Talk:World government/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias

USA as the only world's superpower in an example is an obvious bias. Being a major political power is not enough to illustrate that - compare European Union, China or Russia.

Appropriate mention?

This text showed up in itsown article, and isn't very encyclopedic, but some mention of various world-government beliefs and attempts seems appropriate:

Given the strife caused by the presence of nationalism, many people feel that at some undetermined point in the future, all countries should be unified into a larger, global-level state. This would hopefully reduce war and other types of conflict, as well as permitting a better distribution of resources and a Common Earth Language (do you mean international auxiliary language? [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 18:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)). Several supernational quasi-states encompassing a region have been formed, such as the European Union, the Organisation of African Unity and the now defunct Pan-Arab State. These entities are used as examples of how Earth could be united into a single country. Some ideologies, especially communism, the Bahai Faith and anarchism have a planetary state (or lack thereof) as a long-term goal.

What article was that? Is it from the meta?

Pax Americana

"It is possible that the current Pax Americana may lead to the domination of the world by the United States."

I think this statement is rather weird. Who says this is possible? Switzerland has not been involved in a war for a much longer period of time; still no one would seriously argue that "the current Pax Helvetica may lead to the domination of the world by Switzerland".

What I'm trying to get at is that it is forces other than the love of peace which could lead to the globe being dominated by the U.S. But even that possibility seems far-fetched. KF 15:10 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)

According to the Bush Doctrine and Joint Vision 2020, world domination is a stated objective of this administration. At least, that's how I read it. Given that 40% of world military spending is that of the US, the US is well on it's way to dominating the world militarily. However, that is a very different thing to the concept of "world government," as I see it. It's hegemony (isn't it?). -- Sam
I've just taken my time rereading the article. At one point it says, "World domination, in the form of a global dictatorship, is the goal of many fictional supervillains." I think the whole text is not consistent if the term "world domination" is used in different contexts and with so many shades of meaning. I suggest that someone who knows more about current affairs than I do (maybe you, Sam?) should rewrite the article and use more consistent terminology. Yes, the whole thing is nothing to do with "world government". KF 15:41 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it. But perhaps the "World government in Sci-Fi" bit could be an article of its own; at first glance, it looks like two articles on one page. That might make each article more consistent. -- Sam
Well, I deliberately chose two novels which I think illustrate what it says in the text above, and I also tried to refer to that text in my description of the books. Removing them to a separate article would also remove that connexion. If I just had to write a summary of either of the two novels, I'd go about it in an altogether different way.
(Anyway, I have other things to do now and won't be able to carry on here before same time tomorrow.) -- KF 19:52 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)
I see your point, and looking at it properly, I agree that the text should be here. However, it should be here only as far as it is relevant to the idea of world government specifically; the rest is good, and should go in a page for that book, eventually. -- Sam

Old sketch plan

This is a sketch of a plan for this article. Feel free to edit.

  • Brief outline of concept
  • History of concept
  • World government in sci-fi (seperate article?)
  • Subjectivity: if all I know of is my house, then that is my world...
  • Distinction between "world government", "world domination", totalitarianism and hegemony

Some of this might be going a bit far for this article, but we'll see. -- Sam

I don't think that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has much to do with a discussion on world government. "Trucial Oman" was pulled together by the British as a way of simplifying the colonial administration there, and it more or less carried over into the modern state of the UAE just by default in the same way that Nigeria and South Africa did. It would probably be more meaningful to discuss the cases of Nigeria and South Africa since they cross ethnic, racial, and religious boundaries, but the relationship to world government is a bit strained.

It may also be appropriate to include things like the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and Mercosur, which represent major attempts to create common currencies and single markets. The African Union is a major political-economic attempt on the lines of the European Union which I don't think gets as much attention as it deserves, but that stands to argument.

Some discussion of China would be appropriate, I think, given the size and historical longevity of that state, although I'm not well-versed in its history. A discussion of the Umayyad Dynasty for this article should probably include the Abbasid Dynasty as well, I think, since the Abbasids offer some different solutions and (in many respects) were more successful as world leaders. The Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy in the Middle Ages might deserve some attention, as they attempted to create religious/secular solutions to government over a large area. The Habsburg empire in Spain and Austria is probably relevant since their empire was a successful and powerful hegemon over Europe, and by the reign Charles V they had territory on every settled continent.

Wow, pretty ambitious outline. Go for it! --Ed Poor

Takes a deep breath.. -- Sam
Yes, go for it. It's an excellent list. Visions/threats of world government in science fiction should probably be treated as they are in World War III - since this is about one specific scenario that can be rationally examined, not a whole prospect for a future as apocalyptic science fiction. Dystopian science fiction can handily cover that.

Deleted the following comment in regards to international law, "to which nation states pay lip service", which is a gross simplification. International law is large, complex and varied -- some of the time nations merely pay lip service to it, but other times they do follow and obey them, even when they dislike them --look at the decisions of the WTO, or the European Union, or the European Court of Human Rights, for examples.

Conspiracy theories and other pediacruft

Way too much of this article is dedicated to conspiracy theories. There is nothing intrinsically more threatening about world government than there is about national government or local government. Rather, one can easily see national governments without an equally accountable world government as more dangerous. I would suggest linking the conspiracy information in question to a new page dedicated to world government conspiracy theories or just putting the "theories" within the conspiracy theories pages. What do you think?

Okay, this article deals with a lot of stuff, but doesn't approach the whole Christian Fundamentalist aspect of it, which as I understand it is the reason the whole concept is so popular in far-right circles in the U.S.: the fear of a World Government under the leadership of the Anti-Christ taking over and ruling humanity. This is sketched out in LaHaye et al's Left Behind books, where the head of the United Nations (a feared entity amongst the paranoid Christian Right) turns out to be the Anti-Christ. Why no discussion of this? The term would be nearly unknown without that backing. Graft 12:16, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

That concept is called Zionist Occupation Government, usually, as the Biblical vision requires control of the Holy Land to actually implement the Book of Revelation as a game plan. And it's no longer restricted to far-right US circles. Many of those who accept a 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory involving shadowy figures seeking to drive the U.S. and Israel closer together in a common occupation of the Mideast's trade routes and oil resources, see this is as now the key principle behind such plans as the Project for a New American Century, which is hardly a conspiracy theory, but a working document being implemented in plain sight.
The term Zionist Occupation Government seems to be most popular among anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. Most conspiracy theorists prefer the term One World Government.
As One World Government is not completed yet, I'm going to redir to New World Order as its second section it quite relevant IMHO. If you feel I'm wrong, don't hesitate to remove redirect.--Forseti 11:10, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About that proposals of strenghtening the UN GA: whose are that proposals? What organisation is advocating for them? Without telling that that part of article is in serious violation of NPOV, IMHO. --Forseti 11:10, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, the U.S. administration under G.W. Bush is making active attempts to undermine the ICC."

While I agree with this statement in principle, 'unfortunately' is a pretty strong value judgment. I changed the statement to include the opposition of developing countries to the ICC as well. I also added a short snippet about the ICJ which is pretty important, I think, since it claims to have compulsory jurisdiction the world over, and decides on cases of national importance.

The section on the UN states that the UN lacks legitimacy. I think that this ought to come with the qualification that it does have some legitimacy, or else no one would give a damn what Kofi Annan said, and the recent Iraq war demonstrates that Blair and even Bush appreciate to some extent that the UN has meaning. I didn't edit this because I don't know how clearly or how exactly that should be expressed, or if you guys would agree with me.

--Adam Faanes 12:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We might mention also of other regional movements like Brazil's to join up with South Africa, and a number of other nations to be a counterweight to the U.S. and EU.

Also, are there any fictional novels which provide a utopia or realistic utopia where the world is united, not by a totalitarian regime, or by some flowery everything-is-perfect dream (nor by the status quo dictator-like domination of superpowers or on the other hand disproportionately represented stone-walling dictatorships), but by a federal world government which preserves some sovereignty for nations but also sufficient supra-national sovereignty among democratic, human-rights respecting nations to create order and justice (like the federal U.S. government does over the states)? I guess Star-Trek is kind of like that, no? How about others? Could we add such a subcategory under the fiction segment? [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 18:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lunar government

I agree with removing the lunar government section. I just didn't do it myself because I wasn't bold enough :-) Gerritholl 12:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

I agree with User:Sheridan that this chapter has nothing to do with world government and should not be in this article. Another reason is that the "néoliberalism" catchword is a very fuzzy concept. --Pgreenfinch 18:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Dorond has arrived on the scene and proceeded to rewrite and discard much of the hard work of the community in achieving a balanced NPOV compromise article. Instead, he puts forward all the hopes of the one world government advocates and a subset of the presumptions they have about how well it would work and how little they think there is to fear. He presents only the view that the U.S. is purposely undermining the U.N. and not the countervailing view that the U.S. is preventing U.N. sanctions from becoming a meaningless joke and that the U.S. attempts to investigate and reform the U.N. are the best hope in the end for world government.--Silverback 07:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Sorry - I didn't see this post in the discussion forum earlier, Silverback. I think it would be a good idea to discuss things here before starting any "editing wars". I've been reading extensively about the idea of a democratic federal world government (the only one being advocated with any degree of seriousness) for nearly two years now. I don't believe that, in my edits, I discarded any items of critical importance to the presentation. In my recent one, I made an honest attempt to incorporate your contributions, placing them in their proper context.

It appears to me you find persuasive arguments in favor of WG to be scary for some reason (you've tried to water them down as much as possible, and removed a relevant diagram I created and added). If you feel there are strong counter-arguments that are well known and reasoned in the literature, but have not been covered in the article, you should add them succinctly within the proper context (paragraphs dealig with fears/concerns).--Dorond 00:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find local and national governments to be scary, unaccountable and lawless and see no evidence that international governments are going to be any better. You are treating the hopes section as an opportunity to write glowing essay. This format is not conducive to presenting the evidence for and against, so if necessary, we should consider renaming the sections to names that don't give you such a sense of entitlement and so that the points can be alternated in close proximity so it is clear what the responses are responding to.--Silverback 09:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since national governments are, by far, the rule, not the exception, and since, by all comaparative measurements of benefits to citizens, a modern democratic government is far, far, better than lawlessness and anarchy, you are coming from a place where very few people stand. In fact, you are the first I ever ran into who claimed that having no government would improve accountability and lawfulness (who would be accountable and who would preserve the law, then?). You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. However, an encyclopedic article should be balanced in favour of mainstream thinking on its subject.

I didn't say that having no government would improve accountability and lawfulness. My point was that governments themselves can be lawless. Consider even in the United States, the structure of legal checks, balances and standards are often violated even by the courts themselves. For instance, the right to a jury trial is in the constitution and the supreme court has overridden the supermajority provisions of the constitution by deciding it does not apply when the possible incarceration is less than 6 months. State appellate courts have immediately latched onto this precedent and the right to a jury trial has been restricted all around the country. The legal excuse given was "efficiency of the courts", and erosive precedent which if it can override the constitution, has no bounds. The right to compell testimony under penalty of perjury is also seldom enforced, especially when state witnesses are involved. Most procedural violations are only reviewed by higher courts only in show trial death penaty cases. If we can't get local democratic governments open and accountable, how do you expect to bring a world government into compliance with the law? At least in the United States there is at least cultural lip service to the rule of law and the governments responsbility to obey the law as well. Without a cultural support, how do you expect a democratic electorate to vote properly to keep government within bounds?--Silverback 06:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that governments are not "perfect", especially since in some cases, like the ones you mention above, the definition of perfection varies from one person to the next. When it comes to basic individual rights, often times one right collides with the other. In the example you brought up, given limited resources, the right to a trial by jury (which is actually not that fundamental - most free societies manage excellently without it) may collide with the right to a timely trial, so someone needs to find an acceptable balance. The important thing is that there is a mechanism to resolve these disputes in a peaceful way. Laws, even the constitution, can be modified peacefully, governing people and parties can be replaced peacefully, etc. I'm not aware of any other form of national organization that has this trait, which is why democracy is the "worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", to quote Churchill (from memory). --Dorond 15:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is strange, you think "most free societies manage excellently without it", while I am not aware of any free societies. Note that in the United States, the "right to a jury trial" did not collide with the right to a speedy trial. They are both standards the constitution requires the state to meet, and the citizen is supposed to go free if the state does not meet them. Judges relaxed these standards, presumably judges similar to those that fulfull the role of judging the both the facts and the law in trials in those societies you consider "free" assuming that the government allows or requires trials with some sort fairness before incarcerating people. In the US there is a presumption than an accused person is innocent that the government prosecution must unanimously overcome by convincing a jury of peers to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This is a check on government power. The government must use only witnesses who testify under penalty of perjury, it must not have conducted unreasonable searches or seizures and must not compel the accused to testify against himself, and it must submit to several levels of appelate court review. This is just some of the checks on the government before we even consider separation of powers between the branches of the government and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Why should any individuals with rights you don't respect favor a "democratic" world government of the type you are likely to describe?--Silverback 17:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is useful to debate the question of what is a free society here, since it is not directly relevant to the article. I should say, however, that world federalism suggests that if an issue does not need to be decided at a global level, it should not be. As long as a national government provides some mechanism for a fair and speedy trial, national governments can be free to decide what exactly constitutes an appropriate mechanism within their societies. --Dorond 01:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I see, you allow that national governments can be free. If so, how can you argue that the WG should not also be free, if it doesn't want to be constrained? You don't think individual rights are a broader concern?--Silverback 07:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Guaranteeing basic individual rights to all humans is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for wanting to have a WG. One such right is due process. There are, however, a number of different ways of providing it, and none has been shown to be clearly superior to all the others in all circumstances (to my knowledge), and so it makes sense to allow natioal governments latitude. Of course, a specific judicial mechanism at the world-federal level would have to be selected when a world constitution is drafted. At that time, the best, most experienced, legal minds from all the world would surely be consulted. Actually, a process of selecting a global judicial system has already occurred when the ICC was created, and a decision was then made not to use a jury-based system. This decision, however, was optimized for the specific type of crimes the ICC adjudicates, and would not necessarily hold for other types of crimes.

More to the point - the idea of a DWG has been around for at least a hundred years and has been written on extensively by many great thinkers. I suggest you read the book posted at http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/COURSES/GENS4008/book.html for more background and bibliography. What you call a "glowing essay" would be a typical set of conclusions in essays on the subject. I am yet to see any significant scholarly work claiming that a world government is inherently a bad idea, that war can be eliminated any other way, that wars are of economical benefits to humanity, etc. The key differences between thinkers are usually how quickly this would come about (50-100 years being the typical range). This is not only the mainstream academic position, but it is also prevalent amongst NGOs. You may, for example, want to look at the surveys conducted by http://www.2020fund.org/ . Here's a quote from their most recent one: "NGO leaders strongly endorse multilateralism – either reformed and strengthened United Nations or a directly representative world government – as their preferred form of global governance in the year 2020." --Dorond 23:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I might suggest that Dorond could recuse himself from editing this article, because, outside of the position he agrees with, he seems to know very little about it. Do you really think there are no works claiming that a world government is inherently a bad idea? Or is it just that they are not sufficiently significant and scholarly? You might want to begin by reading the Wikipedia articles on anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. The nationalism article might also be informative, although I would assume you already know about that and have decided it is irrelevant. In any event, the article should definitely be balanced in favor of mainstream thinking, insofar as it is necessary that it should be balanced toward anything in particular, but, as far as I'm aware, neither world government nor no government is endorsed by the mainstream. - Nat Krause 00:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, Silverback, you may want to check the history of this article. I've written significant portions of it since February last year, so please don't preach to me about what "the community" wrote.

I read the articles you proposed, Nat. The one on anarchism admits that, despite many past "opportunities" for anarchic societies to evolve and sustain themselves, they all failed and there are really no good examples of sustainable anarchic societies on a national scale to be found today. This strongly implies it should not be considered a mainstream option for organizing society, at least not on a large-scale. The article on anarcho-capitalism discusses a wide range of many idea, some contradicting each other, and all appearing to be pointing in a direction opposite to the one in which all modern democratic societies organized themselves (government budgets are ever-increasing). Furthermore, there are mountains of evidence showing that people greatly benefit from state involvement in many aspects of the economy and societal life (and some of the world's best economies, such as in scandinavia, are also some of the most highly taxed). Finally, a federal world government is not in contradiction to nationalism, and does not aim to abolish it, only to neutralize its negative aspects (dehumanizing people outside one's nation/race).

Quite a bit of the literature on world government includes a comprehesive set of common objections (I recommend Ron Glossop's book "World Federation? A critical analysis of Federal World Government"), so I am very well aware of many, if not all, of them. In fact, I placed some of the "fears" and concerns in that section myself without even bothering to refute or contradict them, and I'm fine with you guys putting up additional opposing arguments. Debate is healthy, as long as it is intelligent and well presented.

How about we'll rename the section "Analysis". It will start with presenting the key reasons why a WG is considered a good idea by its supporters (as currently), and will then list each of the (reasonable) objections and concerns raised, followed by a counter-argument (as in cross-examination)? --Dorond 05:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

I believe that people reading this article are interested in the idea of world government: what has been proposed, what are the merits of the idea, what are the counter-arguments, the idea's history, its implementation prospects, etc. The current organization of the contents does not, however, optimally fits the presumed reader's interest. It is really a collection of quasi-independent sections that are neither complete in coverage of all aspects nor presented in a clear and logical order. The sections on empires and SciFi are also not directly relevant to the discussion of the idea.

Accordingly, I propose a new outline:

  • The idea
    • History (brief overview of past proposals and attempts)
    • Principles of FWG (consensus + identify disagreements/alternatives when they exist).
What are the principles of FWG? I don't see a corresponding section in the current text. How is this section going to be anything more than mere speculation?
There is considerable literature, and a substantial consensus, on what majorchanges in the current situation are required for forming an effective FWG. As an example, inter-national law (ie, what governments/nations are allowed to do, and punishments, such as sanctions) would be replaced with personal law, ie, illegal acts by members of national governments lead to trials and punishments of those individual members. --Dorond 14:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Punishing whole nations hits the innocent as well as the guilty, these are not the lofty principles one would expect. What are the principles for limiting and constraining world government power and protecting minority and individual rights from tyranny by some executive branch or by the majority?--Silverback 15:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your response regarding personal vs. national accountability. It seems that you agree with the personal accountability principle, which can only be effectively enforced universally by a WG (or at least some watered-down version of it). The principles limiting power at the world level are identical to the ones at the national federal level, ie, separating the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government and having periodic elections. Plus, given the immensity of humanity, it is simply out of the question for any small group of people to rule by force. Even the mighty US army finds it exceedingly difficult to rule a minute portion of humanity in Iraq. Can you imagine a government lacking armed forces (since there is no one to fight) succeeding in doing anything to infringe on the basic human rights of a significant portion of 10 billion people? --Dorond 17:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your passage, I thought you were trying member nations, not individuals. I disagree that personal accountability can only be effectively enforced by a WG. In the US, government officials do not have immunity from prosecution like the French president does. Keep in mind, that historically, individuals have far more to fear from governments than from each other. In the US, even at the local school district level there has been a long standing trend towards consolidation of districts in order to "save on administrative costs". It is amazing how much less responsive to parents the boards of the larger districts are. At the national level, we need government to become more benign and then dissolve rather than consolidate and become less responsive. It is strange that so much of the world believes that the answer to problems caused by governments is more government, will they never learn?--Silverback 18:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about the US when I wrote about enforcing personal responsibilty, but more about despotic regimes. That said, the current President of the US is believed by many (myself included) to have breached international law by attacking Iraq unprovoked and without UNSC approval, and by jailing hundreds of people without access to justice at Guantanamo. Yet, he cannot be brought to justice either because his victims are not US citizens and/or because he yields a lot of power in the system that allowed him to commit these crimes. Similarly for many other US politicians, such as Kissinger and McNamara, who almost for certain are war criminals, yet cannot be realistically brought to trial by their victims. Regarding national governments, I don't think the answer to problems caused by government is more government, but improvements to government. While there are obviously also cases of "too much of a good thing" (bloated and wasteful government - but large private organizations are often also bloated and wasteful), I think that government is often the best solution we have. To take a few simple examples, can you imagine how the stock exchange would work without the SEC's supervision? Who would personally protect you from criminals if not the Police and the courts? Would you like to cancel free/compulsory education? Who would build and maintain streets? The list goes on and on and on... You probably just don't realize how much of the orderly, smoothly functioning, world around you is the result of government. Go to places like Somalia or Columbia and see what happens when government is weak or not functioning. --Dorond 00:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The case for FWG (The main arguments for its implementation)
  • Critique and analysis (individaul objections, each with a brief analysis of its validity)
  • International Integration
    • Functional integration (present and proposed)
    • Multinational/regional federations (present and proposed)
  • Prospects
    • Main barriers
    • Evolving the United Nations
    • Integrating of supranational regional entities
    • New institutions
    • The disarmament process
    • Is WG inevitable?
  • Grassroots movements (overview of active NGOs)

Most of the info in the current article can be reused in the rewrite. The information regarding empires is not directly relevant and is already covered in the article on empires and so can be discarded. I'm not sure about the section on Sci-Fi - perhaps it should stay on as a kind of "appendix" since this appears to be the way the SciFi article is organized (references to specific articles).

I realise this is a substantial effort, but I believe the result would be worth it. To prevent presenting a half-baked draft too early, we could start building it up under a separate entry - "Federal world government" - which would be referred from this one as a works-in-progress. Once it is relatively complete and stable, we'd replace the current article with the new content.

Comments?

--Dorond 05:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It does not seem like a bad organization, can you implement it gradually be creation rather than destruction? Be flexible in your vision, remember wiki organic growth can have its own beauty. Do you have any problems with the current structure other than it does not fit your sense of order?--Silverback 07:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the current structure ommits many important items (such as the proposed principles and history of the idea and the analysis part is incomplete), and contains others that are only obliquely relevant and/or covered better elsewhere (empires).

I suggest that I will start the rewrite by creating a skeleton article (in a separate entry)with a few sentences in each section, allowing others to add more content as they wish. --Dorond 14:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Dorond and the "Critique" proposal?

There is no separate section in "World Government" for the various objections to world government, or for some of the other points that the outlines above contain. Instead, the article has very lengthy sections containing a mix of ideas, but missing many points because there is no good place to add them. Is there another article? Did the vision above start somewhere else, or was it cancelled?

Wragge 18:04, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Sorry - I started the rewrite, then got burdened by other tasks. I'll put in the time this month to bring it to at least a good skeleton, then post it to allow others to add more flesh. --Dorond 04:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear you haven't given up.
Thanks
Wragge 05:43, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

The new article is on-line. Please visit and contribute. Thanks.

--Dorond 20:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't Replace Article

I would discourage replacing this article with the Federal World Government entry. This one lays out the variety of proposals for world government, and should link to FWG. However, there is also need for readers to understand other proposed versions of this, positive or negative. Link to FWG. Invite someone to write an article on Unitary World Government (perhaps Gary Shepard) and link to that. -Tony

Illustration deleted

I deleted the graphic of the Federal World Government proposal. Its placing creates the impression that this is world government, instead of what it is in fact, namely a proposal by a few indiviudals, one of hundreds or perhaps thousands of proposals. It does not belong at the start of the article, it could be used further down, at the section on UN-based proposals, but only if identified as a single proposal among many, placed for illustration.Ruzmanci 10:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The illustration is intended to succinctly show what this article is mainly about. The support for the federal form of world government far exceeds the support for any other form of government (by a huge factor). Frankly, I'm not aware of any serious academic work or substantial civil society organization advocating a non-federal WG.--Dorond 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

IMF, WTO

I don't think the IMF is directly affiliated with the UN at all, and the WTO is a completely separate entity. And as noted the World Bank is affiliated but has autonomous governance. NTK 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"One-world" government

There needs to be a better treatment of Christian "end-times" related fears. As the success of the "Left Behind" series in the USA has shown the number of evangelical and other Christians with these kinds of beliefs is not small, and "one-world government" is a buzzword in such contexts. Perhaps there should even be a separate article under "One-world government" to show the premillenialist take on it. NTK 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems that "One World Government" redirects to New World Order (conspiracy).

What is the word "humanism" doing here?

This is quite a loaded word, and some better one should be chosen for the idea. I can tell what idea is trying to get across, but this is not the word for it. I'm not up to it -- certain malapropisms are like an electric shock. --Sobolewski 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up

We obviously need to clean up the old stuff. As one who wrote substantial parts of the old article, I'm not chopping it off with a smile, but I cannot really see what's left there that must be placed in the cleaned up article. The only part I was equivocal about removing was the part on tranforming the UN to a world government, which took a longer-term view of the UN than the other articles on UN reform. This part, however, really belongs in the article dedicated to UN reform.

Anyhow, I suggest that if another editor sees something valuable in the old stuff, they should put in the effort to insert that part into the new article, not bring the whole article back. --Dorond 23:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was the link to the Federation of earth deleted

It is a perfectly valid example of an organisation that is promoting a world government.

[1] - Looks like a joke page/fiction/personal home page. Refers to non-existent "Federation City" and "Federation Centres" among other things, website only has two pages, made with amateur program Microsoft FrontPage and looks like it was built by someone still in school.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It's got more than two pages but it has loads of silly claims like that it's received 50 billion dollars from the UK government, the White House, Google, Microsoft and a load of other corporations/governments. I don't believe a word of it. And it's obviously a joke site. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
oh yeah, I had javascript whitelist on. duh. Yeah this is OBVIOUSLY a joke page looking at some of the pages. BJAODN?
  • about.htm — "The Federation Intelligence Agency is responsible for monitoring any dissent or treachery against the Federation. They carry out various covert surveillance and can receive warrants from the Marshal. They interrogate and torture potential suspects."
  • about.htm — "The Federation Court of Justice has the power to issue warrants and can arrest and trial anybody suspected of any crime. It also has the power to issue death sentences, mainly public hangings."
  • fsa.htm — "Civil Protection police inner-city areas and keep citizens in line through the use of intimidation and physical force - ranging from random beatings, questioning and "inspections," to murder"
  • committee_members.htm — "Senior members include: <huge list of big famous companies>" - Someone's going to get libelled...
Oh, and on it's "secret service" page it's got pictures of those red dudes from star wars titled as "Presidential Guards, shown in formal armour with Force pike."
Evidence enough? ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

UK democracy

Quoting the page : "Famous examples are ... and the British Empire (However it should be noted that the United Kingdom itself was a Democracy)". I'm not quite sure about this. I would argue that the UK hasn't been a true democracy until relatively recently with certain developments of the electoral system. Many men were excluded from the vote in the 19th century and women didn't get the vote on the same terms as men until 1928. I'm just wondering under what conditions can a country be regarded as a democracy? Theres also all the issues about the power of the monarchy which has been far greater in the past and has obviously never been elected. Since the British Empire stretches over a large time period I think this might be hard to support. I'm tired, sorry if this is a fuss about nothing. SIGURD42 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that the term democracy itself has evolved over the centuries. The first democracy (which one might argue could form an archetype) also did not give women the vote and excluded many men. The United States excluded many men until shortly after the Civil War, and did not give women the vote until the 20th century, either. Very few people argued at the time that it was not a democracy. For that matter, in modern day United States (and presumably the UK, etc.), certain people still don't have the right to vote. In the US, this includes minors and most felony convicts. (I'm not arguing that this is a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that the term democracy is still somewhat loose.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, some good points there. Also, on further consideration Britain's Empire didn't reach its zenith until the interwar period when the UK certainly was a democracy. Yes, I'll accept that then. SIGURD42 09:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

EU Government

I know the EU isn't exactly a world government but its certainly a supranational "government" (even if self declared so) and I think that we should mention it as a type of smaller scale example, including the views for and against the organisation.

there is not such thing as an EU government —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.45 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Karl Marx

I can see that this article is locked, but how come no mention is made of Karl Marx who called for the elimination of all countries? "The Communist Manifesto" and "The Globalist Manifesto" are both envisioning world government, the former will be "ruled by the proletariat", the latter will be ruled by those elected by the global citizenry on a "one person one vote " principle. The former is violent because it encourage upheavals like their theory of "weakest link", the latter requires the use of diplomacy. The former is being advocated heavilly by communist countries to the point that they are willing to kill for their ideas, while the latter is advocated by democratic countries and they denounce the use of violence.The Communist Manifesto gave birth to Communism as ideology, The Globalist Manifesto gave birth to Globalism as ideology. So one goal: world government, but two opposite directions and ideologies to reach the goal. Let the people of the world decide: The Communist Manifesto or The Globalist Manifesto?. But, in fairness, Karl Marx should be mentioned here, to say the least.

That critique reminds me of an old Soviet Joke, A man queue's up at Lenin's mausoleum until he reaches Lenin's embalmed body, One of the guards tells him "Lenin is dead, But his ideas will live forever" and the man replies "If only it were the other way around"-Ted Fox

Merging Discussion

  • OPPOSE - we already went through this, in which the topic of world government was confused with one form, world federation. It took a major rewrite to balance this article just on the concept it should be addressing. Keep World federalist in its own article, with its own particular points. Tfleming 19:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • WHY was the World Federation/World Federalism article redirected to this article? As I noted above and in response to another comment, we underwent an intensive rewrite of this article to avoid the impression that the two are the same. World Government is (and should remain) an NPOV concept, whereas World Federalism, while remaining NPOV in Wikipedia, advocates a particular form of world government and its article in Wikipedia should could reflect that.Tfleming 18:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Search Engine Numbers

While I'm happy that the owners of some of the websites regarding World government get high rankings in search engines, I don't really think it's information that goes in an articel - sounds like advertising. Andyandy68 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Minor correction: articel should be spelled article. Please forgive Andy.

Thanks, but...

Much thanks to the individual who rewrote this article - it is a great deal more encyclopedic than it was before. I was particularly impressed with the description of federalism as a predominant but NOT sole understanding that should be discussed about this concept.

HOWEVER, the section about the WCPA needs to be removed, as it violates the above, and is a quite an exaggeration of its efforts. No serious student of international relations would acknowledge that organization's effort as contributing toward a world government except in the minds of those who think its "laws" have any standing. The United World Federalists had more impact on the arms race and international law than the WCPA ever has. And we have recognized the need to downplay that movement's role in the effort as one of many.Tfleming 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this competition on who is better, who is stronger and who is a more dominant advocate for a global government should be toned down. Let us not lost our focus: that is to be able to usher the world government in our lifetime. Let us not be jealous or envy with one another. We are comrades in arms in this cause. Fighting with each other will only weaken our collective efforts. Instead, let us extend our hands to non advocates. Let us write letters to the Pope, US President, UN Secretary General, etc., as a group. Let us make them believers of our cause. Let us have a new competition - who among us can convert 'big fishes' into our cause. That should be the competition. Fighting with each others is just like a coward older brother who is a bully to his younger brother but a damn coward to a neighborhood bully. Brothers, the neighborhood bully are the non advocates outside our circle... lets face them if you are really brave and tell them of our advocacy. Lawyer Steve McIntosh, Professor Toti Dulay, Dr. Joe Biescas and Dr. Leo Cada and many others all over the world are snowballing a grand political party of all people in the world who believes in the formation of a global government. This is necessary to consolidate efforts and to systematize our approaches and to prevent infigting among brothers in the cause... to face the proverbial outside neightborhood bullies.. the non - believers. According to the book of Colin Powell, we should never water down any initiative.... i say yes. Let us do away with the envy in our hearts, the pulling down of brothers in our cause just to look more superior than him. IF ANYONE OF US WANTS TO BE SUPERIOR THAN ANY OF US IN THE CAUSE,THEN SHOW US THAT YOU CAN CONVERT NON BELEIVERS TO OUR CAUSE. LETS START THE SCORING POINTS. AND LETS GIVE AWARD TO THOSE WHO CONVERTED THE MOST... THEN, YOU ARE A BETTER BROTHER THAN THE OTHERS.

Major Upgrade

There is a wealth of perspective, organizations and advocacies now present dedicated to this issue, with a growing profile on the Internet. A simple Yahoo search, for instance, will reveal upwards of 20-30 links to such groups, including at least one organization (the WFM) which is an umbrella to further organizations. Additionally, there is a rich history that (frankly) has gotten a little too big for all but the most objective mind to entirely wrap itself around -- which has, of course, made some degree of contention inevitable.

It's to be expected there will be a large degree of disagreement, not just about the potential form(s) a unified political structure would take, but even over what the scope of the issue is. One could start back as far as the Congress of Vienna, which (at the very least) established an order of nation-states that survives down to the present. Its breakdown presaged the first World War, whose peace treaty was one and the same as the founding treaty of the first organization having pretense toward world governance. The Treaty of Versailles was also the founding treaty of the League of Nations.

It doesn't need to be recounted here how the League broke down, though it may surprise some to learn that at one time or another, nearly every independent nation had League membership (and even some not-quite-yet-independent countries, like India). That is, nearly every nation, except the United States.

The dark clouds that gathered in the 1930's, in the eyes of the people living at the time, was really visible as nothing more than a phantom shadow cast over the land where nothing was seen casting the shadow. It's difficult to precisely characterise just what ailed the world at the time. History, looking backwards from the present era, has tended to simply cubbyhole the growing malaise with the "rise of fascism" or some readily identifiable culprit.

But in essence, what was happening was that the world order was just breaking down. And in the absence of any cohesive governance, chaos ensued from the early 1930's onward. What started out as a few transgressions (Manchuria, Ethiopia) quickly grew into a torrent (Czechoslovakia, Austria, Vilnius, Finland, the Saar, Danzig, Poland) that overwhelmed the League.

The Nazi administration, it has been asserted here, had no pretense toward a world government. In fact, however, the second World War, like the First, may been seen as a struggle whose outcome would be to establish some kind of world order or another. With the League effectively defunct, there was competition to fill in the vacuum.

The New Order met first in Madrid in 1940 and boasted representation at its meeting spanning the entire Eurasian landmass, from Spain, through Europe, the Soviet Union to Japan (Japanese delegation was present at the meeting). One can justifiably question whether its intent was to serve as a replacement for the League fulfilling the vision of Nazi Germany and its growing alliance ... particularly with the troubled relation between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. But the fact remains, that there had been early effort by the European Axis to bring colonial Africa within the fold, even including the building of a cross-Sahara railroad.

At the time Japan had its Co-Prosperity Sphere which sought to undo the European colonialism in Asia and the Pacific under Japanese suzerainty; and one can validly argue whether this was to eventually be integrated with the New Order at some future date. But, make no mistake, the two movements were allied, and this alliance was consummated by the end of 1941 with the joining of the Japanese and European wars into a bona fide World War.

And it was finally at that point, where the phantom casting the dark shadow fully materialized.

It was only a few weeks afterwards that the United Nations had become established. Though it is not well known, the name "United Nations" was actually the official name of the World War II alliance, itself. This is why, to the present day, you still see the enshrinement of 5 powers over all the others: these are the descendants of the 5 major members of the original alliance. The name itself was coined on New Years in 1942 just a few weeks after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong and other dependencies and colonial outposts. (According to the World Book Almanac, the idea for the name was first mentioned by Roosevelt in a White House bathroom, while Churchill was in the bathtub!) Later that day, Russia and China gave their assent to this designation. Eventually France (that is, the Free French under de Gaulle) was brought into this arrangement.

Sometimes this is distinguished from the later United Nations that was formally organized in 1946, by calling it the "United Nations Organization". But it is really just the embryonic form of the United Nations, while at the same time the United Nations is really little more than a continuation and outgrowth of the original alliance, with the last vestige kept intact by the virtual pentarchy that the veto power gives the descendant nations of the original major allies.

So, it is quite appropriate to bring up the history concerning the Nazis (and even the Japanese) in an article discussing the evolution of world governance. The World Wars were central to that evolution.

The probable reason the communist aspirations on world government were brought up is because the USSR, itself, was originally conceived as an international union of socialist governments whose intent was originally to encompass the globe. This principle was enshrined in the earliest versions of the Soviet Constitution, only taken out later on during the Stalinist revision to the constitution (1937, if I recall).

Other issues, little discussed here or elsewhere, need to be addressed. The prevalent idea behind a world government is that it would have much the same relation to nation-states that each nation-state has to its political subdivisions, thus effecting a kind of "United States of Earth". However, the "USE" precept is not the end-all and be-all of world governance. There are many people who have noted the increasing obsolescence of the nation-state, itself, and the order of nation-states in its entirety. Notable amongst these include Toffler of "Future Shock" and "Third Wave" fame who (rightly) pointed out the "middle class" squeeze being experienced by nation-states from both above and below. Even as they are being torn apart by the loss of the traditional Industrial era mass-concensus, they are being brought increasingly under a vast matrix of international organizations, many with overlapping scopes (e.g. the Arab League and African Union; NATO and the European Union). The breakup from below is now well-established and quite prevalent -- whether it be the liberal/conservative urban/rural split racking China, the orthodox/secular split that has threathened to pull apart Israel (not to mention the Arab world), the liberal/conservative split that significantly held up the creation of a new German government recently, to the red/blue state split that has practically plunged the United States into a undeclared second civil war since 2000.

On top of all this, one now has non-national organizations that have increasingly acquired the trappings and powers formerly accorded exclusively to nation-states. NGO's wield increasing influence (Amnesty International, Freedom House, the latter practically becoming a liege of the present American administration), non-national militias wreak havoc at an increasing level of profile, multi-national corporations have acquired economies that in some cases outstrip in size those of entire nations, religious affiliations have made pretentions toward subverting national sovereignty and claiming worldwide scope to wherever their followership lives (e.g. Fatwas issued from one country against members of the religion residing in others; the Fatwa against Rushdie; the call on American Catholics to observe certain principles in their voting; etc.)

And then there's Cyberspace, which is taking on a semblance of an independent non-national agent in its own right.

What had once been a simple order of nation-states has rapidly turned into a vast complex matrix of organizations and affiliations at all levels, from municipal, to subnational, to nation to supernational; and of all types, be it religious (e.g. the World Parliament of Religions), labor-related (e.g. International Organization of Labor), judicial (Internaitional Criminal Court), commercial (Microsoft), or otherwise. Such a complex matrix will vastly outstrip any precept of a "United States of Earth" and renders the organ diagram presented on the main page naive, at best.

A prospective world government need not be a mere United States of Earth housing nation-states the same way the United States houses over its states. And given the incredible diversity of the world population, and of the world civilization as described above housing this population, it almost certainly cannot be! This world is simply too diverse to be considered a single nation. Just think of what would be entailed in the judicial area, alone! How do you think a Supreme Court could possibly operate or be constituted, just to point out an example?

A World Federation would be, almost certainly, by far the most complex, elaborate human institution. And to add to this complication: in this day and age as we are on the verge of becoming a bona fide spacefaring civilization, the question inevitably arises: how shall the off-world domains be constituted in relation to the Earth? Despite the prevalence of the tacit assumption, a world government need not be the end-all and be-all of human governance! With the rise of the off-world travel, tourism, commerce and residence in the near future, the very term "geography" will be obsolete, to be replaced by the far more comprehensive term "cosmography".

So, the question of where a World Federation fits in the context of the wider cosmography will need to be addressed. This actually pertains both to home and outer space and runs central to the question of how the world, itself, will be administered. For instance, you have the Antarctic Treaty and the International Law of the Seas. Are these to be extended off-world, even used as a basis for the legal code governing off-world activities? How far in three dimensions does criminal law hold? If a girl gets raped in orbit aboard a private spacecraft, who prosecutes? (Or does anyone?) Where does the Federation's boundary end? In the terrestial domain of Earth orbit, or is it to include the Lunar domain? The Martian and Cytherian domains? Who presides over and governs the communications (that is, the Internet) that is to exist between and within the domains? Indeed, who presides over the Internet? Or, shall it eventually be the other way around: the Internet presiding over the world?

Needless to say, as has been pointed out in the header to the article, there is a need for major revision and cleanup. Given time, I shall attempt to do so, incorporating in a cohesive fashion the issues (and objections) that have been raised here and elsewhere, while providing a much larger range of links and raising a much larger range of issues (like those above) that have not received adequate consideration. -- Mark, 2006 May 4

strange comparison

"International Criminal Court as constituting elements of the idea of world goverment" Worldwide or not, Justice institutions are not exactly elements of a government. See definitions of government.

One of the main issues in any unified government (and here, the major potential obstacle behind any effort toward world unification) is the issue of judicial integration. It's surprising how little it has been discussed amongst the now numerous organizations and advocacies dedicated to the ideal of world federalism, but when we get down to it, it's really the impetus behind the counter-sentiment about losing sovereignty. So, of course, the question about this (or any other) international court runs central to the theme here! Indeed, the World Federalist Association (now known as the Citizens for Global Solutions) had a deciding hand in bringing about the International Criminal Court. So, this is probably the reason it was brought up here. A world judiciary (or judicial matrix) in some form will be present in a prospective world government as one of its primary organs, with either the International Criminal Court grandfathered in or something similar established.
Given the diversity of the human population and its existing legal institutions, it's not too difficult to see that a prospective solution will need to make some serious innovations not presently seen at the national level. A few ideas can be raised here that will, for instance, help show the true significance of the recent case in Afghanistan involving a Muslim apostate.
Suppose a person is convicted in a national (or regional or even religious) court on a principle that is not universally held to, but is regarded as sacrosanct within the given affiliation. How to proceed? Is there to be a single world Supreme Court? If so, on which principles. Though it may seem that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ought to preside, not even these are agreed on universally and (in fact) do not even form a part of present-day International Law. There had been a separate, competing, declaration issued in Cairo affirming the supremacy of Shari'a even over the Universal Declaration with respect to Muslims.
At present, there are already laws and precedents at the international level that show how such a case may be handled and (more generally) how a world judiciary may operate without stepping on everyone's toes. The relevant laws are those governing Extradition and Sanctuary. The general principle may be something along the lines that if a person is convicted in one jurisdiction on a principle that is not held in another, final recourse to "lateral appeal" might be permitted, whereby they may be granted sanctuary in another jurisdiction ... but only at the cost of exile from the original jurisdiction on pain of having the original sentence applied. Likewise, laws governing Extradiction would need to be revised to determine when a person may be pulled out of one jurisdiction into another -- a kind of "lateral prosecution" that stands as the opposite bookend to "lateral appeal". This may also be where an International Criminal Court comes into play.
The significance of the recent Afghanistan case is that it shows a case in point of how such a process might ensue and the case, itself, may eventually become a precedent for such a Sanctuary/Extradition checks and balance system for a world judicial matrix.

-- Mark, 2006 May 4

CLEAN UP!!

OK, i have removed teh communist world government and democratic world government sections (including the arguments for and against section) it feels better already. --Mjspe1 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed

I would have to agree with you on this. it seems quite unencyclopedic. It's a pity because this could be a good article.--Mjspe1 07:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree as well. The article is very unbalenced, and seems quite bias. The arguments aginsts are given counterarguments, yet the arguments for have no counterarguments. It seems to focus more on speculation, nonobjective, and reads poorly. Suggest major rewrite. --Eldarone 09:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, i'm going to suggest as a first start that we completely remove the arguments and counter arguments section. This is NOT the best way to write an encyclopedic article.--Mjspe1 06:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Good but not objective

This article is good in the sense that it thoroughly covers a wide range of issues. However, the article gives perhaps an inordinate amount of consideration to world federation. Also is the problem/response section really necessary. This in particular sounds like an advertisement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modernhiawatha (talk • contribs) .

I added a few responseless problems. So, that should help mildly.--Xiaphias 20:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Very hard to be diplomatic about Xiaphias' new posts. First of all, at the very least please use a spell checker. In my opinion, the new posts are uninformed, juvenile and seriously undermine the credibility of the article making it sound like a high school debate. I'm for wholesale deletion.Benkalt 12:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of this article, I assume you mean. I agree. Though I do ask -- since when was this article anything but uninformed, juvenile, and lacking in credibility?
Seriously though, I was simply trying to swing the balance of this article a bit more towards center. My suggestion is that we greatly shorten the length of the 'arguments against' section, and remove the responses. Most articles simply add a 'critisism' section at the end -- it seems like that approach could be the way to go here.
Now, I'll warn you ahead of time that I didn't run this through a spell checker...any typos this time, Bankalt? Because, if so, feel free to disregard everything I've said.--Xiaphias 04:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

Darond: Do you really deny the US is a sovereign nation? I mean, seriously, are you really that detached from reality? You mention the US engaging in foreign trade, consuming foreign goods, and being party to international agreements. You list these things as if they prove the US is not sovereign. Well, guess what, [childish comment, dude] sovereign polities have been doing that FOR ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY! That is no evidence at all that the US is somehow less than sovereign, or that world government is even likely much less inevitable. If you really believe that the US is not sovereign, that shows that you are not objective enough to write a NPOV article for Wikipedia. Such beliefs are utterly fringe and normally rejected even by the dreamiest of world government advocates! In fact, lots of experts are skeptical that world government will EVER happen. And they have a point. Your fantasy of world government and world peace is just that - a fantasy. There is no reason to believe it will ever be more than a fantasy. Meskhenet 23:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


You completely misunderstood what I wrote. Here is my position again, copied verbatim from a previous response below:
"My claim is that globalization makes it advantageous for national governments to give up part of their sovereignty in return for the benefits of participation in a supra-national organization, such as the UN, the WTO, EU, NATO and dozens of others. As globalization intensifies, the best trade-off point moves higher, towards a FWG. The federal form of government allows the degree of sovereignty to be adjusted to suit the needs and desires of the mulitple levels. The states in the US and the cantons in Switzerland, for example, have a remarkable degree of sovereignty, despite being part of a federation. In a FWG, nations are not expected to give up their sovereignty. They can remain nation-states and look after their own affairs. Only some issues of mutual global concern, will be handled at the world level."
France, by the way, is an excellent example of a government that willingly and gladly gave part of its sovereignty to a higher-level authority, the EU. It no longer has full control over many sovereignty-related issues, such as who has a right to come in or go out of its borders, who has the right to work there, its currency, etc. I believe most French (despite the recent rejection of the propsed EU constitution) would like to see this trend expand to other areas, such as European foreign ministry, European militry force, etc.--Dorond 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I've given this article a major overhaul. The fringe ideology that had formerly dominated the entire article has been put into perspective. The article for World Government should be about exactly that, not some utopian ideology believed only by a very small group of people.
I beg your pardon?
It appears you barely bothered reading the article itself, or you would have surely change your mind about whether this is a "fringe ideology". I also suggest you read at least the first reference in the "published works" section for a more thorough overview of the rich history of support for this idea and its current momentum (consider, for example, the rapid, if uneven, progress of the the EU, AU and SACN and the wide support of FWG amongst NGO leaders worldwide - see, for example, http://www.2020fund.org/downloads/GSP_2_exec.pdf). Marxism/communism is, by all measures, a largely discredited and dying ideology. Even if it wasn't, the idea of a "world government" was never a key aspect of it (it is not even mentioned in either of the articles on Marxism and Communism - I checked). Ditto for the "Moonies" (which are as fringe as they come).
Finally, it would be nice if you'd bother to create yourself a profile and log in. --Dorond 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, you are living in a fantasy world. The international organizations you listed are not meant to be building blocks for federal world government. Not one of their members has serious plans for giving up their national sovereignty. The mainstream does not support a world government, obviously. In fact, things are very much moving in the opposite direction. And I'm not only talking about America being aggressive about asserting its sovereignty. Other countries are too. For example, France just reaffirmed its right to use nukes in preemptive strikes. If the "world community" wants it to disarm, it couldn't care less. You are projecting your own desires onto other people. As for Marxism, there are still states that espouse it while there are none that support your ideology. The Moonies own major newspapers and rake in millions, which is more than what can be said for you. A Google search for "federal world government" only brings up 642 results - and a lot of them were written by you. By contrast "Unification Church" brings up 343,000 results. It is clear which one is more obscure. The Unification Church has vastly more members than your small group of Internet buddies. 65.31.99.19 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You should be aware that this article has been around for more than 3 years and has been extensively edited and debated. It would be useful for me (and, presumably, other editors) to know how deeply you have studied this subject before passing such decisive judgments on the contents of the article. For example, how many courses/conferences/meetings on this subject have you attended? How may books have your read? How many hours have you spend debating this with knowledgeable others?
To the point: the trends are that the sovereignty of nations is being eroded almost daily by the forces of globalization. There are many indications of this, such as the emergence of regional political blocks, rule-based international trade organizations, expansion in range of UN activities, increase in power of corporations, etc. It is rather silly to discuss America "asserting its sovereighnty" when it depends so heavily on foreign creditors, oil and manufactured goods suppliers, and when many of its businesses are subject to rules made by outsiders, such as the WTO and the EU (eg, anti-trust laws). In any case, I don't think it's worth debating whether this is a clear trend or not, because it is really besides the point. The idea of world government is really not what the Moonies and communism are about, so they are peripheral to a discussion of this idea, its history and the argument around it. If you feel they deserve a mentioning in the article, please go ahead and add such a mention, but keep it in proportion.
Regarding your Google search, most advocates consider "democratic world government", "world government" and "federal world governmnet" to be synonymous terms. A search on "world government", for example, generates about 2.2 million hits - you're welcome to follow each one and see where it leads :-). The term "federal world government" is the most descriptive, and so it is appropriate it would be used in the article.
To the best of my knowledge, no serious mainstream political scientist considers any prospect of a form of world government other than a democratic federation to be desireable (or even remotely possible). Conversely, the list of well respected politicians and scientists who advocate(d) taking steps towards world federation is probably in the hundreds (again follow some of the references). Your recent edits don't reflect that, and I thus feel compelled to undo them yet again. Sorry. --Dorond 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not silly at all to point out that America (and other countries) remain sovereign. Foreign creditors are nothing new and have nothing to do with the question of sovereignty. What in the world does oil have to do with it? The WTO and EU have purview only to the extent that it is granted by sovereign nations; they are not sovereign governments unto themselves. Your version of the article is extremely POV and gives the false impression that world government somehow inevitable. Your other statements are also false. For example, your statement that almost all of the world is "democratic" is utterly untrue. Even organizations like Freedom House which consider themselves "pro-democracy" label large numbers of countries as "Not Free." Lots of countries reject democracy even within their own borders, let alone the whole world. And no country has made an official statement supporting your concepts of world government. "The best of your knowledge" really isn't very good. If you want an article about your particular idea (which the mainstream does not support to begin with), it should have a more specific title than "World Government." There are plenty of political scientists who hold that other types of world government are possible, or even likely. Stop projecting your insular POV on other people. As for the article being debated for three years, right on this page there are many other people who have criticized your version that you simply ignored. That's probably why for the most part, people stopped coming to this page. There isn't much interest in your heavily biased version, but if anyone else is reading this, I'd like some other opinions. I vote that we maintain the more NPOV version. 65.31.99.19 05:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Dorond: You are so narrowly POV that it has twisted your ability to be objective. For example, the Unification Church advocates theocratic world government and has at least three million members. I challenge you to name a single organization anywhere near that size which advocates "democratic federal world government." There is no evidence that "FWG" is the most popular idea for world government, much less that it is in any way inevitable. Your claim that it is the only practical form of world government is equally absurd. Your version of the article is ultra-POV, poorly researched and lacking in references. Reverted! Meskhenet 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
With respect, Meskhenet, the Bahá'í Faith alone is an organization of six million that has implemented a democratic system of global governance, and puts itself out as a model for a more universal system of global governance. Specifically, in the absence of clergy, this entire religion is governed by democratically elected councils at local, national, and international levels. Its founder urged all nations to gather a great assemblage and form a compact that would govern them all. While you may not agree with their view on this, it is a larger organization dedicated to global democratic principles. -- Christian Edward Gruber 17:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, one tenet of the Bahá'í faith is stated as "Obedience to government and non-involvement in politics." That would suggest Bahá'í adherents are obedient to existing nation-states and do not actively promote the creation of any world government. On the other hand, the Unification Church (for example) does actively promote the creation of world government, specifically a theocratic one. This decisively refutes Dorond's claim that his idea is overwhelmingly the most popular among world government advocates. Meskhenet 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Decisively refutes? Unfortunately, your comment doesn't decisively do anything of the sort, even if what you are saying were perfectly accurate.
Speaking of that accuracy, as a surface understanding, what you say is true. It is, however, a simplification of the Baha'i position. You have also carried through certain incorrect assumptions based on the above simplified wording. Baha'is are enjoined to obey their governments and to avoid politics. However politics is defined in various parts of the Baha'i writings as being divisive. The "politics of unity" so to speak, is not divisive. For example Baha'is engage in their own internal system of politics, but it's different and here the use of the term "politics" is in the literal one, that which concerns the polity, or that which concerns governance. Baha'is promote certain values and propositions in their localities, nations, and globally, but are not "against" anyone, certainly not against any government, but such encouragement and promotion are political in the narrow definition of the term. They are not political in the purjorative sense that implies partisanship or division. Baha'is are cautious to avoid divisive and contentious public debate.
One assumption that must be corrected is that the promotion of an ideal of global governance doesn't mean disloyalty to one's nation-state. It means no more disloyalty than loyalty to Canada would mean disloyalty to the province of Ontario. A federalism, or even a nation-state that includes regional sub-groups is a bit like a holarchy. The good of the whole should necessarily mean the good of the parts. The Baha'i Faith as an organization can be involved in non-partisan "politics", insofar as the head of the Baha'i Faith is free to promote any programme in keeping with its sacred writings. In specifics, Baha'u'llah called for such a world government, and Baha'is work very closely with the United Nations organizations, and other like-minded organizations. The difference here is that Baha'is are not allowed to be disloyal, and therefore do not "agitate" politically. They promote their ideals through discourse, but in a way that does not pit camps against other camps or parties against each other. Baha'is are free to have ideas about "how things should be" and are free to do all sorts of things such as write their member of partliament/legislature, to promote their views via the media in non-antagonistic ways, and to educate through outreach to various like minded groups, government and non-government agencies, etc. They are asked to do so with wisdom, and in light of an overall aversion to partisanship. If anything, at the core of Baha'i theology, when put into practice, is a fundamental shift in political outlook towards increasing levels of unity. How they go about it looks very different than typical politics, however. To wit, in a letter from the Universal House of Justice, written in June of 1987, one finds:
It is not advisable for Bahá'í institutions or individuals to initiate actions designed to prod government leaders to urge their governments or the leaders of other governments to convene the world conference called for by Bahá'u'lláh and echoed in (the document known as) "Promise of World Peace". Two points should be borne in mind in this regard 1) Because of the political gravity of the decisions implied by this call and the differing political attitudes which it evokes, such actions on the part of the Bahá'í community would embroil the friends in partisan politics. There is quite a difference between identifying, as does the Peace Statement, the need for a convocation of world leaders and initiating the political processes towards its realization. 2) In the writings of the Faith (e. g., the closing passages of "The Promised Day is Come"), it is clear that the establishment of the Lesser Peace, of which the conference of leaders will be a related event, will come about independently of any direct Bahá'í plan or action.
and later in the same letter, quoting Shoghi Effendi:
The grassroots effort of the Bahá'ís should prepare the ground for the transition from the present system of national sovereignty to a system of world government. This it can do by concentrating on wide and continual dissemination of the Peace Statement whose contents should be known by the generality of humanity, on engaging people from all walks of life in discussions on peace, and on instilling and encouraging a sense of personal commitment to the prerequisites of peace. In a word, what is needed now is a world-wide consciousness of not only the requirements but also the possibility, and inevitability, of peace. Therefore, our immediate and inescapable task as Bahá'ís is to imbue the populations with such hope.
Baha'is are even free to join organizations that encourage a supra-national governmental model, with some provisos:
There is no objection to the Bahá'ís associating with such organisations as the World Government Organisation. The instructions he gave to the British Bahá'ís may be followed. However, great care should be taken to make sure these organisations are absolutely non-partisan in their political views and lean neither to East or West. -Letter written at the instruction of Shoghi Effendi, November 6, 1949
To do away with the Baha'is view of this and leave the Unification Church as (paraphrased) "the only such organization of any size" that promotes global governance is frankly to avoid the evidence of the hard work that Baha'is have done to promote global unity. You may not like it, but while the world disintegrates, the Baha'is work hard to model a different approach, and encourage other organizations, governments and individuals to think globally in this way. -- Christian Edward Gruber 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the European Union is not intended to become a European United States; its members remain sovereign nations. But even in the unlikely event that the EU ever becomes a single state, this will not be proof world government is inevitable. After all, the Soviet Union was much larger and it ended up disintegrating. The same is true for every large empire throughout history. The pattern has always been for large polities to eventually fall apart -- not for them to continue growing larger until they encompass the entire world. By the way, the term "globalization" does NOT refer to the development of any world government. According to many political scientists, your belief in the inevitable decline of sovereign nation-states is a fantasy. See, for example, 'The Myth of the Powerless State' by the noted political scientist, Linda Weiss. You may not like it, but that's reality. Meskhenet 12:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The trend is more from democratic forms, through populist siezure of governmental institutions, through various forms of repression, to disolusion. I don't think the size is a fair correlation, as the main examples (Soviet Union, Roman Empire, etc.) were dramatically un-representative of the various pieces of their federations/empires. When the good of the whole is not balanced with the good of the parts, the system falls apart. That much seems obvious from the examples given. As to your comment about the EU, you'll find quite a bit of disagreement about that. Some saw EU as a larger trading bloc only, some as a strong alliance, others saw the EU as a united europe. I worked in Paris around the time of the Euro coming into force, and among my (admittedly small) sample set of associates, opinions about what Europe should be varied highly. The United States was originally intended as a loose federation, and has become a very strong federalism, where strong is defined as centrally cohesive.
Regardless, this article isn't based on your opinions of the viability of WG, but should describe the various views and efforts towards and against this concept. -- Christian Edward Gruber 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair and useful to debate specific statements made in the article. In fact, the argument that a FWG is a utopian "fantasy" is explicitly mentioned in the article, and I welcome a good discussion about it (I certainly have lots to say and much data to back it up). However, this discussion is about the fundamental question of whether the article presents a "balanced" perspective on the subject matter. I offer below some observations that I hope will help bring this exchange to a constructive conclusion:

  • The subject matter is the idea of world government (since non existed)
  • The presentation should cover the history, philosophy and debate around the idea in proportion to the value of the information to the reader and its uniqueness, ie, if it presented more fully elsewhere, a link will be sufficient.
  • The presentation should be, to the degree possible, coherent, with some logic behind the presentation.
  • From my studies of this subject in the last few years, I believe that a democratic federal WG is the only highly-developed and researched approach towards a world government that is:
    • not covered in any level of detail elsewhere in Wikipedia
    • broadly discussed across many cultures (and in progressive governents - note, for example, the recent history of the International Criminal Court - and in the UN)
    • currently seriously studied by academics, diplomats and journalists
  • If Meskhenet believes that other forms of this idea deserve broader mention, he should be free to add them to the article or expand on them. However, I find a reference to articles that allege, based on heresay, that the Moonies have secret plans to take over the world to be insufficient evidence. If this allegation is untrue, it not only discredits this article, but makes it outright defamatory. From my understanding of the theocratic view, which actually does get a respectable mention in the article and is certainly not unique to the Moonies, those movements have a belief that God will establish a world government some day. The Moonies do not have the means, and most likely the intention, of establishing one themselves. They also don't have any concrete ideas of how such a government would work.
  • Meskhenet states that "there are plenty of political scientists who hold that other types of world government are possible, or even likely". This statement does not match my studies of this subject to date. I'd be happy to stand corrected, but I'd like to see some evidence to back this statement, and a more concrete description of those other types.
  • Meskhenet added a prominent section (first paragraph) on the "Communist or socialist world government". Again, he has not shown any credible evidence that any plans for a communist world government are being presented or advocated. I, personally, doubt that this idea has support (and, perhaps, never had any).

Based on the above observation, I believe Meskhenet's recent "overhaul" significantly degraded the overall quality and reliability of the article, and would like to revert it. If Mashkenet feels that a particular argument (such as whether FWG is realistic or not) is not well presented, he is welcome to improve it. If he feels a significant piece of information relating to WG is missing from the article, he is free to add it. He should be ready, however, for it to be subjected to a review (and potential criticm) by other editors, and back his position with more than what appears to be unsubstantiated heresay.

Any comments from other editors?--Dorond 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, though there are global systems of governance that we all do participate in - the aviation organizations of various nations co-operate without a central co-ordiating body, but do so on the basis of professional rules and standards of practice. It's a global system that simply uses professional pressure as an enforcement mechanism. So far it's been remarkably effective at standardizing aviation systems, signals, protocols, languages, etc. It might do to mention some of these "systems of global governance" that are not necessarily "government institutions" per-se. They form a part of the overall mix of world governing systems. -- Christian Edward Gruber 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought that the ICAO, a UN agency, acts to coordinate aviation rules globally. Anyhow, I agree that there are lots of ways in which global activities are coordinated, including the Wikipedia itself. You may be interested in taking a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/who_runs_your_world .--Dorond 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dorond's ultra-POV bias is quite clear in his version of the article. First, he claims that democracy is accepted almost everywhere. This is false; as has been pointed out, even mainstream pro-democracy organizations such as Freedom House label much of the world non-democratic. Dorond uses this false assumption to supposedly "prove" the inevitability of democratic FWG, even if it does no such thing. Second, he falsely equates globalization with the development of world government. As other wikipedia articles such as globalization point out, they are NOT the same thing. This breaking down of certain trade barriers between sovereign nations does not equal global government. Also, he claims here that the Unification Church is only alleged to support theocratic world government, when in fact, this is common knowledge recognized by experts on the topic (see provided links). Meskhenet 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Meskhenet:

  • While it is true that many countries fall far short of the democratic ideal, with few notable exceptions, the vast majority of them claim to be on the path towards democracy. All other forms of governance are weakening. This has been very extensively studied and documented. I invite you to read a recent scholarly review of the question of whether we are approaching a universal democracy here http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/diamond.html .
  • I never claimed that globalization and FWG are the same thing. My claim is that globalization makes it advantageous for national governments to give up part of their sovereignty in return for the benefits of participation in a supra-national organization, such as the UN, the WTO, EU, NATO and dozens of others. As globalization intensifies, the best trade-off point moves higher, towards a FWG. The federal form of government allows the degree of sovereignty to be adjusted to suit the needs and desires of the mulitple levels. The states in the US and the cantons in Switzerland, for example, have a remarkable degree of sovereignty, despite being part of a federation. In a FWG, nations are not expected to give up their sovereignty. They can remain nation-states and look after their own affairs. Only some issues of mutual global concern, will be handled at the world level.
  • Regarding the Unification Church, do you have any specific description of the plan they have for establishing such a government and the form it would take? Can you point to an official web site of this church that contains such descriptions? Do they have a few tens of Trillion of dollars and a few hundred million soldiers at their disposal ready to activate their plan to impose their views on the rest of humanity? Otherwise, they simply don't stand the remotest of chances of implementing their secret plan, if such exists.

--Dorond 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that "all other forms of governance are weakening." For example, non-democratic China shows no signs of weakening and by all indices, is experiencing rapid and robust growth. There are also plenty of countries that don't even pretend to be on the path to democracy. Even if what you said were true (which it isn't), it would not prove the trend is permanent. Most forms of government throughout human time have NOT even pretended to be democracies, so it is purely POV to pretend that world democracy is inevitable. Moreover, there is a huge difference between the idea and the reality of majority-rule. In what country do the majority of the people actually hold most of the political power? Show me that country and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. In no "democracy" does the average person on the street have power anywhere close to that of the elite. Even many of the countries that call themselves democracies are actually highly authoritarian republics or even totalitarian dictatorships. If you want to argue in favor of democratic triumphalism, that's fine, but presenting your view as if it is fact is POV. As for the non-democratic plans for world government, upon getting the time I'll get some new references and post them. Meskhenet 12:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
So many well-researched articles and books have been recently published on the subject of the rapid and steady rise of democracy, and the concurrent decline of other forms of governement, that I find a statement like "There is zero evidence that all other forms of governance are weakening" simply breathtaking. It is also obvious you didn't bother reading even the one article I referenced above. I give up.--Dorond 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, are you narrow minded! I had already read the article and most of the books. I happen to - shock!!! horror!!! - disagree with you. The raw facts are on my side. In today's world, non-democratic countries are not rare exceptions. There are plenty of countries that make no illusions about being democratic. In fact, throughout human time, it is the 'democratic' countries that have been exceptional. And there are compelling arguments that even democratic countries are democratic in name only - see Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy." Your fanatical faith in democratic triumphalism is no more rational than that of, say, communism. Meskhenet 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I usually enjoy debate, Meskhenet, especially with people who have very different views than mine, when each side is making an honest attempt to educate the other about their views and, when necessary (as here), to reach an agreeable conclusion. In your case, however, this is a no-holds-barred fight, where vicious personal attacks, extreme statements, shooting in all direction and not paying much attention to the other's arguments are all fair game. This is simply an unpleasant and unrewarding experience for me, one which I decline to continue.--Dorond 13:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of specifics involved, I agree with Meskhenet that the article should not itself advocate, nor put forward triumphalist world-democracy arguments, though it can present such arguments as some of the views under examination. -- Christian Edward Gruber 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks like the article is moving away from POV promotion of one idea, so I know longer have a problem with it. When I get some time I may be able to cite examples of organizations that promote non-democratic world government, but I'll first make sure they are backed up by a variety of credible sources. Thanks again. Meskhenet 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me point out that, with all the repeated claims that this article is improperly promoting just one variation on the idea of world government, namely a democratic federation, neither of you, nor anyone else in the 3-years history of this article, to the best of my memory, have come up with solid evidence that any other form of world government is curently being seriously promoted or discussed with any degree of mainstream credibility. Furthermore, given that I spent considerable time over the last few years studying this subject, and have discussed it quite extensively with people who are working full time on studying and/or promoting ideas on this subject for decades (yes, decades!) I feel confident in asserting that FWG is, far and away, the dominant idea in this domain of global political studies. An article should correctly reflect the balance of mainstream thinking on the subject. While I'm sure that one can easily find people who believe that dinosaur bones were created a few thousand years ago to test people's beliefs in creationism, it would be a great disservice to readers of this encyclopedia if these beliefs were given equal weight to far more solid, well researched and reasoned, views on dinosaurs.
I'm OK with useful changes in presentation and flow. The contents, however, MUST be solidly rooted in deep knowledge of mainstream political thinking on the subject. --Dorond 23:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unification church.

Ok. I'm breaking out this conversation thread into its own topic.

As to my own view, I just removed it (tentatively) if only because the existing sources are exclusively POV. Specifically both non-wiki links are by groups that oppose - one of which is by an anti-mind-cult group. While I sympathize with their concern over mind-control cults, I'm nevertheless mindful of the extreme tactics of anti-cult activists. Even if they are speaking accurately, it is unreasonable to accept only references by opponents of a group as to the belief of such a group. If any reputable scholarship exists that testifies to this belief of the UC members, please source it, and the section could be returned. Also, the main wiki articles on Moon and the UC do not reference this belief - again suggesting that this section is under-source.

Repeat - if we have better links than only oppositional groups, then by all means let's put it up. But only with additional sourcing that is a bit more independent. Having no knowledge of the subject, I personally can't provide any, sorry. -- Christian Edward Gruber 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to throw my two cents in here. Pretty much all the countries of the world are sovereign, with no signs that thier ultimate sovereignty is going to vanish or that they will give it all up. However their sovereignty is eroding due to globalization of economics and law (to varying degrees). Some give it up easier than others. The UK is a sovereign nation-state, and the ultimate soverenty lies with Parliament, but they have signed two treaties that override their own soveriegnty - The European Declaration of Human Rights and the EU (Maastright) Treaty. Both give soveriegnty to a higher organization that can overide Parliament. These are baby steps, that if continued in every country with most areas of governance, could eventually lead to a de facto world government over the years (possibly hundreds). At the other end of the spectrum, the US guards its sovereignty tightly, but still does similiar things. While ultimate sovereignty lies with the US Constitution, every international treaty signed has a higher place in the US system of law than Federal Statutes or Supreme Court Decisions. So every treaty slightly erodes the sovereignty of Congress and the President, unless they are willing to accept whatever repercusions are involved in repealing those treaties. Case in point, we could repeal NAFTA, but at a high cost to both our economy (most corporations have a vested interest in NAFTA for many reasons) and our international relations with Canada and Mexico (the damage to the latter's economy would probably result in increase immigration here, setting off more repercusions). My point is that the textbook definition of soveriegnty is complete control over a state's internal/external affairs. By signing treaties and joining international bodies, sovereignty is weakened. In the 1930's countries put up tariffs to isolate their economies and ignored international bodies, but this obviously proved counterproductive (Depression and WWII), so now we pool our soverienty's more so than ever. History will be the judge, but so far this has had the effect of creating more democracies and a more stable world environment. Who knows what may continue to happen, since the world today is completely different than any other point in history where countries got too large. Which brings me to the USSR being larger than the EU - they are/were the same size by population (give or take a couple million), which ignore the fac tthat democratic India (1 billion people) has survived for nearly as long as the USSR did and shows no signs of economic stagnation or breaking up like the USSR. So I guess that size so far hasnt predicted the collapse of a country. Here's my final thought - the countries of the world may continue to pool their sovereignty for as long as the global conditions favor it. It wont result in a 'world government' of any sort unless there is an outside threat to require it. This outside threat could be environmental (think hollywood disaster movie), or the arrival of aliens on our doorstep. Since both of these are almost never going to happen, the same is true for world government (although Im in favor of it!) - Simon H, US/British Citizen

Article structure and flow

So I really hate the current flow of the article - mostly because of the "arguemnts for / arguments against" approach. Let's try to see if we can't get a more encyclopaedic format for this. Meskhenet, I'm sorry, in part, for the previous revert. I agree that the older format also had the for/against approach. I should have edited forward, rather than reverted. However, I think more discussion about sections, flow, and content should really be had before we can have an article that takes into account your additions and integrates the historical article. I think we can do it. I'll try to make some phased changes over the next few days with discussion about it to occur here. -- Christian Edward Gruber 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that this acticle is about a proposal, and a very important one by any measure of historical importance, I fail to see what is wrong with presenting the main arguments of the pro/con of the idea. What alternative do you have in mind?
By the ways, the short discussion of the root beliefs of the idea supporters, which appeared in the previous introduction, is missing from the new version. Anyhow, I'm going to hold back on major editing myself and see what you come up with in the next few days. --Dorond 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Christian, make it more encyclopediac. =)

Communist or socialist world government

I suggest that the section on "Communist or socialist world government" be removed, simply because no claim or evidence has been provided that a valid plan for establishing a communist world government is being seriously promoted. What it is doing here? --Dorond 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dorond, I would suggest any article on world government needs to include this topic, as it is a part of the historical arguments for world government. As a democratic world federalist myself, I am still committed to a balanced article on this topic. If this article is about the idea of world government, it needs to be inclusive of the historical debates up to where we are now. Tfleming 17:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled by what specific additional information needs to be added to make this article more balanced. I may be ignorant here, but I am honestly not aware of any serious attempt to promote a "Communist or socialist world government" (as if socialist and communist are almost the same thing, which they are definitely not), neither today nor in the past. If such an attempt was made in the past, please point us to a reliable description of it, and I would support properly adding it to the history section. If a current attempt is on-going and respectable (has some support from scholars and politicians across some significant section of humanity), then, yes, let's give it its own section. But, please, let's not talk in generalities and hypotheticals. Show us the data. --Dorond 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Dorond The conflict between Trotski and Stalin in 1920 was about this very issue: Stalin was more pragmatic and advocated 'socialism in one country', while Trotski was pursuing 'world revolution' scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country

Saying 'socialist and communist ....' does not implies that it is the same thing, anymore than 'socialist and capitalist' implies that.

See the movie 'Reds' - Reed actually believed that 'World Revolution ' will reach US, Hungary, even Germany were affected. It is an importand part of history.

Here is a link to socialist site which describes this: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/le61-s27.shtml


I followed the links and did not see any mention of a world government concept. Did I miss anything? Where?--Dorond 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First this goes towards advocating a move or lessened a part of the article. "If a current attempt is on-going and respectable (has some support from scholars and politicians across some significant section of humanity), then, yes, let's give it its own section. But, please, let's not talk in generalities and hypotheticals. Show us the data. -Dorand" If current attempts are being made, then shouldn't this be in WikiNews.

Also I agree with a historical account, but lets be realistic and start from the beginning, the first advocated WORLD governments were empires. Now the people's views of world were limited and the "realization" of world empires, if we start Alexander the Great and then Roman, don't forget the East's empires, then European empires, with the UK empire becoming most global, which she is still the technical head of state of many parliamentary form of governments, and several others such as Spain is a constiutional monarchy, even though unless (given 'data' of the past and making certain 'assumptions' a new world empire were to emerge with a person who was able to pass the legacy down for the world to accept a 'monarachy' of sorts. Guessing, predicting, even what the experts say, of what a world government form will have, is not proper per se of an ecyclopedic article. Showing certain trends, giving what people might expect and what expects think, breifly, yes.

But predicting global federalism for which sci fi writers have been writing about, would be tantamount to writing an encyclopedia article on the world colonizing the moon and how inevidatible it is given the technology and movement of culture, back when Jules Vern wrote that nice sci fi piece on visiting the moon.

It happened, but when, how, what 'experts' think, we still could have nuclear holocast. There could be an irradation of species (technical version of irradation) that leads current species of humans less equiped and lose the survival of the fittest.

I replaced this section, because only Dorond wants it gone. We need a vote first. I am in favour of keeping it.Daanschr 08:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Question on Principles

I would like to challenge one of the principles listed in the article. As a disclaimer, let me acknowledge my previous, strong suppport for this principle. However, after intense research in democratic studies, I am now of the opinion that it is a Amero-centric viewpoint. The principle in question is

* Separation of the legislative, executive and judicial functions, in line with what are claimed by some to be modern concepts of democracy.

This is basically a presidential system of governance. Given that most governments, democratic and otherwise, are parliamentary in nature, I've become convinced that a parliamentary form of world government would be the most likely form to emerge. There would not be a world president, but rather a global prime minister. I'm not advocating one for the other, as I am still committed to the appropriate checks and balances in any form of world government, but wanted to challenge others to re-evaluate the wording of this principle.

I would also suggest another form might follow the format of the European Union, with a strong technocratic cabinent (led by a weak president) dominating the decision-making process, sanctioned or challenged by the more democratic parliament. Anne-Marie Slaughter suggested something similar to this for reformed decision-making in the Organization of American States.[2] In any regard, I don't believe we should assume a world government would simply be a super-sized national government. The same features may not be scalable, and we should not force them to. Tfleming 17:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit to being the one who placed that sentence there in the first place, largely because this is one of the means often mentioned as a way to prevent the world government of becoming too powerful. On second thought, I tend to agree with you that this is not a fundamental aspect of the idea and a range of other structures deserve serious consideration as well. Do you suggest just removing this principle, or can you think of a more generalized replacement for it?--Dorond 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cantons and World Government

Is it possible and desirable to have a combination cantons and world_government?

Why was link to mivini.org removed?

Thank you in advance for your input and for reading the following. I apologize for any faux pas, as I'm new to Wikipedia.

I respect the community and your desire to ensure Wikipedia.org continues to evolve into the greatest encyclopaedic resource to humankind - and not simply a forum for either political ideological battles or spam.

  • I You We A worldwide community experiment for personal and global transformation, based on an evolving meritocracy of ideas.

1) Why was MiViNi.org link removed? 2) What does mivini.org lack to be included as a valid link under Wikipedia - World Government? 3) Did the person(s) who removed it navigate MiViNi and examine the theory, architecture, and features?

I am not so much defensive of MiViNi being de-listed from Wikipedia under World Government as I am supportive in making a case for inclusion in Wikipedia under World Government of any valid link to a new grassroots movement for world self-government, designed by the people for the people, through online and local meetings around the world. Such a movement must have a start somewhere and the seed of such a movement is as important and valid as any resulting success or failure years in the future.

To discount a creation simply because it is embryonic makes about as much sense as discounting the seed of any movement or development, be it democracy or the Internet. In the realm of world government, MiViNi represents the essence of innovation in a grassroots World Government. It is legitimate and has required significant preparation, time, effort, thought, and execution. It is a movement based on principles and not personalities. Nowhere on the site do you even find the creator's name. It is based on a non-commercial model of attraction rather than promotion. It incorporates principles drawn from a variety of sources, including recovery programs. The technology is based on state-of-art open source collaborative design.

Even in biology, it is unreasonable to discount a new development simply because, it is at present, either a small threat, i.e. Bird Flu, or a revolutionary hope, i.e. debut of the Polio vaccine.

I would guess one reason the link was removed is because MiViNi was just launched in the past few days and has no current members. It cannot be because the site is bound to fail due to design flaws, or because it's simply a self-serving monument to one person's ego. All of us have seen sites that are pathetic homilies to some man's delusion of grandeur. We also would recognize that MiViNi does not fit that model.

MiViNi is new and has no current members. That is exactly where it should be today, since it launched yesterday. It is panarchic model based on the Internet, and attraction rather than promotion. The ramp-up may take months, not days. That is by design. Further, it won't succeed or fail on its link being included in Wikipedia under World Government. MiViNi is representative of open source panarchic innovative approaches toward grassroots World Government. As such, shouldn't it be included under the Wikipedia World Government links? If not - why not? Please let me know, as this would contribute to building a better model for a panarchic World Government.

Because of the nature of the Internet, MiViNi's growth can span borders, as members volunteer their time and talent to create localized versions in their language and those members with technology skills can create mirror copies.

MiViNi is derived from three words in Esperanto - Mi (I) Vi (You) Ni (We). It has a fivefold purpose; the first three are common to other world humanitarian organizations. The last two are more unique to MiViNi.

1) A worldwide community for personal and global transformation 2) Worldwide online and local meetings spanning the full spectrum of humanity 3) Guided by a shared Vision, Purpose, Principles, Organization and Personal Steps 4) Law-abiding, having no official opinion on outside specific leaders or governments 5) Designing a dynamic architecture for a new global system of government

Regardless of the anyone's initial effort, an active MiViNi community would adopt the site and develop it according to their meritocracy of ideas. In this respect it's a little like an open source project. In the interest of planting the seed for this concept, both a functional architecture and conceptual DNA for growth were developed: 

Functional Architecture
MiViNi Website - English only 3/06
Online Forum
Blog
Live Chat
Skye / IM integration
Meeting Calendar
Project Workspace
Polls
Newsfeeds
RSS site subscription

Conceptual DNA
Vision
Purpose
Rationale
Principles
Membership Guidelines
Group Practices
Steps - Personal
Goals
Projects
Fads and Initial Concept

If you've made it to the bottom of this posting, thank you. Please respond with your best thinking on why the MiViNi link was removed and also be specific in what if anything is lacking for it to enjoy a link on Wikipedia under World Government.

Love, Peace, Unity

A member of MiViNi

Links added by people who run the website make me nervous. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I understand the concern against self-promotion. However, I don't think it's beneficial to Wikipedia's community of contributors or users to erase a web link prior to investigation simply because the web developer posted it. The message this sends is that if you create a website and think it might be relevant to a particular Wikipedia topic, do not submit it yourself. Instead, approach a senior Wikipedian with some credibility to do it for you. Otherwise, regardless of the merit of the website and its relevance to the topic, someone who is more motivated by suspicion and caution than open mindedness and idealism might may use their tiny eraser. G2

Endless enlargement of the EU.

I reverted some wierdly POV stuff about "some" people "fantasizing" about the EU endlessly enlarging. I'm only mentioning it because it has a vague relevance because this is an article on world government and the EU is presented as an example of a larger supra-national regional governing body with some state powers. If the editor who added those comments (anonymous, I seem to recall) wishes to have them included, they should identify who "some" people are, and cite sources, as well as attempt to phrase the contribution so as to flow with the article and be relevant. --Christian Edward Gruber 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


The only way forward

I think looking at this logically, a federated world government with no borders, one unified authority and the general unification of all governments across the world is a necessary step for humanity's survival. The inevitable colonization of outer space as the earth becomes more populated could result in disaster if every country that could do so was trying to claim stakes on, say, Mars or the Moon. Instead of just fighting wars on earth, we'd just try out hardest to kill each other on extraterrestrial bodies. Such a war would surely have a death count numbering in the billions, and is obviously something that we must try to avoid.

But, heed this; we cannot rush into a unified Earth authority. Regions such as North America, Asia Pacific and the European Union must ally together in 'super-nations' which could improve the general stability of their respective areas with unified, co-ordinated government and armed forces. These large nations could eventually incorporate more stubborn nations into their borders, until, eventually, every old country on Earth becomes part of a local super-power. From there, the process of creating a world federation would be simplified exponentially, as instead of 190 or so countries debating the issue, only 5 or six super-nations would have to do so in this scenario. This theory relies on a lot of assumptions already, but assuming that the super-nations agreed to merge together and were not forced in any way to join, then it is almost a foregone conclusion that most of the citizens of these new nations would agree to a gradual unification of these super-powers.

Just my 2 pence . . .

Man, I have been trying to argue roughly the same thing for months. But all of the Americans on the Internet keep bitching and moaning about "illegal immigrants" ("ZOMG, they weren't born here and now they want to have jobs and raise families in the USA, tehy r teh suxorz, build teh fense and killzor tehm all!!11!!one!!"). I feel completely alone in arguing for a North American Union. And don't get me started on world federalism. Jesus Christ, you'd think I was advocating for infanticide! I'm beginning to doubt it will even happen in my great-great-great-great nephew's time. Why do people want to cling to nationalism and chauvinism so badly? Can't they see that it's neither humane nor fair to divide people into perpetually waring and feuding states? Why do we have these borders? Because others are "strange" or "talk funny" or "don't look like us"? GAH, it just makes me want to throw my hands up in the air and ignore the news entirely because so many people are just so dumb! 72.145.150.162 21:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Because, for the people you are referring to, the current state of things results in them (and probably you) living very nice, pleasant lives. Why would they want to risk that? Regardless of what you think would happen, there's a whole range of potential outcomes that would result in situations that would range from very good to very bad. I think you are forgetting that the entities implementing a world government would be human. Humans are imperfect. Anything created by humans is probably imperfect. Take your idea, apply the competing interests of 6 billion people, and try to figure out how corrupt it would be by the time its actually implemented. Maybe it would be good for the world, but there's potential there for serious abuse under the guise of a unified world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.250.223 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging Word Federalist info with World Gov't

I understand some of the complaints I read and maybe my comments will add to their points. However, I was looking for the World Federalist organization that I knew something about 25 years ago, but remembered 'World Government'. So my purposes, it would be helpful to have both together. DFBrown, Ethics instructor at community college

  • To avoid confusion however, we don't want to revert to a single article that confuses world federalism as the only possible form of world government. Rather, a link to organizations that promote/oppose world government should have a link to the organization in question. On that point, the U.S. federalist organization recently changed its name to Citizens for Global Solutions. If you're looking for the international effort, it is now the World Federalist Movement.

Alexander, Mongol Empire

I wonder if it makes much sense to include these as world governments, because even Alexander's empire did not encompass even half the "known world" of his time, and the much-larger Mongol Empire was no closer. 70.49.242.102 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Globalist Manifesto" sentence

I removed from the opening the sentence "Capitalizing on the growing importance of world wide web in the human civilization, a group of individuals adhering to The Globalist Manifesto[3] is actively advocating for the formation of one world government, initially through the internet." There appears to be an attempt to spam this meme into Wikipedia (e.g. here). If they were indeed notable enough to warrant inclusion in the opening paragraphs of an article such as this, the first step would be an article on the group or manifesto itself. - David Oberst 01:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This article started with statement,"Currently, there has not been a nation to officially put forward plans for a world government, although some people do see international institutions (such as the International Criminal Court, United Nations, and International Monetary Fund) as the beginning elements of a world government system." This is trying to show the current global trends, one of which is the growing dominance of the internet, which include the Wikipedia. This is why, the link on worldwide web is necessary as well as some proofs that the worldwide web is really a tool of promoting a global advocacy... hence, The Globalist Manifesto link was necessary too, because websites advocating The Globalist Manifesto had been, for around 4 years now, number one both in Yahoo and Alta Vista Search in the topic of "formation of a global government" over million of entries. It is also number one in the Advanced Google Search in that same topic. These are statement of facts which the world community should not be deprived of knowing. In other word, the entry which started from "Currently" sentence is grammatically coherent and factually important and is not speaking of any bias. To mangle it... is on the other hand imposing personal bias of one person, which in effect deprived the global community of knowing an important global trend as recognized by major search engines in the world like Google, Yahoo and Alta Vista. It makes the world less informed, or skewed more towards ignorance. Wikipedia is fighting against ignorance which makes it a leading center of knowledge in todays global commmunity.The global community is supporting Wikipedia because it informs the global public of what is the current global trend as seen by Google, Yahoo and Alta Vista which is, I think, more credible than one person somewhere in his lonely computer who has a personal biological concern to struggle with.

Why was B-Plan for World Government removed

http://illuminati-religion.blogspot.com/2007/05/illuminati-religion-from-endless.html

Because it's a conspiracy theory! I don't think it's a good source of information about world government.Kromsson 20:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Since the logic reasoning is based on quotes from the people known to be the official propagandists of a World government, where is the conspiracy?

Switzerland

"Following the U.S. experiment, Switzerland (1848) and Canada (1867) formed the first multi-national federations, uniting distinct ethnic/cultural/lingual regions under a common government." Switzerland exist since 1291. What does this sentence refer to? Kromsson 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It refers to the constitution that was adopted in 1848. According to the article on Switzerland, the cantons were previously bound by treaties rather than being a single federal state.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.250.223 (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

dab link

I spent about 7 edits trying to get that link at the top to work, I'm off to go shoot myself now! Sorry for taking so long! SGGH speak! 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How come Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf isn't listed?

This looks like a well developed article so I'm curious if this is an actual oversight.

24.7.47.36 05:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting words in Hobbes's mouth

I'm surprised that in all of the above discussions nobody has questioned the approach of 'substituting' one word with another in a (famous) quotation to create a new meaning which justifies inclusion. The offending section almost goes beyond Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position into pure invention. Whilst logically coherent, it surely doesn't belong in Wikipedia...

Hobbes

The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes' book Leviathan (1651) expounded on the 'social contract theory' of government. When 'nation' is substituted for 'person' in the theory below, it advocates the creation of a world government and depicts the current international system as anarchical.

"The natural condition of nations is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear," this is the "state of nature". Hobbes' first law states; "That every nation ought to endeavour peace as far as they have hope of obtaining it; and when they cannot obtain it, that they may seek and use all helps and advantages of war." Hobbes explains the subtext of the political process, "We mutually divest ourselves of certain rights, such as the right to take another nation's life, so to achieve peace. That a nation be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth as for peace and defense of his nation he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other nations, as he would allow other nations against his nation." The mutual transferring of these rights is called a contract and is the basis of the notion of moral obligation, duty and government. From selfish reasons alone, we are both motivated to reciprocally transfer these and other obligatory rights, since this will end the dreaded state of war between us.

Hobbes continues by discussing the validity of certain contracts. For example, contracts made in the state of nature are not generally binding, for, if I fear that you will violate your part of the bargain, then no true agreement can be reached. This problem is solved by giving unlimited power to a political sovereign who will punish us if we violate our contracts, "that to ensure contracts (and peace) policing power must be given to one person, or one assembly. We do this by saying, implicitly or explicitly, I authorise and give up my right of governing myself, to this nation, or to this assembly of nations, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner."

This text has been in the article for a while, so I've moved it here for discussion. Does anyone think this is allowable? --Wragge 06:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Instances of World Government in Fiction

I think there should be a section discussing the topic of world government in works of literature and such. Examples of such instances off the top of my head include the Hegemony of the Ender's Shadow series by Orson Scott Card and the World State of Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End. Mathwhiz90601 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in World government in science fiction, which is a separate article. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was the criticism section removed?

Is this article only for people who advocate world government? and not for people who advocate against it? And that is called neutral around here? - Shankar 121.247.14.57 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It appears that the criticism was removed moreso because it was poorly argued more than any other reason. Quite a few people have worked on this article; I myself have been following the rewrites for over two years - some quite extensive - and there is a strong pride among the contributors in the article's current objectiveness. Most of the critiques were POV and fairly superficial objections that have come and gone from the article.Tfleming (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok. I just wanted the criticism section in. The current criticism section is much better written than my version, after all I am not a writer. - Shankar 121.247.14.57 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I was the one who re-wrote the criticism section, it was my first major edit. Was it good? I'd like to know, as I read wikipedia a lot, and I'd like to contribute more. R.J. Croton —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete entire "Good or Bad" section

  • This section reads like someone tacked a high school opinion essay onto the article. It adds nothing to the entry, has no references, and there's no way it could be rewritten in an encyclopedic style. There should be some sort of "Benefits" section with references to balance the "Criticism" section, but as the section stands now I feel it should be entirely removed (WP:NOR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.252.221 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I'm going to tag the article as containing original research and needed more references, its a very long article with very little referencing and some of the content clearly indicates original work for example the criticisms section which starts Depending on one's point of view. I'll try and find some more sources for the article in order to verify more of the content. Guest9999 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's also a neologism. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article may contain some original research but I find it absurd to suggest that the term "world government" is a neologism. It's been used by supporters and opponents for over a century! --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably quite a lot older than one century. See as an example [4] Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
But the usage is defined by the Content of the article. The closet possible meaning of "world governments" I know is this: League of Nations, United Nations, International Court of Justice. What else? So maybe this should be a DAB page? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ludvikus, you are not making any sense. When you bring up the issue of neologisms, the question becomes whether or not reliable sources can confirm that term "world government" and the concept of a world government has existed for a significant period of time regardless of whether a world government has ever existed, currently exists or will ever exist. --Loremaster (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. And my point now is academic since the article has changed. The article was so poorly written that it appeared as if there was a very general notion of "world government" since the time of ancient Greece. It was this that I considered a Neologism. But if we look at the evolution of the notion until the formations of the League of Nations and the United Nations, then there's no Neologism. So now the Tag is removed. So let's move on to other issues. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lack of good reasoning

This text: "Furthermore, conflicts such as the Second World War involving all of Earth led to the breakup of near World Governmental countries like the British Empire and other Great Powers; this shows that such large organisations and countries only spread problems to a more global scale." This only points to the fact that a large union consisting of individual states or colonies that is brought together by military force has a tendency to cripple, but that does not necessarly happen to a large union based of induviduals who have joined together by themselfes, and therfore free from any kind of seperationists. I think that should be accounted for as one of the main reasons wo why UK in the end was seperated from its kingdom.--Nabo0o (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist perspective

Regarding this edit, is not the anarcho-capitalist perspective relevant, considering that world government and total anarchy are the only consistent conclusions of the ideologies of statism, minarchism, and anarchism? Sacrevert (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See also http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf Tisane (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Financial TImes article

You might say that the author believes that there are steps being taken toward a World Government (but not without a quote), but implying there is more than one article without evidence is unacceptable. You might say: Gideon Rachman, writing in the Financial Times, writes .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

lead is funny

please add inline citations in the lead or i may decide to be bold. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So long as you follow WP:LEADCITE Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
of course! :O) 93.86.201.173 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It's in the process of being fixed as we speak today. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bonum sane

It would be interesting if this article could cite the document Bonum sane in the criticism section, a Catholic Church document that specifically opposes a hypothetical world government. There is currently a debate in the Catholic Church on whether the Church should support such an idea, and differing views have also been presented in other magisterial texts, such as Caritas in Veritate. ADM (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

World government (disambiguation)

The above DAB page has just been created!

  • I'm hopeful that this should help cleanup and break-up the article into appropriate separate pages.
--Ludvikus (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Cleanup}}

I've substantially re-structured & re-edited the article - but relatively careful not to delete substantive material. Nevertheless, the article still needs substantial work & development. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Useful references
  1. Encarta: World government: [5]
  2. Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: [6]

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We definitely need to follow the Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cause the current version of the article is a mess. --Loremaster (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that the article is a mess as written. It's been a couple of months since I viewed it, and am shocked at the "substantially re-structured & re-edited" approach, which has made the article horribly less readable or comprehensive. I will do what I can to restore much of the several years of work which previous editors contributed to the article. (It would be advisable for anyone coming in and deciding to substantially restructure and edit any article review its history before doing unilateraly so.) Tfleming (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

saarc is not a union

its life spp and nafta.there are no single even talk of parliaments,currency,borderless entry etc. plz remove saarc from the list of union t list of trade blocs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.110.126 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Utopia

Added to the Also See section since this ideology is one of the principle beliefs of world government or single-society. Paradiver (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_government/Archive_1&oldid=1155082647"