Talk:Is a world government desirable?

Should be renamed to "Is a unitary world government desirable?"

So far, most arguments on this page assume a unitary state. A world federal state would have a different set of arguments for and against. JohnSmith2854 (discuss • contribs) 07:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@JohnSmith2854 Sharp eye! Another approach would be to add sections for/against a unitary world government, and sections for/against a federal world government. Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the differences would not be all that deep. A federal government modeled on the federation that is the U.S. would have federal army, federal budget, federal law, federal constitution and federal police. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Such a government would be unified only in its exploitation of the "global public". Even if you take for granted that it would operate in any way resembling an honest democracy (a big if), plurality/majority votes would leave many people dissatisfied. Clearly imposing one government upon everyone is a means of centralizing power and not of distributing it. I dislike everything about the idea. I'd never submit to such a government. The "arguments for" are somehow both utopian and still not worth the loss of sovereignty and self-determination they require to implement (or rather, impose). Isn't that kind of obvious? The "you'll have peace if you give us complete authority" line of argument is and always has been bogus and at best ends in exploitative mediocrity, and rarely even that. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 05:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The above comment contains nothing that differentiates the object it criticizes. That is, we do not know whether the comment opposes world government, the U.S. federation, the European Union, the German federation, Czechia or any other state. Since, any state centralizes power rather than distributing it, and any plain-majoritarian democracy leaves many people dissatisfied. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Clearly it all holds to a greater extent under a world government than any other, more self-contained and local system of government. The USA has also been bastardized for about a century now, and it's not exactly dishonest to chalk it up to corruption at the federal level, with congress delegating the prerogative to manage currency to a private bank, and generally defrauding the public and debauching the nation whenever it might be expedient. So, I don't say it doesn't apply to the present government here too, but certainly the situation is not made any better by a world government or by making the "leaders" even less accountable to the public. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How are leaders in a representative-democractic world government unaccountable to the public, given the public may choose to diselect them? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the more you scale up a government the less influence the individual has. Not only that, but a localized demographic has less control over how it's run and who benefits from its labor. As does the previous nation-state. It's a step in the wrong direction altogether. Your general argument, which certainly benefits from the abstract nature of this discussion, is like so many others that reason "an arbitrary line must be drawn, therefore we should draw no such line". This seems somewhat less than honest and does not address the thrust of the argument. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

But it's all just an exercise in compliance anyway. As I've said, you and I have no bearing on who becomes a leader and won't so long as you have this odd idea that "world leadership" is desirable to begin with. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The above seems to confuse the public (a collective of individuals) with an individual. The electorate size does not seem to have any obvious impact on lack of accountability, or does it? If, for instance, a leader is shown to have made a serious misstep, and this is made public via mass media or even a social network, the large electorate size does not protect the leader from being diselected. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course it does. If the mayor of town tumbleweed doesn't do his job, the people get rid of him. Try to get rid of the federal reserve board (or the whole thing, preferably). The fed has been screwing over the American public (and plenty of foreign nations) for the better part of a century and yet they stand. Congress is very likely an open fraud, as I explain in another essay. What more do you have to see? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. FED board is not a democratically elected leader but rather a partially politically unaccoutable organization. That has nothing to do with how many citizens the U.S. has; even if U.S. had one tenth of citizens, the FEd would be equally unaccountable. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's easier to get a smaller and more localized group on the same page with one another. You cannot honestly claim otherwise. What about congress and most of American political media? It's largely fraudulent, and relies on internal polarization, not external polarization. Such a scheme would work perfectly well in a "global government", with the political class serving private interests and generally acting in a corrupt, self-serving and debauched manner, derelict in their duty, at least as bad as the scuzz we presently have to put up with in the states, though I don't assume you live here. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Independence becomes an impossibility with a world government. This is essentially my argument, and I think it's a very good one. One that I'm not willing to compromise, if it were to come to that. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The argument game I am trying to play is largely impersonal, following the specification at Wikidebate/Guidelines. It investigates validity and relevance of statements relating to a motion. A statement like "One that I'm not willing to compromise, if it were to come to that" has absolutely no value in such an argument game unless the subject of the word "I" is something like world emperor. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I view debate as a consensus-building process, not as sport. You can put as much or as little stock in the personal comment as you like, but it is very much an honest comment. For me it's a "cold dead hands", or "no man, no problem" proposition. That is to say, I would fight to the death in order not to be imposed upon, and would rather suffer death than be imposed upon in a manner contrary to the founding principles of my nation, which a one-world government most definitely is. Assuming I'm not entirely unique, one may find a problem on their hands when imposing such a government, as anyone would resist imposition. Is it not a bit cynical or even ignorant to dismiss that viewpoint? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You could argue that I'm already being imposed upon in such a way, I suppose. Congress is a fraud, monetary policy is a fraud, the presidency is a fraud, mass media's a fraud, and so on. I suppose in this case it's a matter of informing the public. If the public at large knew this information, they would remove these people. Education and consensus-building is the remedy in this case, I feel. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

In that regard, I do my best with the essays. I'm not a natural writer, but most of them get the important point across well enough. Such are my efforts to resist the particular sort of imposition I find myself subject to. If you know of something more effective, I'm all ears. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As another example, why do people turn to "terrorism" in the middle east? Because they are desperate and have no control over their way of life, or at least I imagine that's part of it. I don't think it's fair to impose upon people in such a way, do you? Frankly your remark is nihilistic in no small way. It is essentially to say that the live-or-die bottom line of others is of no concern to you yourself. Many people other than myself appreciate liberty and independence. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. We have "I'm not willing to compromise" and "I view debate as a consensus-building process, not as sport" ==> contradiction. And how most of the above is relevant to the motion escapes my understanding. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

People compromise in some ways but not others, news at 11. Next up, how the ideals of liberty and independence might be contrary to world government. This is your host, Captain F. Obvious, but first a word from our sponsors. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Really, does it not seem morally bankrupt not to put any stock whatsoever in such principles? Is it not a departure from good sense and decency itself? And as above, is it not obvious that this is what I've been saying? In a sense it's the only thing I can say. It's a very abstract argument and so it ends up falling upon broad generalities like these, which are still decent principles nonetheless. I suppose you might be right in a sense. The argument is really a non-starter for me, considering the possibility of benevolent dictatorship is nil and that it's unappealing in general for all the reasons stated thus far. If "we" can accomplish all those things on the "argument for" list after we submit to some global authority, why can't we accomplish them without doing so? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I also notice you're the one who ignored my objective statement Independence becomes an impossibility with a world government. in favor of nitpicking a personal remark, and now later on complain that the argument is off course and has become irrelevant with a snarky comment like And how most of the above is relevant to the motion escapes my understanding.. You asked how it was relevant, I spelled it out, but you didn't even have to do that much, because it was right there in front of you in Independence becomes an impossibility with a world government., and then you ignored the point a second time. If you want to argue with chatGPT, then go do that, but I'm certainly going to speak in the first person once in a while. It's bizarre not t20:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)o, and that is part of why I find the wikidebate format so stilted and restrictive. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As an example, you might look at the great depression, which was caused by the federal reserve restricting the money supply to crash the economy and strongarm the government. Yes, they relented on the economy, but only after they were given full control of it. This is not a solution in my mind, it's the sort of thing they all should have been sent to the clink for. If world leaders can compromise to solve these problems now but aren't, then we need better leaders. Why would a global government make any difference except to make some multinational companies some extra cash on tariffs and quicker imports/exports, which is itself subversive since it undercuts labor protection like minimum wage. Why pay anyone minimum wage when you can outsource and then import those goods for cheaper? Why a global government except to further remove the levers of power from the citizen and place them more squarely into the hands of criminal finance cartels? I see no reason to give up what little sovereignty we have left for the sake of making life more convenient for global financiers. It's an abomination. Or maybe they will do away with all these awful things, but even still, they can be done away with now, and I have no reason to think a global government would do anything but further exploit evil methods such as these. Whether or not a world government is "desirable" depends entirely upon who you ask. If you ask me, then no, for reasons I've already stated. If not, then on whose behalf am I expected to respond? If you ask whether or not it is socially beneficial (which is a different question altogether) then my answer would still be "no, probably not", again for reasons already covered. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I added the 'argument against'. I suppose we'll see how it holds up. Really I dislike mincing my argument into bits. Tons of questions remain but I don't feel like dicing the argument. For instance, I imagine that some uncontacted tribe would not appreciate, say, a book (or many books) of EU-style regulations. Or maybe they would, but perhaps not in the way its writers intended. So they are exempt? Of course, but on what grounds? Does this not undermine the entire argument that the same government regulations and laws should suit everyone? Quite clearly that's not the case, it's just a power grab for more authority. Again "desirable for whom"? Humanity? Well, that uncontacted tribe is part of humanity, I'm sure you'll all grant. The unequivocal answer is no, obviously a world government is not 'desirable' in any fair interpretation of the question. Each people should decide what's best for themselves, otherwise you bastardize their entire culture and way of life. You cannot pretend at that point that you truly value other cultures and ways of life if you attempt to impose your own. Every bit of this and the above is summed up in the argument I added: Independence and self-determination are impossible if the same government is imposed upon all of humanity. I don't know how much stock Dan Polansky puts into it, but I think it's a fine argument. Why would inventing (or condoning the invention of) positions of even higher and farther-reaching power solve oppression or exploitation? I can't help sense there's an odd cargo-cult reasoning to the "global government" proposition, if a proposition it may be called. It's all somewhat moot anyway. I've always advocated that wikidebates should focus more on specific public policies and issues that people ostensibly have a say in rather than politics in the abstract, but what do I know? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)