Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

jsmill · May 13, 2008, 09:48 pm

What would be wrong with a world government?
I have an idea of a good working one but tell me what you think it should be like
and what challenges it would face.

Should it even exist?

J.S. Mill
(read On Liberty)

Voluntary · May 13, 2008, 09:53 pm

Quote:

Quote by: jsmill

What would be wrong with a world government?+

Everything. Why can't people govern themselves?

Quote:

J.S. Mill
(read On Liberty)

When did Mill advocate a one world government?

jsmill · May 14, 2008, 02:06 pm

he didn't ever...
but he was a genius, and you still should read his book

obviously people governing themselves hasn't been working very well...
a world government would be representative while still allowing the existence of nations
(like states in the united states)

Dagda · May 14, 2008, 03:10 pm

How do you propose a world government will be achived? There is no way country leaders would give up there power without a fight.

SoylentGreen · May 14, 2008, 03:16 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Dagda

How do you propose a world government will be achived? There is no way country leaders would give up there power without a fight.

The E.U. could be an example of a world government on a smaller scale.

Morality Games · May 14, 2008, 03:26 pm

We wouldn't need a world government except in response to the existence of highly centralized alien civilizations. In absence of that, seperate communities cooperating in the United Nations is functional enough. There is no sense is causing social upheaval through such revolutionary reforms.

Gods_Mercenary · May 14, 2008, 06:21 pm

True world government will not exist unless some serious conquest and consolidation of power takes place. Human beings are too different to ever agree on how to do things, and too violent to coexist in one mono-nation. Things like the E.U. and U.N. haven't seemed to be much more than voluntary organizations who only have power when the country's who weild it are in agreement.

another day · May 14, 2008, 06:30 pm

Smaller localized government is much better.

rebelnyell · May 14, 2008, 06:40 pm

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
---John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton
You can't give too much "power" to a small group of individuals.

Aussie · May 14, 2008, 07:20 pm

Isn't that what the US is trying to acheieve?

GSM:Xtreme · May 14, 2008, 08:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Aussie

Isn't that what the US is trying to acheieve?

What would be wrong with a world government?

If we hypothetically accepted it has worked, some benefits would include:
Great economy... all workers at a consistent and fair minimum wage, nobody going elsewhere to build factories.

No wars... aside from the secret police force we would need to fight the underground resistance, there would be no real wars. (assuming people have accepted the world government)

Science improvements... no one would fear what they released to society, and that sharing of knowledge would be able to spread much faster, along with greater overall government spending for studies.

Better crime fighting...we've just established a secret police force (

), but also prisons would be better than the ones in China or some place. More well equipped police force, as all cops would have the best technology at hand.

There is a possibility we may lose the capitalist system but probably still have world-wide democracy, no?

jsmill · May 14, 2008, 11:03 pm

I agree w/ GSM, i think it could work
all you need is plebiscites and not political revolution...if the people vote membership into it then they are members
also there wouldn't be any war....as GSM said
i think we could keep capitalism and go w/ laissez faire in the economy if the government's primary role was prevention of war and guarantee of certain rights

Thanatos · May 14, 2008, 11:27 pm

The U.N. needs to make it economically important to be a member. Right now its basically a gigantic U.S. sock puppet because its economically important to be friends with the richest nation in the world, and we have veto power. It should be restructured to be more democratic and offer common currency.

Dagda · May 15, 2008, 08:12 am

Quote:

The E.U. could be an example of a world government on a smaller scale.

Exactly why we should not have a world government. The EU is a largley berocratic organisation with minimum democracy which dictates to members constricting laws.

Quote:

If we hypothetically accepted it has worked, some benefits would include:
Great economy... all workers at a consistent and fair minimum wage, nobody going elsewhere to build factories.

No wars... aside from the secret police force we would need to fight the underground resistance, there would be no real wars. (assuming people have accepted the world government)

Science improvements... no one would fear what they released to society, and that sharing of knowledge would be able to spread much faster, along with greater overall government spending for studies.

Better crime fighting...we've just established a secret police force ( ), but also prisons would be better than the ones in China or some place. More well equipped police force, as all cops would have the best technology at hand.

There is a possibility we may lose the capitalist system but probably still have world-wide democracy, no?

I agree hypotheticly that it would be great but it is the practicalities of making it a reality and keeping it democratic which I find hard to concider.

grandpa · May 15, 2008, 08:51 am

Quote:

Quote by: Dagda

Exactly why we should not have a world government.
The EU is a largley berocratic organisation with minimum democracy
which dictates to members constricting laws.

World government - minimum democracy - constricting laws. That about sums it up.

Grandpa h.

SoylentGreen · May 15, 2008, 03:48 pm

Quote:

Quote by: grandpa

World government - minimum democracy - constricting laws. That about sums it up.

Grandpa h.

Agreed. I don't favour world government. But the E.U. would probably be a good example of how one could work.

Voluntary · May 15, 2008, 03:59 pm

Quote:

Agreed. I don't favour world government. But the E.U. would probably be a good example of how one could work.

How is the EU an example of grassroot governance? Why is the EU an good example of world governance.

The only logical form of governance, is individual governance.

SoylentGreen · May 15, 2008, 04:03 pm

Quote:

VoluntaryHow is the EU an example of grassroot governance?

I wasn't giving it as an example of grassroot government . but as an example of a world government. Are you equating world government as grassroot?

Voluntary · May 15, 2008, 04:10 pm

Quote:

Quote by: SoylentGreen

I wasn't giving it as an example of grassroot government . but as an example of a world government. Are you equating world government as grassroot?

No. I realize my mistake.

Regardless, I am curious on why the EU is a good example of world governance compared to.....every other form of government..

Domino · May 15, 2008, 04:17 pm

I'm not sure why a world government would be equated with minimal democracy or constricting laws.

May 13, 2008, 09:48 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
jsmill Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	World Government What would be wrong with a world government? I have an idea of a good working one but tell me what you think it should be like and what challenges it would face. Should it even exist? J.S. Mill (read On Liberty)

May 14, 2008, 03:26 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Morality Games Igneous Magma Location: Iowa Posts: 696	We wouldn't need a world government except in response to the existence of highly centralized alien civilizations. In absence of that, seperate communities cooperating in the United Nations is functional enough. There is no sense is causing social upheaval through such revolutionary reforms. Desires can be fulfilled or denied, but their perpetual presence in our being prevents us from simply ignoring them. And how you react to your desires will be the mark of your character. – K.H.Y.

May 14, 2008, 06:21 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Gods_Mercenary Altruism Assassin Location: Massachusetts Posts: 4,744	True world government will not exist unless some serious conquest and consolidation of power takes place. Human beings are too different to ever agree on how to do things, and too violent to coexist in one mono-nation. Things like the E.U. and U.N. haven't seemed to be much more than voluntary organizations who only have power when the country's who weild it are in agreement. “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.” -Albert Einstein

May 14, 2008, 06:30 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
another day Knower of Nothing Posts: 1,772	Smaller localized government is much better. What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! The paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither..

May 14, 2008, 07:20 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Aussie Igneous Magma Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 172	Isn't that what the US is trying to acheieve? I reject your reality and insert my own!

May 14, 2008, 02:06 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
jsmill Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	he didn't ever... but he was a genius, and you still should read his book obviously people governing themselves hasn't been working very well... a world government would be representative while still allowing the existence of nations (like states in the united states)

May 14, 2008, 03:10 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Dagda Molten Ash Posts: 130	How do you propose a world government will be achived? There is no way country leaders would give up there power without a fight.

May 14, 2008, 06:40 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
rebelnyell Sedimentary Rock Posts: 15	Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely ---John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton You can't give too much "power" to a small group of individuals.

May 14, 2008, 11:03 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
jsmill Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	I agree w/ GSM, i think it could work all you need is plebiscites and not political revolution...if the people vote membership into it then they are members also there wouldn't be any war....as GSM said i think we could keep capitalism and go w/ laissez faire in the economy if the government's primary role was prevention of war and guarantee of certain rights

May 14, 2008, 11:27 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Thanatos Arbiter of Weird Location: New Hampshire Posts: 1,056	The U.N. needs to make it economically important to be a member. Right now its basically a gigantic U.S. sock puppet because its economically important to be friends with the richest nation in the world, and we have veto power. It should be restructured to be more democratic and offer common currency. Destroying America one Volconvo post at a time. Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.

May 15, 2008, 04:17 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Domino I'm a pushover Posts: 344	I'm not sure why a world government would be equated with minimal democracy or constricting laws. kill President attack nuclear bomb smuggle Echelon just recorded this message.