World government, yes or no?

Question

Would your ever, EVER accept a world government? If a world government came about that:

-allowed a nation to join if they voted democratically

-respected human rights

-united all militaries to protect all member nations against rogue nations therefore making war obsolete (aka world peace)

-allowed any nation to drop out whenever (though benefits would outweigh leaving)

-supplied aid to areas in dire straights

-allowed all nations to keep their governing bodies as long as they were democratic and did not threaten members of said world government

-any nation that joined needed a popular vote within the nation on whether to join

-every nation would get a say in world matters, but not in those not affecting them (like taxes in other countries)

-religious freedom everywhere

-taxes would drop nearly everywhere because of no wars more than offsetting funding for the world government

-a world constitution protects every nation

Answer 1

Yes

Answer 2

there you go 666

good luck folks

Answer 3

No. Making a centralized government would make everything hard. Take the spanish colonizations before. They mismanaged their colonies. The Roman Empire, anyone?

And individual attention would be scarce, since your proposed government would be governing billions of people. Collection of taxes would be hard since there would be more sophisticated social classes, and they would be dealing with trillions, and corruption could go unnoticed.

Oh yeah, do you remember the Sumerian Civilization? Civil War ensued because of conflicts between city-states and a weak, unstable goverment. But what if those city-states would be Japan, Russia and America? Let me think... Biological Warfare? or Nuclear Warfare? (you may think this is not possible since you stated :

"united all militaries to protect all member nations against rogue nations therefore making war obsolete (aka world peace)"

but what if they hid some nukes in their backyards?)

Just joking. That's just my opinion.

Oh yeah before I forget. I would just like to air out that "A government is not bad in it's own right, it's us "Human Beings" who makes it so. And wars will always be there, whether you want it or not.

Answer 4

You are thinking a bit outside the box on this one.  For instance, if each nation had a choice to join the world government and all nations had to be democratic, you would not have a real world government.  What you are talking about is a world organization similar to the United Nations.

Answer 5

No.  For government to be effective and for societies to flourish under those governments, they must be able to deal with local issues on a local level.  No world government could ever do that.  People complain about all the problems with government, but then talk about making more of it!  It's totally absurd and counterintuitive.  Even in the USA we are constantly arguing about federal policies because they tend to favor one location over another, and for obvious reason.  It is impossible for a central federal government over a large nation to make one-size-fits-all policy and make it effective.  Take education, for instance.  The federal government tries to make a federal policy to "fix" education, but ignores the reality, that schools in a single city can have vastly different needs, much less schools nationwide.  You can't say that what inner city schools in Detroit need is identical to those in Los Angeles or Des Moines, Iowa.  It's lunacy, people know it, but for some reason don't SEE it.

The same principle applies here.  Your hypothetical assumes that all nations have a similar belief in democratic government, but nations will always debate over local ideals and needs.  It always has, and always will be.

Answer 6

Governments have a hard time governing each individual country. How could you possibly expect a government to be strong enough to govern the entire world? That is one of the most pie-in-the-sky ideas I have ever heard.

Answer 7

Things look like they are going that way. For the US it'll start with the North American Union between the US, Mexico and Canada with a new currency called the Amero.

Answer 8

i dint agree to the point that a nation can drop out without a penalty, and I like the Idea but would u want thousands of people from disaster area to move in to your neighbour hood many wouldn't and that's the problem, the details create friction. In my opinion the world government would create a perfect economy, for example the certain areas with fertille land could be used for cultivation, other areas could be used for industry and people would into the area of their profession, this would almost prevent massive economice depressions

Answer 9

That is a great ideal, but humans are not perfect and we would find some way to s***w it up.  Such as the wrong people getting into power.  For example, the basic "ideals" of communism are good, but looked how that turned out...horrible.

Answer 10

I would, however, for me to support it, we'd have to be living in an almost Utopian world. The UN is a good start, but essentially we need cooperation of the world.

Democracy seems to be a subjective value in the world today, nations put on a show to look "democratic" to the rest of the world. See: Zimbabwe today, or Eastern Europe under the Communist Bloc not long ago.

Human Rights, well, good ambition, but look at China — human rights, under most cases, are in the toilet, but China is an immense power, so many nations will criticize publically when it helps, but never truly make a stand. Despite intentions, this would happen in any international governing body.

Nations will never allow their militaries to be totally absorbed and pooled into a collective. The system under the current UN is a good standard, though.

National ability to drop out is good, but how do you ensure it's within a nation's interest to stay in? Likewise, does a now "rogue" nation suffer economic or diplomatic punishment (if not by legalities almost certainly by fact simply because humans are vengeful)?

Aid is great. We need a better system as it is.

But this leads us back to the issue of subjective democracy.

I assume getting out is the same as getting in, right? That solves a prior issue. But how does an international community ensure accuracy with a localized (or even nationalized) election? Fraud is an issue as it is, it'd be even worse when exposed to even more bureaucracy.

You mean like the UN? Oh wait...that doesn't work as the hypothetical creators (or many involved in it today) would like, simply because powerful nations (U.S., Russia, etc) get veto powers. Under your hypothetical program, powerful countries would get the same say as a country like..oh, say, Estonia, or Moldova. Do you expect countries like the U.S.A, Russia, the UK, China, etc, to support a reduction of their respective spheres of influence?

How does one ensure religious freedom?

War will continue to exist — look at the UN during the Korean War — the USA and the Soviet Union were permanent members of the Security Counsel, the UN continuously condemned actions of the Soviet Union; eventually, this built up to a proposition to send UN coalition troops to intervene with North Korean actions. The Soviet Union (along with China) were allies of North Korea (though the Kremlin secretly regarded North Korea as an embarrassment), the Soviets were protesting the UN at the time and failed to veto intervention — due to this, UN troops (including Americans) went to battle with another powerful UN member in the Soviet Union (for example, there are many recorded instances of American pilots going into air battle against Russian MiGs, though both nations kept the Soviet involvement hushed to a point). To also advance on a counterpoint; there will be rogue nations, war will continue. Regardless, war isn't the only issue affecting taxes.

A world constitution would be hard-set to meet international agreement. To pass it, I'd have to be near just the bones — more like a mission statement.