World Superstate: Good or Bad Idea?

[bluejatheist]

What do you all think of the idea of a world superstate? As in, a single government in charge of all world territories? Not necessarily a "New World Order" or a giant fascist Ingsoc-esque government, but something like the European Union, but with a definite central authority with executive/legislative power, with member territories still sovereign in the sense that they are represented by elected leaders and maintain regional governments. To put it more simply, would a single world government of sorts be preferable to several hundred different governments carving up the land into pieces? Why or why not?

 

[Prolescum]

Broadly speaking and in principle, I'm not against the idea. However, given the maturity of our race (yes, we're quite technologically advanced for animals, but look at our elected officials...), I don't think we have what it takes to pull it off in the foreseeable future. Which is a bit depressing now I've typed it out loud.

I certainly don't see the EU as a blueprint, it's part bureaucracy, part national back-scratching auditorium. That's not to say that there aren't some good EU institutions, there certainly are (the courts for example), but the actual decision-making body is a joke. A joke told by lobbyists to each other in the pub after they've scuppered something.

 

[Inferno]

I read a story (or saw a movie about it? Not sure) not long ago, not sure which one it was. One of the lines in it said something to the extent of "Look how important these people must feel, having so many different governments."

Yes, a central authority would be a good thing, but like Prole said (btw, get back to editing! ) there are some problems: The EU doesn't have enough legislative power and the countries always try to push their agenda instead of thinking about the good of all citizens.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

What do you all think of the idea of a world superstate? As in, a single government in charge of all world territories? Not necessarily a "New World Order" or a giant fascist Ingsoc-esque government, but something like the European Union, but with a definite central authority with executive/legislative power, with member territories still sovereign in the sense that they are represented by elected leaders and maintain regional governments. To put it more simply, would a single world government of sorts be preferable to several hundred different governments carving up the land into pieces? Why or why not?

In theory yes, that would be a good idea. No more wars, no more petty nationalist strife.

In practice, no, not going to happen any time soon. There's just too much ideological incompatibility, economic differences etc. How for example do you unite a country like USA with Saudi Arabia? The cultures are so different it just wouldn't work out at this point.


Yes, imagine there's no countries, that's all we can do really.

 

[bluejatheist]

I use the EU as an example in that it is a group of countries sharing a banner and currency. In contrast I am thinking of a body similar to this but where it has a centralized government with direct control and the countries which are members are subordinate to that government, with a single military, currency, legislative body, etc. EU or perhaps NATO are close to this, but not quite what I would call an example. One good(if you could say that) example I saw on Wikipedia was Yugoslavia: Multiple 'countries' under a single government. Granted, we know how Yugoslavia ended up, but I mean it only as an example of the principle of a superstate.

 

[bluejatheist]

In practice, no, not going to happen any time soon. There's just too much ideological incompatibility, economic differences etc. How for example do you unite a country like USA with Saudi Arabia? The cultures are so different it just wouldn't work out at this point.

Being a cynic I already don't have any idealistic outlook on this matter, but rather wanted to see what LoR members think of this idea of a world government in principle. On the matter of joining the USA and Saudi Arabia, I could see this as being solved by them still maintaining 'borders' but simply answering to a higher overall authority(In a better world). No doubt the U.S. would not have any of that, and culturally Saudi Arabia had significant issues just hosting a coalition of westerners during the Gulf War for example, and they likely enjoy the power over resources that sovereignty grants them. These are examples where nationalism is one of the chief obstacles to a superstate.

 

[televator]

I've always been pretty indifferent about it. Lately though I did hear about Iceland's relatively triumphant economic recovery which without its ability to make independent decisions without any consideration to the Eurozone, would not have been possible.



So it seems that there are times when the current level of independence is more effective than consolidation. Maybe several "superstates" are a better solution?

 

[bluejatheist]

I've always been pretty indifferent about it. Lately though I did hear about Iceland's relatively triumphant economic recovery which without its ability to make independent decisions without any consideration to the Eurozone, would not have been possible.



So it seems that there are times when the current level of independence is more effective than consolidation. Maybe several "superstates" are a better solution?

Makes me think of something like this

 

[Laurens]

On principle; good idea. In practice, we're a fucking long way off.

 

[nudger1964]

"Things are really difficult to predict, especially the future."

I can envision ways this may come about, in hundreds years time scales.
If the singularity crowd are right, combine that with effects of global warming, some kind of AI global administration could be possible.
Peoples ideology usually takes a back seat once they have missed a few square meals in a row.
never say never

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I really doubt that this is going to happen and I don't want it to happen. There is too much cultural difference in the world for an effective world government where everyone is at least content with the government. Today, there are countries where part of the population want to be governed by themselves. This is not going to get any better if countries are getting bigger and bigger. What I do see, and this is what I see as necessary is stronger economic bonding between countries. I do see that more economic cooperation between the countries of the world as a good thing.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I really doubt that this is going to happen and I don't want it to happen. There is too much cultural difference in the world for an effective world government where everyone is at least content with the government. Today, there are countries where part of the population want to be governed by themselves. This is not going to get any better if countries are getting bigger and bigger. What I do see, and this is what I see as necessary is stronger economic bonding between countries. I do see that more economic cooperation between the countries of the world as a good thing.

One could envision a type of government where those 'cultural' subsets are 'represented' in some form of conglomerate. One could possibly 'see' people uniting under a form of government that grants and protects certain rights for all humans. There are some foundations and organizations that attempt this on a small scale. I think if that type of 'government' was established as a whole it could help human interaction. The ultimate goal would be for some organization that could promote non violent or non coercive change. I think it would be an extreme longshot with many peaks and valleys but I think it would be a worthwhile venture.

 

[malicious_bloke]

Without trying to derail the train of thought too badly, the eventual unification of the people on this planet will happen eventually but it's highly unlikely to be the happy pipedream of "people of all colours and cultures working together in a spirit of co-operation and unity and other sappy catchphrases".

Instead, what'll be more likely is one country (probably china at this rate) will develop to the point where they become the first to achieve regular manned flight to/from other bits of the solar system with lots of shiny resources. Or just becoming the first nation to boost asteroids into orbit to mine them. First one with a significant extra-terrestrial resource base gets an immense economic leg-up AND inherits the ability to "militarily curtail" any other country's attempts to do the same.

First country to manage it gets the prize and eventually all other nations become economically irrelevant, either they get absorbed by their outlandishly powerful neighbour or they become extinct. Simple as.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Problem 1) Cultural Differences
Many cultural differences are so incompatible that a one-world government is little more than whistling Dixie.
For example, in the United States culture is so crassly divided and hyped that if it weren't for a central military authority, strong sentiments about enemies abroad, and a placid economic system I would have garnered that another Civil War would have taken place already.
This isn't even addressing political differences.
If you ask a central-authority communist, a democratic republican, and a monarchy-loyalist how things should be run, you would get a scattershot of different ideals and statements that are totally and completely incompatible with each other at basic, fundamental levels.

Or religious differences.
Let me know when the children in the Middle East stop fighting. Or the Catholics and Protestants. Or even the Protestants amongst each other. Or the Protestants against minority religions and the non-religious. Or, in strictly the case of state-ordained anti-religious mandates in certain countries, atheists towards religious folk.

Problem 2) Ignoring the fact why countries exist in the first place.
The only reasons humans draw arbitrary lines and cast near-useless labels is for the sake of identity in terms of nationality, culture, customs, and origin. It's a divide, separating one from another. As the map grew bigger and trade advanced, the greater the cultural identities merged.
It went from an idea of loosely-jointed states with a central binding government to an eternally-bound contract of the United States at the conclusion of the Civil War. It made taxing and policing at a national level easier, as well as hosting a national military.
It went from Germany, France, Italy, etc. to the European Union for the reasons of policing, trade, and commerce agreements.
If I was living in the early days in the Louisiana Territory, I would have identified myself by the small community that I had garnered together and settled there.
If I was living in 1863, I would have called myself an Alabamian in the Confederate States of America.
In 2011 I would have said I'm an American. Born in Alabama.

The only reason humans would ever come into consideration into a world government would be with the advent of something that would make someone consider themselves an Earthling. Life elsewhere would have to be found.
Or grown. If we colonized another planet and it boomed into a technological powerhouse and decided to be it's own thing then I would pass this possibility as an aside.

 

[nemesiss]

What i can say about a superstate is that is very unlikely that it will indeed happen.
though i think that due to globalization we will come close to something alike.
At best we will have a council like the United Nations that will resemble sort of a superstate , but not be a superstate.
what we already see happening are international agreements in trades that are globally accepted and used. Political agreements are a bit tougher to create but we have a few, though not globally uphold.

as it is now, countries are too ununited to cooperate to allow a superstate.
As Hytegia stated, there are problems that need to be overcome, which are so big, that it is impossible solve over a single generation. Globalization and the internet will slowly solve it, but not easily and steadily.