Globalism

I would love to see a unified Earth/unified Humanity.

The right of a human is always greater than that of the state. However the state still has basic rights that it can and must assert in order to provide for justice/order/tranquility. A unified Earth with what are now nations acting as 'high states' would allow for both the human and states rights to be met. It would be a confederation which focuses very heavily on federalism. This government would then be split into four sections: Local, State, National, and Global. The Global section would have the final say in any legal or constitutional issue in which the whole of Earth is involved. This is help to provide unity and keep the union from becoming another HRE or UN. The form of government should also be republicanism in order to allow for extensive democracy while keeping minority rights. (Party or actual minority wise.) It would also be much wiser to gather reps of each nation to one place in order to discuss issues than to have appointees because that way everyone gets their voice heard which will lower unrest and keep Earth unified.

I will go more in depth once my theory is met with resistance.

Also if I may stray from the point a bit  I see it as humans destiny to colonize Space, as corny and sci-fi as that may sound it is a much better than destiny than us being destroyed at our hands. Of course doing this would be easiest (potentially only) with a unified planet.

Just because something has the potential to be bad does not make it so. The mentality you advocate seems to me invalid because clearly government is not 'parasitic' as you say in all cases, otherwise governments would not have evolved in every civilization. Government, like a central nervous system, allows for the organization and direction of societies actions. Without it, nothing is concerted and discord spreads, and being left alone in 'peace' has no chance because harmony cannot exist without organization or unity of purpose. You don't have to view the entire world as your family, but placing those around you first and foremost over everyone else is human nature; it's the way things initially evolved, with family-groups, clans, and tribes warring against eachother and keeping to themselves. Obviously, that system is not as effective as a more unifying system, just as it would be foolish for the cells of one's liver to attack those of one's stomach because of abritrary boundaries of 'friendship' and 'family'. Biologically, all life is actually relative to one another if you go back far enough, and even the creationists acknowledge that human life has common ancestors. Therefore, any qualifications of 'family' are purely abritrary and hold no real meaning. So while it may be that a single world government has the potential to be 'oppressive',  it can also be set up in such a way, as Donasin began to lay out, that would allow for checks against government oppression such as those in many functioning governments today. It would also mean the end of war, the unification of humanity, etc.

From a realistic point of view, a world government is of course impossible (at least in the coming century).

But a global dealing of some issues may be a good idea. We saw that the problem of carbon emission could only be dwelt with at an international level (even though there is a difference between international, ie all countries together, and global, ie the Earth as the one and only polity).

Other sectors could benefit from a global government. Lower profile issues but very important ones such as some market regulation (for instance to set up rules to avoid the subprime disaster of 2007).

But overall one can consider that even if it was politically possible a world government may not be a good option. True, there would be significant advantages ranging from a greater equality amongst humans (for instance relatively to migrations) to lower defense spendings. But costs would be much higher as well and in my opinion would out-range the benefits (information would have problems traveling horizontally as well as vertically, besides micro-management by the president of the US is a problem, imagine by the president of the world�). The risks are also huge: if a given country makes a regulatory mistake (anything ranging from allowing private people to borrow too easily to forbidding them to consume alcohol) it may trigger, well, a global crisis instead of a national one.

Realistically, what we should crave for in our lifetime is some global governance. Allowing people and products to travel freely first between given countries (on the EU model) and then globally is something that seems to me essential. Some illogical matters (why a toy is deemed dangerous in Canada but not in Thailand? are Thai baby stronger and smarter?) ought as well to be addressed but so far it seems that diversity humanity's strongest asset and a world government may put this very asset at risk.

Originally posted by Paul Originally posted by Illirac In EU there are too few benefits for the people,   I wouldn't call no more wwii's, wwi's, Napoleonic Wars a small benefit.

If there is no EU we have to except ww3?...

A utopia; a "no place". You have restrictions going up, rather than down and you want a world government.

I go with JanusRook on this one. The important thing is diminishing the role of the nation-state, both through delegation of some powers to smaller regions, and through assumption of others by larger regions.

Originally posted by Seko One world government? Who's brand of implementation. Who calls the shots? Who get's left out. Would it be better than the numberous choices and diverse forms we have now?

Originally posted by Scaevola Something like an international republic is what I'm thinking,

Still, even if in a Federation, there will be always states, nations who wants more

Originally posted by Donasin Originally posted by Illirac Originally posted by Scaevola Something like an international republic is what I'm thinking, Still, even if in a Federation, there will be always states, nations who wants more Those states and nations can strive for prestige through economic strength, most civil rights etc. The main problem comes with getting Humanity to view itself as a species and not sects based on nationality. Once that happens nationalism will viewed as tribalism on a larger scale and will be treated as such. National pride can exist just like state pride exists in many nations today. No longer will, lets say, Iraq and Iran, fight for resources as Virginia and Georgia(US state) would not.

There's nothing wrong with tribalism. In fact, aren't people geared for tribal thinking anyway? I think people do view other people as people, and the same species, but people are not concerned with every member of the species. People are concerned with their own families, friends, and immediate areas first and foremost, and rightly so.

Also, do you really think nations will willingly give up their sovereignty anytime soon? Do you see China, Russia, the US and Iran all forming one big happy country? Never. It'd take warfare on a massive scale to force nations to give up their freedom and submit to a global government.

Originally posted by Adalwolf Also, do you really think nations will willingly give up their sovereignty anytime soon? Do you see China, Russia, the US and Iran all forming one big happy country? Never. It'd take warfare on a massive scale to force nations to give up their freedom and submit to a global government.