“Wouldn’t it be better if it was the Civilized World vs. Everyone Else?”

You make a fairly convincing argument here. Granted, it may be an improvement over the status quo.

Joshua:

Couldn’t disagree more. Turkey is the only Islamic country around with even half a chance of getting into an organization like what was suggested, as they’re already really quite secular, thanks to the efforts of Ataturk in the early 1900s. The other Islamic countries would be far more likely to respond by suggesting the formation of the formalized Ummah. If that happens, Turkey might very well join them instead. Which effectively means that the Islamic states wouldn’t join, simply on principle, and Turkey might follow suite, likely out of some misplaced sense of solidarity or the like.

Meredith:

In a democratic country, no, you cannot ignore the crazy nutball crowd, especially when they make up a disproportionately large section of the people who actually show up to vote. If you want to ignore them, then you need to figure out how to get the rational people out to the polls.

You should definitely carry out your proposal, but maybe you could create your own militia country instead of taking up space in Michigan. (By the way, why is Michigan the choice state for that sort of thing?) Of course, your little militia country would not be allowed in the 1WG, pursuant to Rule #4 - No countries made up of crazy, gun-toting, ammo hording people will be allowed.

Simply put - I love your idea. And, I think that our own government and the attitudes of people in this country, republicans and democrats alike, are the main bar to your proposal. Yes, we are the member of the group project that always does 90% of the work, but isn’t that partly because we are also that member who wants to have the control? It seems like this proposal is one of the possible alternatives to the UN, since that doesn’t seem to be working out that well (but again, is that not partially the fault of the US as well?) Damn it, our country sure is a pain in the ass!!!

As for Bob’s point about Evangelical Christians fearing the apocalypse, maybe one benefit of your proposal would be that it would be easier to disregard that type of silliness. (As an aside, I would think they would be excited about the Rapture because then they will all get sucked up into heaven, leaving the rest of us to live out eternity in a hellish world - or is that a different group?) I’m not even sure why we talk about those people and their nutball ideas in the first place. Can’t we just start to ignore?

As for Joshua’s point about Islam, see the above paragraph. Rule #9 of the 1WG - No crazy religious groups who are trying to oppress people, kill people, or impose their religions on to other people, will be allowed. Therefore, in order for a country to join, it must have its religious groups under control.

Start with a seed, and grow it. No way we can suddenly announce a world government tomorrow and expect anyone to sign up. But a coalition against genocide, or in favor of some environmental thing?

How do you propose that every individually corrupt nation on earth will somehow combine into one super-conglomeration that is somehow not as corrupt as it’s most corrupt piece?

I agree no one is ready for this yet, but the conversation should start. At very least it might focus the minds of Europeans and Japanese.

Okay, we’re both marketing wonks. Let’s figure out how to position this so it doesn’t sound like a “world government.”

I think first you may actually want to put the word “genocide” into the title of whatever you’re going to call it, because we want to talk specifically about this ONE thing. This has the effect of guilting nations into joining.

Once everybody is at the table and cooperating, you can bring up things like saving the entire human race from a meteor strike, but eliminating genocide would have to be that first thing which brings everybody together. Let’s simply call it something bland and easy like “Nations Against Genocide.”

The first task of the NAG would be put together a very simple list of countries that have these problems in them. We’re not talking about fundamentalist nations, simply ones where genocide is currently happening and is easily demonstrated. NAG would ask that participating countries commit up to 5% of their military resources (in money and military power) to the genocide elimination effort. This money would not only go towards building coalition forces, but also giving aid to and financing the new lives of the survivors once the tyrants are forced out and tired before the NAG council. NAG would also establish multinational bases in these countries so something like this never happens again.

Ultimately what I’m thinking is that if you get all these nations together, and focus them on one common goal, the rest of your plan will work itself out. Seriously, if the human race is threatened with something truly horrific, NAG would already have the worldwide network to address it in place. And it would make sense that a multi-nation coalition would be the organization to look towards to carry out anything that needs to be done. In any emergency, it’s always about the first responders…

Get well, Michael. And the next time you’re in Chicago drop me a line, will you?

Of course I see government as an amoral instrument for evil or good. Individuals can be good or evil, but a government is no more inherently good or evil than is a hammer or a pen. A government is an institution, a tool, used by people for good or ill. Of course the same would apply to a world government.

As for checks and balances, using the EU model as a starting point I think it’s wrong to pretend that Paris or Berlin or even Lisbon has no ability to check or balance Brussels. All the European military powers — France, Britain, Poland, etc. . . maintain control of their forces. But they do strive to reach a common foreign policy stand, as well as common economic positions. And, to go back to the Avian flu example, they’ve done a better job of preparing than we have. Part of the reason we can’t build stockpiles of Tamiflu is that the Europeans got their first.

When I was shooting Conversatioins With thee Enemy I would argue with Europeans that the only reason they are able to have an EU is that the US has made the world safe for them. They didn’t usually disagree. They get that they live in a security world of our making, they have no trouble taking the freebies we hand out, then work the situation to their narrow advantage and say to hell with the Americans. It’s a parent-child dynamic.

I agree no one is ready for this yet, but the conversation should start. At very least it might focus the minds of Europeans and Japanese.

Only governments can cause, and only government can stop, genocide. Only governments can cause, and only government can stop famine. Governments restrict free trade and plunge millions into unecessary [sic] poverty. Only government can reverse that fatal protectionism. . . . Only governments can cause, and only government can stop, war.

Ahem. . . do we have an argument here for world government– or one for the comparative benefit of anarchy ? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. Pandora’s box has been opened. But, being an unwashed heathen (relative to the argument), I still can’t follow the reasoning. It seems that here government is reckoned merely an amoral instrument for ‘evil’ or for ‘good.’ Meanwhile, apparently the opposing notions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are a moral fiction as well– politically useful nonfacts. How else can we understand that the monopoly of power (One government) is ‘good,’ while the ‘checks and balances’ of divided power (many governments) have (in the domestic American context) proved worth their cost (at least while the opposition is in power)? Aha ! I know. . . bring on the Apocalypse. . . the eschatological justification of all things.

It seems to me that contempt for trans-cultural expressions of “Fundamentalism” tends to blind those who have a log in their own eye. For modern secular man, it is also his own concerns which are increasing (and understandably) framed in Apocalyptic fashion. His proposed ‘Savior’ is, of course, the true/factual one– unlike all those other faiths! Unfortunately world government will require a secular Jihad, or Armageddon, to usher in a common ‘worship.’ Whether Christian, Islamic, or Secular, those who notions of good governance come from their apocalyptics will not reach a mutually peaceable accommodation if the stakes are. . . a monopoly of power. But maybe ‘peace’ and security are only useful fictions.

I cannot believe I misspelled Donklephant again. It’s like a mental block.

Heh, I thought it was on purpose given your history with the title. No worries. Just glad you’re here and posting.

Concerning the post, I agree with Bob that we aren’t ready for it. Unfortunately, only until the US loses superpower status will the world go looking for another policeman and realize that no one country can take on that responsibility. It’s like anything else. Make things easier for people and they’ll take advantage and not pull their weight. The US is that one member of the group project in college that actually does 90% of the work. It might not be the best work, and it may ultimately fail, but we get it done no matter what.

Like it or leave it, that’s just how I think it’ll shake out. And honestly, would it be bad if the US lost superpower status at some point in the next 50 years? I mean, just look at how much the world has changed over the past 200 years alone, and you’ll know that this superpower status is in a constant state of flux. Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. Of course, if China replaces us…maybe it would.

However I think you’ll find a lot of interesting debate on the subject from the Evangelical Christians if the issue ever comes up in earnest. It would sort of be the elephant in the closet. You see, many of them believe that the Bible prophesies that such a world government would herald the arrival of the Anti-Christ. So… I think you can count on an unusually large amount of resistance to the concept from the far right. Plus the part where they object on principle to anything they perceive might diminish the sovereignty of the country.

I do have my own misgivings though. For starters, it would reinforce the “Us vs. Them” mindset. Or more accurately, “Them vs. Us.” I’m inclined to think that that’s a bad thing. More importantly, it would inevitably reduce border security if passports were not required of citizens of this hypothetical federation travelling between member states. The economic ramifications would be huge and incredibly complicated, of course, and can’t realistically be 100% positive, but that’s hardly a reason to avoid the development. The nuclear issue could be interesting, as it may neatly summarize who we officially accept having nuclear power, but it could also hasten nuclear proliferation within member states. There are, of course, easily hundreds of other issues that I’ll never think of, some good, some bad. It’s a concept that bears thought, but I’m certain that the world isn’t ready for it just yet.