[MB.]

To avoid the destruction of humanity through, war, over-population and environmental disaster (not to mention comet/asteroid impact or alien invasion), humanity needs to rapidly abolish the nation-state and adopt a world government on the basis of a Federal system.

And to ensure that humanity's efforts are put towards scientific, inventive and exploratory pursuits, a world federal model must be adopted with all haste.

I believe that the idealogical basis of such a Government of Earth (GOE, or Earth Government, EG for short) best be founded in the liberal tradition, hence why I'm posting in this forum.

Also, the Anarchy and "Other" forum is really just the Anarchy forum so this probably belongs here, on hindsight.

Thoughts?

[Noelnada]

This would be achieved under socialism or communism only.

So in my humble opinion, it is not the right subforum.

[MB.]

socialism or communism

The goals of both ideologies are Utopian in nature and far from suitable for the federal state I envision.

The EG state is not Utopian. It can (and I believe inevitably will) be achieved through minimal effort in little more then a hundred years given the direction economic and political international organizations are moving.

Again, Noelnada, as I stated in the Anarchy forum thread, you seem to support some kind of neo-imperial super state, the creation of which I oppose strongly.

[Noelnada]

Again, Noelnada, as I stated in the Anarchy forum thread, you seem to support some kind of neo-imperial super state, the creation of which I oppose strongly.

But post-modern globalized neo-imperialism is way much more realistic than modern liberal world-federation. At least in my point of view.

[MB.]

Good for you. Do you want a cookie?

This thread is about liberal world federalism, not "post-modern globalized neo-imperialism".

You're beginning to annoy me.

[Truthseeker]

humanity needs to rapidly abolish the nation-state

MB, any ideas on how to rapidly abolish the nation-state without causing the sort of cataclysmic military conflict you wish to prevent?

[MB.]

Sadly, no. The only way to peaceful and rapidly abolish the nation state would have to be an international agreement between all state governments.

I fully appreciate how unlikely such an agreement would be.

[Truthseeker]

would have to be an international agreement between all state governments.

That would cause revolts in many of them.

[MB.]

Explain? Elaborate? Do you mean that you think nationalists within these governments would oppose integration?

What if integration was based on a regional basis? So if we project a few years into the future such that:

- NAFTA becomes the NAU (North American Union).
- Mercsur and the Andean Community becomes the USAN (Union of South American Nations).
- The Shanghai Cooperation Organization leads to the Union of Eurasia (UE) between China, Russia, Mongolia and the former Soviet Autonomi.
- The creation of the USAN and peak-oil destroys OPEC which becomes the Union of Arabia & Mesopotamia (UA&M), including Israel.
- ASEAN, incorporating Japan, the Koreas, Australia, New Zealand and India becomes the United Greater East-Asian States (UGEAUS)
- The EU (European Union) and the AU (African Union) remain intact.

[Dr House]

...which, of course means the transition wouldn't be done rapidly. It would be done gradually.

I like the idea, so long as governance is highly devolved and there are no welfare state regulations by the central government.

[Dr House]

...

[MB.]

there are no welfare state regulations by the central government.

The EG would be the largest welfare state to have ever existed. Basically all tax revenue would be spent on welfare- healthcare, education, social security, life/limb insurance, etc.

The only other things the government would fund would be scientific exploration and technological development. The last fraction of government spending would of course be on administration.

I suppose we should slot in some cash for ecological conservation as well of course.

I don't think I'm forgetting anything. Anyone care to elaborate?

[Truthseeker]

Explain? Elaborate? Do you mean that you think nationalists within these governments would oppose integration?

Well, I meant if the federation was created by international agreements without referedums (referenda?)...

The EG would be the largest welfare state to have ever existed.

Wouldn't it be hard for people to accept the mass redistribution of wealth from the rich countries to the poor (where the large majority of Earth's population lives, particularly China and India).

I don't think I'm forgetting anything.

A certain amount of development might be required, especially infrastructure (roads, water, electricity, that sort of thing).

[QatzelOk]

What if integration was based on a regional basis?

In the OP, you call for a World Federation. But then in the above post, you go into how each continent would be a kind of federation.

I believe that these are actually competing ways of re-organizing the earth. A world federation vs. Continental federations.

I would not feel comfortable having my nation's interests drowned in some North American mega-state. This is what the United States morphed into, and the result has been the disappearance of local political cultures in favor of a huge, distant political machine. A disaster.

So while I support your idea for a world federation, I think the continental ones are doomed to fail. The world's people are too postmodern to ever be branded into serving yet another continental manifest destiny project.

The EU is exceptional in this regard because what it primarily provides is cooperation between small states with very different cultures. Most of the other continents of the earth don't have this cultural development pattern, so for these small regional cultures would be better protected from extinction-through-continental hegemony by a World federation. Continental hegemony will probably never happen in Europe, but it is a risk to Asia, the Americas and Africa. Small cultures could easily be wiped out by domineering central one, and this would be as much of a tragedy as any extinction.

Likewise, war can be more effectively eradicated (like smallpox) if small regional states are linked to the rest of the earth, and not primarily to their own continental interests.

[MB.]

A world federation vs. Continental federations.

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.

Wouldn't it be hard for people to accept the mass redistribution of wealth from the rich countries to the poor (where the large majority of Earth's population lives, particularly China and India).

Might the pre-world federation regions be able to bring levels of subsistence up to some kind of standard ala the case of the European Union? Further redistribution would certainly occur at the EG level, but the trauma of this transition might be limited if most the development/redistribution has occurred first at the regional level.

[QatzelOk]

the trauma of this transition might be limited if most the development/redistribution has occurred first at the regional level.

Now that I think of it, MB, it might be a good idea for an EG to keep resource redistribution at the regional layer of governance. This, and continental transportation, might be the continents primary areas of jurisdiction AFTER the world layer has taken its place.

Which jurisdictions do you think should be 1.World 2. Continental 3. Regional and finally 4. Municipal/Local ?

[MB.]

1.World 2. Continental 3. Regional and finally 4. Municipal/Local

I would argue that the "continental" layer is superfluous. Otherwise, I don't disagree with your proposition. I would add, of course, a "national" layer between regional and local.

[QatzelOk]

I would add, of course, a "national" layer between regional and local.

For me, the national layer IS the regional one.
Canada is more of a Continental layer than a national one.

But I agree that the continental one may be superfluous. Except maybe for managing and sharing resources.

So perhaps World/Region/Municipality is enough for most things. For example, perhaps it is at the World level that continental resources are allocated - ie. the World parliament decides how continental redistribution takes place.

[Cid]

This thread is about liberal world federalism, not "post-modern globalized neo-imperialism"

I am sure if a world government would be established it would define itself as liberal. But states are sovereign entities with recognized personalities. The establishment of a world government would undermine the very essence of state sovereignty, not to mention the prerogatives of the great powers of the current Security Council. In order to establish a world government sovereignty of states would need to be curbed and limited if not destroyed. This is only possible through a hegemonic power. World government based on egalitarian principles is not possible since we all naturally disagree on the very defenition of this egalitarianism. For example some would argue that it is egalitarian for all states to get equal share in the new world government while others would claim that there should be differentiation of share based on population such as between China and Portugal, while some others would say it is egalitarian for the more power, industrial, productive to have a more share then the less powerful, less industrial and less productive. So world government can only be established not on egalitarian notions, but if the great powers are all realligned for the creation of this federalism under which they would retain their special status by merit of their contribution and thus world government is in the end another defenition for imperialism. To give a comparison within the Judicial sphere similar problems are faced. A couple of years ago the International COurt of Justice were asked to give verdict on the question of the legality for using nuclear weapons according to international law. The ICJ finally stated that it could not give a verdict on this question which shocked many of the western jurists, some even claiming that such verdict by the court was contra legem. The ICJ's verdict implies that international law is not a complete system.

[QatzelOk]

while others would claim that there should be differentiation of share based on population such as between China and Portugal

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.