Financial Times editor calls for World Government

[parky76]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

I wrote this guy an email, telling him how stupid I think his article was and how he can expect a lot of hate mail. He says he was not supporting world government, just predicting it could be on its way.

Now, as to the nutty conspiracy theorists who say the article calls for dictatorship and the end of democracy, thats all nonesense. Nowhere is anything like that mentioned in the article.

I think Universal laws regarding wages, environmental regulations, worker rights, human rights, womens rights, would all be a good and usefull thing. But no national boundaries? One universal currency? One universal language? No way Jose.

[leonAzul]

I disagree with your interpretation, parky. It looks more to me like an alert to the increasing pressures for a OWG than a call for it to arrive before its time.

Having clicked through to look at some of the responses to the blog, I am amazed not that my opinion is in the minority, but at the sheer mindlessness of the reactions.

The only way I can see it happening at all is if something analogous to the transition from the Continental Congress to the USA takes place on an international level. That is to say, a constitution is put together that recognizes states' rights, individual rights, and is limited to international governance.

I see very little motivation to create a global legislature nor executive body except for the possible benefit of establishing a global court for the resolution of conflicts among states and enforcing the judgments of such a court.

I see very little motivation to abolish boundaries since this would make it very difficult to regulate illicit trade and control the movements of criminals. There are quite a few entities in the world who do not want that to happen.

[Brainache]

Why stop at one world government? I think it's time we got off our butts and founded a Galaxy-wide Government. It's the only way we'll ever get those damn Aliens to stop poking our bottoms and harrassing our cows.

[leonAzul]

Why stop at one world government? I think it's time we got off our butts and founded a Galaxy-wide Government. It's the only way we'll ever get those damn Aliens to stop poking our bottoms and harrassing our cows.

See you at Milliways ;)

[CYiNCE]

He posted a follow up blog post about reaction to his article

http:/ blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/12/covered-in-internet-slime/

[INRM]

I oppose the concept of a one world government because if it became corrupt there would be no other nation to act as a check and balance, and the people would have nowhere to run.

INRM

[parky76]

We need universal environmental, human rights, labor, and health regulations. No need for one parliament, one currency, one language, one leader, etc.

[INRM]

Parky76,

I do not oppose international law, international standards on human rights, international standards on health-care, and international standards on labor and labor conditions.

I just oppose one government running the whole world for the reasons I expressed.


INRM

[Senenmut]

as long as the rulers are of merovingian descent!! haha

[INRM]

What's merovigian descent?

[leonAzul]

Merovingians are a dynasty of kings that ruled in mediaeval France. The book Holy_Blood_Holy_Grail further presents this family as descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene who, one legend has it, escaped with Joseph of Arimathea from Judea to what is now Southern France.

[Tippit]

We need universal environmental, human rights, labor, and health regulations. No need for one parliament, one currency, one language, one leader, etc.

Regulations presuppose a regulator. Regulators without any force are impotent. Without a world army a world regulator is a ridiculous supposition.

[zaphod2016]

He posted a follow up blog post about reaction to his article

http:/ blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/12/covered-in-internet-slime/

The comments on this article are fascinating, to put it mildly.

We need universal environmental, human rights, labor, and health regulations.

I would argue Parky's view is somewhat ethnocentric. Who are you to say that your views towards human rights, labor, and health regulations should be imposed throughout the world? On a more practical note, competing governments allow not only checks-and-balances against each other (see also: WWII) but more importantly, the freedom to experiment with different systems and policies. How else can we determine which policies work, and which don't?

On the other hand, the physical reality of our Earth demands international cooperation when dealing with global environmental issues. i.e. if the U.S. Congress bans all pollution, but China decides to heat their homes by burning tires, the net environmental consequences would be disastrous for all involved- even those of us in another hemisphere.

My opinion is simple: too much power in too few hands is dangerous. I fail to see how any world government could effectively enforce global policies without accumulating a disturbing amount of power and influence.

That said: I think the U.N. is a good concept. I think a "global congress" is invaluable in aiding international relations, and helping to promote development. But as far as enforcement is concerned, I will always favor the most local agent available. I am in no position to tell the people of Bejing how to live their lives, and likewise, they have no right to impose their values on my life.

If the goal is cooperation, I am with you. If the goal is control and persuasion via force, I oppose.

Consider this: Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Ditto George W. Bush. In light of this, who among you will debate the necessity of the sovereignty of competing nation-states? In other words, assuming we establish a global, democratic government- what happens when we elect a lunatic and/or tyrant? Who is left to challenge and oppose them?

[INRM]

Zaphood,

On a more practical note, competing governments allow not only checks-and-balances against each other (see also: WWII)

Agreed

My opinion is simple: too much power in too few hands is dangerous. I fail to see how any world government could effectively enforce global policies without accumulating a disturbing amount of power and influence.

Agreed


INRM