Andrew D Atkin
It is understood that criminal gangs often use horrific violence to settle their disputes, because they cannot take their cases to a court of law. This is an example of what can obviously happen when we don't have the rule of law, and must therefore use other mechanisms to substitute.
Also take a look at America with its 50 states unified under a single law-making federal body. It has been hundreds of years now since any of the American states went to war with each other, and I would bet almost certainly that that would not have been the case if the states had not been unified under a federal government.
And now take a look at the world at large - still at war all over the place. Because, in part at least, we do not yet have an international federal body that empowers us to resolve our disputes via the rule of law, on the international level.
The reasoning for having a world governmental body is as sound as the reasoning for having a national governing body. Nationalism has generally achieved remarkable levels of internal (domestic) peace that today we take for granted. So is it so unreasonable to consider taking the principle of unification to the international level?
The problem is, I believe, that we aggressively promote nationalistic patriotism* and to a point where we lose track of the functional meaning of being a unified people. And that nationalistic indoctrination likewise stops us from thinking rationally about the value and meaning of forming an international government.
Yes it is true that an international government can be dangerous, but so can nation states be dangerous, especially when they are at war with each other. So which mode of operation will prove to be the lesser of the evils?
Because we are now a world awash with weapons of mass destruction--if not weapons of absolute destruction--I believe we would be wise to seriously consider developing some form of world government. We should do so for the sake of eliminating wars, poverty, defending human rights, and for global environmental protection. There would be problems with the development of such a thing, but those problems can be addressed.
The American "experiment" offers us an excellent example to work from. For the most part the American model is a good example of how a federal government should be (er, in its non-corrupted form). It operates with a separation of powers, and a strictly defined role with respect to its powers--roles that do not unduly interfere with the autonomy of the individual states.
However, a world government for today's age would need some modifications to its constitution, as compared to the American model.
Most critically we need to respect that we are now a vast 6+ billion and growing. Likewise, we need constitutional laws that can empower a future world government to balance population to resources; and this, in time, will probably require some active population control.
We also need to look at the possibility of employing some negative eugenics so as to maintain the genetic health of our species, long-term. And we also need to develop a constitution that protects the rights of children, and a part of that protection should relate to laws that empower us to stop children from being born to people who are simply too sick (mentally) to take care of them. All controversial stuff, I know. But all very rational and real in its importance.
The following is my main article on this topic:
*I think patriotism is an abstract value, established primarily to empower governments to recruit people into the military for defence. In my view most (if not all?) abstract values are originally derived from only pragmatic needs and ambitions. Unfortunately pragmatic needs can change faster than abstract indoctrinations.
Nevermind the spooky music in the background; Mr Bush expresses my point. I wish some of the anti-NWO people could give the idea a chance too.
In my view the anti-NWO movement (sprawled all over the internet) is functioning as an unproductive distraction. The public political focus is "World government versus non-World government", when really we should be looking at discussing what kind of a world government we might want, and how it should function.
This ideal public debate is being suffocated by too-often childishly one-sided anti-world government sentiments, and highly emotive scaremongering of which "teaches" people that the very idea of a world government is their enemy - and without any sincere consideration for its core advantages.