Webbo Posted 14 April 2016 Share Posted 14 April 2016 1. The UN will soon be electing a new General Secretary. For the first time, candidates for the job will face questions in public before the General Assembly. Would you support or oppose the UN becoming more like a 'world government', increasingly using its powers to intervene in world governance? Strongly support10% Tend to support31% Tend to oppose18% Strongly oppose11% Don't know30% https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/062e62d0-0155-11e6-a405-005056900127 Is it just me who finds the idea of this terrifying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 14 April 2016 Share Posted 14 April 2016 Haha as if we would have a choice in the matter. No doubt it will be to 'protect' and enhance 'security' you know the same things they come out with when they take away our civil liberties. I just hope it doesn't come a reality in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 14 April 2016 Share Posted 14 April 2016 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajthefox Posted 14 April 2016 Share Posted 14 April 2016 Can't believe that many people support it. Horrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 14 April 2016 Share Posted 14 April 2016 Completely and utterly unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 There are definitely some issues - future of spaceflight, energy development and distribution, WMD regulation, guaranteeing universal rights amongst others - that are so big and so important for the future of humanity that there needs to be decisions made at a global level and are more importantly binding at a global level. The UN can be pretty toothless on some of them right now. However...if you're talking about everyday governance, such global power concentrated in the hands of just one organisation wouldn't be a good thing. I'm all in favour of less nationalistic BS, but I'd still like everyday decisions involving most places to be made at a local level while very specific big stuff does get handled by a global organisation that can actually enforce the decisions it makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 They of course mean failed states, deciding when to send in troops to stop civil wars etc. What we will get is multinational agenda's intervening to ensure their markets are not destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 No. edit: 'No' as in I don't support it not 'no' as in I don't find the idea scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 Tend to support for me. The biggest challenges are the global ones: war, refugees, terrorism, climate change, energy shortages, disaster management, poverty, hunger, waste, disease, destroying the eco system, over fishing, wiping out species through hunting. It comes down to one simple matter for me: There is enough food and clean water and resources in this world to create a better place for everyone, but there are so many barriers to distribution and sharing knowledge due to these barriers that we have thrown up every where (not just geographical, but barriers on race, religion etc) and this desire for power over our fellow human beings. Any world government that could break down these barriers and facilitate collaboration and cooperation across these borders would be welcome by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 It's absolutely frightening so many people want to give away hard fought democracy. This will never happen anyway as it's impossible, it's hard enough trying to hold together Europe as a political union let alone one across the whole World where different cultures have such fundamental differences in the way they believe and want people to live their lives. Can you even begin to imagine the sort of people that would want to be at the top of this as well? They'd make people like Mao and Murdoch look like meritocrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 A world where everyone works together, no greed, hunger, all countries working together? No would not work. Stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 You mean like a Europe where everyone works together Ken? With no greed, hunger or unemployment? I've heard this before. As wonderful as it would be to whip out my John Lennon album and start dancing around singing Kum by Yah, we all know by now what happens when we start aiming for these "one World" utopias, we end up with something far worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 It's absolutely frightening so many people want to give away hard fought democracy. This will never happen anyway as it's impossible, it's hard enough trying to hold together Europe as a political union let alone one across the whole World where different cultures have such fundamental differences in the way they believe and want people to live their lives. Can you even begin to imagine the sort of people that would want to be at the top of this as well? They'd make people like Mao and Murdoch look like meritocrats. Why is it giving up democracy? All appointments to the UN are made by democratically elected officials, it is not some tyrannical overlord organisation, it is one that aims to work with the national governments to resolve conflicts and issues that cross borders. Any sort of UN sponsored world government would either follow the same structure or have a further level of elections to create a world governing body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 You just agreed with me Matt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 100% yes As long as im the President! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 100% yes As long as im the President! I would love to say yes but there are too many nutters who would disagree with each other and others that will want the biggest share of the cake. Man has always fought Man and always will. We are not a coworking species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgy Bob Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 I can see the appeal of greater global collaboration on certain world issues but I don't think forcing countries to collaborate - and you would have to force them to do things they don't want to get the result you want - is ever going to work in practice. That's without going into the severe problems with corruption, accountability and the impossibility of finding a realistic 'right answer' to complex global problems. It's a dippy hippy idea, maybe a bit more dippy than hippy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 15 April 2016 Author Share Posted 15 April 2016 Why is it giving up democracy? All appointments to the UN are made by democratically elected officials, it is not some tyrannical overlord organisation, it is one that aims to work with the national governments to resolve conflicts and issues that cross borders. Any sort of UN sponsored world government would either follow the same structure or have a further level of elections to create a world governing body. Democratically elected by whom? Some of the worse dictatorships in the world are members of the UN and they help to decide these things. Can you imagine Iran, Cuba or Venezuela voting for something that might help America or us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 Yes...and we could elect Sepp Blatter as President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 I can see the appeal of greater global collaboration on certain world issues but I don't think forcing countries to collaborate - and you would have to force them to do things they don't want to get the result you want - is ever going to work in practice. That's without going into the severe problems with corruption, accountability and the impossibility of finding a realistic 'right answer' to complex global problems. It's a dippy hippy idea, maybe a bit more dippy than hippy. I agree with this, but in certain areas it may well be that in the end collaboration could well end up having to be forced. But yes, it's a wonderful idea in principle but not practical, because... Democratically elected by whom? Some of the worse dictatorships in the world are members of the UN and they help to decide these things. Can you imagine Iran, Cuba or Venezuela voting for something that might help America or us? This. Hundreds of years of shit, petty, insignificant enmity holding people back. That's difficult - if not impossible, to get over, though I hope that one day we might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 Why is it giving up democracy? All appointments to the UN are made by democratically elected officials, it is not some tyrannical overlord organisation, it is one that aims to work with the national governments to resolve conflicts and issues that cross borders. Any sort of UN sponsored world government would either follow the same structure or have a further level of elections to create a world governing body. Because it would be a body that forced so called independent countries to do things that their own democratally elected governments probably didn't want to do, we all saw what the European Union did to Greece when they voted for a left wing anti-austerity government, can you imagine the sort of things a organisation with the power a body of the Word government would be able to enforce on minor countries like that? Frightening. 100% yes As long as im the President! Would you still say that if the new government decided to ban homosexuality for "the good of us all"? Why do people automatically assume a World government would see Western values as the ones we all want to follow? Vast parts of all the major continents in the World have very different outlooks on the World as to what we do. Only in the privledged West could an idea like this come up and we all start to immediately think it would be about tackling climate change, most of the World doesn't care, we're all patting ourselves on the back for having solar panels put up and at the same time the Chinese have plans to build 900 new nuclear power stations. Yes...and we could elect Sepp Blatter as President. I know this is a joke but FIFA was the first thing that came to mind when I imagined a World government, I think that's the best example of the World trying to run something that concerns the World and not something I'd want to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 Democratically elected by whom? Some of the worse dictatorships in the world are members of the UN and they help to decide these things. Can you imagine Iran, Cuba or Venezuela voting for something that might help America or us? Fair point, but then on the flip side if there was a world government it would hopefully help moderate these dictators and keep them in check. Although I would see Cuba as more likely to vote for something to help America than the other way round. Cuba is happy doing its thing it is the States that has an irrational bee in its bonnet about Cuba (understandable during the cold war, but in this day and age it is just odd). Surely a World Government would help set aside these differences and promote decision making for the overall good of mankind and not let the power struggles of individual nation states stop countries doing the right thing. Because it would be a body that forced so called independent countries to do things that their own democratally elected governments probably didn't want to do, we all saw what the European Union did to Greece when they voted for a left wing anti-austerity government, can you imagine the sort of things a organisation with the power a body of the Word government would be able to enforce on minor countries like that? Frightening. Would you still say that if the new government decided to ban homosexuality for "the good of us all"? Why do people automatically assume a World government would see Western values as the ones we all want to follow? Vast parts of all the major continents in the World have very different outlooks on the World as to what we do. Only in the privledged West could an idea like this come up and we all start to immediately think it would be about tackling climate change, most of the World doesn't care, we're all patting ourselves on the back for having solar panels put up and at the same time the Chinese have plans to build 900 new nuclear power stations. This is the problem, what is the right thing, who decides what is the right way for the whole planet to progress? Our record at trying to create global solutions, Kyoto protocol, Nuclear proliferation treaty, the EU, UN etc have been met with mixed success, but it still doesn't dissuade me from believing that it is the right way to move forwards, to have a governing body that can find someway to make decisions that transcend borders, race and religion. Which is why I tend to support it and not 100% agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 Because it would be a body that forced so called independent countries to do things that their own democratally elected governments probably didn't want to do, we all saw what the European Union did to Greece when they voted for a left wing anti-austerity government, can you imagine the sort of things a organisation with the power a body of the Word government would be able to enforce on minor countries like that? Frightening. Would you still say that if the new government decided to ban homosexuality for "the good of us all"? Why do people automatically assume a World government would see Western values as the ones we all want to follow? Vast parts of all the major continents in the World have very different outlooks on the World as to what we do. Only in the privledged West could an idea like this come up and we all start to immediately think it would be about tackling climate change, most of the World doesn't care, we're all patting ourselves on the back for having solar panels put up and at the same time the Chinese have plans to build 900 new nuclear power stations. I know this is a joke but FIFA was the first thing that came to mind when I imagined a World government, I think that's the best example of the World trying to run something that concerns the World and not something I'd want to follow. Excellent post. Precisely my thoughts - which is why, in a jocular sense without meaning to be facetious in any way - I suggested such a scenario. I'm inclined towards the view of the British Historian Lord Acton, who over 100 years ago opined 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men'. Interesting discussion on the topic here... http://lesswrong.com/lw/hdw/singleton_the_risks_and_benefits_of_one_world/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 i would support it if every nation got its fair say and all nations were represented. this however is not possible at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 15 April 2016 Share Posted 15 April 2016 Fair point, but then on the flip side if there was a world government it would hopefully help moderate these dictators and keep them in check. Although I would see Cuba as more likely to vote for something to help America than the other way round. Cuba is happy doing its thing it is the States that has an irrational bee in its bonnet about Cuba (understandable during the cold war, but in this day and age it is just odd). Surely a World Government would help set aside these differences and promote decision making for the overall good of mankind and not let the power struggles of individual nation states stop countries doing the right thing. This is the problem, what is the right thing, who decides what is the right way for the whole planet to progress? Our record at trying to create global solutions, Kyoto protocol, Nuclear proliferation treaty, the EU, UN etc have been met with mixed success, but it still doesn't dissuade me from believing that it is the right way to move forwards, to have a governing body that can find someway to make decisions that transcend borders, race and religion. Which is why I tend to support it and not 100% agree. Theoretical utopian naivity. As if the EU isn't bad enough with its stealth domination and ill-considered idealism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.