One world government - what would it take?

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, so I guess local subdivisions of the World Government would still exist. But if they don't fix it, can I keep appealing up the chain of command until the World Dictator finally agrees with me and orders them to fix it?


Uh, sure...with about the same chance of success as I'd have appealing to the SCOTUS or POTUS to get my potholes fixed. :)
 
Uh, sure...with about the same chance of success as I'd have appealing to the SCOTUS or POTUS to get my potholes fixed. :)

We'll have better luck now. After the guy running North America says no, I'm sure the top guy will see it my way, and the crew will be out there the next day!
 
We're sort've on the way to a one world government, but it will take a more intergrated UN, with better accordance between seucirty council powers. to do such a thing. Wouldn't be accomplished any other way.
Need a US-Europe-Chinese-Russian agreement on standards, following that, greater regional intergration and some sort of system that makes states have obligations to the central government. Afterwards, its up to how it evolves.
 
We're sort've on the way to a one world government, but it will take a more intergrated UN, with better accordance between seucirty council powers. to do such a thing. Wouldn't be accomplished any other way.
Actually, I''d say the opposite, in that in the last 100 years we've trending towards a much more fragmented world of nations.

In the 1860s, 25% of the world's mass and population was under a single government, the pre-Dominion-era British Empire. From then onwards, we're broken up into tribal lines across the world. Just look at Europe as an example:

Europe 1890s.

europe18940104-Franco-Russian-Alliance.png


And today...

hqdefault.jpg
 
A common thread in many science fiction stories is earth united under a single government or organization (e.g., the current show "The Expanse").

What events would need to transpire for nationalism to be replaced by a "one world" government or governing body? By this I mean changes driven by humanity and not alien invasions! ;)

Ric350
I think a more successful EU and a worse 911 maybe. There were some whispers of a North American Union. Now, the idea of union is losing credibility as the West is losing hegemony.
 
It'd need first to be some kind of federation. There are still too many strong regional identity in most parts of the world. In a full, one-government world, in the first economical crisis people would cry bias and favouritism. The natural path, IMO, is regional and continental federations that would follow guidances from a more proactive UN-like government and, with time these federations would be unified with others in larger confederations. The following step would be the centralization of these confederations.

I think the typical "one world government" after a war/plague/etc is most unlikely. Too much bad blood and hot heads between countries. It'd need to be enforced by arms and would be resented like the soviet empire in eastern europe.
 
Communists come into power in several great powers after some kind of alt-WWI and federate into a Comintern government. They then win alt-WWII against the remaining great powers and Comintern gradually encompasses the entire world. A good start would be communists come into power Germany, France, and Russia at around the same time. They then align themselves together, putting certain powers, like criminal justice, into the hands of an international body, then, under the duress of WWII, they put economic and military planning into the hands of that body. If they win, then there could be different countries on the map, but one world government nonetheless.
 
Actually, I''d say the opposite, in that in the last 100 years we've trending towards a much more fragmented world of nations.

In the 1860s, 25% of the world's mass and population was under a single government, the pre-Dominion-era British Empire. From then onwards, we're broken up into tribal lines across the world. Just look at Europe as an example

True, but doesn't particularly speak towards the current scenario I was referring to. Current consensus among most governments is that the nature of international governance needs to change. There are certain ongoing processes that lead to better consolidation of UN and various other large regional blocks, and the UN existing alone promises a "weak" world government. Imagine something along the lines of an articles of the confederation US.

You can already sort of claim that world government exists, since the UN does, and certain groups are only "recognized" as legitimate governments when they meet certain political conditions. Like, the UN recently carved up Sudan because of ongoing conflict, which reveals the amount of power being consolidated, and Somaliland actually has a sort of independent World Bank delegation, but isn't allowed to have embassies, because its seen as "illegitimate". Climate Change essentializes that in addition to meeting legitimacy requirements governments will have to meet environmental requirements, and the international community (to the extent that it exists) is figuring out how to deal with this issue.

In the future, the thing that will differentiate government's from strong organizations(megacorps, etc) will be the legitimacy and international obligations they must uphold in the UN. There's a current worrying trend of the "unraveling" of state power, rise of multinationals, etc, but I'd expect a pushback by or before the late 21st century. People are typically unwilling to fight wars for corporate reasons, and I think Yergin and Stanislaw correctly assert in the book The Commanding Heights that "few people would die with the words "free markets" on their lips".

Regional block consolidation will definitely be more prominent first though. I'm sort of surprised that the African Union model of communal intervention hasn't been adopted in other places (although I guess few have the need for it), and probably the true emergence of a global system will be predicated on that happening.
 
In the future, the thing that will differentiate government's from strong organizations(megacorps, etc) will be the legitimacy and international obligations they must uphold in the UN. There's a current worrying trend of the "unraveling" of state power, rise of multinationals, etc, but I'd expect a pushback by or before the late 21st century. People are typically unwilling to fight wars for corporate reasons, and I think Yergin and Stanislaw correctly assert in the book The Commanding Heights that "few people would die with the words "free markets" on their lips".

Regional block consolidation will definitely be more prominent first though. I'm sort of surprised that the African Union model of communal intervention hasn't been adopted in other places (although I guess few have the need for it), and probably the true emergence of a global system will be predicated on that happening.
That's a lot of absolute positions. This reminds me of my Poly Sci undergrad degree, where we young students would posit that this or that must/will occur due to obvious reasonings, to which our professors would retort, there are no absolutes, only probabilities and potentialities.

People are typically unwilling to fight wars for corporate reasons,
I disagree. GW1 was entirely about oil. The US/UN had no formal security guarantees with Kuwait, and no one in the West cared about rescuing liberty or rights in Kuwait, because there were none. Going back further, nearly every British military action in Africa and India was done to defend a corporation, since that's how the empire was built, first went in the traders, then the evangelists, then the soldiers.
 
I've been pondering about the concept of one government ruling over the entire world, and I think there would only really be two ways it could happen:
  1. Aliens take over Earth and rule for a few centuries. After such a long period of time, nationalism is rendered totally irrelevant, and it's replaced by a common human hatred of those damned spacemen.
  2. A global nuclear war destroys all of civilized society. Perhaps a few centuries later, the world will have recovered, and some new worldwide regime emerges from the ashes of the old governments.
Also, I have this feeling that a global government would only work well if it's a totalitarian dictatorship that equally oppresses all of its citizens, demanding they all follow the same way of life or else.
 
I've been pondering about the concept of one government ruling over the entire world, and I think there would only really be two ways it could happen:
  1. Aliens take over Earth and rule for a few centuries. After such a long period of time, nationalism is rendered totally irrelevant, and it's replaced by a common human hatred of those damned spacemen.
  2. A global nuclear war destroys all of civilized society. Perhaps a few centuries later, the world will have recovered, and some new worldwide regime emerges from the ashes of the old governments.
Also, I have this feeling that a global government would only work well if it's a totalitarian dictatorship that equally oppresses all of its citizens, demanding they all follow the same way of life or else.
Um, no disrespect but don't necro threads like this; I get you want to contribute to the discussion about a one world government (which IMO it's impossible).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top