The concept of World Government - your thoughts?

[Monty_Burns]

I was just thinking...would an International Level of Government fix many of the world's big problems?

The USA is the most powerful nation on Earth, but then you've got organisations like Al Qaeda who are trying to get rid of America's influence in Muslim countries. I think that having one country in charge of all the world's major conflicts is wrong somehow.

The United Nations is probably the beginnings of World Government, but when it came to Iraq, the USA ignored them and invaded anyway.

I reckon that World Government, with members elected from all over the world who would write and enforce International Law, will be the eventual answer to conflicts.

Inevitably, there would be some objection, particularly with extremists, but I think you've got to draw the line - we can surely take pride in our ideals and our uniqueness - but you've got to see the bigger picture. Is it worth all these innocent people dying, just because America wants this, and Al Qaeda wants that....etc.

Enough from me , what do you think?

[henk4]

the UN is supposed to play (part of) that role. Tolerated by its biggest financial contributor as long as it does not interfere with its policies.

[Monty_Burns]

the UN is supposed to play (part of) that role. Tolerated by its biggest financial contributor as long as it does not interfere with its policies.

The UN, I'd say, is the beginnings of a World Government. But President Bush was still able to ignore the UN before invading Iraq, despite the fact that the UN had found no Weapons of mass destruction - the ones that were never found, as time would tell.

World Government would be stronger than any other government - including the United States, yet they would still have a say.....along with everybody else - therefore fairer.

[acfsambo]

The bad thing bout the UN is that they cannot enforce any of their policies. All they can do is put pressure on the government.

I rekon that there should be both. The un should get more power and create laws for the world but countries still make laws specific to their country.

a quick example would be say the UN makes a law for mininum pay and conditions guidelines and a country makes a law specific to that county saying exacty what the minimum wage and conditions are.

[blackhonda]

The bad thing bout the UN is that they cannot enforce any of their policies. All they can do is put pressure on the government.

I rekon that there should be both. The un should get more power and create laws for the world but countries still make laws specific to their country.

a quick example would be say the UN makes a law for mininum pay and conditions guidelines and a country makes a law specific to that county saying exacty what the minimum wage and conditions are.

The last thing I want is an abysmally disfunctional bunch of bureaucrats in NY telling me what to do. The UN is a victim of it's "government by committee"creed, nothing more than a gigantic talk-fest hamstrung by continual in-fighting. To be perfectly blunt, if it disappeared tomorrow, most of us wouldn't know, and wouldn't miss it. The UN is a complete and utter waste of time and money, nothing more than a nice building for a bunch of suits to get together in and do nothing....

[clutch-monkey]

a world government would never work, unless i was in charge.

[Egg Nog]

I'm sure loads of people with enough money to have a computer and internet would say that it's a good idea until they realise that sharing resources evenly for 6 billion people isn't what they expected global fairness to be. It's disgusting, but especially in North America, people generally like the fact that they can waste all they want and not care. They love to buy enough cheesy garbage to keep them satisfied without having to see the people pumping it out in factories overseas. They don't want these people to be "one of them".

Although true global fairness would be awesome, there's no way we as humans are actually smart enough to be capable of doing that. But I'm all for the idea.

[fpv_gtho]

I guess the idea of a global government is inevitable as the world in general moves further towards total globalisation. I dont think the world's at that position now though, and might not be for a good while as the difference in opinion across the world is simply too large. Events such as 9/11, Bali bombing, the London bombings etc you would think would band the world together a bit more, but the way i see it theyve just further put each other at odds.

[adrenaline]

World Government? Already exists...

A World government will NEVER work and will never work. Just imagine if it was corrupted like the current UN. The could directly influence the rest of the planet.

IMO there should be a united force consisting of all the world leaders, uniting as one governing force...or something along those lines.

[drakkie]

Best would be to just keep the way it has been for years Cultural differences are too big between countries and people to ever unite fully.
Soem problems:
- anti-WG groups i nalmsot any country.
- cultural difficulties
- Huge countries making decisions for tiny countries,which they cannot stop(even though it may harm them).
- Where will the next war be ? There always has been war somewhere and there will alays be war somehwere. In this case it is more likely to be against the WG. New alliances will be create dand we'd have another "cold" war.
- And so on...

I can keep going for ages,but it simply doesnt work. Even if people say they agree they dont sometimes.If thias happens multiple times, they get annoyed and create trouble. The theory sounds good,but it cannot be executed.

[Piacki_117]

I'm neither for nor against, I just think it's an utopia.

[jcp123]

The governments of most individual countries are badly enough bureaucratized, let alone one that would govern the whole world. The sheer size if it would render it so bureaucratic and slow that I'm not sure anything would ever get done. Plus, with all the ethnic and religious tensions everywhere around the world, not to mention just the more peaceable everyday differences, the task of getting everybody on the same page and working together would be monumental at best, and even if you got it set up, it would be hard to ever agree on something. In other words, I think its feasibility would be infinitesimally low. I agree with Piacki, I'm neither for nor against the idea, but it seems like something of a utopia at this point.

[Rockefella]

The governments of most individual countries are badly enough bureaucratized, let alone one that would govern the whole world. The sheer size if it would render it so bureaucratic and slow that I'm not sure anything would ever get done. Plus, with all the ethnic and religious tensions everywhere around the world, not to mention just the more peaceable everyday differences, the task of getting everybody on the same page and working together would be monumental at best, and even if you got it set up, it would be hard to ever agree on something. In other words, I think its feasibility would be infinitesimally low. I agree with Piacki, I'm neither for nor against the idea, but it seems like something of a utopia at this point.

Think you hit the nail on the head there. Agreed 100%

[6'bore]

The fact that not one of these politicians could organise a piss-up in a brewery leads me to the conclusion it would be a terrible idea.

There would be too many conflicting views and generally causing more aggro than is needed.

[h00t_h00t]

If you took the EU as a small scale version you would see that its a complete waste of time.