I do for a variety of reasons, but most importantly – and this may seem paradoxical to the Alex Jones type – but I think it would result in a vast INCREASE in personal freedoms, good governance, and political liberties throughout the world.
My reasoning is thus: people tend to be far, far more tolerant of coercive government, totalitarian power grabs, public corruption, etc. when they share a national identity with those doing the coercing/thieving/whatever. On the other hand, most people tolerate none of this from perceived foreigners, especially foreign occupiers. If we had a multinational government on the global level, I think it’s very reasonable to assume that people would view it with a high degree of skepticism, and would thus create immense pressure on such a government to perform well. This would in turn foster a culture of accountability for national governments.
Furthermore, it’s not as if issues of global significance aren’t already dealt with in the current system of nation-states – albeit in a very makeshift, haphazard, ineffectual way. For those concerned about the power such a government could wield and its effect on civil liberties, transferring those responsibilities to a global federal government could well result in more freedom, as it would further divide power and pits powerful interests against each other.
Finally, it seems that there’s little use in fighting it; global governance of some sort is inevitable sooner or later if human development continues. Assuming further development beyond that, the next form of governance would be at the level of the solar system – it’s just the natural evolution of things.
Provided that a world government has a strong constitution, deeply entrenched civil/political liberties, an independent judiciary and the like, would you support such a government? Why or why not?
King O,
All governments find it necessary to relinquish some sovereignty to other levels in order to solve or address problems on a larger scale. Why should "sovereignty" be held to be sacrosanct? The entire concept of the nation-state is imaginary anyways, you know.
There isn’t really – or, more precisely, materially – any such thing as the US, Canada, China, etc. Those are all contrived entities; shared ideas and notions, not tangible objects.
Also – and to everyone – if we find (if we haven’t already) that further development requires global governance, would it not be necessary for us to simply bite our tongues and do it? I mean, last time we decided that human progress wasn’t worth the "yucky," we wound up in a dark age for over 1000 years…
.
martinxo writes,
"Global government only increases corruption, more power(tyranny), less rights, limited freedom of speech, and corporations calling all the shots for their own corporate profits, even if it’s setting up a global army.
I believe in individualism, less government power, more rights to the people, and a Constitution to recognize sovereignty."
Please do read the details – my argument here is that global governance would have positive effects in all of those areas.
.
Thunder B,
Are 5 very brief paragraphs too much for you? Man… Good luck in 7th grade – I hear they make you read whole books!
Just kidding, of course – I’ll be the first to admit that I can be a little too verbose at times.
Mr. J and DAR,
It seems to me that you guys need to take a look at history. While there is still many gains to be acheived, I think most everyone could agree that the present era is undoubtedly the freest in human history. Never before have so many enjoyed political liberties and human rights. Are there problems? Absolutely. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. Is it better than feudalism, or even the antebellum era in America? Uh… Yeah, most definitely.
IOW – your claims/implications don’t fit with what’s actually been observed in reality.
.
rvinsight,
I would argue a few things here:
– First, most Americans are much freer today in REAL terms than they were just 100 years ago, in large part due to actions by the federal government (i.e., voting & civil rights legislation).
– We’re not talking about the SIZE of government so much as we are the SCOPE.
– Furthermore, I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest that totalitarian government arises from scale/scope of government. Many of the largest (in that context) governments the world has ever seen have also presided over the freest societies – the US being the preeminent example today. Contrawise, many tribal societies are very repressive.
– In the end, it is always the people holding government to account that preserves freedom, not the scope or size of the government. If the people demand freedom, they will eventually get it. If they stop demanding, they will get serfdom. Towards that end, I think people will demand more freedom from a global gov’t.
.
Stan Darsh,
You make some excellent points. However, I would point out that European conservatives of old said many of the same things about America in her infancy, and look where we are today.
I agree with the divergent interests bit, but there are also common interests of peoples throughout the world. If development continues, nation-states will ultimately find that divergent interests will trump the global interest, and the system of more or less voluntary cooperation between nation-states will break down. Indeed, there are many indications that it already is.
