Would a global government and a New World Order be a bad thing?

I don't see the concept of "global civil society" can have any meaning. The term "civil society" seems incompatible with centralization on a global scale. The framers of our Constitution didn't even trust the notion of a "national civil society," which is why they went to such great lengths to limit the jurisdiction of the federal government. It's too bad that The Federalist Papers are scarcely studied in US history classes.

 

It appears that you aren’t alone in your difficulty, huckfinn.

Of course global civil society 'appears' incompatible with a global gov’t and global enterprise. But the justification is there. It isn’t going to be found in the ramblings of those men who wrote up your constitution but in the ramblings of the men that influenced those men. Which is why I emphasize the role of the university, the only arena in which they can be debated through reason and with reasonable people.

It is always going to be the case that those pledging support and action within democracy are going to be against civil society. Those who pledge support for private enterprise are going to be against government. It is just that we haven’t seen a strong civil society in generations. People argue that Berkeley in the 60’s was the last time we’ve seen it. I disagree, they lacked coherent vision and that weakened their structure.

It isn't surprising that ‘civil society’ means nothing to most people now. It is there, it has been there, it has just been hidden from us. I suppose ‘hidden’ is a bad word. We just haven’t needed it for a long while. We’ve got to give the meaning back to civil society, despite the disapproval from our founding fathers, our current ‘fathers’ and Pressed Rat’s (evil) global enterprise. It is the agency that every libertarian and anarchist desires. It certainly is compatible with the emergence of global enterprise and global government. They just don’t want it to be.

The occasion has come. Enterprise is global. Time for gov’t to go global.

Time for us to go global too.

It is odd for me to keep saying this. I just don’t see the purpose in discussing the absurdity of suggesting a Keynsian global bank as the figurehead of g.c.s., before we all agree that g.c.s., is necessary and viable.

 

Maybe you could elaborate on what global government should look like. How much authority would it have? What (if any) power would be left to local/national/regional governments?

 

Maybe I could, yes you are right. But I won’t. It would be entirely unfair. Such would be comparable to asking the coin collector the benefits of collecting stamps.

Ultimately, what I think the global government ought to look like won’t matter. The global government will look as it will. There is no changing that.

What we ought to be worrying about is how the global civil society will look.

I will say that national government will not lose power. It will play an important part in relations for years to come. I don’t know if national sovereignty can be eliminated. The existence of national government has little to do with the existence of global government, unfortunately.

 

If a true Global Government ever came to be, I would pack my bags and move to Jupiter.

 

Seems to be the consensus now, doesn’t it?

 

**


Please give us your alternative suggestions on limiting unaccountable international institutions and powerful nationalistic powers with a global reach?

Or do we allow such entities to go unchecked?

 

Pikachu

If a true Global Government ever came to be, I would pack my bags and move to Jupiter.

Three questions –

Why would you move?

What means of transport are you using?

Why Jupiter?

 

There're not studied for apparent reasons. Today's government (Empire) does not want our collective asses to rise and be heard. It's really that simplistic.

OSF, I don't feel a need to reply to your mundane challenges because that'll only serve to support the pedestal you've placed under your feet. I refuse to bow to you. Do you consider that treason of some sort?

As for a global government Tyranny (which is what it would rapidly become), just realize that the forces of Global Empire will not succeed without a bloody fight. If they do pursue the finalization processes of making this come to fruition, people will fight back. And it'll be a battle worthy of the same recognition as any Biblical war. Laugh while you can.

 

Global government is impossible, that is not all countries will want to be part of it. I believe the Global gov will basically be the countries in the UN joining together.

 

a global government is not possible because there will be constant revolution.

 

**


I ask again of those that bitch about the global-elite’s, the multinational corporations and those that who complain about the US’s unilateral actions –

If a global democratic government isn’t the answer what is?


**

 

It is simply impossible to get countries as diverse as China, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and the United States to agree on anything. Far from preventing war, a world government would cause nothing but war.

I have to ask those of you advocating a world government why exactly you want one. Is it truly so that all the people of the world can have a voice, or is it so that you can push YOUR agenda on a greater number of people?

Now I'm not an isolationist. Sometimes the world community needs to step in and say "Enough as enough," as it should have done in Rwanda and Darfur. But there is a big middle ground between shutting your eyes to atrocities outside of your borders, and establishing a world government leviathan that would be resented by almost everyone.

 

It is simply impossible to get countries as diverse as China, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and the United States to agree on anything.
It was once claimed that countries as diverse as France, Germany and Britain, Spain, Greece, Austria, Belgium, Czech republic, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Ireland, Poland the Netherlands, Sweden Malta, Portugal, Hungary, Cyprus, Slovakia Estonia Denmark to agree on anything.

Far from preventing war, a world government would cause nothing but war.

To you believe the European Union is likely to cause a war between it’s members?

**

I have to ask those of you advocating a world government why exactly you want one. Is it truly so that all the people of the world can have a voice, or is it so that you can push YOUR agenda on a greater number of people?

The question being presented is, is the alternative that "A handful of men in the richest nations use the global powers they have assumed to tell the rest of the world how to live"


**

I ask again of those that bitch about the global-elite’s, the multinational corporations and those that who complain about the US’s unilateral actions –

If a global democratic government isn’t the answer what is?

 

A global government by definition would not be democratic but oligarchical and authoritarian. Democratic governance must remain as close as possible to those so governed for any meaningful civic scrutiny and accountability to be maintained.

 

A global government by definition would not be democratic but oligarchical and authoritarian.

Why? Please expand since a global democratic government would by definition be a democratic government that was global.

 

The European Union is culturally homogeneous enough at this point in time that a war would be unlikely. All of the countries (except half of Cyprus) basically have Judeo-Christian values, and they all basically believe in the principles of democracy and (to varying degrees) a free market.

But even in the European Union there are significant differences between member states, which is why I think it is unlikely that the EU will become a "nation" in the same sense that the USA is, at least in the near future.

Fallacy of bifurcation. There are more possibilities than those two. In fact, how would a world government even change the status quo you described above?

I don't claim to be one of the people who bitches about corporations, but I'll take a stab at this question:

The reason most people give for wanting a global government is to prevent human rights atrocities like Darfur, right? So a global organization like the UN could be effective if it had the authority to do things like that...and not much power to do anything else.

Other than that, what issues are there that need to be addressed by a global government than a local one?

 

Treason of some sort? No.

Just dishonorable.

 

Then discharge me, if you can. Empire supporter.

 

I hope you're right...but the Revolution wouldn't be constant. It would end at some point. But it would probably take a long time.