[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1565053792140.png (763.59 KB, 1280x536, 160:67, world.png) ImgOps Google

Just to float an idea, the greatest barriers I see to a positive future are:
1) Nuclear War
2) Regions of desperation and extermism
3) Wealth Inequality
4) Climate Change

Each would seem easiest to address with world government, or at least, each is hard if every nation puts their own local, short-term interests first.

My attitude toward state enforcement is complicated, and I don't think a world superstate would make it any simpler, but I just thought I'd ask your thoughts.  Would a world government be a good idea, do you think?


I think a world government has too much danger of becoming corrupt. And they would hold too much power to rebel against if they did.

The problems you mentioned do not require a world government to fix. They require people to work together for a greater good rather than personal gain. A world government would not make people more willing to do that than they are now.


I think a world government has already proven itself an impossibility.  We can hardly unite Europe, much less the many different cultures from abroad.  Even assuming everyone was on board, the results would be poor, at best.  A worldwide government cannot adequeatly address local problems.


It's a great idea in theory, but probably a disaster in practice. Humans really just aren't ready for it. We are too tribalistic, too wrapped up in those identities which separate us. We would need most people on board with identifying solely as a "human", which I don't think many people are actually ready to do.

Maybe this will be something future generations will be able to accomplish. And I think it's av admirable goal which the species might need for long term survival.


We already have a lot of international institutions from the UN Security Council to NATO to the Red Cross and more. I think that it's mostly a matter of gathering together the grassroots political change to push those institutions to be more accountable to the biggest threats to humanity. And that's already happening somewhat.

The Paris Climate Accord, for one, has been a great step in the right direction. Sure, the U.S.' Toddler-in-Chief has done what he can to scuttle it, but he's still one man. Other nations are doing all kinds of reforms right now.


File: 1565094768324.jpg (189.17 KB, 700x816, 175:204, splatoon-08b.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>I think a world government has too much danger of becoming corrupt.
>The problems you mentioned do not require a world government to fix.
The 4 problems mentioned in the original post of this thread can all be solved by treaties, economic sanctions, and, as a last resort, military action.  


File: 1565138963283.png (590.46 KB, 1229x1024, 1229:1024, fs_star.png) ImgOps Google

True.  Now one may, if their state allows and they have the resources, relocate to another state if they feel the moral order elsewhere is better.

OK, so a world government would be no better and potentially worse as no one so far has escaped the world for any significant portion of their lives, so most all would be trapped by it.

True, the compromises and favors necessary to get the significant states of the world to accept would mangle any ideal or simple system of government.

>world government has already proven itself an impossibility

Well, they say the world is getting smaller and more connected.  I've never heard anyone discuss world government.  I'm aware of Brexit and America's separation from some international organizations, though, yes.

>We are too tribalistic
It occurs to me that may have a deadline if catastrophe is to be avoided.  But perhaps I could also question my assumptions: catastrophe or feature?

>admirable goal
I try to remain without feeling on this issue, but it is kinda nice to have some balance against those not in favor.  I agree government Sausage seldom fits the recipe, especially the first time tried.

I see.  You seem hopeful of the future without major changes in political structure.  (I seem to waffle a bit on that, but you may be right.)

Certainly.  Many nations may do voluntarily what a good world government would pressure them to do, and the more powerful states might force the weaker who resist progress to also conform.


Military action is rarely used to force another country to do something good.


You can look at the EU and UN for a microcosm of that idea. If you've been paying attention, that should give you an idea of exactly how effective that is. It demonstrates a complete lack of competency when governments are too disconnected from those they serve. As to your points...

>1) Nuclear War
It hasn't really been an issue so far. Reasonable countries know it means MAD, unreasonable ones are probably just being used as puppets by more reasonable ones (like china and north korea). It's a brinkmanship threat more than anything. War just plays out on such a different level these days.

>2) Regions of desperation and extermism
Because the UN right now does such a wonderful job at deterring extremism... Desperation maybe, with aid, although there's an argument to be made that that's bad in the long term, since impoverished conditions are often a natural signal to change the broken governing system, and aid would potentially prop up failing systems long-term instead of letting new, better ones organically form.

>3) Wealth Inequality
If you look at current multinational organizations, it would have the opposite effect. If we want to deal with wealth inequality, we need to hold the ultra-wealthy more accountable. Increase fines so they aren't just the cost of doing business, and put severe tariffs on companies that choose to put their headquarters in tax havens.

>4) Climate Change
Potentially. Though i think it would be hard for them to have the teeth to actually take on the problems.


Often the threat of military action dissuades a country from doing something bad.  E.g., China would be a lot more aggressive with its neighbors if it didn't fear military retaliation.


Can you actually prove that, though? It sounds possible, but not really something you can prove is the case.


File: 1565220610450.png (55.1 KB, 200x201, 200:201, a7352e41fc56047fb1a7430e37….png) ImgOps Google

Just look at what China did to Tibet.


What in particular are you referring to?


Nuclear war is what's ensured lasting peace at the moment. Or, rather, the threat thereof.
Though I could see arguments made that its denied us war, which tends to result in significant progress being made from the rubble, and generally forcing strength and resilience in people, through hard and dangerous times. Still, I'd be inclined to say we could most likely get by without that.

I can agree with the regions of desperation bit. I think that's a bit of a problem with the massive dislike for 'empires', 'colonies', and getting into the affairs of other nations. And I guess the defense of cultures as though they can not have any bad, because of different values.
Personally, I'd still rather just leave them to do what they want and improve on my own, but, I'm just generally inclined towards independent development, I guess. And, even if you do that, those other guys'll inevitably be a bit of a pain, as you'll have to work around them.

Wealth inequality is an inevitability of any system, near as I can tell. As far as I am aware, there's never been a system that didn't have it. Best we can hope for, I say, is to make a system where anyone who wants and deserves it, can get it.

I don't really know enough about climate to care that much, honestly.
Personally, I think we should just ditch the rock, anyway. Explore the stars. Find new planets.
But, by the point where we get that capability, we'll probably be able to simply terraform our problems away anyhow.

> Would a world government be a good idea, do you think?
Depends on how it is done.
Local systems are better, in my opinion, by virtue of the being nearer to the people directly impacted. Larger systems tend to inevitably start dealing in statistics, rather than people. That can be dangerous.
However, large systems can be great for maintaining standardization, fair playing fields, that type of deal. So, in that regard, they can be quite nice to have.

What I'd suggest'd ultimately be a loose confederation of largely independent countries, with emphasis on standardization of requirements and restrictions, more than anything else.
No point, for example, in driving electric if China's going to continue burning anything they can get their hands on, essentially. So, better to make a standard set of rules they also have to play by. Goes for economic issues as well.
Though there's also inevitably this >>1171
The bigger the system, it seems the bigger the corruption.
It's another reason I like small governments. Easier for one good man to take it apart, and repair it.
BIg governments require a lot more organization... Which also ends up getting corrupted, meaning you need another group to get rid of that, and... Well, you get the idea. Bit of an ouroboros.


If you want an example of how a world government would work, look at none other than the EU.

It's essentially a dictatorship with a democratic facade. Sure you can elect a representative for your country, but there are 27 other representatives who can oppose you and make choices for your country that you do not agree with. Additionally, the vast majority of representatives will always side with the representatives of wealthier countries, in order to avoid sanctions and to get clout for potential beneficial trade agreements.

What does this all mean? It means that in every single case, the will of the wealthier countries will win out over those of less wealthy countries. Most notably, Germany and France.

Tyranny of the rich. A wealthy ruling class that decides every aspect of the poorer classes' lives. And to rebel against it is to be punished severely, especially now that the EU is looking to dismantle the individual militaries of each country in favor of establishing one combined EU military. One that will, shockingly, be under control of the German government.

Now imagine this happening on a global scale. Does a worldwide authoritarian dictatorship sound appealing to you?


File: 1565916199396.png (273.67 KB, 1280x798, 640:399, 425217.png) ImgOps Google

Historically it's been for land conquest.  Or maybe religion.  >>1182  True.

>give you an idea of exactly how effective that is
I didn't know much about the European Union when starting the thread.  It seems to be a growing power, at least economically.

>complete lack of competency
I have a basic background in the EU.  What I read focused a bit more on details than the big picture, so I'm not quite sure I fully understand, but what are you thinking about in terms of incompetency?

>Nuclear: Reasonable countries know it means MAD, unreasonable ones...

Most of the history has involved a handful of developed countries with nuclear capacity, and you are right, only two bombs have been used against people.  We've been in a 75 year period known as 'the long peace' where the world powers haven't got at each other with everything they have, a worry is that that may break.  Another is, as you said, as nuclear technology gets older, it becomes more accessible, and if there is any unreasonable country that can be independently unreasonable, it's only time until the tech is available.  True, I'm not sure how much to worry.

>impoverished conditions are often a natural signal to change the broken governing system

I mean, yeah.  You'd not want to fund kleptocracy.

>current multinational organizations, it would have the opposite effect

Confess that's a worry, yes.

>tax havens
That's where world government might have a role, preventing wealthy people and businesses skirting between countries and cloaking their property.  Although, true, if individual countries were more proactive, that might work, too.

>the teeth to actually take on the problems
I do wonder how much it needs teeth and how much it needs cooperation.  But there is the question of teeth.  The EU can, at utmost, kick countries out, I'd guess.  Although I suppose a world government could likewise kick countries off favored status.

>Nuclear war is what's ensured lasting peace at the moment.
That's possible.  Or perhaps the ethic that economic domination is more appropriate than military conquest.

>significant progress being made
That's a hard one to evaluate.  War makes political changes.  You'd have to set those changes as more valuable than the life and property lost.  I guess if war is justice, such must be true.

>dislike for 'empires'
Yeah, if I began a campaign for world government, would I be more than another Hitler or Napoleon?  If you operate like the EU and have nations petition for entry, you may never make it around the world, it's the last few miles that would be a test -- empire or cooperative?

>and deserves it, can get it
I didn't go into a full explanation of what I meant.  I don't expect a world without inequality.  But if you value merit, the inequality in wealth must follow the range that can be expected from differences in individual merit.  And maybe even a bit of inequality beyond that is acceptable, but if not checked, eventually it ends in either war or revolution.  Guess I'm just thinking whether there might be better ways.

>Depends on how it is done.
Yeah, I basically agree.  Big systems have standardization and economics of scale.  Small systems give individuals more relative power and can conform more to local issues.

Yeah.  You can argue a bit that the bigger pool of people, the more virtuous candidates to choose from, but I'm not convinced government works that way.

>27 other representatives who can oppose you
Isn't that...how democracy works?  I mean, a republican system of government is suppose to set restrictions on what a majority can do to prevent abuse of a minority.  Perhaps the EU needs rules such as that?

>Does a worldwide authoritarian dictatorship sound appealing to you?
Dictatorship is probably the wrong word, but I get your meaning, the rich will have the power.  Or, probably, people who are even more rich than the people/groups who already have power in your local government.  So the question is: are the more rich worse than the 'much richer than you, but less rich than the world's richest'?


>calls it a dictatorship
>notes how it's impossible for a single person to control unanimously as evidence

Uhh, sir?



>Isn't that...how democracy works?
The problem here is that these remaining representatives should have nothing to say about what goes on in the my country. They don't live here, so they should not have the right to make decisions for us. It'd be like McDonalds telling UPS how to deliver their packages.

>So the question is: are the more rich worse than the 'much richer than you, but less rich than the world's richest'?
The point is that before the EU, a country could make its own decisions democratically. This is no longer an option thanks to the European regime, and instead the majority of countries essentially answer to Germany and France. Your idea that only the rich have a say in every situation is flawed, though I cannot blame you for having that outlook considering this has been the case in the EU for so many years.


>Dictatorship is probably the wrong word
A dictatorship means absolute and unquestionable authority in a region by either a single individual or a select group of people. In this case, it's the latter.


*cough* oligarchy *cough*


It's a large part of why absolute democracy is a completely terrible idea. You need representation of smaller sections to have some say, else there's no reason bigger places who are far from those small sections're going to care when it comes ot their problems.
Worse, you're likely to get exploitation, as they can't vote to defend themselves.


And now Britain is suddenly being held ransom to a Tory dictator that just ordered the shutdown of Parliament.
Among many things, it threatens to write off any debates or legislation for Northern Ireland with regards to Historic Institutional Abuse committed over decades.


What kind of government would be best for a hypothetical world government?


Something that strongly resembles a system of treaties between sovereign countries.


File: 1568523258502.jpeg (36.24 KB, 1075x550, 43:22, 1765787.jpeg) ImgOps Google

I'm more of a Pan-American.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]