8 ms·

> This leads to a fundamental issue - global capabilities (drawing a graph between all the people you know) should not be limited to arbitrary geographical boun

> This leads to a fundamental issue - global capabilities (drawing a graph between all the people you know) should not be limited to arbitrary geographical boundaries. For me, this hits a more fundamental issue: how do we govern global issues without a global government?

Waterluvian 3y ago
A global government isn't really possible. I think the fundamental issue is that a tribe of "everyone" doesn't really work without a counterpart. I think the solution begins by colonizing Mars, a few moons, maybe some asteroids. Edit: fine, more Mars land for me!
- tfourb 3y ago
  Global government is only the extension of local, national and regional government. The E.U. already is a kind of "international" government in that it creates de facto laws, rules and regulations that supersede the laws of its member states. Similar constructs (though not as advanced) exist i.e. in West and East Africa. A global government is an entirely logical next step and could be a very valuable asset when dealing with truly global issues.
  - braymundo 3y ago
    If I'm living under a dictatorship, at least I can try to escape and move to a better place. If a global government becomes tyrannical, where do we go? Such an idea is centuries away in the best case scenario.
    - tfourb 3y ago
      How about you stay and work towards changing the government? This is literally how every democracy has developed. It is also the reality for several Billion people today. Most can't just up and leave if they disagree with their governments. Borders are not open for most people.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I'm far from convinced that a global government could possibly be a good thing. I think that a large part of the political problems in the US, for instance, is because its trying to govern too many people of very different and often incompatible cultures and values.
    - tfourb 3y ago
      The magic word is "subsidiarity": the principle that political decisions should always be made on the most local level that still enables their resolution. Under that principle, a (democratically legitimized) world government would only be tasked with creating laws pertaining to truly global issues (i.e. setting limits for the emissions of CO2). I agree with other comments here that this is unrealistic in the near future. But that doesn't mean that it is not a good idea.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        The trick is coming up with a system where the upper layers of government don't try to take over the matters from the lower ones. The problem, fundamentally, is deciding what "pertains to truly global issues" - in a democracy, it's ultimately the people doing that, so if you can convince them that whatever local problem X is really important, it can become "global" all of a sudden.
        tfourb 3y ago
        This kind of stuff is usually set out in constitutions or basic laws which in turn can be enforced by courts – the usual division of power stuff. You could also introduce some sort of check on the power of a global government. In Germany, parliament has to get approval of the majority of state governments for certain laws to enter into force, for example. Same is true for the E.U.: The E.U. parliament and the council of the national governments of E.U. member states both have to agree to new laws and regulations in most cases, which guarantees that either one can't ride roughshod over the core interests of the other.
        3y ago
- johanvts 3y ago
  You can have plenty of tribalism and conflict between people under the same government.
- jt2190 3y ago
  I think a better way to frame this is “Is it possible to use the rule of law across national boundaries?” Clearly the answer is currently a qualified “yes”: Laws, treaties, etc do exist and are commonly used. The areas that are addressed are clearly not uniform, nor can we rely on all nations to participate, and the enforcement of laws across national boundaries are extremely tricky and currently limited. However, that should not stop us as a planet from trying to improve global cooperation through the law, rather we should look at it as “more work to do”.
potatoman22 3y ago
The UN kind of does that
- karol 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bleep_bloop 3y ago
    Kind of have to agree with this sentiment. The UN is toothless and while the idea was good, I believe it has failed in practice. That isn't to say we should just scrap the whole thing as there really isn't an alternative, even though I believe it will eventually be abandoned. It does seem like the golden age of international co-operation is at an end and more and more countries are becoming insular, entering conflict or creating factions with specific neighbours.
    - Tyrek 3y ago
      Was the UN meant to be a 'global government' or more of a newer forum for the superpowers to avoid nuclear conflict? If the latter, it's done a pretty reasonable job so far.
    - moffkalast 3y ago
      Nah the UN does what it should, prevents world wars and nuclear holocaust by keeping superpowers talking in an open forum. That's kind of the only point of it, not to be some kind of world government. > The United Nations, referred to informally as the UN, is an intergovernmental organization whose stated purposes are to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and serve as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
- Longlius 3y ago
  The UN is not a government. It is a mostly voluntary organization that exists purely so we never end up in a situation like we did in 1914 or 1939 where the countries of the world are just not at table talking to each other. Yes, the UN does lots of things. But it has no power to do those things without the voluntary buy-in of member states.
bleep_bloop 3y ago
Isn't this kind of exactly what the EU is showing us, that a global power isn't needed if countries actually set requirements and regulations. There has been a lack of desire from law makers worldwide to protect consumer data even though it's very obvious that it should be a fundamental right to control who gets to know your personal information and worse, whether they can sell it. What I believe is happening here is the EU is setting a new standard that the US and UK and others will have to follow if they want to do business in the EU, unless they invest millions in infrastructure and staff. I believe the same happens in the US, one state such as California will make progressive law changes that force companies to just apply the same standards across other states as it's less legal and regulatory burden, so effectively one state can actually change the system for everyone, no global super government required.
- scarface74 3y ago
  You didn’t answer the question . How do you have a global graph without sending data to every country where your friends are? This is another example of clueless EU regulators creating laws with no understanding of the implications
  - tlamponi 3y ago
    > How do you have a global graph without sending data to every country where your friends are? On-Demand, i.e., if one of your friends actually visited your "node" (profile or whatever) and also by following the law for the country the data originates from, no need to store anything in the target country – i.e., like most of the internet already works (or worked), it's really not _that_ hard. > This is another example of clueless EU regulators creating laws with no understanding of the implications Meh, maybe some are clueless, but one sees also a lot head scratching and scapegoating from people that don't bother to even think on solutions or what the actual laws are about (i.e., are themselves clueless about the actual implications).
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      And what happens when I send a private message from the EU to someone in the US via Messenger?
sandworm101 3y ago
>> how do we govern global issues without a global government? By consensus. By willing participation of all. By individual countries actively deciding to operate in the agreed best interests of the whole. And when countries act egregiously badly, subsets of the larger group band together to employ military force against them. Government can exist without rigid structures. The enforcement of norms by the collective is a form of government. This is what they mean when diplomats speak of threats to the "international system" even though we lack any official world government.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Well, governments also can declare wars, send chaps off to die in them, and lock people in boxes for not following rules written down by the governments. They can also collect money from people under same threat of box-locking. Not every "enforcement of norms by the collective" (what's the collective?) can do that.
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    World government doesn't mean world peace. Wars and locking people up are all part of legitimate government.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I'm answering your comment! Did you forget the context my friend? : - )
    - CydeWeys 3y ago
      A government by definition has a monopoly on state violence. If constituent members are going to war against each other then the so-called global government is not actually a government, it's more of a voluntary association similar to the UN that doesn't actually have much real power.
jahewson 3y ago
Counterpoint: how do we govern global issues with a global government? I’m not sure it’s any easier.
- jimkleiber 3y ago
  I'll try a coding analogy, as I saw your bio says you've done a lot of coding. The analogy may be off, and I assume you've done a lot more coding than me so I'm curious to hear your reaction. Imagine coding a program and there are no variables or methods with global scope. If you want to know the number of users in the program, you have to add up all the user variables from each object and each object defines a user in a different way. Also, to access the user variables in each object, you need to use different methods. Now imagine there are 190+ different objects. Some are similar, some different, and they are constantly changing in their structure. How would you be able to run global functions? I imagine having standardized ways to access the objects (variables and methods within) could really help improve the program. If those 190+ objects are not objects but libraries with different developers and different API structures and maybe languages, it can get even more complex without some coordination from a higher-level perspective. How does that analogy land for you?
- cushpush 3y ago
  Amazing counterpoint!

Waterluvian 3y ago

A global government isn't really possible. I think the fundamental issue is that a tribe of "everyone" doesn't really work without a counterpart. I think the solution begins by colonizing Mars, a few moons, maybe some asteroids. Edit: fine, more Mars land for me!

tfourb 3y ago
Global government is only the extension of local, national and regional government. The E.U. already is a kind of "international" government in that it creates de facto laws, rules and regulations that supersede the laws of its member states. Similar constructs (though not as advanced) exist i.e. in West and East Africa. A global government is an entirely logical next step and could be a very valuable asset when dealing with truly global issues.
- braymundo 3y ago
  If I'm living under a dictatorship, at least I can try to escape and move to a better place. If a global government becomes tyrannical, where do we go? Such an idea is centuries away in the best case scenario.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    How about you stay and work towards changing the government? This is literally how every democracy has developed. It is also the reality for several Billion people today. Most can't just up and leave if they disagree with their governments. Borders are not open for most people.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I'm far from convinced that a global government could possibly be a good thing. I think that a large part of the political problems in the US, for instance, is because its trying to govern too many people of very different and often incompatible cultures and values.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    The magic word is "subsidiarity": the principle that political decisions should always be made on the most local level that still enables their resolution. Under that principle, a (democratically legitimized) world government would only be tasked with creating laws pertaining to truly global issues (i.e. setting limits for the emissions of CO2). I agree with other comments here that this is unrealistic in the near future. But that doesn't mean that it is not a good idea.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      The trick is coming up with a system where the upper layers of government don't try to take over the matters from the lower ones. The problem, fundamentally, is deciding what "pertains to truly global issues" - in a democracy, it's ultimately the people doing that, so if you can convince them that whatever local problem X is really important, it can become "global" all of a sudden.
      - tfourb 3y ago
        This kind of stuff is usually set out in constitutions or basic laws which in turn can be enforced by courts – the usual division of power stuff. You could also introduce some sort of check on the power of a global government. In Germany, parliament has to get approval of the majority of state governments for certain laws to enter into force, for example. Same is true for the E.U.: The E.U. parliament and the council of the national governments of E.U. member states both have to agree to new laws and regulations in most cases, which guarantees that either one can't ride roughshod over the core interests of the other.
        3y ago
johanvts 3y ago
You can have plenty of tribalism and conflict between people under the same government.
jt2190 3y ago
I think a better way to frame this is “Is it possible to use the rule of law across national boundaries?” Clearly the answer is currently a qualified “yes”: Laws, treaties, etc do exist and are commonly used. The areas that are addressed are clearly not uniform, nor can we rely on all nations to participate, and the enforcement of laws across national boundaries are extremely tricky and currently limited. However, that should not stop us as a planet from trying to improve global cooperation through the law, rather we should look at it as “more work to do”.

potatoman22 3y ago

The UN kind of does that

karol 3y ago
[flagged]
- bleep_bloop 3y ago
  Kind of have to agree with this sentiment. The UN is toothless and while the idea was good, I believe it has failed in practice. That isn't to say we should just scrap the whole thing as there really isn't an alternative, even though I believe it will eventually be abandoned. It does seem like the golden age of international co-operation is at an end and more and more countries are becoming insular, entering conflict or creating factions with specific neighbours.
  - Tyrek 3y ago
    Was the UN meant to be a 'global government' or more of a newer forum for the superpowers to avoid nuclear conflict? If the latter, it's done a pretty reasonable job so far.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    Nah the UN does what it should, prevents world wars and nuclear holocaust by keeping superpowers talking in an open forum. That's kind of the only point of it, not to be some kind of world government. > The United Nations, referred to informally as the UN, is an intergovernmental organization whose stated purposes are to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and serve as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
Longlius 3y ago
The UN is not a government. It is a mostly voluntary organization that exists purely so we never end up in a situation like we did in 1914 or 1939 where the countries of the world are just not at table talking to each other. Yes, the UN does lots of things. But it has no power to do those things without the voluntary buy-in of member states.

bleep_bloop 3y ago

Isn't this kind of exactly what the EU is showing us, that a global power isn't needed if countries actually set requirements and regulations. There has been a lack of desire from law makers worldwide to protect consumer data even though it's very obvious that it should be a fundamental right to control who gets to know your personal information and worse, whether they can sell it. What I believe is happening here is the EU is setting a new standard that the US and UK and others will have to follow if they want to do business in the EU, unless they invest millions in infrastructure and staff. I believe the same happens in the US, one state such as California will make progressive law changes that force companies to just apply the same standards across other states as it's less legal and regulatory burden, so effectively one state can actually change the system for everyone, no global super government required.

scarface74 3y ago
You didn’t answer the question . How do you have a global graph without sending data to every country where your friends are? This is another example of clueless EU regulators creating laws with no understanding of the implications
- tlamponi 3y ago
  > How do you have a global graph without sending data to every country where your friends are? On-Demand, i.e., if one of your friends actually visited your "node" (profile or whatever) and also by following the law for the country the data originates from, no need to store anything in the target country – i.e., like most of the internet already works (or worked), it's really not _that_ hard. > This is another example of clueless EU regulators creating laws with no understanding of the implications Meh, maybe some are clueless, but one sees also a lot head scratching and scapegoating from people that don't bother to even think on solutions or what the actual laws are about (i.e., are themselves clueless about the actual implications).
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And what happens when I send a private message from the EU to someone in the US via Messenger?

sandworm101 3y ago

>> how do we govern global issues without a global government? By consensus. By willing participation of all. By individual countries actively deciding to operate in the agreed best interests of the whole. And when countries act egregiously badly, subsets of the larger group band together to employ military force against them. Government can exist without rigid structures. The enforcement of norms by the collective is a form of government. This is what they mean when diplomats speak of threats to the "international system" even though we lack any official world government.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Well, governments also can declare wars, send chaps off to die in them, and lock people in boxes for not following rules written down by the governments. They can also collect money from people under same threat of box-locking. Not every "enforcement of norms by the collective" (what's the collective?) can do that.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  World government doesn't mean world peace. Wars and locking people up are all part of legitimate government.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I'm answering your comment! Did you forget the context my friend? : - )
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    A government by definition has a monopoly on state violence. If constituent members are going to war against each other then the so-called global government is not actually a government, it's more of a voluntary association similar to the UN that doesn't actually have much real power.

jahewson 3y ago

Counterpoint: how do we govern global issues with a global government? I’m not sure it’s any easier.

jimkleiber 3y ago
I'll try a coding analogy, as I saw your bio says you've done a lot of coding. The analogy may be off, and I assume you've done a lot more coding than me so I'm curious to hear your reaction. Imagine coding a program and there are no variables or methods with global scope. If you want to know the number of users in the program, you have to add up all the user variables from each object and each object defines a user in a different way. Also, to access the user variables in each object, you need to use different methods. Now imagine there are 190+ different objects. Some are similar, some different, and they are constantly changing in their structure. How would you be able to run global functions? I imagine having standardized ways to access the objects (variables and methods within) could really help improve the program. If those 190+ objects are not objects but libraries with different developers and different API structures and maybe languages, it can get even more complex without some coordination from a higher-level perspective. How does that analogy land for you?
cushpush 3y ago
Amazing counterpoint!