Talk:World government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 UK democracy 2 EU Government 3 Karl Marx 4 Merging Discussion 5 Search Engine Numbers 6 Thanks, but... 7 Major Upgrade 8 strange comparison 9 CLEAN UP!! 10 agreed 11 Good but not objective 12 Overhaul 13 Unification church. 14 Article structure and flow 15 Communist or socialist world government 16 Question on Principles 17 Cantons and World Government 18 Why was link to mivini.org removed? 19 Endless enlargement of the EU. 20 The only way forward 21 Merging Word Federalist info with World Gov't 22 Alexander, Mongol Empire 23 Removed "Globalist Manifesto" sentence 24 Why was B-Plan for World Government removed 25 Switzerland 26 dab link 27 How come Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf isn't listed? 28 Putting words in Hobbes's mouth 28.1 Hobbes 29 Instances of World Government in Fiction 30 Why was the criticism section removed? 31 Delete entire "Good or Bad" section 32 Original Research

[edit] 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 20^th 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 former 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. =)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[1] 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)

[edit] Cantons and World Government

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[2] 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.

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

• Agree entirely, what a piece of crap. 122.106.94.203 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)