Name: York 2005-05-16 20:28
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.
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.