Would the world be a better place if one organization or group was in control?

[LordOfTheFish]

And yes, I mean everything. Politics, the economy, the whole nine yards.

 

Now I just want to say I'm not a regular here at Karvar's, obviously, so please... Play nice

 

So, tonight I was talking with my Dad about secret societies, major world powers, and things of that sort. I looked around on the internet at all these different organizations of people. The on sticking out to me the most being the Bilderberg group.

 

After reading through lots of stuff I found my mind wondering on other subject, or maybe just a big picture which lead to the question-

 

"Would the world be a better place in it was run by one all-powerful organization consisting of one leader from every nation in the world.?"

 

One that would have more power than any other group in history. Could this be to our benefit? Or would it ultimately bring mankind into total terror. Would the world slowly pick itself apart? What factors would work with or against this idea?

 

My opinion is this. No, that could never happen... Who's to say that this group would run the world in a way that we perceive as "right"? It would be highly possible that arguments would break out over who would be appointed as the positions in the group. Races might argue over why their leader isn't higher up or isn't as acknowledged as a nation they see as smaller and weaker, or perhaps less important. And how might we like being told we have to give up what is rightfully ours to another race (oil, food, gems etc.) with out making any profit simply because their leader has more pull than ours? Every war in a way would become a civil war. How could this affect who was involved? All these questions and many more come to my mind when I think about this. You can relate this matter to Star Wars. One group of people (The Empire) seeks to rule the entire galaxy and what happens? A rebellion that's what. And who win? I think we all know. And if that were to happen in our world, who then would lead our planet? Or would things go back to normal with every country having a devoted leader of their own.

 

Well I'd like to here all of your opinions! And please don't flame me to much.

[CommanderQ]

Well, Fish, you bring up a very interesting subject. The Idea of a one-world organization or government is definately an intriguing one.

 

Also, I must say I agree with you that one organization in charge of the world wouldn't work out too well. There'd be no garuntee to the integrity of those in charge of this group, or whether their intentions are honorable and altruistic. Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutley. We'd have a problem on our hands.

[mimartin]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.

[CommanderQ]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.

 

There you have it

[Totenkopf]

Would the world be a better place if one organization or group was in control?

 

Better for whom? I think to get to the point where one group of people could effectively rule the world would mean that they had the ability and will to kill large numbers of people to force their agenda. Given that, they could do it, accompanied by the type of "palace intrigues" that such rule would entail. Hard to say how long it would last or how many would have to die to get there.

[LordOfTheFish]

Better for whom?

 

The people of Earth is who I mean. Would we be better off if we had one predominate group of rulers?

 

And Yes, I agree to achieve something of that sort would require millions perhaps billions of people to die. But I guess what I really want to know is if the world were to ever go into that state, what would happen? Obviously it would not last forever. But what factors during their reign might affect the end results?

[Totenkopf]

Sorry, Fish. Should have indicated it was really a rhetorical question. Frankly, if you had a series of benevolent dictators who were wise as well as good, it would be beneficial for all. Given that that's nigh on impossible for any stretch of time, it would really depend on the caliber of the ruling caste. Empires have come and gone throughout human history and the variables are probably to innumerable to calculate. Often, the threats w/in the caste are more serious that those from the "thralls". But some more obvious ones are greed, power hunger, vanity....you know, some of the 7 deadly sins. Also, levels of technology would certainly affect how the end was played out. The more virulent the pathogens or powerful the weapons, the uglier the ultimate outcome might become.

[Salzella]

The EU is moving towards being that sort of overarching power and no-one has died for it, so I don't think it's correct to say that people would have to die for it. Personally, I think it's inevitable that power will merge as, like I say, it is in the case of the EU. But I also think that it will never be one person, or one organisation, or one committee that would do the 'ruling' for want of a better term. For one thing, such an institution would almost certainly be layered to accomodate people's desire for democracy - direct democracy on such a scale would be effectively impossible so I would guess it would be similiar to current developed political systems.

 

As for if it would be better or worse... My own instinct would be better, because it's mainly seperation that breeds conflict - just look at the bickering and sniping of the British parties to see that... - and it's like the analogy of having trouble makers in the tent rather than outside throwing stones. But people who have trouble with authority as a whole would, I imagine, have a collective aneurysm at the thought of being ruled over by one set of people so there would obviously be friction. I also don't think it will happen any time soon to be honest, especially as long as there is nationalism as fierce as some radical parties have...

[Samuel Dravis]

One world government would minimize interest in the member states and maximize power in the centralized government, i.e., it would enact sweeping legislation that would not be optimized for individual member states, but would benefit those in charge of the world government. It's bad enough having the Fed do stupid things just to the U.S., thanks.

 

To answer your question about the "one-leader per country in the World Government" idea-- no, because it marginalizes the influence of countries with significant populations. Voters in Tuvalu would have an insane amount of influence per capita compared to China, for example (12,000:1 representation vs. China's 1,300,000,000:1). For that reason alone it would never be seriously considered by any powerful country.

[Pho3nix]

Who says It's not?

[Trench]

No.

Enough said.

[Arcesious]

My idea of an ideal government is this: a Benevolent Democratic Logistic Aristocracy/ Republic

 

Essentially, the government is ruled by a selected number of people considered very reasonable/good intentioned/fit to be a leader, who base their decisions based on logic-based methods. These people are selected via democratic election. So its a democratic republic except that there aren't as many people in charge and that the people in charge base their decisions off of logical means. Corruption is (hopefully) not possible because these leaders must show that their decisions are based on logical reasoning. If any one of these leaders does not show logical reasoning and bases their decisions on fallitical means, said person will be recalled and new person will be elected to replace them. Also, it must be benevolent. This government is not allowed very much power, so it cannot violate anyone's freedoms or put into play any ridiculous/stupid decisions. It must be fully open - no secrets. Also, free inquiry and civilian involvement in decision making would be important.

 

But that's just a simplified idea. It's probably flawed in a couple ways, excluding the fact that it could possibly become corrupt somehow. This is also ignoring the tree of organization the government would be distributed into and whatnot.

 

I also would consider a Logistic Direct Democracy to be a good idea for a perfect government as well. Only problems are that there are too many people for it to be a fast and efficient form of government and that it is insane to ask every person in the world to be reasonable in making government decisions.

[HdVaderII]

Only problems are that there are too many people for it to be a fast and efficient form of government

 

Waaaaaaaayyyyy too many people.

[LordOfTheFish]

Frankly, if you had a series of benevolent dictators who were wise as well as good, it would be beneficial for all.

 

Yes, I agree. If only our world could be run that way. But not only would it be near impossible continue on for a vast amount of time, the chances of a group of all wise dictators finding their way into total control are slim to none.

 

I also don't think it will happen any time soon to be honest, especially as long as there is nationalism as fierce as some radical parties have...

 

Agreed.

 

To answer your question about the "one-leader per country in the World Government" idea-- no, because it marginalizes the influence of countries with significant populations. Voters in Tuvalu would have an insane amount of influence per capita compared to China, for example (12,000:1 representation vs. China's 1,300,000,000:1). For that reason alone it would never be seriously considered by any powerful country.

 

You are right. I didn't take that into consideration, but now that you have brought it up it makes perfect and total sense.

[Jae Onasi]

I don't trust someone or one group to wield that much power.

[El Sitherino]

I don't trust that much power.

Edited to reflect my opinion.

[vanir]

Quotes like "absolute power corrupts absolutely" should be given in context. This statement relates to the nature of securing absolute power, for example benevolent dictatorship is by definition evil. This is because if the one who wields the power is also deciding what is benevolent, which is inherent, so then is corruption. Nobody it doesn't agree with has any say as to the nature of benevolence. There are no checks and balances to absolute power, genocide becomes prosecuting terrorism, etc., because the powers that be say so.

It is a constant problem with all governments of any description and the reason why more democratic governments inherently form some kind of institution of checks and balances about wielding power (senates, congress, the assembly of peerage, the parliamentary chair, various departments of governance, etc.).

 

The OP essentially described a centralised world government of parliamentary democracy. This is different to a representative democracy which is what the US practises. This is intuitive since such a system would have checks and balances where a directly representative US style Congress would be inherently dictatorial in the role.

This still doesn't prevent the likelihood of totalitarianism however, where the political culture creates its own aristocracy which fails to adequately represent public sentiments of various demographics.

 

Essentially the problems of US democracy are dictatorship and those of European democracy are totalitarianism. Neither are very good for a world government, what you'd probably have is an immediate civil war with some Eastern nuclear powers.

[lockhead]

No matter how powerful someone is they should be held accountable for their actions. Without that accountability we would easily see things deteriate the way a number of forums have where those in power turn into Comic Book Guy because there was no one to hold them in check. Imagine if over his time as President Barack Obama turned into Palpatine, answerable to no one and free to do as he liked.

[El Sitherino]

answerable to no one and free to do as he liked.

Kind of reminds of where corporations are going.

[lockhead]

We could discuss that corporations would be answerable to their stock holders, I'm not quite sure how that works, but there you have it. Imagine if Microsoft had such power that they were able to circumvent quality regulations and put out products that were faulty so the consumer would have to pay for updates and fixes, for a mild example of what can occur.

 

Not to be an alarmist, but I'm sure someone will propose that's exactly what happened with Vista and Windows 7.

[urluckyday]

Once you give a group/person total control of everything...just look at what happened in WW2. Who's going to stop them if they start deciding they don't like one group of people or something like that?

[Salzella]

To answer your question about the "one-leader per country in the World Government" idea-- no, because it marginalizes the influence of countries with significant populations. Voters in Tuvalu would have an insane amount of influence per capita compared to China, for example (12,000:1 representation vs. China's 1,300,000,000:1). For that reason alone it would never be seriously considered by any powerful country.

 

Obviously that particular system would never happen, but wouldn't some sort of proportional system be possible? to use your example, China would have a correspondingly higher number of representatives reflecting their standing, though that does open the problem up undeveloped countries with large populations having more influence than economically powerful countries like the US or European countries being under-represented in terms of overall worldwide influence. but as i say, i think some sort of worldwide centralisation is inevitable, just the length of time until it actually happens could be very long indeed potentially.

 

on an unrelated note... why all the doom-mongering? is everyone here too cynical to accept that maybe if a number of smart, reasonable people got together and make clear, reasonable decisions, perhaps held to account by other organisations, it could work? if no-one thinks it will work, it won't work, and i can't understand why people would want to remain seperate and nationalised forever, so skepticism would seem to me to be self-defeating...

[Samuel Dravis]

Obviously that particular system would never happen, but wouldn't some sort of proportional system be possible? to use your example, China would have a correspondingly higher number of representatives reflecting their standing, though that does open the problem up undeveloped countries with large populations having more influence than economically powerful countries like the US or European countries being under-represented in terms of overall worldwide influence. but as i say, i think some sort of worldwide centralisation is inevitable, just the length of time until it actually happens could be very long indeed potentially.

If you're asking whether it could technically work, then I'm sure some system would be able to be found would function. I'm sure it'd still be vulnerable to forcing unlocalized laws on member states, however.

 

on an unrelated note... why all the doom-mongering? is everyone here too cynical to accept that maybe if a number of smart, reasonable people got together and make clear, reasonable decisions, perhaps held to account by other organisations, it could work? if no-one thinks it will work, it won't work, and i can't understand why people would want to remain seperate and nationalised forever, so skepticism would seem to me to be self-defeating...

I think the question is, why should the people in a sovereign country desire to become partially politically controlled by people who share little or none of their interests and are perhaps even actively against them? If trade is the main reason they should be interested, we can already make trade agreements without surrendering our ability to do as we please. Unless the situation changes then I don't see there being any incentive to go under one banner.