Debate:Is a single world government fundamentally wrong, situationally right/wrong, or fundamentally right?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by PacWalker.


Proposition[edit]

It's not fundamentally wrong, at least. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Once there's a single world economy it'll be inevitable that a single world bureaucracy will follow. Some aspects of life are already run globally. Others will follow and a world government will develop almost unnoticed - mainly because it won't have a name and won't have a President/Prime Minister figure. BicyclewheelModerator 17:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
That actually reminds me in some ways of discussing why (libertarian fantasy, not '90s gizmo) PDAs won't remain alternatives to states. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(EC)To take your idea further: we already have a world government, and it is the most clumsy, ineffectual system of dispute resolution in the world. There's a de facto constitution formed from thousands of treaties establishing legal processes for tens of thousands of specific situations. Typically these processes fall back on the legal systems of member nations. Extradition, multi-national lawsuits, piracy protection acts, multiparty trade agreements, international banking law. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
If they manage to do it right, it'd be OK, I guess, but seeing how the UN operates, it'll be a long way till then.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Doing any government right is hard work. It took our species tens of thousands of years to come up with and implement a constitutional government. At all. Democracy made a few appearances before that, often falling apart. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
One World Government is almost a necessity for humans to move forward, the question is if they could handle it: Sure running the western powers as one nation is easy, but then you have to include areas like the Middle East, the shitty parts of Africa and North Korea in it too. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping you mean that most current Western powers would be relatively easy to incorporate into one big Western government and not... something else. Also wondering what side you'd count Russia on. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
What else would I mean? And in theory I include Russia as a western nation because it is, in practice the Russia currently being run by Putin would not incorporate easily into a Western-Democracy based OWG. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, uh, just try reading your post again but imagine someone less nice and more xenophobic/supremacist saying it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Depends on what kind of criteria to judge wrongness (i.e. morality) you're using. If it includes uniqueness being judged as valuable, a world government would be fundamentally wrong, because it diminishes uniqueness in the political venue. If it condemns unnecessary restrictions on an individual's and/or a people's agency, then a world government is fundamentally wrong. Which isn't to say it couldn't still be preferable to many other options. Even in a system of morality where all options inevitably entail something fundamentally wrong there can still be options that are better than others. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
If you think of the principle of subsidiarity, what kind of issues could or should actually handled by such a government? Global warming? What else? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)