Author
|
Topic: Global Government
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 11 October 2002 03:38 PM
So, the UN is sort of a start, the international court for war crimes is sort of a start, even globalized economy is sort of a start...What would global government look like? How would it work? What would its responsibilities and powers be? I think it's already something we need. This world is as much a unit as any one country is, isn't it? brainstorm, anyone?
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576
|
posted 11 October 2002 08:28 PM
Global government today includes: The IMF (International Monetary Fund) & WB (World Bank)who unfortunately represent the richest (nevermind countries) corporations.Since Big Corporations were not able to reduce labour costs in the industrialized countries, they moved their companies to the third world for cheap labour. Yep, our jobs were taken from us so the products could be made in these countries where people are oppressed and if they dare complain, be beaten, fired, or killed. If a whole group starts to complain, the company would move to a more "friendly" country like Mexico. What happens to these products after they are made? Well, we foolishly buy them at an unbelievably marked up price! The IMF & WB determine whether developing countries get access to aid money- As part of the loan agreements, the countries are subjected to structural adjustmen programs where countries have to open their trade barriers so foreign corporations could come in, wipe out the existing ones, set up massive sweat shops (in Jamaica: among others, Hanes & Tommy Hilfiger) and literally take over the country. WB helps by giving loans to build roads, dams, etc. for these constructions. It's really quite sickening. Edited to add Corporate Watch and say that I've seen IMF's videos & sites as well as opposing views (video: Life and Debt) so I could compare and contrast. The IMF and WB haven't been able to convince me that their world economic strategy is working. [ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Anuri ]
From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 11 October 2002 09:21 PM
A global government, if set up today, would be hopelessly slanted in favor of big corporations since the existing infrastructure which would be cobbled together to make one arises out of the IMF, World Bank, and likely a government set up on the first-past-the-post system, which would ensure that getting a candidate elected would only require polarizing about half to a quarter of the electorate in any district.Then after that it would be a simple matter to bribe - I mean, give contributions - these people to keep them voting for a wrong-assed worldwide tax system that penalizes labor and befriends capital. If I sound unduly pessimistic, sorry. I just cannot realistically believe in a global government that would do any good unless and until momentum builds for a global government with these features: - A proportional-representation electoral structure
- A central bank which is committed to not manipulating interest rates to increase unemployment in favor of inflation control at all costs
- A worldwide currency or a return to fixed exchange rates, either of which is compatible with controls over capital flows between regions of the world
- A tax system that heavily taxes wealth and lightly taxes labor
- Consistent regulation of corporations, big and small, and
- Sole control over the nuclear weapons stockpiles of the world.
Of course, this laundry list would give somebody like Dick Cheney a lot of hives.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 14 October 2002 11:48 AM
Well, I suppose I have to agree with the points made by the pessimists out there. It is very unlikely that a global government could come out of the political and economic climate of the day, and that if it did it would be horribly corrupt....that may well be true.I like DrConway's list, though, and that's the sort of thing I was hoping for when I put up the first post. I figure if we can't even imagine how a GOOD, useful global gov't would work and what it would do, then we'll really never get one. So thanks for the list, DrConway. In my imagination, the new gov't would take the place of the IMF and the WB and the two, as we know them, would disappear to be replaced by something more fair and more beneficial to more people. In my imagination, the global government's primary role and purpose would be to minimize disparity and work towards security and self-sufficiency where possible, perhaps symbiosis where necessary... I've no mind for the technicalities or details of politics, though, just idealism and hope... (That's why I asked for a brainstorm of ideas!)
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 14 October 2002 01:17 PM
quote: In my imagination, the global government's primary role and purpose would be to minimize disparity and work towards security and self-sufficiency where possible, perhaps symbiosis where necessary...
Imagination is a necessary starting point. Unfortunately, there isn't much of it in the higher circles of power. Like, where would you find people who a) want to minimize disparity and also b) have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the political and economic clout to do it? Then, c) What army is available to enforce any rule they made? Same problem as with the UN: those that have the most could make global government work - but they'd rather prevent it from working. So, the thing can't possibly happen until there is something like parity among the participating nations. Chicken/egg situation. What i can imagine - just barely - is economic globalization (which is going on already) slowly destroying the various political structures and frontiers that exist now, (which they are doing) and then itself breaking down (which it must, sooner or later), and leaving the field open for new political structures. This will be a very difficult, messy, and painful process. Messily and painfully is the only way humans seem to make major changes. Afterward, i can imagine regions - rather than nation-states - building new economies and political systems. These, in turn, will form alliances and trade-agreement - both rather more fluid, casual and flexible than they are now. Eventually, the smartest leaders will see the advantage of a world-wide regulating body. They'll make up the rules as circumstances demand. It won't be like any models we can set up now: their requirements and perspective will be different in a hundred years' time.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798
|
posted 14 October 2002 07:55 PM
I guess the difficulty in imagining a "good" global government is because I've never seen any real examples of "good" governemnet of any form.A government's primary role would naturally be its own security and self-sufficiancy. It would work towards minimizing disparity only if necessary. One major problem I have with DrC's list is "representation". Who or what would a global government represent, and how would it go about doing that? Idealism: I would like to see a country where power is independent of money or weapons. [ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: satana ]
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576
|
posted 14 October 2002 11:19 PM
As Aristotle said, "Politics is about the struggle between the rich and the poor"."WHO GETS WHAT?" The enormity of the wealth of some people is overwhelming. In 1997, the three richest individuals in the world had assets that exceeded the combined GDP of the 48 least-developed countries. The 15 richest individuals had assets that exceeded the total GDP of sub-Saharan Africa. The richest 32 people had wealth that exceeded the total GDP of South Asia. The richest 84 had assets that exceeded the GDP of China. In Summary, the richest 225 individuals in the world had a combined wealth of over one trillion dollars - equal to the total annual income of almost half of the world's poorest people, or almost 2.5 billion individuals. Is this distribution of wealth reasonable? desiragle? reformable? -Above is a quote from: An Introduction to Political Science, comparative and world politics - fourth edition by Robert J. Jackson and Doreen Jackson. Here's another one- Question: What is the difference between Zambia and Goldman Sachs? Answer: One is an African country that makes 2.2 billion a year and shares it among 25 million people. The other is an investment bank that makes 2.6 billion...and shares it among 161 people. - Is it even possible for us little babblers to reverse this trend? We certainly have our work cut out and where to begin... edited to correct typos!
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Anuri ]
From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576
|
posted 14 October 2002 11:38 PM
quote: Stop buying their shit.
Zatamon, I agree with you there but I don't believe it is that simple anymore. In a documentary I watched on NAFTA, (I can't remember what it is now- i'll ask my husbaned when he gets back from walking the dog) these big corporations are buying out the small ones and keeping the small family business name. How do we weed or sift them out? Would love some tips. Also, due to less restrictions on imports, mulitnational business' tend to kill local business because they are cheaper to buy from.
From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 15 October 2002 05:59 AM
The question of how good the representation would be in a worldwide government will have a lot to do with the granularity of the chamber.By that, I mean that if we had a legislature with 6000 representatives, that's 1 representative per million people. With only 600, that jumps to 1 rep per 10 million. A first-past-the-post setup in this environment would bias the legislature heavily in favor of the urban centers of the world, and require, as I said, polarizing only about a third to a quarter of the electorate in each district because of the way it works. By contrast, a mixed-member proportionality setup like Germany's would allow for a goodish chunk of the legislators to be picked from lists which EVERYBODY in the world would get to vote on. Thus, regional interests are balanced by a clearer picture of how the world's electorate actually breaks down in terms of political preference. We could increase the granularity (increase the goodness of representation) by adding in an upper chamber, elected on some kind of other basis.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425
|
posted 15 October 2002 10:37 AM
In my Utopia, the World Government would be largely absent from day-today life, authority for most things having been devolved to very local levels (councils perhaps), representing people who depend on the same local infrastructure. This would correspond roughly to municipal authority. Taxes would be collected under various levels of authority, ending with taxes to support programs administered (at the highest level) on a roughly continental level. These would include health, environment, education, domestic trade arbitration etc. A portion of all higher level taxes would go to the Global Organization which would have a military drawn from different regions as a function of population. I believe a compulsory service period, combined with insuring basic literacy, would be a good idea for reasons best left to a separate thread. The military would be responsible for global peacekeeping, disaster response and organizing delivery of humanitarian aid. The GO would also act as World Bank, IMF, enforcer of environmental regulations. It's membership would be drawn from elections organized in a fair manner. What this would be, I have no idea. The amount of bureaucracy required to maintain this system would insure that no one would ever have utter the words "Would you like fries with that ?" again . Also, we will all be nice to each other and share and be productive and realize our innate potential .
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 15 October 2002 04:10 PM
I agree satana. A global government that works would tread as lightly as possible.But I sense a lot of "cart-before-the-horse" thinking here. As the Doctor said, any attempt to replicate our governing structure on a global level will just lead to the same corruption and misery, but further entrenched. Before we can have a just and egalitarian federalism of nations, we can't avoid the messy business of putting our houses in order. I feel as though people are hoping that a global government can "rise above" all our current problems, and this top-down thinking is exactly the wrong approach. We have to create effective, democratic structures here on the ground level, and let the effect trickle up. Work to reform your community, your city or town, then your province, and then your country. Only after all this work is done (will you even live to see it? Who knows.) will Canada be one small fraction of a international global unity that is ready to create a just global system. I don't mean to sound discouraging, but it isn't any good to fool yourself with shortcuts. The hard work has to be done on the small level and spread outwards. Of course, nobody actually said the things I'm reacting against, so perhaps I'm misinterpreting. In any case, I just wanted to get that off my chest.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 16 October 2002 02:24 AM
quote: I still don't like the idea of a global "government". Instead, I'de prefer a decentralized global federation of communities, based on respect and cooperation.
YESSS! quote: In my Utopia, energy and resources are inexhaustable. Everything is free. Everybody can do whatever they want and be whoever they want to be.
Energy is inexhaustible and free: the wind blows, the sun shines, oceans ebb and flow, rivers move, chickens shit, banana-peels decompose - all of that can be used, indefinitely, without interfering with the processes. More: we already have the knowledge to make these processes work for us. Why don't we? Resources are also inexhaustible - if we decide to leave some things alone and use only the ones that are quickly, easily replaced. We know how - we just need a reason to do it. How about: because it's a lot cheaper? We can't do it, because... nobody would make a big profit. Jacob 2-2 and Sisyphus, right on the money, as usual. [ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|