TED Conversations

Alex Haddad

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Would you support the US government if it decided to take over the world?

Wars, gaps between countries, and the lack of human unity are holding us back. Would you support the US government if it took over the world? With one government to rule over the entire world we could put together an united human effort toward certain goals and accomplish them much faster. We could focus on increasing the quality of life for all humans on earth, space exploration, and other projects that are unable to occur today.

What do you think?

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Sorry but the US IS the dominant hegemony of the world. It rules by military power (nuclear threat) and economic trade and market

    There are pros and cons for this - also depending on who is in leadership at the time and their impact on the rest of the world in that role.

    The one key benefit is that it is a 'benign' hegemony in the sense of an alternative such as the 1000 year plan conspired by Hitler.

    Perhaps what may really be asked is should we look at restructuring the United Nations to hold some form of global government - autonomous authority at global level - over and above a state regime. UN is the hallmark of realist school (e.g.Hedley Bull arguments on realist position that anarchy and war are necessary states to then bring order through state rule). UN is considered deficit as a true global peace function. Most agree the current hegemonic format of G5 security council who can veto anything (led by US) misses out in true democracy and human rights.

    Brian Urquhart who grew with UN since its formation as a war alliance has a lot to say about its failures in peace and security matters and need for serious restructure. But he highlights a key observation - that to set up a global governance body like the UN today with all our issues would be virtually impossible. While the UN shoes may no longer fit, we are lucky to have a blue print - and a blue print that arose as a necessary agreement to protect from a world threat to peace.

    We have become a global society and one government rule doesn't fit democratically (apart from one that holds no military might such as Phillips NZ suggestion - I propose also Tibetan government in exile - perhaps we could rotate world leading 'chair'). We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the blue print for peace and democracy.

    At international level we can respect individual rights by strengthening autonomy and power of intl legal justice to make peace security decisions and enforce accountability

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.