New World Order, really?

December 12, 2008 9:37 AM

one world government? a bad idea?

Assuming a few important things, what are the relative advantages or disadvantages of one world government over many small governments?

In practice this may be difficult to pull off, I know. But, let's assume that the government is a representational democracy, that there's a common set of human rights that can be agreed upon, and that somehow it'd be possible to remedy the economical / political / logistical issues.

Are there any other major reasons why this would be a bad idea? Or is it a great idea? On the surface it seems like it'd be wonderful - but I'm naive. I never have understood the concept of nationalism. Arbitrary national boundaries, especially among democracies, seem to be a huge waste of resources (tariffs, customs, security, military) with very little value. Show me my errors in thinking...

posted by brandnew to law & government (22 comments total)

Coming at this from an Economics point of view... religion is one example of the general point that people attach different value to different things. Some of these are absolutely more culturally ingrained (like religion); others can be more based on individuals' political or economic viewpoints - e.g. how best to undertake healthcare or education provision? Through private enterprise or funded by the state (or some hybrid)?.

It could be argued that the optimal system would be one where there are many many governments, offering a full spectrum of these options, with freedom of barriers to individuals wishing to move from one to the other. As a result, people get the maximum benefit from the public services they consume.

Something like this perhaps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model
posted by saintsguy at 9:51 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

People organize themselves in a variety of ways, to support each-other as needed. People are not autonomous single entities, but rely on one another to survive. Government is only one of many support systems. Government regulates laws and collects funds for public infrastructure. The bigger the government, the trickier it is to regulate. But small fiefdoms and tribes are too small to work out economies of scale (funding infrastructure is easier with more people - who wants to pay 1/10th the total cost for improving a road, when that can be divvied out over a larger population).

Also, the world is made up of varying mindsets, with some focus on certain regions. One government trying to oversee all that (along with the languages, time-zones, economies, rivalries over anything) would be really hard to maintain, and even more costly than some effort at localization. At least, that's my take on things.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:56 AM on December 12, 2008

Arbitrary national boundaries, especially among democracies, seem to be a huge waste of resources (tariffs, customs, security, military) with very little value. Show me my errors in thinking...

You make errors in thinking when you assume that the goal of "society," "the economy," or "governments" is to work well, make people as a whole happy, be efficient, and that when these goals are not reached it is due to an imperfection. Arbitrary boundaries are quite valuable if your goal is to exercise control over people and engage in economic oppression, in this case.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:56 AM on December 12, 2008

Take a look at the United States of America, and all of its internal troubles. We have various states in which some prefer religious rule while others prefer secular rule. There's great disparity in education and poverty rate between states like Alabama and Massachusetts. Take all of those troubles, and magnify them across a global scale. If a single nation can't equalize its states, then it's unlikely to happen on a global scale.

From another vantage point: People are so varied in their opinions that it's unlikely that many things would be found in common that all nations agreed upon. Same-sex marriage? No way. Firearms? Nope. Separation of church and state? Definitely not, and also, which church?
posted by explosion at 9:58 AM on December 12, 2008

I think there is value in the existence of different governments trying different policies. It's the closest we'll get to experimental political science, which, really, is the best way of finding out how to make better governments. For instance, regarding the recent financial collapse, we have the examples of Japan & Sweden, among others, which will (we hope) contribute toward finding a better solution to our current problems. If everyone followed the same policies, and there were bad times, who could say whether they were inevitable, or which policies they were the result of?

Even the United States is built on this model, where many powers are held by the individual states rather than the federal government.

All this is not to discount the value of an international organization like the UN in promoting various forms of cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution. Some sort of balance is probably best.
posted by alexei at 9:58 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

A monopoly can be optimized in ways that many smaller organizations can't be, but you've no chance that those optimizations will take all important factors into consideration. People who want monopolies normally feel their wallet or ideology will gain from the monopoly. See communism, U.S. current financial crisis, etc.

Ideas intrinsically compete among one another for survival & influence, but based upon what criteria? If human ideology holds all the power, then you get the catholic church or communism. If individuals hold all he power, then you get a dictatorship. If optimizing one number holds all the power, then you get robber barons. etc. All such constructed solutions are vicious & cruel. To avoid that, you need real world competition between ideas, which can only be achieved with multiple organizations/nations.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:59 AM on December 12, 2008 [3 favorites]

Look at the obstacles to expanding the power of the UN.
posted by rokusan at 9:59 AM on December 12, 2008

Addendum: all but the smallest regions break down governance into smaller segments, based on locality and function. The US has states with counties and cities, various regulatory bodies, and other service branches. One nation, many layers and pieces. To some end, I'd see a single world government as just one more layer of government, with the intention that there is no need for a military. Roads still need to be repaired, teachers need to be paid, and resources protected. Armies are intended to be sources of security, like an external policing force (broad generalization, I know). If you get rid of armies, you'd just be calling the same forces Police instead. Probably fewer tanks and bombers, but there are always groups who want to have more power/ resources/ control, who may only be dealt with by force.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:02 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

The trend is there for governments to become trans-national, but that reminds me that it's helpful to think of the differences in meaning between:

1) country -- the Fatherland -- key word being "land"
2) state -- the government
3) nation -- the citizens -- note the "natio" latin root

"countries" are the weakest of the three, as national borders can be moved, and "states" come and go, but nations are a tough nut to crack, since each has differering levels of social capital and of course significant language barriers exist.

But here in Sunnyvale, led by an Austrian immigrant, I see equal numbers of Indian immigrants here in Sunnyvale and Asian immigrants when I go to school at De Anza, and Mexican immigrants when I order food etc (excepting In n Out of course).

Touching on saintsguy's point above, O'Connor's dissent in the SCOTUS case re-criminalizing medical marijuana said:

Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."

This underscores the biggest danger of Big Government -- the ability to really screw things up for everyone. It is my general belief that individual freedom should be expanded from the bottom-up, eg. it's no skin off my nose if the speed limit in Montana is 90MPH, nor do I care if the good citizens of Alabama want to have free access to automatic weapons.

The question's points about tariffs and customs at the border can be dealt with by treaty, eg. the Euro union thing.

One economic issue to consider is that we organize our economic interests largely at the national level. Eg. Kuwait's oil wealth largely accretes to it, and there is no "international" tax other than voluntary aid donations from the Emirate. As a Georgist, I have seen here & there ideas mooted that ALL the natural wealth of the world's resources should be divided among ALL the people of the world, but of course this is fraught with difficulties and dangers.
posted by troy at 10:06 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

Biggest problem is the fact that people don't want it. Most countries don't even have agreement within them with, various states fighting or working toward for self-governance or independance. See Tibet, Basque people, First Nations, Scotland.
posted by Gor-ella at 10:08 AM on December 12, 2008

Also, arbitrary national boundaries are an amazingly lucky feature of human culture! Nations take extreme measures to maintain their severalty, even against the economic interests of then nation & leaders. If corporations had such strong self identities, we wouldn't have banks, automakers, etc. that are "too big to fail".
posted by jeffburdges at 10:08 AM on December 12, 2008

Well, assuming you're from an affluent western democracy you would probably see your standard of living drop dramatically as resources were diverted to the large portion of the world that does not share our high standards of healthcare, education, and life.

Furthermore, voters in the world government may not share your upbringing and may not share your views on topics like womens' rights, gay rights, the separation of church and state, and so on.

I mean, a world government where everyone was as well off as I am, and everyone shared my political views - in effect the entire world being european-ized - would suit me fine. A world government that made me and everyone I know poor, and enforced ideas I disagree with - the whole world being Iran-ified, for example - would not suit me.

And looking at the world as it is, I think we'd be more likely to get the world government that doesn't suit me, than the one that does.
posted by Mike1024 at 10:27 AM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

2nd saintsguy, although there is a critical assumption built into the efficiency of local government argument: heterogenous preferences (ie not everybody likes the same things). Assuming this holds, local governments offering differing baskets of public goods (garbage collection, education, police protection, etc.) and having differing corresponding tax rates to go along with the level of service provision is more efficient as people can sort into the jurisdiction that fits their preferences, making everybody better off as you aren't either a) overtaxed for services you don't value or b)not provided with the service levels that you would prefer.

If perferences don't differ that much, a single central government works better due to economies of scale (see the Scandanavian countries for examples).
posted by jtfowl0 at 10:28 AM on December 12, 2008

The states as laboratories of democracy concept actually dates back to a Justice Brandeis opinion from 1932 in New State Ice v. Leibman (dissenting). It's been quoted in some ridiculous number of opinions since, pretty much any time a question of federalism comes up. It is interesting and pertinent to brandnew's question.

Does the laboratory of democracy concept scale to a planetary level, with each current country fitting into a global federal government that has strong respect and deference to the choices of the individual members? Would the individual countries require so much deference from the global federal government that it would make the whole thing more or less useless?
posted by Inkoate at 10:35 AM on December 12, 2008

Fascinating information, as typical.

I had been thinking about this question primarily in context of my online habits. More and more frequently I have been communicating with people all around the world. Together we regularly reciprocate information and knowledge, and the flow is relatively tax-free.

However, if I wanted to do the same physically, it would be very difficult. Even traveling from the US to the Europe has become difficult.

The Tiebout_model is very interesting and hits at the root of my problem. In my case I'd like to be able to move freely anywhere. The world government idea was only my obvious solution to that problem. But, I see that there are other possible solutions of much lesser scale. I think selection and choice are very useful and necessary.

Now I'm wondering about government going forward. With the rise of virtual persona, virtual work, virtual identity - will the physical presence in government have less importance in the future? Would it ever be possible to unify under a "government" that has no geographical location? Perhaps "treaties" with the physical government? I will have to wait another week or so to ask that question!

Anyway, thanks again for all of the answers. Your responses have opened up another huge area of learning for me.
posted by brandnew at 10:38 AM on December 12, 2008

People are working on this. Read more here.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:08 AM on December 12, 2008

Wouldn't socialist-anarchism be better? All decisions are local. There is less possibility for corruption. The state is the cause of many of our problems, but we still need to shoulder collective responsibility.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:00 PM on December 12, 2008 [1 favorite]

Now I'm wondering about government going forward. With the rise of virtual persona, virtual work, virtual identity - will the physical presence in government have less importance in the future? Would it ever be possible to unify under a "government" that has no geographical location? Perhaps "treaties" with the physical government?

Eh, you still have all the needs and requirements of the physical world. You live in a building, with roads, traffic on the ground and in the air, and people living all around you. Virtual reality of the internet is also maintained by physical requirements - power and internet connections (there have to be base stations for wireless, which hook into larger systems). Virtual interactivity doesn't mean you're taking your physical requirements (food, shelter, hygiene) with you. It's just a shifting of ideas and non-tangibles.

Your dream of easy physical access to the world at large requires safe and reliable transportation, which requires reliable electricity and amenities on both ends, etc. etc. etc. A world government could only diffuse the cost of local taxes, possibly decrease concerns for in-air violence (all that screening and questioning when going into other countries). It won't make people less territorial, or like each-other any more, which is the reason for all those travel precautions. Taxes are placed on travelers because you're putting a strain on local systems but you're not paying income or property tax, or you're not supporting the local economy beyond buying stuff and using resources.

In short, the virtual world is not a carbon-copy of the physical - it's a simplification.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:29 PM on December 12, 2008

let's assume that the government is a representational democracy...

Read Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom (from a few years ago). "Democracy" doesn't necessarily mean "everything works out nicely." It could instead mean 51% of the population votes to oppress (enslave? kill? forcibly tattoo?) 49% of the population. That's already a problem for specific countries that are democratic -- Zakaria gives examples in his book. One benefit of having a separate, sovereign government for each country is that while there might be all sorts of unfairness and oppression there, at least those problems are confined to a small percentage of the world (for instance, the US is the 3rd largest country but a tiny 5% of the world population). Meanwhile, other countries can chart a better course and serve as an inspiration to the others.

Another thing: a large portion of the world's population is so unaccustomed to liberty and democracy that they don't have the necessary institutions to have liberal democracy rather than [unknown Brand X] democracy -- another theme of Zakaria's book. Right now, you can at least hold out some hope that those countries will eventually follow the model of the existing liberal democracies. If you suddenly imposed democracy on the entire world, you'd lose those well-established models; everything would be mixed together and thus tainted by all the worst elements that happen to exist right now.

You're also assuming that extreme multiculturalism works out well. I'm not saying multi-racial or multi-ethnic societies can't work out. I'm talking about a radical crazy quilt of cultures that are as far apart as possible: all different views on religion, the role of women, social norms, etc. You would have no shared narrative to hold things together. The world would look very different if it were possible to have everyone united -- peacefully! -- in this way. It might be lovely to imagine, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

One more point: look up some of the classic literature (e.g. Montesquieu) on why separation of powers is a bulwark against tyranny. One government implies one leader at the top, and who's to say that the person who aspired to that position wouldn't come up with means to conquer other branches of government and dissolve the rule of law? Remember, Hitler was democratically elected.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:10 PM on December 12, 2008

God, this is a HUGE question.

First, you have to decide on what your conception of a global state is, and to what level current states retain their independence (ie, how federal is this system?). A weak global government will be instable and ineffective; a strong global government will remove agency from individuals (through reduction in state sovereignty).

Otherwise, all further answers are based on assumptions about your state model.

What may also help you is to think about why states exist, especially in a historical context—states evolved because they allow nations to better compete against anarchist societies. We currently have global anarchy (that is, there's no single authority for the world), and you'd pretty much need an external justification for one in order for that to be more effective than the ad hoc governmental system that we have now.

Finally, I'll note that what you're describing is a "Modernist" project, and political theory has been reacting against Modernism for the last generation. We may, given assumptions about continued global growth and lack of game-changing multi-party wars, be moving toward a global adoption of a European model, with trade handled super-nationally and decreased barriers inter-state, but it'll likely be slow and hodgepodge for the next 50-100 years. Ask again then.
posted by klangklangston at 1:33 PM on December 12, 2008

well, mao zedong tried to plan the future of a certain country using a map and a little reading will tell you how that went. CNN also gloriously failed when they tried to make CNN International one global newschannel. turns out people in paraguay don't really care for the pittsburgh mayoral race and people in dubai thought the weather in sydney was kinda irrelevant, so now they have localized operations under the banner of CNN.
posted by krautland at 1:41 PM on December 12, 2008

We already have one world government. It's the internet. It's just not fully distributed and integrated yet. Check back in a generation or two.
posted by mullingitover at 5:36 PM on December 12, 2008