We need a world government, voted for by all adults on Earth, so that opportunities, resources, costs etc are shared fairly
Click to vote
28%58 Votes
Strongly Disagree
20%41 Votes
Disagree
15%31 Votes
Undecided
24%49 Votes
Agree
13%26 Votes
Strongly Agree
28%58 Votes
Strongly Disagree
20%41 Votes
Disagree
15%31 Votes
Undecided
24%49 Votes
Agree
13%26 Votes
Strongly Agree
Male
Female
25%22 Votes
Strongly Disagree
29%25 Votes
Disagree
16%14 Votes
Undecided
20%17 Votes
Agree
10%9 Votes
Strongly Agree
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Plawler: first thing, under a democratic world government, no-one would dictate. The people of the world would vote freely to elect the government they wanted, which might end up being more capitalistic, or more interventionist - as in any democratic country at present.
Second thing: good governments can and do ensure that all their citizens have access to minimum Opportunities in life (eg education, health care, freedom to start a business, etc), that Resources are sustainably used for the benefit of all, and that Costs (such as those of providing these opportunities, developing poor regions, repairing the environment) are also shared equitably.
Plawler, on reflection I have to admit that you're right, that my question is flawed because it's a mixture of two ideas: (1)that we need a world government and (2)what that world government should do (which, as I have said, is really up to the voters). A professional opinion poll would probably separate these ideas in 2 different questions.
Communism makes everybody under that government poor. Attempting to impement that on a global scale would result in unstable condition for every inhabitant of the world.
There are 7 billion humans and growing and earth lacks the resources to sustain us all equally at a feasable standard of living.
As opposed to corporatism, which makes only 90% of the people poor, and a mixed socialist/capitalist economy which, in this country at least, made about 13% and dropping --until free-0market crap was imposed again--poor.
And your assertion that the earth cannot sustain that many at a feasible standard of living is hogwash. It cannot sustain us at the upper middle class US standard of living. But it cannot sustain even 70% of *Americans* at that level, either.
It is much more worrying that industrial agriculture is ruining farmlands all over the planet.
It is much more worrying that climate change is increasing desertification and drought so spectacularly all over the world. THAT could make even subsistence agriculture untenable.
No, it's democracy, which has never been introduced on a global scale. At least that's the key aspect of the question; later it's up to the voters to decide whether they want a government that is more socialist or more capitalist.
Fine distinctions are lost on too many of my compatriots, alas.
Democracy on any meaningful scale has never been tried HERE, either. Oh, around the turn of the century (19th to 20th) until the early thirties, we actually had many experiments in democratic government at the local level, including the city government of New York City, which adopted proportional representation, leading directly to the election to office of members of the Labor Party and the Communist Party. It was in part their very success that scared the capitalist robber-barons in accepting the New Deal.
No that would not be a good idea at all. We are too different culturally. It would be a dictatorship of the majority since it would be impossible in my opinion to guarantee the rights of all those minorities.
The author sees a world government based on EU-model as a possibility because "it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature" - like climate change, the economic crisis and terrorism.
On the other hand, here's a website campaigning for a "democratic world government" more like the above question proposes: http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/
(I'm not associated with any of these groups and I think there are enormous practical problems in the world government idea, but utopian or not, I think it's interesting to put it on the agenda)
How do we trust that appointed officials have our interest at heart? I seriously doubt we see the whole picture. If being either black or white is extreme, and then uniting all under one shade of gray is also as malignant. Usually finding an easy answer to a difficult question is fault ridden and reckless. Why can't we consider perhaps self government? Once you understand the answer to this question, you will understand why there is no other kinds of governement.
I think that for many issues, the closer that decision-making is to the people affected by the decision, the better. So that means you devolve power to local authorities when you can. But aren't there also global issues which we can't tackle properly unless we have a global authority? And the best kind of global authority is one that we all decide on and can get rid of if we don't like it.
Switzerland
Your question conflates governments with economic systems. A government alone cannot dictate opportunities, resources, costs, etc.
Plawler: first thing, under a democratic world government, no-one would dictate. The people of the world would vote freely to elect the government they wanted, which might end up being more capitalistic, or more interventionist - as in any democratic country at present.
Second thing: good governments can and do ensure that all their citizens have access to minimum Opportunities in life (eg education, health care, freedom to start a business, etc), that Resources are sustainably used for the benefit of all, and that Costs (such as those of providing these opportunities, developing poor regions, repairing the environment) are also shared equitably.
Plawler, on reflection I have to admit that you're right, that my question is flawed because it's a mixture of two ideas: (1)that we need a world government and (2)what that world government should do (which, as I have said, is really up to the voters). A professional opinion poll would probably separate these ideas in 2 different questions.
Communism makes everybody under that government poor. Attempting to impement that on a global scale would result in unstable condition for every inhabitant of the world.
There are 7 billion humans and growing and earth lacks the resources to sustain us all equally at a feasable standard of living.
As opposed to corporatism, which makes only 90% of the people poor, and a mixed socialist/capitalist economy which, in this country at least, made about 13% and dropping --until free-0market crap was imposed again--poor.
And your assertion that the earth cannot sustain that many at a feasible standard of living is hogwash. It cannot sustain us at the upper middle class US standard of living. But it cannot sustain even 70% of *Americans* at that level, either.
It is much more worrying that industrial agriculture is ruining farmlands all over the planet.
It is much more worrying that climate change is increasing desertification and drought so spectacularly all over the world. THAT could make even subsistence agriculture untenable.
It is a matter of distribution, not supply.
O ... M ... G ... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
World government: If wacko right-wing conspiracy theorists hate it, it must be good.
Lol, I still wouldn't rely on their (lack of) judgment for me to base my decisions on.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted by obert .
[1 point] 3 years ago byNo, it's democracy, which has never been introduced on a global scale. At least that's the key aspect of the question; later it's up to the voters to decide whether they want a government that is more socialist or more capitalist.
Fine distinctions are lost on too many of my compatriots, alas.
Democracy on any meaningful scale has never been tried HERE, either. Oh, around the turn of the century (19th to 20th) until the early thirties, we actually had many experiments in democratic government at the local level, including the city government of New York City, which adopted proportional representation, leading directly to the election to office of members of the Labor Party and the Communist Party. It was in part their very success that scared the capitalist robber-barons in accepting the New Deal.
Lol, when will you delete your profiles jonmarc.
No that would not be a good idea at all. We are too different culturally. It would be a dictatorship of the majority since it would be impossible in my opinion to guarantee the rights of all those minorities.
It would be a nice idea .... if people were basically nice.
People ARE basically nice. So nice that they don't *immediately* smack down the not-nice ones. Which is how they gain power.
Here's a recent article on world government I've just found from the conservative British paper Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
The author sees a world government based on EU-model as a possibility because "it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature" - like climate change, the economic crisis and terrorism.
On the other hand, here's a website campaigning for a "democratic world government" more like the above question proposes: http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/
Also lots of info at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government
(I'm not associated with any of these groups and I think there are enormous practical problems in the world government idea, but utopian or not, I think it's interesting to put it on the agenda)
I am afraid it is only wishful thinking.
How do we trust that appointed officials have our interest at heart? I seriously doubt we see the whole picture. If being either black or white is extreme, and then uniting all under one shade of gray is also as malignant. Usually finding an easy answer to a difficult question is fault ridden and reckless. Why can't we consider perhaps self government? Once you understand the answer to this question, you will understand why there is no other kinds of governement.
What do you mean by self-government?
I think that for many issues, the closer that decision-making is to the people affected by the decision, the better. So that means you devolve power to local authorities when you can. But aren't there also global issues which we can't tackle properly unless we have a global authority? And the best kind of global authority is one that we all decide on and can get rid of if we don't like it.