This conversation is closed.

One Worldwide Government

Just picture this if you will, a world with no war, a world where everyone is provided for, a world that is. . . perfect.

Hypothetically speaking, if every individual country acted as if it were a state rather than many states combined, and there was one central government (similar to the U.N.) than that would allow for one "Super-Country" if you will. Thus, eliminating the need for big scale wars and global hunger. Everybody everywhere could be provided for. Every child could have an education. Religions would still be separate but have different Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques etc. One last and very important point, the political view. I believe, should become one of both Democratic and Communistic views, a mix of both. Now I'm not saying at all that the world should be a dictatorship or that i support that kind of stuff, but that I simply believe having every individual on the same social level is a wonderful idea. It would eliminate poverty! Though while at the same time still keeping a more Democratic way of doing things. (voting, electing representatives etc.) And on one last note, the economy might be a mixed economy, leaning more towards command than free-market, while still having most characteristics of a mixed economy. In many ways i think that life could be less. . . chaotic.

Please, let me hear your thoughts on why or why not, this would work. Give me your opinions and feedback, also. Feel free to help "add-on" or improve if you wish. (and please remember, this is just, for me, an ideal world. You don't have to agree.)

  • thumb
    Apr 27 2011: Oh imagination, if that was all you needed then John Lennon would still be making music and I would have my damn riding giraffe to ride to work on!

    While a one world government might, MIGHT stop some types of war, mostly wars based off of need for reasources, there is no way a single government would be able to stop conflict based on religion, ethnicity and other petty things humans have always fought over.

    You seem to belive that all people all over the world want the same things. I find that while people have similar needs, their wants tend to differ wildly. There would be no ONE form of government or set of ideals that would appeal to EVERYONE.

    Even a simple and agreeable concept such as "live and let live" is difficult for a lot of people to accept.

    While this is a nice fantasy, one where all the people in the world can be fat and happy, we as a planet don't have the resourses to make this happen, nor do we as a species have the midset to allow this to happen.
    • thumb
      Apr 28 2011: RE:"nor do we as a species have the midset to allow this to happen. '..

      You are right at the crux of it there..we talk about all these things but we haven't learned to line our values up with our will..to actially act on what we believe..see the talk on "Would You Buy Unethical Clothes" for example..jusy shocking to me the sentiment there that its too much work to find out what clothes are "Fair Trade"
  • thumb
    Apr 26 2011: i see how a world government prevents war. but i can't see how would it provide food for everyone just because it is one government. we have a lot of countries under one government with some people starving and others not. simply establishing one government won't solve this problem. in fact, minority of problems will be solved only with that. so we need other measures too. but then why can't we do it without an earth government?

    i feel this is nothing but a dream. today, we have problems. but when we will have earth gov! how happy we will be! it gives hope, it gives focus. false hope, that is.
  • thumb
    Apr 27 2011: Hi Trent
    According to the bible there will be an attempt at a One World Government. If memory serves, it will control app. 1/3 of the world population; it will be geographically similar to the old Roman Empire; It will be led by one man, in conjunction with a religious leader. There will be a computerised financial system, a cashless society, where we will be chipped. Anyone dissenting will be killed. It will operate for around seven years, descend into chaos & the battle of armageddon; at which stage Christ will return. The foundations are well under way.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E (Secular documentary)
    That's the prediction, but folks don't want to know ,cause it's "religious".
    Have a nice day.

    :-)
    • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Apr 27 2011: Although the the concept of a one world government might seem tempting, I don't think it is feasible. Having the collaborative power of that magnitude from every country to form this type of government would be immense to say the least. Even if it was broken up into respective states, this doesn't imply that wars would cease to exist. You would still have the different religions arguing/killing one another. Not all people would be provided for, because even on the city government level there would still be problems on how to deal with the homeless and particular criminals.

    In general I believe it would be too difficult to manage something of that enormity. We can't even come together on other things (climate change, freedom of speech, gay rights, etc.) let alone form a uniform world government. I may seem pessimistic, but I think that is close to reality.
    • thumb
      May 5 2011: Feasibility aside, I had always considered that nations would still exist and the global would deal with what superceded soverignty.
  • Apr 27 2011: I am an advocate of one world government. Especially in our modern age of global communications and travel, it seems like we are the only thing that is holding us back. Though I think we should be very careful with any system we immplement globally.

    I've actually given a lot of thought to this, and have come up with a system that I think would be a vast improvement on the current forms of government. The name I've given the system: Demaritecnocracy. A mouthful, I know. It's mearly a blend of the terms democracy, maritocracy, and technocracy.

    Here's how it would work: The democratic pillar would guarantee everyone equal opportunity under the law, and equal access to the services offered by the government. The meritocratic pillar would assure advancement based on one's predicted performance, so personal biases would not dictate promotions, and you'd gravitate to having the most important possitions occupied by the most compotent persons, instead of those with the best connections. The technocratic pillar would hand legislative power to the professional community, with specialists regulating their own field of expertise for the benefit of society, and the advancement of their profession. With those having lower meritocratic standing having command over more localized systems (neighbourhood, city), and those who are the most compotent in their fields having command over larger tracks of population (district, state, nation, world).

    I think this system would confer several benefits to its regulated constituents. It could guarantee every citizen the possibility of voting on national, or even global policy, given a high degree of education. It would also mean that citizens could diversify their city policies based on their individual needs and limitations. Not to mention the boon of larger policy being set by the most compotent professionals. Another great part about this is that it has built in checks and balances. With every profession naturally reliant on the others
  • thumb
    Jul 12 2011: Dear Mr Schickelgruber.

    One world Government was the Dream of Adolf Rothschild Hitler and I oppose Hitler and anyone that propagandizes his Ideas with all my powers.
    Hitler was a Freemason.
    And the One world Government is the work of Freemasons which are Nazis and as such must be opposed by any peace and freedom loving Individual in the whole world and beyond.

    And for sure if you would like to see how the New World Order or the One World Government will look like then look no further then to Hitlers Germany.
    All the Nazis were Freemasons and the 3rd Reich is full of Occult which proves to be Freemasonry in origin.

    The IMF was founded by Adolf Hitler prior to WWII.
    The UN and EU were creations of the "Master Race" of Hitlers Freemason Brothers.
    The World Banking System was founded by Adolf Hitler and his Order.

    Further more Governments draw their legitimacy upon the fact that they keep their population in fear and servitude.

    So what makes you think that this will change with a one world Government?
    It will not.
    A one world Government will only be a one world Slavery by the Master Manipulators.

    We the people shall oppose it by all means.

    No man has the right to lie and steal and judge upon another man if he is not free of crimes himself.


    D.W. Major
    CEO
    Zero Emission Transportation Ltd
    http://WWW.ZEROEMISSIONTRANSPORTATION.WEBS.COM
    London
    UK
  • thumb
    May 20 2011: There have been several systems of goverment through out history, and none of them seem that great in my opnion(in the world scheme) so no, i do not think a one world goverment would be good.
  • thumb
    May 20 2011: I have come back to this conversation with a new and different perspective that leads me to believe there actually is an imperative to the creation of a global democracy. My deep dive into understanding "the arabian spring" took me to oil, to the UN, IMF,NATO , World Bank etc. and to the realization that these organizations alreday are a world government that is not a democracy, not accountable to anyone., serving the plutonomy or the strategic and economic interests of a few with a purpose not to serve but to control the many. Sounds radical I know..almost sacreligious because like everyone else I grew up venerating these institutions , believing in them as instrumenmts of peace and humanity. I've never actually taken my own critical look at them before and now that I do what I see is a de facto non democratric world government that is not serving or listening to "we the people of the earth "I was very heartened yesterday to hear President Obama actually refer in his middle east address to the concept of univerdal rights and tomake a partial enumeration of those rights as they apply in the middle east. I would like to suggest that we here in this converse begin a part II directed at enumerating these universal rights that suoercede soverignty and that we bgin the actual work of creating a global democracy that guantees and serves these universal rights nit in lieu of separate nations..their culture, their history, their right sto resources they own, their rights to self dteremination but which define the limit sof soverignty and provide a globally democratuc structure for enforcing those limits. Shall we begin a Part III that begins that actuals work?
  • thumb
    May 10 2011: Today each country has a charter or some form of constitutional statement that is used to form the laws of the land and determines such things as religion being in or out of government. Some cultures prefer or trust religious based leadership, others prefer a martial leadership, some prefer consensus government and so on. I see that you have a preference for democratic communism but others may favor other styles. At the end of the day we can listen to each other and begin to trust each other and maybe at that moment the world can become more unified.

    At a personal level I would find a one world order a little bit frightening, there would be nothing to compare with or aspire to. At best it would be bland, cultures would have melted away, very little to wonder at and worse it could become big brother like and be controlled by faceless civil servants.
    • thumb
      May 10 2011: Hi Alan..I too wouldmourn th eloss of the energy and wisdon, art and music and even cusine of the wolrds cultiral diversity but I don't think the idea of wolrd governance threatens that. I had always assumed that national soverignty and nations would continue and that any structure for world governance would deal only with those global issues that superceded soverignty..
  • thumb
    May 4 2011: As some of you in this conversation may know I have been moderating a conversation inviting people to speak about whether they resonated with the resounding joy that greeted Bin Ladens death. A post just added there has brought a lot of things into focus for me and I wanted to bring it back here to this discussion on world government. In a world court a jury of our peers as citizens of the world might see what the US has done in oil rich nations as exploitation and imperialism..they might see Bin Ladens world war ( and that is what it was about..bringing America to its knees..not on the battle field or through random actsof terror but through intentionally enticing us to a war that would bankrupt us as it bankrupted Russia before) as arising from a hatred for American exploitation of the rersources and peoples of the whole world. Alisa's TED Talk , News about the news and the follow up TED Conversation, who do you trust in the news, the TED conversation on americas image in th e world, this conversation that looks beyond the rhetoric and limitation s of national identity all invite us to get out of our boxes, to be active and engaged as citizens of the wolrd and to see all things that happen in world news as citizens of the world..We must think and act now, in all things, as citizens of the world. No government has to be formed to do that. We are that. We must be that.
  • thumb
    May 4 2011: As an extension to this conversation Ihave started a parallel conversation on an actual proposal before the united Nations http://www.ted.com/conversations/2549/what_are_your_views_on_the_now.html?c=238421. Here, in this conversation, many who favor world governance have pointed to the UN as the logical body. Visiting this issue at the UN ( which is coming before the UN on May 9 for discussion) might give us all a chance to see how the UN actually works and visits these issues and see if we would choose them for world governance. Also, we have never gotten to the nitty gritty of what our cionsitution is as world citizens,,what things we think suoercede national soverignty. Although this particular UN proposal would be by member agreement ( voluntray compliance by member nations), it is an example of an issue the UN consider to be of global significance requirimg the coopertation of many nations. Happens to be about small arms ( not my favorite topic) but a good real live real wolrd debate on global governance that we can consider together.
  • May 2 2011: I'm for this idea because I think the internacional community have a dificult time in acepting worldwide democracy. Case and point, Lybia. Clearly the majority of the internacional community wanted to intervene sooner, however, the majority had to get a total support from everyone (in this particular case Russia and China) which is impratical in a functional democracy anywhere in the world and at best just postpones these type of importants decisions and interventions and at worst prevent them from being made.
    However, eliminate poverty is a gigantic strech on this theory. Large countries clearly desproves this. In China or India there is a massive difference between different zones although ruled by the same govermnent.
  • thumb
    May 1 2011: I am all for a betterment and a one world order is definitely an urgency. Considering all the clamors and poverty it certainly is the solution however. I am certain that religions are whats keeping us from this. Not that religions essences are wrong but that people have an intolerable way of destroying that which they hardly understand.

    The Bahai Faith proposes this very idea of one world government and unity in diversity however met many challenges and impervious believers therefore a cause in vain. Then their is Sai Baba who aimed for unity in all religions and called to mankind's consciousness. Evidently we find these sagely prescribed visions and values are in vain.

    To bring the worlds people together, it will take that all drop their labels/beliefs/institutions that divided and charge their INTENT towards a common vision.
    • thumb
      May 1 2011: "I am certain that religions are whats keeping us from this"
      "The Bahai Faith proposes..."

      isn't it a little ... self defeating?
      • thumb
        May 4 2011: It would seem so but you have to acknowledge the full sentence - "The Bahai Faith proposes this very idea of one world government and unity in diversity HOWEVER met many challenges"

        It was basically answering on the religions who tried and failed because of actual religious disunity.
  • thumb
    May 1 2011: Yeah..everyone's "for it" but what what is the "It"?Isn;t this like the states rights issue? Which things must be upheld globally? What exactly goes on the side of global governance? ( I believe there is an international consensus that could be atriculated) And how wuld it work? Trade & aid embargos?Intervention? Declarations? How should this effort be initiated? What was the failure in the millenium effort? Why didn't that work?
    • thumb
      May 1 2011: sorry, not everyone. i'm against the world government even without precisely defining what it would be.
      • thumb
        May 1 2011: ok ( think I am too even though I believe there are many things tat supersede sovereignty)..but we haven't heard that explained here....would you ....???
  • thumb
    Apr 29 2011: I am a pro world government, And if I was an alien looking at earth I would think it's already there ! The UN.
    As Christophe Cop said we should allow for more power to the U.N. (or a reformed one), and we have to address some common issues like resources, religions, economy, socialism, ethnicity, tribalism...etc, and find a common ground solution.

    I believe if we emphasize enough to implement these solutions to the world governments the way the free-market, internet and globalization was introduced to the world then we will be able to move on from there.
  • thumb
    Apr 29 2011: Hi Trent, Christophe!

    Love the idea, and agree that the European model looks good.
    Goal should be to prevent power concentration and protect regional governments/autonomy/diversity.

    On the other hand, from an historic perspective all civilizations/models crash eventually.
    It's healthier/safer for humanity to have several models than one mega model.
    (If someone can convince me otherwise I'll be happy)

    If this type of government where to happen, I propose we speed space expansion as much as possible... :)

    Regards!

    JB
  • thumb
    Apr 27 2011: "A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at."
    - Bruce Lee

    1. First. the goal must be established. "Unite the World"
    1.a. "What will it look like when goal is met or close to being met?"
    1.b. "What type of systems would work best to handle a mass population?"
    2. Next, what prevents such events must be taken into consideration.
    2.a. Religion, culture, nationalism, and (but not limited to) educations.
    3. Next, the significant actions/changes/wants/needs/efforts/understandings must be created/configured in order to know where to start to accomplishing the goal.
    4. Next, implications of considered/created/configured ideals.
    5. Then a series of trial and error must be done for consensus knowledge.
    ?. Goal met.

    (Feel free to add/move/replace numbers between 1 - ?, which is why I left it there, however for orderliness refer to the numbers in the steps to accomplishment, upon change in order I will edit this part.)

    As Krisztián stated "one" does not answer all the big problems. Only by understanding everything can everything be fixed, which is easier typed than done, which is what government should be for.

    I mean communism, socialism, and capitalism have been the big three economic-based systems in which are most commonly referred to when thinking government. However as history dictates; people cannot always be well informed of what is important when involving politics, so those who make a point of knowing what is important are those with an upper hand. Educating citizens on how to be citizens rather than just people in a nation is something not done globally today. Educate the masses on politics, government, and economics we will have enlightened people that are fully able to participate in their government. If enough people realize one giant system can be easier to run a world on if everyone is fully aware of the systems in it, perhaps that is the first step.
  • thumb
    Apr 27 2011: Hi Ted..there are actually several related discussions on global governance going on here at TED including my own ..Foundations for a Global Democracy..which asks..do we really have the foundations for that in a global set of shared values..is there a "we th epeople of the world" set of shraed beliefs that we believe trasncend any rights of soverignty. Isn't the first task to bring those values to the front..see if we believe that strongly. Look at the discussion on "would you Buy Unethical Clothes?"..that seems to point to a big gap beyween what we say our values oare and what we actually do..Can we expect nations to be any different?If we agree on "we the people of the World values" do we have the moral ccourage to make that happen. In my Foundations for a Global Democracy and my supporting blog at poetrsous there are links to other models that have come before that mightbe woirth looking at to frame this disussion..the Sullivan Principles which brought about chnage with no regulatory or government enfocement..jus a unified wolrd wide agreement to act on anti-apartheid values.--and the earlier Global Democracy Effort that sought to ammebnd the charter of the UN exavtltas you siggest. That expressed many of the values we claim we hild as "we the people of the wolrd" which are in my draft but it was resoundingly defeated becuase of soverignty issues.
  • thumb
    Apr 27 2011: it sounds interesting. i think the concept of a one government is possible . well, if 2012, the end of the world, is not true. nothing is impossible . capitalism and communism can be from hostile to coexist and exchange of needed goods and ideas in many aspects. it is a great change and progress. actually, there has be a initiatory government--United Nation which contribute to events of global. such as environment, wars , natural catastrophe and so on. although it cannot stand for all countries' intrests, many developing countries are benefit from it. there are over 150 countries in the world. every country has his own condition and intrests. so it is impossible to eliminate all contradiction during one night. it is a rather long process. however, if we increase communication to each other and understand give consideration to others' interests . this dream maybe come true in the future.
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Apr 26 2011: I'm pro a world government.

    How it should take form is a big question. Some forms are undesirable...
    I think the European model is a good not very bad, but it would need some adaptation.
    giving gradually more power to the UN might work, but would be less democratic.
    Maybe going from there and working towards a good constitution might be the first step

    And that constitution would need a huge consensus worldwide! tough but do-able
    • thumb
      Apr 28 2011: The milennium "Global Democracy" project tried to advance this idea specifically also looking to the U.N. ( more links on this at my post here "Foundations for a Global Democracy" . It was defeated by issues of soverignty..that is nations believe they have a right to self dtermination without outside interference even if their national policy explits children, engages in ethnic cleansing, degrades the air we breathe and theoceans that feed us. Is here in the first instnace a list of things we all agree to beyond national borders and religion that supersede national soverignty?
    • Comment deleted