This conversation is closed.

Thoughts on a global government.

First I think I should describe briefly the type of governing system I would propose, then I will point out one instance for it's relevancy.

This global government should not take the place of any existing government but act as an extended branch of all national governments. It should be democratic and every person everywhere should be involved. This branch would govern laws of global importance only (i.e. nuclear, climate, overpopulation), and only issues that effect all of earth's population.
(This government should have more power than the U.N.)

I would like to point to one hypothetical and simultaneously real argument for such a measure. Suppose we all came to agree that climate change was man-made, inevitable and destructive. Suppose 2 countries, country A and country B were responsible for 60% of man-made greenhouse gas emission. And lastly say those 2 countries' governments were refusing to take action, and even building towards a more detrimental scenario. What if every other country engaged beneficial policy regarding climate change, but without the support of country A and B it would not be enough.
Is it fair that the policy of two countries decide our fate if the overwhelming majority of the earth's population disagree?

I would encourage your thoughts on this particular scenario, but also would like to hear everyone's ideas on a global government, how it would work, or why it it wouldn't. As well whether you agree this would be a beneficial course of action or otherwise.

  • thumb
    Jun 3 2011: A global governance system needs to be transparent, driven by the people. It needs edemocracy at a national level. At an international level, we need a representative community of global citizens (not global government) to determine prioritise and implement the pursuit of quality of life in accordance with values determined by the global community, rather than the opaque channels of government.

    National EDemocracy: The TED talk by David Cameron highlighted the possibility that governments will have less power and money in the future and the people will have more. This would be enabled by technology. He asked "How do we make things better without spending more money?" He highlighted a desire that a political system should have transparency, choice and people power. The problem is that we don't (today) have technology to deliver on this vision. It is, however, readily available in a Web 3.0 network focused on eDemocracy. Have a look at The traditional model of democracy determines outcomes based on ideology – left or right. The eDemocracy model allows all participants to see through the community to determine outcomes based on issues.

    A Common Vision for International governance? UNITED 3.0 is a Web 3.0 network to design and implement Equity Market 3.0 and Economic Development 4.0. Entrepreneurs, philanthropists and statesmen need to provide the inspiration to create Economic Development 4.0 and inspire consumer adoption of its underlying networks.

    A critical mass of National Democracy 3.0 networks and an international vision provided by UNITED 3.0 would provide an opportunity to transcend the problems highlighted in this thread. In both cases, success relies on transparent people networks, rather than Web 1.0 global government with opaque channels. I recommend the presentation at for further information .
  • Apr 25 2011: In a world where nationalism is so prevalent, i simply cant see a world in which a one world government could work. Everyone simply hates each other too much. sad but true.. for every rational person in the world there are 10 who arent.

    Money, in itself, based on the monetary economics system, is more or less oppression in paper form. If you disagree with me then perhaps you need to spend more time looking into capitalism and what its done for the world. or maybe just what its done for the US. go AIG.

    If we in our lifetimes actually see any semblance of one world government it will most likely be in the form of a centralized world bank.
  • thumb
    Apr 22 2011: its an interesting question. how would it be governed? would the independent islands of the pacific have an equal say to that of china? or, would influence be dependent on population?

    i like the idea of the world putting more pressure on a country for high levels of pollution or poor environmental policies. there doesnt seem to be much progress at present within the international countries. earth summits always come out with no positive results and the UN is about as useful as a bike with no wheels in well, uniting nations!

    something needs to change, perhaps a global body overlooking all environmental issues and advising the poor nations on progress and the importance of the environment is the way forward. will it happen? i fear not.
  • Apr 21 2011: this is impossible in current world.
    it is impossible when nations have war to each other.
    this is possible just in pure peace
    and peace is not possible among human
    while there is devil, so there is bad and good human
    this is possible just when you can change all humans to good human
    and this is impossible
    if possible then humans are not human and are animal
    animals live in peace and not have war
    so this is impossible
    this is world, this is life, this is human.
    you can not change life of world. you have not such power.
    this world is made in this situation knowingly and purposely and wittingly
    world should be so to good have meaning
    if there is peace then good has no meaning
    and if good can not be known then God can not be known
    God created all universe and sky and earth and nature for human needs.
    and created devil to say human do bad
    God did all these to human know God
    the goal of life is to:
    you know God
    • Apr 21 2011: All primates engage in war and most animals are territorial. Baboons and chimpanzees engage in war over territory all the time, but that really wasn't the point.
    • thumb
      Apr 22 2011: to say there are no wars between animals are quite possibly the most unresearched thing i have read today. it seems there is not a library in your town, so may i suggest flicking on the discovery channel for an afternoon?

      this is a prime case of creationists 'clutching and straws'. this is about global politics, not a platform for medieval, outdated ideas about a god.

      apologies devon, I will give you my view on the topic to.
      • Apr 22 2011: dear Davie Webb,
        do you know any war between animals during history?
        If there is library in your town please find the book of "history of wars of animals" and say some of them.
        please show its evidence.
        some animals eat or kill others. but it is very limited and Natural and needed for nature life.
        eating an animal can not be called war. war like humans war.
        this is not a medieval idea.
        this is fact you see today.
        you want to design global politics without looking at fact of current world?
        do Baboons war and kill each other like humans?
        it is natural competition.
        • Apr 22 2011: Where do you get the idea that human waged war ISN'T natural competition?
        • thumb
          Apr 22 2011: the fundamental problem here is that you, and the majority of the uneducated religions of the world, is that you think humans are superior, unique to other animals. simply because we have the ability to question our existence and are aware of our own mortality does not mean we are separate.

          a brief look at the genes between any two species on the planet and you will see that we are just ever so slightly different in genetic make up to birds, reptiles, everything! its a matter of a fact that we are part of the evolutionary chain and religion is a man made idea which attempts to answer our need for answers and has been abused to manipulate and oppress countless generations of people, such as yourself for hundreds of years.

          ok so you do not think there are any animals that wage war? for one example, lets look a ants. amazonian soldier ants, numbering in their millions select a location, then forage out and destroy everything in its path, most notably, OTHER ANTS. they attack in such numbers, overwhelming everything.

          you feel that humans are different. superior to ants? of course you do. ants wont go to heaven or hell right? we are so genetically similar to every animal, it is scientific fact that we are just animals. we wage war, fight for land, for pride. however in the name of idiotic religions, more people have been slaughtered in the history of mankind than under all the other wars combined. fact.
      • Apr 24 2011: Dear Davie Webb,
        yes there is wars in animals.
        but wars of animals is still different of humans. ants has not nuclear nuke.

        wisdom is not enough to be superior on animals?
        human use nature, sun, animals and many other things of nature by wisdom.
        this is not being superior?
        humans can control all animals. but can animals ?
        what is your definition of superior?

        Muhammad (peace in him):
        wisdom is what God worshiped by it and heaven achieved by it.