given that it would lead to large nations dictating policy, leaving small ones will have no recourse.

[The Romulan Republic]

China alone provides evidence that the Western concepts of freedom and democracy aren't as universal as we like to think. Despite the increasing prosperity, there isn't a strong push towards democracy.

How much of that is that the Chinese people are against democracy and how much of that is simply not being willing to risk going up against a powerful authoritarian government to achieve it?

In reality, of course, their is a diverse range of opinions, with "not really giving a damn either way" probably being quite popular.

Under such a global government, who would have access to nuclear weapons? At least in the short term.

Well, if their was a single unified global government, then I suppose they would control any nuclear weaponry, though I can't imagine what legitimate purpose nuclear weaponry would serve in such a state.

In a federation of nations, I suppose the best course would be a gradual move towards nuclear disarmament, with all members pledging as part of their membership not to increase their nuclear stockpiles.

As for submitting to an international body to fight climate change, which version of "fairness" will it use. Will it decide that all nations need to curb use of fossil fuels evenly or that developed nations will have to take the lead? In either case the two largest polluters(US and China) will not by happy.

That's a good question. I would suggest that the latter is probably more practical and fair in the short term.

Perhaps aid to developing nations to enhance their alternative energy capabilities could be part of the plan?

You have successfully screwed over large states at the expense of small ones with this idea. Monaco has 37,800 people against China's 1.373 billion. That means that a citizen of Monaco would have nearly 37,000 times as much of a vote as someone from China(not that China would join under this current system, but it is the idea).

This is already a problem in the UN general assembly, coalitions of small states tend to get their way in votes. Imagine how much worse that would be if this body was actually capable of enforcing its rulings to any real degree.

Giving proportional representation a la a parliamentary system or the US House of Representatives is also bound to fail given that it would lead to large nations dictating policy, leaving small ones will have no recourse.

Hmm, I seem to recall from school that this is why the US has two branches to its legislature, one with proportional representation and one with an even number per state. Perhaps a similar model?

[K. A. Pital]

I actually agree with that statement, although I feel that we should probably start trying to move towards global government now regardless, as it will be a long time before it is achieved.

Alternatively we could improve existing governments before giving them more power over the people. The dark side of global government is obvious to all: there is nowhere to hide, no recourse. What if Snowden or Assange were targeted by a global government? Where would they hide? Who would listen to their pleas for shelter? So while there is freedom of movement that usually comes with citizenship rights, it would be worthless for dissenters. They would be hunted down.

I would like to see statistics to back up the claim that the majority of humanity doesn't care about democracy- while I'm not saying you're wrong, as a matter of principle I'd like to see you provide evidence.

The evidence, I think, is that even in nominally democratic nations the population only cares about the procedures (due process) and not what lies behind them. But even the procedures can be done away with by scaring the population with cheap "counter-terrorist" rethoric. Just look at post-9/11 US. A prime example of nominally democratic nation where citizens care about their safety - or what the government tells them is "their safety" - than about due process, not to mention the core concepts of democratic power.

Among other things, presuming said government respects those rights.

Irrelevant: usually even authoritarian governments nowadays permit their own citizens to move around freely; it is the international borders that look more and more like armed-to-the-teeth fortress walls.

A unified global response to global problems such as climate change and IS is another argument in favour. As is the elimination of war between countries and with it the main risk of a nuclear exchange.

Not so sure. War will remain: the neverending "police action" that will encompass continents. Now already the risk of nuclear war is small; the greater risk is that of the UNSC nuclear powers freely meddling in the affairs of others how they see fit. A global government would be similar, except it will leave those running from it no choice to ask another nuclear power for protection...

[Purple]

I basically agree with K.A. Simply put monopolies are bad. And a world government is in no uncertain terms a monopoly on power. Think about that for a moment.

[Adam Reynolds]

In reality, of course, their is a diverse range of opinions, with "not really giving a damn either way" probably being quite popular.

That was sort of my point. It is not exactly high on the list of priorities for most individuals and thus not a high priority for most nations.

Well, if their was a single unified global government, then I suppose they would control any nuclear weaponry, though I can't imagine what legitimate purpose nuclear weaponry would serve in such a state.

In a federation of nations, I suppose the best course would be a gradual move towards nuclear disarmament, with all members pledging as part of their membership not to increase their nuclear stockpiles.

That would be ideal regardless of whether governments are unified. But then it leads to the question of which nation is going to be the first to be willing to get rid of nuclear weapons.

That's a good question. I would suggest that the latter is probably more practical and fair in the short term.

Perhaps aid to developing nations to enhance their alternative energy capabilities could be part of the plan?

That would ensure that the US would never join such a body. Which would make it irrelevant.

Hmm, I seem to recall from school that this is why the US has two branches to its legislature, one with proportional representation and one with an even number per state. Perhaps a similar model?

Which inevitably leads to deadlock. At a global scale that would be terrible in a manner that is even worse that the US. Imagine if such a body went into a government shutdown.

[Elheru Aran]

Hmm, I seem to recall from school that this is why the US has two branches to its legislature, one with proportional representation and one with an even number per state. Perhaps a similar model?

Which inevitably leads to deadlock. At a global scale that would be terrible in a manner that is even worse that the US. Imagine if such a body went into a government shutdown.

That's why you have more than one branch to the whole government. Theoretically, if one branch cannot perform its assigned function, the others will compensate in some fashion. See the Supreme Court foiling executive orders that over-reach the executive branch's authority, Congress impeaching the President, the Court overruling legislation that is unconstitutional, and so forth.

Now in the specific case of a government shutdown caused by legislative feuding over the budget, that one I don't know how the American system would handle. Presumably if it went on long enough the Court may have the authority to order Congress to come to a decision. I can't find too much information about it online...

[Ziggy Stardust]

Which inevitably leads to deadlock. At a global scale that would be terrible in a manner that is even worse that the US. Imagine if such a body went into a government shutdown.

The deadlock in the US system has absolutely nothing to do with what TRR was talking about. The US legislature is deadlocked due to the way the party system operates in the U.S., not due to the way the House and Senate are constructed with respect to the population. It is entirely feasible and realistic to propose a system that uses the same membership structure as the House and Senate that is not handicapped by the same problems Congress has. I mean, seriously, do you think the US is already the only democracy in the world that uses this system? Plenty of other parliaments work just fine using the same basic logic.

[Adam Reynolds]

My analogy of the US is not idea in terms of the problem, because in the case of the US it is indeed the two party system. In the case of a global government, the problem is that the two bodies would have conflicting agendas. One would be biased towards protecting small states as the expense of large ones while the other would do the exact opposite.

The nature of political parties weaken this with respect to the US and until they form in this hypothetical system, it would have the problem of deadlock to an extent.