5 ms·
Sooner or later, a global government with global enforcement powers will be necessary if we want to tackle challenges of global magnitude, like digital privacy,
by HenryKissinger 7y ago
Sooner or later, a global government with global enforcement powers will be necessary if we want to tackle challenges of global magnitude, like digital privacy, climate change, and artificial intelligence. As long as national governments are free to do as they please, these situations will continue to exist. Think an EU-like structure, but for the world.
- ChuckNorris89 7y agoSooo...the UN but on steroids?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoHopefully, one day, because a world divided into nations is woefully unequipped to handle challenges that don't respect national borders.
- solidsnack9000 7y agoA world divided into provinces... A world divided into counties... A world divided into cities... Sub-jurisdictions are a fact of life.
- Someone 7y agoThe claim isn’t that subdivisions are evil, it is that we should aim for a tree, not a forest. When “city” was the top-level structure, there was more than one, and cities had conflicts (economical and wars). Countries solve that problem, but, because there’s more than one country, introduce the problem that countries had conflicts. Country groups (Germany, the USA, the EU, NATO, Warschau pact) solve that problem, but, because there’s more than one, introduce the problem that country groups have confocts. The UN, in theory, solves that, and, because there’s only one, don’t introduce another, but it isn’t powerful enough.
- solidsnack9000 7y agoI worry about the picture you are painting. Most of the time there was organization at all these levels — the Attic city states understood themselves to be Greeks — for centuries before the efficiency and effectiveness of the higher order ones reached a degree where they could be useful. Part of what makes them work at all is actually the degree to which they are counter-balanced by the subordinate ones. It is possible the UN simply isn’t structured enough to address conflicts. For example, could the recent conflict over postal rates have gone through the UN? Adding “power” to the top does not necessarily create an upper layer that leads to stability. The Roman emperor was very powerful; but the effect was a lot internal conflict and war. The balanced states we have seen in recent years — more effective than what preceded them, though in a legal sense much less powerful — are doing well at abating internal conflict in part by reducing the stakes.
- gpderetta 7y agoWe have been always at war with Mars.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoFirst we have to colonize it. And maybe then we'll pick up on the pattern and go straight for the United Federation of Planets.
- gmueckl 7y agoMore than that, creating a joint governing body tends to create possibilities and incentives for peaceful conflict resolution that stabilize the area. For example, Europe has been war-torn for many centuries before the unification started after World War II. Since then, central and west Europe have had the longest period of peace in 500 years.
- big_chungus 7y agoYou have an incredible number of confounding variables here. Most of Europe was rebuilt by the Marshall Plan and had time to settle under the Pax Americana. There was also the dawn of digital technology and the information, unification against the communist threat, a massive increase in standard of living, significant economic pivots, a removal of monarchs and a reduction of the powers of those who remained, etc. I can't say there was no effect, but I sincerely doubt it was the sole driver of peace in Europe. Also recall that the EU wasn't formed until the early 90's, but Europe has been largely at peace since WWII.
- briandear 7y agoTake it to an absurd extreme: should a bureaucrat in Potsdam make decisions about a farmer’s water dispute with their neighbor in rural Utah? That’s what “world government” ends up looking like. Despite a bunch of wires crisscrossing the global, all politics, as Tip O’Neil famously said, is local.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> Take it to an absurd extreme: should a bureaucrat in Potsdam make decisions about a farmer’s water dispute with their neighbor in rural Utah? Of course they shouldn't. Hierarchical structures are good and you want issues to be resolved as low in hierarchy as possible. The point of a global government is to tackle the problems that cannot be currently solved, because we're missing a hierarchy level. Because, like 'Someone pointed out in another comment, global governance is a forest, and not a tree. The role of a global government isn't to mediate hyperlocal disputes. It's to force countries to stop letting corporations play them against each other on corporate taxes. It's to coordinate a common, simultaneous response to the challenges of climate change. It's to help everyone cooperate in solving other global challenges, where actions on one side of the world have an effect on the other side.
- mc32 7y agoMaybe Henry would want that. It’s not necessary. We have a framework for copyright, international maritime law and so on. So it doesn’t need to have a global government but it needs to be an international body with a great majority of countries as signatories.
- throwaway744678 7y agoThanks, but no thanks. I very much prefer the right of peoples to self-determination. Sovereign nations may then enter multilateral treaties (if they so wish) to handle these matters.
- tenebrisalietum 7y agoDevil's advocate: Do countries have the right to be dictatorships or fiefdoms where few control most of the wealth?
- timoth 7y agoIt seems that in most countries few control most of the wealth, regardless of whether they're dictatorships or democracies.
- throwaway744678 7y agoSure, this is a good question. You'll note that few peoples actually choose to live in a dictatorship. Moreover recent history has shown that external countries (even with a UN mandate) throwing over dictators for the supposed benefits of the people rarely ends well for everyone. There's undeniably a conflict between the "right to interfere" and the sovereignty of nations. I am afraid we won't solve it here in a few Internet posts!
- msla 7y agoCountries don't have rights, they have powers, and derive those powers from keeping the governed from revolting. Natural law and so on is a justification for revolution, but realism is how things work.
- malandrew 7y agoNo thanks. I like having the option to move to jurisdictions with laws and customs that are more to my liking.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoThink a Brexit-like event, but for the US. (Wouldn't be the first time...)
- osullivj 7y agoTrump withdraws US from UN perhaps? The US never participated in the League of Nations after WWI, even though it was Wilson's idea, because Congress wouldn't ratify.