As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
World Government Constitution
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, I'm in favor of a world government. I basically agree with Robert Wright's argument in Nonzero: because the world's economic interests are ultimately linked, it would be more advantageous for a legitimate (toothsome) world government to form to effectively regulate things like international terrorism, non-state guerilla forces, the Internet, global warming, etc.
Were such a world government to exist, what should its constitution look like?
My ideas:
Were such a world government to exist, what should its constitution look like?
My ideas:
Structure: One leader, elected by a majority of the world's population. The World Executive. Cannot be a president of a country. Commander in Chief of the World's military. (So, no more security council.)
Every nation gets a "National Representative." National Representatives, together, form the Lawmakers. National Representatives:
• cannot be president of a country.
• must be democratically elected, in a process supervised and certified by the World Government.
• each get to cast a number of votes equal to their country's population, as certified by the World Government Census.
Every nation's president gets to appoint one person to the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council would be weird.
• The Judicial Council must live in almost complete seclusion, like monks. They also have to live together, in a community.
• They have "TV," they can watch things, read newspapers from the outside world.
• However, they cannot communicate with anyone on the outside, with 2 exceptions.
— 1. Every day, they have to answer a single question. The questions are all asked by the World Executive. But they're "time-delayed" by a year—the World Executive has to prepare a secret question to ask each day and the council has a year to answer it. The Executive is bound by the answer.
•— 2. If someone in the Judicial Council dies, they can communicate that information.
• Otherwise, they can only communicate with robotic servants that bring them food, water, and other amenities.
Every nation gets a "National Representative." National Representatives, together, form the Lawmakers. National Representatives:
• cannot be president of a country.
• must be democratically elected, in a process supervised and certified by the World Government.
• each get to cast a number of votes equal to their country's population, as certified by the World Government Census.
Every nation's president gets to appoint one person to the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council would be weird.
• The Judicial Council must live in almost complete seclusion, like monks. They also have to live together, in a community.
• They have "TV," they can watch things, read newspapers from the outside world.
• However, they cannot communicate with anyone on the outside, with 2 exceptions.
— 1. Every day, they have to answer a single question. The questions are all asked by the World Executive. But they're "time-delayed" by a year—the World Executive has to prepare a secret question to ask each day and the council has a year to answer it. The Executive is bound by the answer.
•— 2. If someone in the Judicial Council dies, they can communicate that information.
• Otherwise, they can only communicate with robotic servants that bring them food, water, and other amenities.
Qingu on
0
Posts
I pictured them as like ... the nation's presidents would select the greatest warrior from their people, and send them into this secluded robot controlled dome that may be some kind of dystopia, and awesomeness would ensue.
Yeah, I didn't know what to do with a judiciary. I don't know how a world judiciary would work though. Because the International Tribunal doesn't really cut it.
Given what's happening in Europe, right now's not the best time to make a case for a world government though....
What power does the President of a nation have? What power does the legislature of that nation have, if there even is any legislature?
What happens when very poor countries are the majority?
Meanwhile, if there ever was a "World Government," I'd think it would pretty much require something analogous to the American Bill of Rights and various other amendments.
That said, individual nations' leaders can appoint judiciary members in my model; they'd obviously have to have some power, just so the thing could realistically happen. Also, each nation elects a "representative," a new office.
Why shouldn't they be? I don't see how this is even a problem.
No, there's a simple answer to that, we shall be totally goosed.
What the hell, dudes? I don't understand the sentiment that, um, bad things happen if poor people vote. Seriously?
This place
has the same representation as this place:
I mean, beyond the wankery that is that judiciary council.
And no, one dude getting x votes doesn't really make up for that.
The rest presumes we already have a world made up of universally of democratically elected governments and sufficient world peace that every country would be willing to turn over control of their military to someone else. Why not just throw in a free unicorn for everyone?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The Representative from the Vatican would be able to cast 1,000 votes. The Representative from Iran would be able to cast 70 million votes.
Which is more easily corrupted: the California House delegation in its entirety or Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer?
Or if you want: Texas' delegation vs. Cornyn and Hutchinson.
It's like saying the founding fathers had absolute faith in humanity because they wanted to construct a representative democracy. Uh, not really; I'd argue the point of having a government in the first place is because you don't have faith in humanity.
The reason I support a world government, in concept, is because I don't have faith in the militaristic and economic hegemons being in control of things, which is the current set-up.
Okay, to engage semi-seriously with the idea (judiciary aside. I can't even read that bit without wincing).... one of the great advantages of the UN is precisely that it is so weak. This leaves member countries lots of room to maneuver instead of simply up and leaving the system. Negotiation beats breakdown and threats of military action any day.
So let's say you're President of the United States and you've just been elected on a platform of leaving the new World Government. What happens?
Duh, my point is it's way easier to corrupt small numbers of people. Alternately see credit card industries and Delaware's state legislature.
EDIT: In your system, you'd need like 8 guys bought and paid for to do anything you want.
First we just need to discover our ancestral space mother ship, rebuild it, lose most of our population to a hostile alien force, and have the remaining population travel the stars in search for our true home world.
I call dibs on being on the space ship.
I don't know. Would seccession be allowed? I'm curious to see how this whole Greece thing works out before I come to a conclusion about what the best practice would be there.
Put it this way: the PRC and India together can put together a full third of all votes in among the Representatives. The PRC, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, and Egypt can form a permanent 50% majority.
...You're trolling at this point, right?
Also, what about Bicameral legislature based on population in one house and X representatives per nation in the other.
EDIT: hmm, Ronya's point seems to put a large kink in that solution, in the former house at least...
There isn't any power on Earth that can stop the United States from doing what it wants, that's what being a superpower is all about. To change this would entail changing the loyalties of the US military to another governmental entity; all I can say is 'good luck with that'.
The United Nations is a negotiating table with peacekeeping and aid functions tacked on. You seem to be dismissing it because you don't notice the negotiating that goes on behind the scenes; in its absence, what results is pre-WWI style politicking and all that entails.
Also: wrt Greece - Greece retains much of its governing authority; most of what it gave up was its own currency, and consider the amount of trouble that created! I'm supposing you're not proposing a world currency in yours either - probably many regional currencies.
They have a majority of the world's people. I don't actually see why this is a problem.
Right now, America, China, Britain, France, and Russia form a permanent oligarchy. Is that better?
what would be the incentive of america, europe or any other country joining in on a population based world government?
Now, if someone in, say, the USA decides to enact some kind of "gather up all the atheists and put them in 'work' camps" legislation I can just sit here at home in Finland and think "wow, that USA sure is a shithole, I'm glad I live in Finland instead". But if there's some sort of world government thing going on, that kind of legislation wouldn't necessarily be restricted to just the USA, it would spread everywhere on the account of it being all one government and then I've got nowhere to go and I'll be sitting in a "work" camp with Qinqu. Similarily, if Finland enacts something truly idiotic I can always move to Norway.
A little drastic example, possible, but my main point is that I have to suffer some of the stupid laws and legislations the Finnish law makers write down, I don't want to also suffer the stupid laws and legislations what law makers in some more horrible countries write down.
I don't know enough about the subject, honestly.
The events in America affect Finland and vice-versa, and morseo every day. The events in the United States financial industry, in a large way, directly led to the meltdown in Greece. A cartoon posted on the internet prompted mass protests and several dozen killings in Islamic countries.
Countries are not isolated from each other. They can be refuges from each other, but really only if you're rich enough to immigrate if it gets bad.
A degree of local sovereignty, probably greater than the degree granted to states in the USA, would seem justified in any world government.
Consider climate agreements. If India and China's representatives are rejecting them so that they can develop their economies with dirtier energy production (seems likely) that's 36% or so. If the US is being obstinate (this seems likely) that's 40%. I bet between oil producers and other developing economies like India/China we can find another 700,000,000 or so. Iran and Mexico give you a pretty sizable portion, for example.
Now's a good time for you to dilineate exactly what powers you think should be reserved to national entities, then...