Talk:World government/Archive 1

message: Way too much of this article is dedicated to conspiracy theories.  There is nothing intrinsically more threatening about world government than there is about national government or local government.  Rather, one can easily see national governments without an equally accountable world government as more dangerous.  I would suggest linking the conspiracy information in question to a new page dedicated to world government conspiracy theories or just putting the "theories" within the conspiracy theories pages.  What do you think?
------
Okay, this article deals with a lot of stuff, but doesn't approach the whole Christian Fundamentalist aspect of it, which as I understand it is the reason the whole concept is so popular in far-right circles in the U.S.: the fear of a World Government under the leadership of the Anti-Christ taking over and ruling humanity. This is sketched out in LaHaye et al's Left Behind books, where the head of the United Nations (a feared entity amongst the paranoid Christian Right) turns out to be the Anti-Christ. Why no discussion of this? The term would be nearly unknown without that backing. Graft 12:16, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
:That concept is called Zionist Occupation Government, usually, as the Biblical vision requires control of the Holy Land to actually implement the Book of Revelation as a game plan.  And it's no longer restricted to far-right US circles.  Many of those who accept a 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory involving shadowy figures seeking to drive the U.S. and Israel closer together in a common occupation of the Mideast's trade routes and oil resources, see this is as now the key principle behind such plans as the Project for a New American Century, which is hardly a conspiracy theory, but a working document being implemented in plain sight.
:The term Zionist Occupation Government seems to be most popular among anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.  Most conspiracy theorists prefer the term One World Government.
:As One World Government is not completed yet, I'm going to redir to New World Order as its second section it quite relevant IMHO. If you feel I'm wrong, don't hesitate to remove redirect.--Forseti 11:10, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theories and other pediacruft

message: I agree with removing the lunar government section. I just didn't do it myself because I wasn't bold enough :-) Gerritholl 12:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunar government 

message: I agree with User:Sheridan that this chapter has nothing to do with world government and should not be in this article. Another reason is that the "néoliberalism" catchword is a very fuzzy concept. --Pgreenfinch 18:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoliberalism 

message: Dorond has arrived on the scene and proceeded to rewrite and discard much of the hard work of the community in achieving a balanced NPOV compromise article.  Instead, he puts forward all the hopes of the one world government advocates and a subset of the presumptions they have about how well it would work and how little they think there is to fear.  He presents only the view that the U.S. is purposely undermining the U.N. and not the countervailing view that the U.S. is preventing U.N. sanctions from becoming a meaningless joke and that the U.S. attempts to investigate and reform the U.N. are the best hope in the end for world government.--Silverback 07:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I find local and national governments to be scary, unaccountable and lawless and see no evidence that international governments are going to be any better.  You are treating the hopes section as an opportunity to write glowing essay.  This format is not conducive to presenting the evidence for and against, so if necessary, we should consider renaming the sections to names that don't give you such a sense of entitlement and so that the points can be alternated in close proximity so it is clear what the responses are responding to.--Silverback 09:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't say that having no government would improve accountability and lawfulness.  My point was that governments themselves can be lawless.  Consider even in the United States, the structure of legal checks, balances and standards are often violated even by the courts themselves.  For instance, the right to a jury trial is in the constitution and the supreme court has overridden the supermajority provisions of the constitution by deciding it does not apply when the possible incarceration is less than 6 months.  State appellate courts have immediately latched onto this precedent and the right to a jury trial has been restricted all around the country.  The legal excuse given was "efficiency of the courts", and erosive precedent which if it can override the constitution, has no bounds.  The right to compell testimony under penalty of perjury is also seldom enforced, especially when state witnesses are involved.  Most procedural violations are only reviewed by higher courts only in show trial death penaty cases.  If we can't get local democratic governments open and accountable, how do you expect to bring a world government into compliance with the law?  At least in the United States there is at least cultural lip service to the rule of law and the governments responsbility to obey the law as well.  Without a cultural support, how do you expect a democratic electorate to vote properly to keep government within bounds?--Silverback 06:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that governments are not "perfect", especially since in some cases, like the ones you mention above, the definition of perfection varies from one person to the next. When it comes to basic individual rights, often times one right collides with the other. In the example you brought up, given limited resources, the right to a trial by jury (which is actually not that fundamental - most free societies manage excellently without it) may collide with the right to a timely trial, so someone needs to find an acceptable balance. The important thing is that there is a mechanism to resolve these disputes in a peaceful way. Laws, even the constitution, can be modified peacefully, governing people and parties can be replaced peacefully, etc. I'm not aware of any other form of national organization that has this trait, which is why democracy is the "worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", to quote Churchill (from memory). --Dorond 15:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is strange, you think "most free societies manage excellently without it", while I am not aware of any free societies.  Note that in the United States, the "right to a jury trial" did not collide with the right to a speedy trial.  They are both standards the constitution requires the state to meet, and the citizen is supposed to go free if the state does not meet them.  Judges relaxed these standards, presumably judges similar to those that fulfull the role of judging the both the facts and the law in trials in those societies you consider "free" assuming that the government allows or requires trials with some sort fairness before incarcerating people.  In the US there is a presumption than an accused person is innocent that the government prosecution must unanimously overcome by convincing a jury of peers to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.  This is a check on government power.  The government must use only witnesses who testify under penalty of perjury, it must not have conducted unreasonable searches or seizures and must not compel the accused to testify against himself, and it must submit to several levels of appelate court review.  This is just some of the checks on the government before we even consider separation of powers between the branches of the government and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Why should any individuals with rights you don't respect favor a "democratic" world government of the type you are likely to describe?--Silverback 17:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is useful to debate the question of what is a free society here, since it is not directly relevant to the article. I should say, however, that world federalism suggests that if an issue does not need to be decided at a global level, it should not be. As long as a national government provides some mechanism for a fair and speedy trial, national governments can be free to decide what exactly constitutes an appropriate mechanism within their societies. --Dorond 01:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, you allow that national governments can be free.  If so, how can you argue that the WG should not also be free, if it doesn't want to be constrained?  You don't think individual rights are a broader concern?--Silverback 07:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guaranteeing basic individual rights to all humans is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for wanting to have a WG. One such right is due process. There are, however, a number of different ways of providing it, and none has been shown to be clearly superior to all the others in all circumstances (to my knowledge), and so it makes sense to allow natioal governments latitude. Of course, a specific judicial mechanism at the world-federal level would have to be selected when a world constitution is drafted. At that time, the best, most experienced, legal minds from all the world would surely be consulted. Actually, a process of selecting a global judicial system has already occurred when the ICC was created, and a decision was then made not to use a jury-based system. This decision, however, was optimized for the specific type of crimes the ICC adjudicates, and would not necessarily hold for other types of crimes.
More to the point - the idea of a DWG has been around for at least a hundred years and has been written on extensively by many great thinkers. I suggest you read the book posted at http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/COURSES/GENS4008/book.html for more background and bibliography. What you call a "glowing essay" would be a typical set of conclusions in essays on the subject. I am yet to see any significant scholarly work claiming that a world government is inherently a bad idea, that war can be eliminated any other way, that wars are of economical benefits to humanity, etc. The key differences between thinkers are usually how quickly this would come about (50-100 years being the typical range). This is not only the mainstream academic position, but it is also prevalent amongst NGOs. You may, for example, want to look at the surveys conducted by http://www.2020fund.org/ . Here's a quote from their most recent one: 
"NGO leaders strongly endorse multilateralism – either reformed and strengthened United Nations or a directly representative world government – as their preferred form of global governance in the year 2020." --Dorond 23:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I might suggest that Dorond could recuse himself from editing this article, because, outside of the position he agrees with, he seems to know very little about it. Do you really think there are no works claiming that a world government is inherently a bad idea? Or is it just that they are not sufficiently significant and scholarly? You might want to begin by reading the Wikipedia articles on anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. The nationalism article might also be informative, although I would assume you already know about that and have decided it is irrelevant. In any event, the article should definitely be balanced in favor of mainstream thinking, insofar as it is necessary that it should be balanced toward anything in particular, but, as far as I'm aware, neither world government nor no government is endorsed by the mainstream. - Nat Krause 00:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I believe that people reading this article are interested in the idea of world government: what has been proposed, what are the merits of the idea, what are the counter-arguments, the idea's history, its implementation prospects, etc. The current organization of the contents does not, however, optimally fits the presumed reader's interest. It is really a collection of quasi-independent sections that are neither complete in coverage of all aspects nor presented in a clear and logical order. The sections on empires and SciFi are also not directly relevant to the discussion of the idea.
Accordingly, I propose a new outline:
* The idea
** History (brief overview of past proposals and attempts)
** Principles of FWG (consensus + identify disagreements/alternatives when they exist).
:::What are the principles of FWG?  I don't see a corresponding section in the current text.  How is this section going to be anything more than mere speculation?
::::There is considerable literature, and a substantial consensus, on what majorchanges in the current situation are required for forming an effective FWG. As an example, inter-national law (ie, what governments/nations are allowed to do, and punishments, such as sanctions) would be replaced with personal law, ie, illegal acts by members of national governments lead to trials and punishments of those individual members. --Dorond 14:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Punishing whole nations hits the innocent as well as the guilty, these are not the lofty principles one would expect.  What are the principles for limiting and constraining world government power and protecting minority and individual rights from tyranny by some executive branch or by the majority?--Silverback 15:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your response regarding personal vs. national accountability. It seems that you agree with the personal accountability principle, which can only be effectively enforced universally by a WG (or at least some watered-down version of it). The principles limiting power at the world level are identical to the ones at the national federal level, ie, separating the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government and having periodic elections. Plus, given the immensity of humanity, it is simply out of the question for any small group of people to rule by force. Even the mighty US army finds it exceedingly difficult to rule a minute portion of humanity in Iraq. Can you imagine a government lacking armed forces (since there is no one to fight) succeeding in doing anything to infringe on the basic human rights of a significant portion of 10 billion people? --Dorond 17:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misread your passage, I thought you were trying member nations, not individuals.  I disagree that personal accountability can only be effectively enforced by a WG.  In the US, government officials do not have immunity from prosecution like the French president does.  Keep in mind, that historically, individuals have far more to fear from governments than from each other.  In the US, even at the local school district level there has been a long standing trend towards consolidation of districts in order to "save on administrative costs".  It is amazing how much less responsive to parents the boards of the larger districts are.  At the national level, we need government to become more benign and then dissolve rather than consolidate and become less responsive.  It is strange that so much of the world believes that the answer to problems caused by governments is more government, will they never learn?--Silverback 18:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't thinking about the US when I wrote about enforcing personal responsibilty, but more about despotic regimes. That said, the current President of the US is believed by many (myself included) to have breached international law by attacking Iraq unprovoked and without UNSC approval, and by jailing hundreds of people without access to justice at Guantanamo. Yet, he cannot be brought to justice either because his victims are not US citizens and/or because he yields a lot of power in the system that allowed him to commit these crimes. Similarly for many other US politicians, such as Kissinger and McNamara, who almost for certain are war criminals, yet cannot be realistically brought to trial by their victims. Regarding national governments, I don't think the answer to problems caused by government is more government, but improvements to government. While there are obviously also cases of "too much of a good thing" (bloated and wasteful government - but large private organizations are often also bloated and wasteful), I think that government is often the best solution we have. To take a few simple examples, can you imagine how the stock exchange would work without the SEC's supervision? Who would personally protect you from criminals if not the Police and the courts? Would you like to cancel free/compulsory education? Who would build and maintain streets? The list goes on and on and on... You probably just don't realize how much of the orderly, smoothly functioning, world around you is the result of government. Go to places like Somalia or Columbia and see what happens when government is weak or not functioning. --Dorond 00:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It does not seem like a bad organization, can you implement it gradually be creation rather  than destruction?  Be flexible in your vision, remember wiki organic growth can have its own beauty.  Do you have any problems with the current structure other than it does not fit your sense of order?--Silverback 07:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite proposal 

message: I deleted the graphic of the Federal World Government proposal. Its placing creates the impression that this is world government, instead of what it is in fact, namely a proposal by a few indiviudals, one of hundreds or perhaps thousands of  proposals. It does not belong at the start of the article, it could be used further down, at the section on UN-based proposals, but only if identified as a single proposal among many, placed for illustration.Ruzmanci 10:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustration is intended to succinctly show what this article is mainly about. The support for the federal form of world government far exceeds the support for any other form of government (by a huge factor). Frankly, I'm not aware of any serious academic work or substantial civil society organization advocating a non-federal WG.--Dorond 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration deleted 

message: I don't think the IMF is directly affiliated with the UN at all, and the WTO is a completely separate entity.  And as noted the World Bank is affiliated but has autonomous governance. NTK 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMF, WTO 

message: This is quite a loaded word, and some better one should be chosen for the idea. I can tell what idea is trying to get across, but this is not the word for it. I'm not up to it -- certain malapropisms are like an electric shock. --Sobolewski 04:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the word "humanism" doing here? 

message: We obviously need to clean up the old stuff. As one who wrote substantial parts of the old article, I'm not chopping it off with a smile, but I cannot really see what's left there that must be placed in the cleaned up article. The only part I was equivocal about removing was the part on tranforming the UN to a world government, which took a longer-term view of the UN than the other articles on UN reform. This part, however, really belongs in the article dedicated to UN reform.
Anyhow, I suggest that if another editor sees something valuable in the old stuff, they should put in the effort to insert that part into the new article, not bring the whole article back. --Dorond 23:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 20th 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: UK democracy

message: 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)
thread_title: EU Government

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Merging Discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Search Engine Numbers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thanks, but... 

message: 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)
thread_title: CLEAN UP!!

message: 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)
thread_title:  agreed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unification church. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Communist or socialist world government 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Question on Principles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Endless enlargement of the EU. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because, for the people you are referring to, the current state of things results in them (and probably you) living very nice, pleasant lives.  Why would they want to risk that?  Regardless of what you think would happen, there's a whole range of potential outcomes that would result in situations that would range from very good to very bad.  I think you are forgetting that the entities implementing a world government would be human.  Humans are imperfect.  Anything created by humans is probably imperfect.  Take your idea, apply the competing interests of 6 billion people, and try to figure out how corrupt it would be by the time its actually implemented.  Maybe it would be good for the world, but there's potential there for serious abuse under the guise of a unified world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.250.223 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only way forward 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alexander, Mongol Empire 

message: 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 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)
thread_title: Removed "Globalist Manifesto" sentence

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why was B-Plan for World Government removed 

message: "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)
thread_title: Switzerland

message: 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)
thread_title:  dab link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How come [[Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf]] isn't listed? 

message: 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...
==== 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)
thread_title:  Putting words in Hobbes's mouth 

message: 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."
</blockquote>
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)
thread_title:  Hobbes 

message: 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)
replies: text: You might be interested in World government in science fiction, which is a separate article. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instances of World Government in Fiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why was the criticism section removed? 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Delete entire "Good or Bad" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. It's also a neologism. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article may contain some original research but I find it absurd to suggest that the term "world government" is a neologism. It's been used by supporters and opponents for over a century! --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably quite a lot older than one century. See as an example  Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the usage is defined by the Content of the article. The closet possible meaning of "world governments" I know is this: League of Nations, United Nations, International Court of Justice. What else? So maybe this should be a DAB page? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludvikus, you are not making any sense. When you bring up the issue of neologisms, the question becomes whether or not reliable sources can confirm that term "world government" and the concept of a world government has existed for a significant period of time regardless of whether a world government has ever existed, currently exists or will ever exist. --Loremaster (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. And my point now is academic since the article has changed. The article was so poorly written that it appeared as if there was a very general notion of "world government" since the time of ancient Greece. It was this that I considered a Neologism. But if we look at the evolution of the notion until the formations of the League of Nations and the United Nations, then there's no Neologism. So now the Tag is removed. So let's move on to other issues. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:OR|Original Research]]

message: This text: "Furthermore, conflicts such as the Second World War involving all of Earth led to the breakup of near World Governmental countries like the British Empire and other Great Powers; this shows that such large organisations and countries only spread problems to a more global scale." This only points to the fact that a large union consisting of individual states or colonies that is brought together by military force has a tendency to cripple, but that does not necessarly happen to a large union based of induviduals who have joined together by themselfes, and therfore free from any kind of seperationists.
I think that should be accounted for as one of the main reasons wo why UK in the end was seperated from its kingdom.--Nabo0o (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of good reasoning 

message: Regarding this edit, is not the anarcho-capitalist perspective relevant, considering that world government and total anarchy are the only consistent conclusions of the ideologies of statism, minarchism, and anarchism? Sacrevert (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf Tisane (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-capitalist perspective 

message: You might say that the author believes that there are steps being taken toward a World Government (but not without a quote), but implying there is more than one article without evidence is unacceptable.  You might say: Gideon Rachman, writing in the Financial Times, writes ....  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial TImes article 

message: please add inline citations in the lead or i may decide to be bold. 93.86.201.173 (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you follow WP:LEADCITE Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: of course! :O) 93.86.201.173 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the process of being fixed as we speak today. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead is funny 

message: It would be interesting if this article could cite the document Bonum sane in the criticism section, a Catholic Church document that specifically opposes a hypothetical world government. There is currently a debate in the Catholic Church on whether the Church should support such an idea, and differing views have also been presented in other magisterial texts, such as Caritas in Veritate. ADM (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonum sane

message: The above DAB page has just been created!
*I'm hopeful that this should help cleanup and break-up the article into appropriate separate pages.
::--Ludvikus (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World government (disambiguation)]] 

message: I've substantially re-structured & re-edited the article - but relatively careful not to delete substantive material. Nevertheless, the article still needs substantial work & development. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need to follow the Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cause the current version of the article is a mess. --Loremaster (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the article is a mess as written. It's been a couple of months since I viewed it, and am shocked at the "substantially re-structured & re-edited" approach, which has made the article horribly less readable or comprehensive. I will do what I can to restore much of the several years of work which previous editors contributed to the article. (It would be advisable for anyone coming in and deciding to substantially restructure and edit any article review its history before doing unilateraly so.) Tfleming (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{Cleanup}}</nowiki> 

message: its life spp and nafta.there are no single even talk of parliaments,currency,borderless entry etc.
plz remove saarc from the list of union t list of trade blocs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.110.126 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  saarc is not a union 

message: Added to the Also See section since this ideology is one of the principle beliefs of world government or single-society. Paradiver (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Utopia