Overall, Would a Single World Government be More Beneficial than Not?

[oldbadger]

Maybe, although the U.S. has comprised many different peoples and cultures, yet can still have the same laws and rules - provided that they're enforced consistently and everyone is treated equally. It's also helpful if people assimilate to a single culture.

But the US still seems to be ripped up somewhat, by the opposite of what you hope for? Consistency and Equality does not seem to exhibit itself in lands like ours, where unreasonable wealth and unreasonable poverty exist side by side.

In the UK we are coming close to devolution now, Scotland wants its freedom, N.Ireland has its own wobbly government trying to rule on behalf of different religions, Wales has its own Parliament and language, and we are now going to leave the EU and its Brussels based government.

By all means let there be United Nations, but let each Nation have its own voice, I think.

 

[Heyo]

There is already a United Nations, which is a form of world governance, whose purpose is to help maintain peace between the nations. And the fact is that the quantity and severity of conflicts has declined in modern times. So I call this a success.

Yep.

The real question isn't whether or not there should be some form of World Government, but rather what role and what powers such a government should have.
I think the powers of the United Nations are currently sufficient.

Nope.
The vetoing powers of some nations make the UN impotent versus aggressions by the veto powers. The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN and the UN didn't and couldn't prevent or punish that move.
[/QUOTE]
Other might want to propose other forms of government like World Monarchy, but I don't see a good justification for such additional governance.
Consider the EU, where the UK has had to go through incredible amounts of difficulty because they discovered they didn't want to be part of the EU.
If we had a more powerful world government, it could trigger a devastating world wide conflict. There's just not a good enough reason to justify a significant increase in the centralized power of a world government.[/QUOTE]
The UN doesn't have to become a monarchy or a second EU.
But its power to prevent wars is very limited. Strengthening that power alone would be worthwhile.

 

[Stevicus]

But the US still seems to be ripped up somewhat, by the opposite of what you hope for? Consistency and Equality does not seem to exhibit itself in lands like ours, where unreasonable wealth and unreasonable poverty exist side by side.

In the UK we are coming close to devolution now, Scotland wants its freedom, N.Ireland has its own wobbly government trying to rule on behalf of different religions, Wales has its own Parliament and language, and we are now going to leave the EU and its Brussels based government.

By all means let there be United Nations, but let each Nation have its own voice, I think.

The biggest divisions in the U.S. are class-based and political. Notwithstanding the issues facing the UK, I can't recall a time when Scottish-Americans or Irish-Americans wanted to break off and form their own country. Nor did it ever happen with Serbian-Americans or Croatian-Americans - even though those same groups felt the need to break apart in Europe.

 

[oldbadger]

The biggest divisions in the U.S. are class-based and political. Notwithstanding the issues facing the UK, I can't recall a time when Scottish-Americans or Irish-Americans wanted to break off and form their own country. Nor did it ever happen with Serbian-Americans or Croatian-Americans - even though those same groups felt the need to break apart in Europe.

OK. I can understand that point. But the US is so split apart by extreme political tribalism that I don't perceive any United front in your country.
Imagine how far removed the people of the World are from one another.

Too many of us believe in devolution, I think.

 

[Stevicus]

OK. I can understand that point. But the US is so split apart by extreme political tribalism that I don't perceive any United front in your country.
Imagine how far removed the people of the World are from one another.

Too many of us believe in devolution, I think.

The irony about political tribalism in the U.S. is that the rival factions have basically the same basic politics and perceptions. Their only real differences are in terms of style and personality.

 

[oldbadger]

The irony about political tribalism in the U.S. is that the rival factions have basically the same basic politics and perceptions. Their only real differences are in terms of style and personality.

Is that true?
I've missed that point, then.
Do you know, I think that's a thread title, right there, for discussion amongst US members.

But the hatred of the extremists on both sides is so intense that one wonders how they would receive that proposition. Can you imagine ?

It very interesting.

 

[Stevicus]

Is that true?
I've missed that point, then.
Do you know, I think that's a thread title, right there, for discussion amongst US members.

But the hatred of the extremists on both sides is so intense that one wonders how they would receive that proposition. Can you imagine ?

It very interesting.

I think if one closely examines both sides of the argument, one can see much more in common than different.

 

[Ponder This]

Yep.

Nope.
The vetoing powers of some nations make the UN impotent versus aggressions by the veto powers. The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN and the UN didn't and couldn't prevent or punish that move.

Other might want to propose other forms of government like World Monarchy, but I don't see a good justification for such additional governance.
Consider the EU, where the UK has had to go through incredible amounts of difficulty because they discovered they didn't want to be part of the EU.
If we had a more powerful world government, it could trigger a devastating world wide conflict. There's just not a good enough reason to justify a significant increase in the centralized power of a world government.[/QUOTE]
The UN doesn't have to become a monarchy or a second EU.
But its power to prevent wars is very limited. Strengthening that power alone would be worthwhile.[/QUOTE]

I am skeptical that the UN (or any world government) can become strong enough to directly intervene in wars without becoming, itself, involved in the creation or furtherance of wars. Do you have something specific in mind? Generally "strengthening" the UN's power is too vague. Power given to a governing body must have suitable established checks and balances. There is no carte blanche worth discussing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Overall, would a single world government be more beneficial than not?

Yes, a union of Nations is required. National boarders need to be set and military power handed over to the world body.

Much written as to what must happen.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

Other might want to propose other forms of government like World Monarchy, but I don't see a good justification for such additional governance.
Consider the EU, where the UK has had to go through incredible amounts of difficulty because they discovered they didn't want to be part of the EU.
If we had a more powerful world government, it could trigger a devastating world wide conflict. There's just not a good enough reason to justify a significant increase in the centralized power of a world government.

The UN doesn't have to become a monarchy or a second EU.
But its power to prevent wars is very limited. Strengthening that power alone would be worthwhile.[/QUOTE]

I am skeptical that the UN (or any world government) can become strong enough to directly intervene in wars without becoming, itself, involved in the creation or furtherance of wars. Do you have something specific in mind? Generally "strengthening" the UN's power is too vague. Power given to a governing body must have suitable established checks and balances. There is no carte blanche worth discussing.[/QUOTE]
I guess there were sceptics before Bismark if Germany could be united. And there were a lot of sceptics about a functioning EU. (And some might have thought it impossible to have settlements bigger than a usual tribe.)

The UN could be strengthened without changing the UN. The members could, by themselves, declare wars of aggression illegal and relegate the decision to send troops outside the own country to a UN resolution (as some have already done).
The UN could drop the veto and declare warring parties as not fit for trade and members would stop all trade by agreeing to such measures.
There are possibilities that would transfer minimal amounts of power to the UN without it becoming too strong. And it would make the world a safer place.

 

[Ponder This]

The UN doesn't have to become a monarchy or a second EU.
But its power to prevent wars is very limited. Strengthening that power alone would be worthwhile.

I am skeptical that the UN (or any world government) can become strong enough to directly intervene in wars without becoming, itself, involved in the creation or furtherance of wars. Do you have something specific in mind? Generally "strengthening" the UN's power is too vague. Power given to a governing body must have suitable established checks and balances. There is no carte blanche worth discussing.[/QUOTE]
I guess there were sceptics before Bismark if Germany could be united. And there were a lot of sceptics about a functioning EU. (And some might have thought it impossible to have settlements bigger than a usual tribe.)

The UN could be strengthened without changing the UN. The members could, by themselves, declare wars of aggression illegal and relegate the decision to send troops outside the own country to a UN resolution (as some have already done).
The UN could drop the veto and declare warring parties as not fit for trade and members would stop all trade by agreeing to such measures.
There are possibilities that would transfer minimal amounts of power to the UN without it becoming too strong. And it would make the world a safer place.[/QUOTE]

The powers that the UN already has... the UN already has... so I guess you mean the veto power?
I think that the veto power that certain nations have has to do with their status as world leaders. If you took away their veto powers, they might very well not consider remaining in the UN at all. In other words, any arrangement of world powers has to be reasonable to the relative capacities of the nations. That said, the veto power could be revisited if there exists a better arrangement to reflect the relative strengths of nations. Keep in mind that there are a wide variety of nations, from small island nations to vast and highly populated nations, from economically poor to economically prosperous. It is not at all so simple as giving each "nation" of the world the same say in international affairs. Such an arrangement would be intolerable to the most powerful nations of the world.

As for "transferring minimal amounts of power" there really isn't such a thing as that that makes sense solely for the purpose of strengthening a centralized government. Any Power Exchange no matter how minimal must come with corresponding checks and balances. It is never sufficient to transfer power simply because of its potential to do good, because any power is capable of doing good or evil depending on how it is wielded. Dropping the veto powers of the major nations of the world is certainly not a minimal exchange of power. It is a major exchange of power, and, therefore, requires major justification.

 

[Heyo]

I think that the veto power that certain nations have has to do with their status as world leaders.

Yep. "Might makes right" is still considered a politically valid argument. The question is if those countries not having veto power will remain in the UN when it is ineffective because of those powers.

 

[Ponder This]

Yep. "Might makes right" is still considered a politically valid argument. The question is if those countries not having veto power will remain in the UN when it is ineffective because of those powers.

You say ineffective, but overall wars and conflicts have gone down in modern times. So perhaps the UN is more effective then you give it credit? Or you have other explanations for the overall decrease in conflicts. Is it just luck?

 

[Wandering Monk]

You say ineffective, but overall wars and conflicts have gone down in modern times. So perhaps the UN is more effective then you give it credit? Or you have other explanations for the overall decrease in conflicts. Is it just luck?

Bingo. I wonder how many people realize that the number of country versus country wars have virtually disappeared since the end of WWII and why this interval is called the Long Peace.

 

[Heyo]

You say ineffective, but overall wars and conflicts have gone down in modern times. So perhaps the UN is more effective then you give it credit? Or you have other explanations for the overall decrease in conflicts. Is it just luck?

Let's say the UN was not effective enough to prevent Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq II, Yemen.

 

[Ponder This]

Let's say the UN was not effective enough to prevent Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq II, Yemen.

Are you characterizing the UN as ineffective? Or merely cherry-picking its failures?

 

[Heyo]

Are you characterizing the UN as ineffective? Or merely cherry-picking its failures?

I was just listing the military conflicts between countries that I could remember from the recent past. But memories are prone to error. What failures did I miss? Where did the UN prevent a military conflict?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are you characterizing the UN as ineffective? Or merely cherry-picking its failures?

It does not have the necessary power to make it a voice heard in this world, yet.

Regards Tony

 

[Ponder This]

I was just listing the military conflicts between countries that I could remember from the recent past. But memories are prone to error. What failures did I miss? Where did the UN prevent a military conflict?

List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia

 

[Ponder This]

It does not have the necessary power to make it a voice heard in this world, yet.

Regards Tony

An interesting perspective. Is it the role of government to inform the people or the role of people to inform the government?
I think that news organizations are a proper outlet for voices to be heard by the ordinary people.
Please explain more deeply what you mean about having the "necessary power" to make a government voice heard in this world.