World Government?

I'll start a new thread, because this is a very interesting problem of politics, philosophy and political science.  What are the prerequisites to a world government, and what must its functions be?  I say that the things which make such a body possible are that there is a global decline in religion, the national governments of each member state are republican in nature (democratic, or parliamentary in nature, with either no monarchy or one limited only to being a figurehead, and no present imperial characteristics), and a relative distance of each state from its most recent mass human rights abuses.  (The British empire, American expansion, Israeli-palestinian back-and-forth, Rwandan genocide, and so on).

Obviously, if the world was composed of such nations, we would hopefully first have a very good situation for the world.  It would stand to reason that a world of 'perfect' citizens does not require a government.  However, a world government would in fact need to be imposed at this juncture; it would be not only possible, once a certain quasi-ideal state is reached, but it would immediately be seen to be necessary.  The functions of such a body would be the absolute preclusion of war, and a legitimate defense of human rights.  If the world is, at a future time, composed of a set of nations which are more or less 'perfect' citizens, however distant past conflicts have been, they would still be in a state of nature with respect to one another, which must forever be tenuous and uncertain.  National pride (and, indeed, the religious conceit that the law of God supersedes the law of man) would be eternal dangers to peace; they compose the main principles for which a people would be willing to fight and die.  A world government, composed of member states, would have as its proper function the preclusion of such conceits and cynicism.  Nor would its language and code have to be steeped in naive idealism; the possibilities of a necessary, just war would be accounted for (however undesirable), and the tendencies of particular nations to gain too much power would be accounted for by checks and balances.  Once manifold philosophical problems are addressed, it would indeed become necessary for member states to surrender a degree of their sovereignty for the sake of peace, with this caveat-it is more important to preserve peace and protect human rights than it is for the institution of the world government itself to remain absolute.

I do not say that such a system is likely.  I do say that it is desirable, possible, and necessary, if we are to have a perpetual peace.  But there are cultural obstacles, so I do not speak of this world government as something right around the corner.  It can only be established, with the most pragmatic intentions, when certain changes have affected the nations of the world.  Nor is it legitimate to speak of this discussion as being anything other than pragmatic-the impetus for such a discussion is an end to the horror of war, and it goes without saying that the facts of politics apply on the road to such a government, and continue to apply after its implementation.  The World Government would have to be the most open and scrutinized government on the face of the earth.

I would like to reply to the poster who started me thinking about this: s/he said that "In surrendering, partially or in full, your sovereignity to a foreign body you give up in equal measure your power to look after your best interests - you are agreeing to place the desires of other nations before your own."  To which I reply: Er, yes, exactly.  Why do individuals establish and surrender an absolute freedom to their own national governments, to replace it with a freedom that extends only so far as the freedoms of their fellow citizens?  Because they are moved by an organizational ethics which both makes life easier and more secure.  Without government, the individual's perceived 'best interests' do not extend much farther than doing whatever the hell they please, at the expense of those around them.  The same goes for nations, and the same necessity of a world government to nations is implied by the necessity, or desirability, of a national government to a people.  In both cases, we presuppose that the government in question is able to govern justly, so don't bother retorting in that vein.  The function of such a world government would be, logically, to secure the human rights (which implies a certain basic quality of life) for ourselves and our posterity-this goes for all Earth.  If by the "best interests" of a particular nation, you mean the right to exist, and to wage just wars of self defense, these would be accounted for in the language of the government.  If, however, all you mean is economic growth without end, I reply that such growth unchecked will very probably have an environmental effect on the earth-(meaning all earth, and this is one of many reasons why the whole earth must be regarded as a unified, governed element), thereby affecting the quality of life of our posterity.  This is precisely the case for the United States, which consumes a plurality of the earth's energy-they ought by right to consume less.  And yes, I'm well aware of the irony of such an assertion as I sit in my nice apartment at my nice computer in the USA, so don't bother pointing that out.  What we must first come to is a reasonable global consensus, followed by action. (however unlikely that may be, even in this supposed distant future).  Much of the resistance to the idea of a world government, I believe, comes from a disconnect between what it ought to look like, and what people think it would turn out to look like.  Another problem with the resistance to a world government is that most people have come out of the state of nature, and into any of the governments of the world-their initial desire for an organization is thus satisfied, and they do not want to surrender what sovereignty they have.  However, it happens that they must, if one examines the circumstances correctly-such is my claim, at any rate.  Secondly, people rightly fear that the implementation of such an apparatus would be far too swift-I say that it would be based on evolution, not revolution.  The historical lesson of the failure of communism is that you cannot move too swiftly toward your own special utopia, or cynically deny the human rights of some in favor of the majority-particularly if your crappy central planning doesn't even secure those.  I am also honestly curious as to why you say that you despise Kant (I'm not looking to argue, just have a genuine discussion.  There was plenty to dislike-he was quite the bigot).

I have tried here to sketch something basic.  I will be very interested to hear whether people agree that such a system is either desirable or possible, or whether you think I'm full of shit.  What I really don't care to hear is that we must continue along the tradition of a number of separate nations, or continue to have wars, 'because it has always been so'.  It rests on you to show me something specific in human nature that makes this ivory tower inconceivable. 

I agree that if world peace is the goal, a world government is probably the best way to achieve world peice. There are a couple thing that I would like to point out though.

In the first place, having just one governing body means that one centralized body is making decisions for many, widely diverse cultures. These cultures may have wants and/or needs, percieved or otherwise, which conflict with the wants and/or needs of others. As an example I will turn to the Gay Marriage issue in the United States. Some cultures (which we will imagine to be contained in states, as we imagine broader cultures are contained in nations) are vehemently opposed to Gay Marriage, and others are for it in like measure. The problem is the national government - instead of allowing each state to reach its own conclusion on this issue and thereby satisfy the decision making body housed therein (in this case, ideally, the majority) we have this mindset whereby we must not only satisfy ourselves, but also make others do things the way we do.

The same thing will be the case with an imagined community of nations, such as the UN. What works for one nation may or may not work for another. When there may be many different opinions on how things should be run, why should we turn to just one when we can allow smaller communities to meet their own needs more effeciently and more consistently? If I want to run things a certain way in my country, why should I give up my power to do so to an outside body? If I want war, it should be my business. If I want to oppress my people (say, for example, through the religious edicts of a given religion, i.e. the Taliban) and you as a nation would like to stop me, there should be no godlike council to which you can turn for moral justification. It is your opinion against mine, and nothing more.

In the next place, you may be interested in reading "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom, if you have not done so already. Your theory seems to rest on slowly convincing people to identify as world citizens instead of followers of a particular religion or citizens of a particular, exclusive nation. You are absolutely right that if people identified as world citizens things would be alot nicer... you typcially don't go to war against those from your own faction, you go to war with people you can de-humanize or simply label "them."

However, Bloom posits (and I agree) that people cannot all be members of the same faction. It is a basic human need to form into separate, exclusive "cliques" regulated by "memes," or ideologies. These cliques naturally fight with one another for supremacy - Bloom cites many excellent examples of rival cliques (even formed out of former friends, colleauges, and/or classmates) violently vying for supremacy. I haven't got the book with me and so I cannot cite those examples myself or indeed make the full argument (which would, at any rate, take a very long time), but I think that you may see the wisdom in the argument. Given that factionalism is a fundamental aspect of human nature, the ivory tower which you describe is indeed inconceivable.

I don't like Kant because the morality he describes sounds pitiful. I am no expert on the man, but from what I have read he is against pretty much everything I stand for. He talks about the good being in doing one's duty, and the true good as being dutiful without the inclination. In other words, you are good only insofar as you don't want to do what you're doing, and later, only insofar as this undesirable action can be made into a universal law. I am of the opinion that the ultimate good is to please one's self, even if that pleasure comes at the expense of others.

Why do people submit to a national government? Probably out of fear. Fear of failure, fear of being oppressed by some mightier force... or else, because they can't conceive of any alternative. I am an anarchist insofar as I think that any person should submit to governmental authority only insofar as the imperatives of the government in question coincide with the individual's personal moral imperitives. For example, if I feel that it is alright to punch people with whom I am angry, and the government says that it isn't, I am under no obligation to follow the government's stance on the subject, except that obligation which self preservation places upon me (fear of being retaliated against by the government, in this case).

I think of nations the same way. Frankly, if you aren't willing to mindlessly follow every edict of a governing body, and if you have a reasonable alternative, you should not become a member of that body. For America, say, to submit to the will of the United Nations is for America to say "You have the RIGHT to tell us what to do, and therefore we will do whatever you say." The United Nations does not have that right unless the United States says it does, and given my percieved duty of a nation, saying so is simply a losing proposition.

I'm sure that came out mixed up, but I am sure you will be quick to point out anything that sounds strange. I'm not going to go through drafts for a discussion in a forum, you understand.

My goal in this conversation is not to establish that membership in a body like the United Nations is universally a poor idea for any country, particularly the United States, but to establish that my opinion (being such) is a reasonable one.