World Government

[ThomasToo]

I was wondering what you would think about a world government. I’m not talking about a souped up version of the UN (and would prefer this not become a discussion about the UN as it exists today) but a layer of government superimposed over the national government the same way that (in the United States at least) the national is superimposed over the state. Such a level of government would be limited to preventing violent interactions between nations and protecting human rights. (If any of you have ever read Orson Scott Card’s Ender Saga I’m envisioning something like the Free Peoples of Earth formed by Peter Wiggin as Hegemon.) I formulate it in this way because I think it renders subsidiarity a non-issue though if you disagree with me I’d be interested to understand why.

I can see huge benefits of such a system. Saddam Hussein’s genocide of the ethnic Kurds or the situation in Rwanda would be a simple police action (assuming a universally accepted world government) as claims of national sovereignty wouldn’t hold water in the face of gross human rights violations.

[Edit: Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this but I didn’t think it falls under philosophy and while it touches on social justice I don’t think it best falls under that heading either.]

 

[HereticalTheist]

I was wondering what you would think about a world government. I’m not talking about a souped up version of the UN (and would prefer this not become a discussion about the UN as it exists today) but a layer of government superimposed over the national government the same way that (in the United States at least) the national is superimposed over the state. Such a level of government would be limited to preventing violent interactions between nations and protecting human rights. (If any of you have ever read Orson Scott Card’s Ender Saga I’m envisioning something like the Free Peoples of Earth formed by Peter Wiggin as Hegemon.) I formulate it in this way because I think it renders subsidiarity a non-issue though if you disagree with me I’d be interested to understand why.

I can see huge benefits of such a system. Saddam Hussein’s genocide of the ethnic Kurds or the situation in Rwanda would be a simple police action (assuming a universally accepted world government) as claims of national sovereignty wouldn’t hold water in the face of gross human rights violations.

[Edit: Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this but I didn’t think it falls under philosophy and while it touches on social justice I don’t think it best falls under that heading either.]

Unfortunately, the only way it could work is if the rest of the world agreed to be willing annexed into the United States. I say that because the US is the best armed country in the world today (as is often bemoaned it is the only true remaining military superpower capable of the utter annihilation of humankind several times over), and because the American people would never submit to a governmental “layer” above the United States Constitution. From the time we can read we’re fed the pablum of the Founding Fathers and their greatness. Their cult of personality pervades out culture. And we learn the two great mottos of the Revolutionaries by rote. “Live free or die” and “Don’t tread on me.”. Most Americans I know would honestly rather die, than live under the thumb of foreign tyrants. If, on the other hand, all the people of the world free asked to be annexed as states into our Glorious Republic…then of course we’d be glad to have them (or most of us anyway).

Personally, I hope that we could accomplish a world gov’t. Because that would bring closer to the day when we wouldn’t need gov’ts at all! Hallelujah!

 

[ljubim]

Unfortunately, the only way it could work is if the rest of the world agreed to be willing annexed into the United States. I say that because the US is the best armed country in the world today (as is often bemoaned it is the only true remaining military superpower capable of the utter annihilation of humankind several times over), and because the American people would never submit to a governmental “layer” above the United States Constitution. From the time we can read we’re fed the pablum of the Founding Fathers and their greatness. Their cult of personality pervades out culture. And we learn the two great mottos of the Revolutionaries by rote. “Live free or die” and “Don’t tread on me.”. Most Americans I know would honestly rather die, than live under the thumb of foreign tyrants. If, on the other hand, all the people of the world free asked to be annexed as states into our Glorious Republic…then of course we’d be glad to have them (or most of us anyway).

Personally, I hope that we could accomplish a world gov’t. Because that would bring closer to the day when we wouldn’t need gov’ts at all! Hallelujah!

Are you being sarcastic?

 

[HereticalTheist]

Are you being sarcastic?

Um…no…ever been to the rural Midwestern United States? Do you think those people would ever allow someone in France, or Switzerland to make laws binding them? I think they’d sooner fight a war not to. I lived there, grew up there, and i have a pretty good notion of how they feel and what they are raised to believe. For Americans, the U.S. Constitution is The Supreme Law of the Land, and it guarantees our rights and freedoms, and no foreigner is going to tell the average American he has to give up those cherished rights period.

So any founding document for a world government would either have to provide all citizens all of the same rights and powers as the US Constitution (in which case it would be functionally identical to the US Constitution), or it would have to be the actual US Constituition (in which case all of the nations of the world would be annexed into our Republic). and I truly believe the majority of Americans would sooner die than see Our Republic perish.

Fellow Americans of CAF, am I wrong?

 

[ThomasToo]

Um…no…ever been to the rural Midwestern United States? Do you think those people would ever allow someone in France, or Switzerland to make laws binding them?.. I truly believe the majority of Americans would sooner die than see Our Republic perish.

Fellow Americans of CAF, am I wrong?

I’ve never spent much time in the rural midwest so I can’t presume to speak for them. I can imagine, however, that in 50 years that a majority of Americans could believe that a true world government would be good and necessary and frankly I think that’s all it should need; let every country hold a plebiscite and if its country votes to affirm the world constitution then it the country should sign it.

I also don’t think adding a supranational layer of government is the same as allowing the Republic to perish. Whether some would characterize it as that is another question.

 

[HyeDetroit]

People who would support a one world government are naive. I don’t know how people could actually trust politicians with that much power.
Even our local politicians are corrupt…How many politicians careers have been destroyed by scandal? More than you think!
Having a one world government sounds nice in theory. We could prevent ethnic cleansing, famine, wars, etc.
Communism was also good in theory.

I am not willing to give that much power to one man (or woman).
Would we as a planet vote that person into power?
The logistics behind such a plan are impossible.

Next thing you know, we have to accept the number 666 on our hands or forehead.

 

[ThomasToo]

People who would support a one world government are naive. I don’t know how people could actually trust politicians with that much power.

How much power?

I am not willing to give that much power to one man (or woman).

How about a triumvir (or triumuxor, [yes, I just made a joke about gender equality in Latin, yes I know I’m pathetic])?

Would we as a planet vote that person into power?
The logistics behind such a plan are impossible.

How is voting problematic let alone impossible? I’m not trying to be obstinate, I just don’t see the issue but I could just be being naïve.

 

[GEddie]

I say that because the US is the best armed country in the world today (as is often bemoaned it is the only true remaining military superpower capable of the utter annihilation of humankind several times over),

You think the Russians really let it go?

 

[HyeDetroit]

I don’t think power sharing would work. Almost all governments in the world have a single leader, not multiple ones.
Please think back to the First Triumvirate with Julius Caesar. He basically usurped power from the others and declared himself dictator of the Roman Empire. I can imagine this could happen again, because history repeats itself.

As far as voting, how would we determine the winner of the election?
Each individual casts a vote?
Each country casts a single vote?
Each country casts multiple votes depending on population?
In that case, China and India will have a huge advantage.

I think the UN is fine where it is right now. It brings nations together for discussion and tries to determine some international laws.
We don’t need more government regulations, especially a foreign government.

Lastly, there was a comment earlier about people in the midwest not standing for the one world government.
I don’t know how any well informed American citizen, would ever support a foreign government telling our country what to do.
That’s why all of the militia groups formed in the 90’s, and are still preparing for any assault on their liberty.

 

[GEddie]

I am not willing to give that much power to one man (or woman).
Would we as a planet vote that person into power?
The logistics behind such a plan are impossible.

Next thing you know, we have to accept the number 666 on our hands or forehead.

One person? I don’t think a presidency or a monarchy is being considered. In fact, I would envision the WG as resembling the EU more than anything else, given the EU is the most recent historical attempt at supranational administration.

And as to numbers on our limbs or heads; I’d expect that more readily after World War 3, which nationalism will one day lead to, than as part of a politically achieved international union.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[HyeDetroit]

One person? I don’t think a presidency or a monarchy is being considered. In fact, I would envision the WG as resembling the EU more than anything else, given the EU is the most recent historical attempt at supranational administration.

And as to numbers on our limbs or heads; I’d expect that more readily after World War 3, which nationalism will one day lead to, than as part of a politically achieved international union.

ICXC NIKA.

Even the EU has a rotating presidency…
Does this mean all countries would have a chance to be leader?
I’m sure the world would be in safe hands with China at the helm…Saudi Arabia? oh wait, how about Iran or North Korea?

We already have a system to deal with diplomatic relations between nations, it’s called the UN, we don’t need anything else.

 

[JohnSanzone5]

I was wondering what you would think about a world government. I’m not talking about a souped up version of the UN (and would prefer this not become a discussion about the UN as it exists today) but a layer of government superimposed over the national government the same way that (in the United States at least) the national is superimposed over the state. Such a level of government would be limited to preventing violent interactions between nations and protecting human rights. (If any of you have ever read Orson Scott Card’s Ender Saga I’m envisioning something like the Free Peoples of Earth formed by Peter Wiggin as Hegemon.) I formulate it in this way because I think it renders subsidiarity a non-issue though if you disagree with me I’d be interested to understand why.

I can see huge benefits of such a system. Saddam Hussein’s genocide of the ethnic Kurds or the situation in Rwanda would be a simple police action (assuming a universally accepted world government) as claims of national sovereignty wouldn’t hold water in the face of gross human rights violations.

[Edit: Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this but I didn’t think it falls under philosophy and while it touches on social justice I don’t think it best falls under that heading either.]

I think Lord Acton is Catholic enough to quote on Catholic Answers: All power corrupts…

 

[Soler]

I would be very suspicious of a such an entity unless it were Catholic and supervised by a department of the Roman Curia, both with near-foolproof checks against corruption woven into their structures.

Preferably, change “supervised by” to “is”.

Better still (provided it wouldn’t cause my pride to become overinflated) have me as the head of said curial department.

By the way, “uxor” means “wife”, not “woman”. (I’ll look up “woman” for you now… okay, you can use either “femina” or “mulier”.)

 

[FCEGM]

Fr. Robert Hugh Benson in his Lord of the World, gave us quite a prophetical view of world government.

 

[ThomasToo]

I would be very suspicious of a such an entity unless it were Catholic and supervised by a department of the Roman Curia, both with near-foolproof checks against corruption woven into their structures.

Preferably, change “supervised by” to “is”.

Better still (provided it wouldn’t cause my pride to become overinflated) have me as the head of said curial department.

I think we both, for very different reasons, out to be very wary of the commingling of temporal power and Church authority.

By the way, “uxor” means “wife”, not “woman”. (I’ll look up “woman” for you now… okay, you can use either “femina” or “mulier”.)

Blast! My Latin is oh so rusty…

 

[Bluegoat]

Most of the posts seem to be addressing contemporary problems with this idea. I’m not sure that is really worthwhile, since it is pretty clear that it is an impossible idea at the moment for many reasons. And it isn’t just midwesterners that would have a problem with it - many nations would feel the same way.

But theoretically? Well, I think it has some truth on its side, which is a good start. We are all humans under God, with the same objective human dignity and obligations (an idea that nations have not been very good at implementing.) And Nation-States as they stand now are essentially man made things. There is nothing to say they have to exist. They are only good in so far as they create justice, and where they don’t they are bad.

To me the biggest issue with nations is that they are prone, perhaps inevitably, to certain types of injustice. By nature, they limit their interest to their citizens, and often pursue those interests against those of others. This is often presented as a good thing, as if it is their responsibility, but it is really nothing more than a grandiose form of tribalism.

So, I think we would be well-served by something else. I think we are a long way from it though. There are any number of ways such a world-wide level of government could be set up in a practical sense.

 

[ThomasToo]

As far as voting, how would we determine the winner of the election?
Each individual casts a vote?
Each country casts a single vote?
Each country casts multiple votes depending on population?
In that case, China and India will have a huge advantage.

Surely issues like this are not insurmountable; they have been solved before (cf. the United States’ bicameral legislature and electoral college). I am not, however, a scholar on international or constitutional law so I cannot with perfect certainty that such an issue is not a severe impediment.

We already have a system to deal with diplomatic relations between nations, it’s called the UN, we don’t need anything else.

I think we do need something else. It is becoming easier and easier for a very small group of people to cause the death of many thousands of others. What happens if a group like Al Queda manages to build a nuclear weapon? Would we have to invade a sovereign nation (probably Pakistan or Iran) to try to catch them. InterPol would, at least in my opinion, be greatly strengthened if national boarders were not the issue they are now and were lessened to the issue that state or provincial borders present.

 

[Soler]

I think we both, for very different reasons, out to be very wary of the commingling of temporal power and Church authority.

I am presuming you think that my reason to be wary is that temporal power might corrupt the Church.

That is why I would like to be in charge I think I might find corruption rather unsatisfying. The prospect of merrily annihilating it appeals more to my sensibilities (though possibly not for the right reasons)

But if you think temporal power could corrupt clergymen, why could it not corrupt other men also? The idea of world government, I think, is founded on the principle (whether correct or not) that power does not have to corrupt.

(Of course, I understand that you might find the prospect of Catholic government distinctly unappealing in any case.)

 

[Bluegoat]

I am presuming you think that my reason to be wary is that temporal power might corrupt the Church.

That is why I would like to be in charge I think I might find corruption rather unsatisfying. The prospect of merrily annihilating it appeals more to my sensibilities (though possibly not for the right reasons)

But if you think temporal power could corrupt clergymen, why could it not corrupt other men also? The idea of world government, I think, is founded on the principle (whether correct or not) that power does not have to corrupt.

(Of course, I understand that you might find the prospect of Catholic government distinctly unappealing in any case.)

I think a world government would require the same kinds of precautions as a national government would as far as preventing abuse. There are a number of ways this could be achieved, depending on the circumstances.

 

[ThomasToo]

I am presuming you think that my reason to be wary is that temporal power might corrupt the Church.

That is why I would like to be in charge I think I might find corruption rather unsatisfying. The prospect of merrily annihilating it appeals more to my sensibilities (though possibly not for the right reasons)

But if you think temporal power could corrupt clergymen, why could it not corrupt other men also? The idea of world government, I think, is founded on the principle (whether correct or not) that power does not have to corrupt.

(Of course, I understand that you might find the prospect of Catholic government distinctly unappealing in any case.)

I only think corrupting the Church is only part of the problem you ought to see. If the Church is devoting (lots and lots) of time and energy on leading a government it is, necessarily, spending less time and energy saving souls.

But you are right, a world government that has its headquarters in the Vatican is one I do not want to see for many reasons that have nothing to do with its stated mission on earth.