Do you think this planet should have one government or not?

Question

with too many conflicts and nations that can't seem to get along with one another, do you think the entire planet should be placed under one governing body with 11-12 council members to run everything for everyone? Your thoughts on this please, at the rate our planet is going, I fear for the future of all our children.

Answer 1

Someday, a global government would be terrific. But we would still need regional and town government to meet the needs of the regional and local community.

Only a good Republic form of government, where the PEOPLE elect representatives could work, and create the sort of unity that you seek.

Just as 2000 approached, the United Nations passed the Millennium Development Goals. These 8 goals were agreed upon by the nations that make up the General Assembly. This body of governments decided to take a positive step toward a global unity against these eight issues that prevent a unified world.

Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty
Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality
Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

Doesn't this seem like a good start?

Visit http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

Answer 2

Absolutely, yes, and it's inevitable because of the very technology that has been shrinking the world to what McLuhan called a "global village". Issues such as proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, ecological damage, conservation, flow of capital, corporate activity, et al, are not limited by national borders and small sovereignties. No single national government, however wealthy or powerful, can hope to deal effectively with even one of these issues. In 1945, in the aftermath of a horrific world war (= failure of diplomacy) many enlightened thinkers recognized the need for a "United Nations Organization" as a nascent world government. At the time, that body was not so representative of the world as a whole; many fears caused its members to establish safeguards against the UN from having the powers of more than a weak federation, analogous to the Articles of Confederation chartering the US in its first dozen years. Had the Americans not adopted a stronger Constitution, I believe this shaky union would have collapsed from the bickerings among its sovereign member states, some of which nearly went to war with each other over border disputes, fishing rights, etc.

Practically speaking, today, the US is hemorrhaging its wealth in attempts to play world policeman in Iraq (and elsewhere) ... crazy old Saddam is laughing his head off ... probably provoked the US invasion as a long-term strategy to ruin existing support for the US in the Arab and Muslim nations. Maybe that gives him too much credit, or maybe he was in fact underestimated. It takes a certain national character to back up a genuine imperialist policy. The British has this in the 18th-19th centuries, until realizing that Empire is too costly to sustain in the long run. Contrary to what many around the world think, Americans are *not* very motivated as imperialists. After one brief fling in the Spanish-American war, the national mood swung back to its traditional isolationism (also unrealistic in the global village of the 21st century).

So, I maintain that the question is rather one of just what flavor of world government will emerge in the 21st century. Will it be a constitutional one based on strong federalism and human rights, or will it be an empire carved out by a young military genius ... perhaps an angry young man whose values were shaped in the harsh realities of a refugee camp? Failure to realize the first option guarantees an era dominated by the second.

Answer 3

What kind of govenment? What would the extent of it's powers be? In a sense we already have a world governing body. It's called the United Nations, and you see how effective they are. A lot of people believe that a very few corporate individuals already rule most of the planet and there is very little anyone will ever do about it. Oil rules. Not food production. Nor manufacturing. Oil. Politicians start wars over it with no regard to the cost in the lives of our sons and daughters. Greed, profit are the keywords. All is permissible if it is done to increase the bottom line. Even killing innocent people in the name of democracy. It's about Oil. The one world government you speak of has it's capitol in Saudi Arabia, and the king is an arab who couldn't care less about you or anyone besides his own. And we created him. And our Frankenstein monster and puppet now pulls our strings. One World Government? No thanks. Not until Jesus comes back.

Answer 4

The U.S.A. was created to be a government with checks and balances because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our country was founded with the belief that freedom was the prior thing. One world government would be a logistical nightmare unless the system was totalitarian. Individual freedom would be sacrificed for the good of the community. Just because things are bad now, it does not follow logically that a one world government would make it all good. That is pure lunacy in thinking.

Answer 5

No, i think that the world would go into Anarchy if we only had one government. The 12 council members also may get overruling and start fighting with each other

Answer 6

No way -- who would choose? And, what if the government chosen wasn't a democratic one? People would have no options. There has never been a time in recorded history where the whole world has been at peace. Something is always happening somewhere, so keep it in perspective -- you are just more aware because it is hitting closer to home.

Answer 7

Are you that willing to concede your rights to 11 or 12 people? 11 or 12 people know whats best for hundreds of millions?

Nope, nada. Conflict will exist as long as there is more than one human being alive.

Think about it. Do you want to give voice to only 11 or 12 human beings?

Answer 8

well perhaps. The world could be run under the United Nations however, there will be consistent uproar on a lot of land and political issues and imperialism and all that. It would rather cause war between nations than peace. I dont tink it would work out.

Answer 9

So do I worry for my children. However, politicians love what you feel.

Basically, we need a body of law all follow. On the other hand, we do not want one government, for that will make life much worse than it is today. Some surprising answers are in the reference below.

Answer 10

I fear for the future of our children too. But I am worried that our world is not yet ready for one government. The UN hasn't really helped stop outbreaks and genocide.