[Dr House]

And how would the world government avoid those shortfalls of modern empires?

[MB.]

Well the EG wouldn't be an empire. Duh.

Also, what are the shortfalls of modern empires?

The establishment of a world government would undermine the very essence of state sovereignty

Of course.

In order to establish a world government sovereignty of states would need to be curbed and limited if not destroyed

Nation-States would be abolished by the World Government.

Is there something about this concept that I'm not making clear?

There would be only 1 (ONE) government. Within the structure of that government different layers of administration would exist.

The ICJ's verdict implies that international law is not a complete system.

What does this, or the rest of your post, have to do with the World Federal system I have been outlining?

[Cid]

With an effective world governance, huge impersonal states like China wouldn't exist anymore. They would have no function whatsoever. The world governing body would be complimented by states whose maximum size would probably be about 20 million people. Any larger than that, and citizens lose any sense of common purpose, or the ability to have an impact on their nation.

This is another plus for Quebec independence, Kurd independence, and states rights in the US. Canada, the US, Russia, China, Brazil, Indonesia... a lot of states are just pseudo world governments but with a nation-building agenda that has the effect of destroying real freedom and democracy by burying local political cultures in a tower of babel power agglomeration.

Qatz are you just an anti-statement phrase bot. There is no consistency in your writings. Numerous times you have criticized corporate power and influence in modern lifestyle and modern nations. Yet you propose to fragmentate humanity into 20 million member cubicles, all under a single government. That sounds like Corporate Utopia.

Well the EG wouldn't be an empire. Duh.

Oh my, you have reassured people with your convincing argumentation.

Nation-States would be abolished by the World Government.

Is there something about this concept that I'm not making clear?

There would be only 1 (ONE) government. Within the structure of that government different layers of administration would exist.

Sounds like Utopia as long as you are the one in governance.

What does this, or the rest of your post, have to do with the World Federal system I have been outlining?

The verdict of the ICJ has everything to do with it. The Court said it could give no verdict, thus basicly meaning that international law is not a complete system on which it can give an answer in every aspect. Hopefully likewise politicians will reject the establishment of a complete system for international politics, world government, world empire, whatever you name it. Or else we will face the realization of an Orwellian world with nothing but totalitarianism.

[MB.]

Sounds like Utopia as long as you are the one in governance.

I never said I would lead this government. In fact, no single person would head the government. I would imagine the EG would be composed of the representatives from the regional administrations.

Hopefully likewise politicians will reject the establishment of a complete system for international politics, world government, world empire, whatever you name it. Or else we will face the realization of an Orwellian world with nothing but totalitarianism.

I see, so you don't believe in a single world government for you think such a government would inevitably be totalitarian in nature?

[Cid]

I never said I would lead this government. In fact, no single person would head the government. I would imagine the EG would be composed of the representatives from the regional administrations.

So now you retract your statement. It is not one World Government, but many worldy governments, with only one defined as world government.

I see, so you don't believe in a single world government for you think such a government would inevitably be totalitarian in nature?

One government for all of humanity and the world; I see that not as inevitably totalitarian, but rather already totalitarian as such. I don't prefer a single complete political system for all of mankind. It is nothing but totalitarianism.

[MB.]

So now you retract your statement. It is not one World Government, but many worldy governments, with only one defined as world government.

Cid,

As I wrote earlier in this thread,

The regional federations would be eventually (or rapidly!) merged into a world federation. I see the potential for competition, but so long as it is made clear that the regions are meant to pre-empt world federation conflict should be avoidable.

I am proposing that regional unions be created, which then be merged into a federation. In a federation, as I'm sure you're aware, local governments surrender their sovereignty to a federal government. However, the local (in this case, "regional") bodies maintain some degree of autonomy, controlling certain aspects of affairs the federal administration need not control.

I see that not as inevitably totalitarian, but rather already totalitarian as such. I don't prefer a single complete political system for all of mankind. It is nothing but totalitarianism.

Well, what can I say? You insist such a government would be "totalitarian" I am insisting that such a government would be the exact opposite- concerned with protecting individual liberty.

[QatzelOk]

You know, MB, the more I read this thread, the more uncomfortable I am with the word "federation." Like you just said, federations ask the smaller states to surrender more and more sovereignty to them over time, as we have seen in the US and Canada. Canada, of course, was supposed to be a confederation like Switzerland, and Quebec still holds onto this vision of the country.

I prefer a confederation, but once again, this is just another word to get hung up on.

I guess what I would recommend is that jurisdictions be clearly defined, and that the World, Regions and Municipalities all receive their own exclusive jurisdictions and that this be respected forever by the central World government.

Some regions might want to take on extra jurisdictions, and there should be a formula for this - though there would be some jurisdictions that would remain permanently with the World government (ecology, force, science, education standards) and others that would remain permanently exclusive to the regions (language, culture, education delivery, health delivery), others exclusive to municipalities (transportation, certain types of taxation, architecture and urbanism).

Obviously, the selection of which jurisdictions would go to which layer of government would be a necessarily long and thorough debate.

[MB.]

I guess what I would recommend is that jurisdictions be clearly defined, and that the World, Regions and Municipalities all receive their own exclusive jurisdictions and that this be respected forever by the central World government.

Some regions might want to take on extra jurisdictions, and there should be a formula for this - though there would be some jurisdictions that would remain permanently with the World government (ecology, force, science, education standards) and others that would remain permanently exclusive to the regions (language, culture, education delivery, health delivery), others exclusive to municipalities (transportation, certain types of taxation, architecture and urbanism).

Obviously, the selection of which jurisdictions would go to which layer of government would be a necessarily long and thorough debate.

I agree with everything you've said.

Regarding culture, while in the short run the (con)federation would maintain cultural independence, the end goal of course would be to reduce all cultures to a single "human" culture- everyone sharing the same language, style and apparel. I would see no need to rush that process of course, as I would assume that such a reduction would occur inevitably over time.

As for "education delivery [&] health delivery"-- the former can be considered cultural, and I would not object to the regions dictating the exact areas of study and/or curriculums (curriculi?), at least until the arrival of the singular "human" culture.

Healthcare/social security on the other hand is a trickier issue. I certainly believe that given economic disparity some regions will require greater intensities of welfare then others, but again the end goal is singular. One welfare system for all the people of Earth.

The real issue, I think, is correcting the damage years of disparity between nations has created. That damage should be "repaired" with as much haste as possible.

For that reason, we should try to establish some short term and some long term goals for the EG. As you've suggested, in the short term the EG should protect cultural independence, while working furiously to establish a status-quo of wealth between member regions. This may require great diversity of approaches- different applications of welfare for different regions.

In the longer term, the EG should be prepared for the arrival of a singulars: universal welfare systems and universal culture.

this is just another word to get hung up on.

We definitely need to settle on some clear and exact terminology to reduce confusion.