World federalism

[Tammuz]

What do you think of the concept of world federalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government)? Will it happen? Is it desirable?

Personally I think that it will happen, and I also find it desirable.

I think it will happen in a few centuries or so. A world federalism must rest on democracies, or else it won't work. You can't pretend that, for instance, Iceland and Saudi Arabia could be together in a federation. One country is a modern democracy, while the other is a despotic quasi-theocratic monarchy. So the world has to become democratic, and I also think it is necessary that all countries reach the developed state, or else it will get hard to get it all to work.

I find it desirable because it will prevent wars between nations and peoples, and also because people can move around more freely, i.e where workforce is needed and so. No military race between nations would also improve living conditions for human beings. Think about it, do you think Florida and California would have been good off if they had to compete in a nuclear race against each other? The only military force that would be would be a universal peace force. And I also think that a united humankind is necessary before any space colonization could be started. And another benefit would also be that endangered species could recieve universal protection.

There have been, and are, various federations of nations, some less successful, and some more successful. I consider, for example, USA (and India) a much more successful federation than EU.

Probably there are many aspects which I haven't mentioned. But what do you think about the subject?

[Nitrousoxide]

The EU isn't terribly close to federalism, if it's in that camp, it's a very, very week form of federalism.

It would probably be more appropriate to classify it as a Confederation of sorts instead.

As to me, I would not be averse to a Confederation made up of Canada, the US, and Mexico. I expect that over time, we'll start to see more and more confederations made like the EU as individual nation-states find that they simply cannot compete with the other confederations. If China ever becomes a real danger of surpassing us in military and economic power, I would actually prefer that we surrender some of our soverignity to join those three countries into a Union rather than loose out to the Chinese.

[Loren Pechtel]

Something along those lines will happen as the third world countries shed their bad government and catch up with the west.

The EU is simply the first step down a long road.

[Laurentius]

What do you think of the concept of world federalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government)?

Your view is very similar with my perspective on globalization.

[premjan]

Will happen eventually.

[Merlin]

It'll happen.

[long winded fool]

What do you think of the concept of world federalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government)? Will it happen? Is it desirable?

Personally I think that it will happen, and I also find it desirable.

I think it will happen in a few centuries or so. A world federalism must rest on democracies, or else it won't work. You can't pretend that, for instance, Iceland and Saudi Arabia could be together in a federation. One country is a modern democracy, while the other is a despotic quasi-theocratic monarchy. So the world has to become democratic, and I also think it is necessary that all countries reach the developed state, or else it will get hard to get it all to work.

I find it desirable because it will prevent wars between nations and peoples, and also because people can move around more freely, i.e where workforce is needed and so. No military race between nations would also improve living conditions for human beings. Think about it, do you think Florida and California would have been good off if they had to compete in a nuclear race against each other? The only military force that would be would be a universal peace force. And I also think that a united humankind is necessary before any space colonization could be started. And another benefit would also be that endangered species could recieve universal protection.

There have been, and are, various federations of nations, some less successful, and some more successful. I consider, for example, USA (and India) a much more successful federation than EU.

Probably there are many aspects which I haven't mentioned. But what do you think about the subject?

Cooperation is always desirable. Domination is never desirable.

I don't think there will ever be a world government capable of surviving longer than a few generations. I think the larger governments become, the more flimsy they become. The more we try to dominate those who refuse to cooperate, the less freedom our friends and neighbors will have and the more likely it will be that they will rebel against our domination. The less we try to dominate those who refuse to cooperate, the less secure our friends and neighbors will be and the more likely we will be powerless to stop a dangerous military or political escalation.

What is the point of government if it can't ensure personal security for its people? What is the point of government if it can't ensure personal freedom for its people? If you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, then you are damned.

[RareBird]

I favor it. But I think there is something even beyond that is more desireable--a super-culture that views nations as obsolete. A federalism based upon a graduation from the idea of nation states would not be some kind of United Nations but a true human phenomenon. When people lead, governments will follow.

[illuminati11_13]

I favor it. But I think there is something even beyond that is more desireable--a super-culture that views nations as obsolete. A federalism based upon a graduation from the idea of nation states would not be some kind of United Nations but a true human phenomenon. When people lead, governments will follow.

By definition, that wouldn't be 'federalism.'

It's a nice idea, but a pipe-dream I believe. Rousseau believed that the only reason people acted ill towards each other was because they were corrupted by society. The problem is, If people are naturaly cooperative and benevolent, where did society come from? Where the French Revolution occured and attempted to implement some of Rouseau's ideas, people got worse, not better. The problem is that as long a people are malicious and selfish, government will be necessary. People have desires and needs that are irreconcilable with those of society as a whole and no amount of social conditioning can change this.

With regard to world government, the problem is that many nations have needs and wants that are absolutly irreconcilable with the needs and wants of other nations. For example, Islam. The Koran states that any territory gained by Islam shall not be last by Islam. Hence, any Muslims who supports mere existence of the state of Israel is considered apostate by other Muslims. For this reason, the wants of Israel and the wants of its neihbors were absolutely irrenconciliable for many years. These differences are also caused by Ideology, Economics, Natural Resources, Etc. (Cold War is another good example, Communist ideology cannot accept the existence of Capitalist nations without attempting to change them.)

[Loren Pechtel]

With regard to world government, the problem is that many nations have needs and wants that are absolutly irreconcilable with the needs and wants of other nations. For example, Islam. The Koran states that any territory gained by Islam shall not be last by Islam. Hence, any Muslims who supports mere existence of the state of Israel is considered apostate by other Muslims. For this reason, the wants of Israel and the wants of its neihbors were absolutely irrenconciliable for many years. These differences are also caused by Ideology, Economics, Natural Resources, Etc. (Cold War is another good example, Communist ideology cannot accept the existence of Capitalist nations without attempting to change them.)

While I agree with you about Islam I don't think that was the reason behind the Cold War.

Rather, we were an extreme threat to the Soviet Union because we showed that their system didn't work very well.

[premjan]

There may be nations, but they will tend to lose distinct identity in a globally federal setup. People will be able to migrate much more easily, more like within the states of a country as at present.

[unrealist42]

The EU, while not federalist yet, is certainly moving in that direction. It would not surprise me if other EU countries broke up into even smaller regional entities like Great Britain is doing.

I could see latin america going to a sort of federalism, and the middle east and SE Asia eventually but nationalism is still very strong in those places.

I think a federalist planet is quite a way off but almost inevitable with all this globalization going on.

[RareBird]

I favor it. But I think there is something even beyond that is more desireable--a super-culture that views nations as obsolete. A federalism based upon a graduation from the idea of nation states would not be some kind of United Nations but a true human phenomenon. When people lead, governments will follow.

By definition, that wouldn't be 'federalism.'

It's a nice idea, but a pipe-dream I believe. Rousseau believed that the only reason people acted ill towards each other was because they were corrupted by society. The problem is, If people are naturaly cooperative and benevolent, where did society come from? Where the French Revolution occured and attempted to implement some of Rouseau's ideas, people got worse, not better. The problem is that as long a people are malicious and selfish, government will be necessary. People have desires and needs that are irreconcilable with those of society as a whole and no amount of social conditioning can change this.

With regard to world government, the problem is that many nations have needs and wants that are absolutly irreconcilable with the needs and wants of other nations. For example, Islam. The Koran states that any territory gained by Islam shall not be last by Islam. Hence, any Muslims who supports mere existence of the state of Israel is considered apostate by other Muslims. For this reason, the wants of Israel and the wants of its neihbors were absolutely irrenconciliable for many years. These differences are also caused by Ideology, Economics, Natural Resources, Etc. (Cold War is another good example, Communist ideology cannot accept the existence of Capitalist nations without attempting to change them.)

My pipe is special.