The Advantages of a World Government
In this essay, I will defend the thesis that the creation of a world government is highly desirable for the human race. Several reasons have convinced me of this, since I believe that the creation of a world government would bring great advantages, including world peace, total freedom of movement, the end of world hunger, the end of colonialism, the end of slavery, the disappearance of xenophobia and racism in mainstream society, the end of sex discrimination, the end of ethnic discrimination, as well as allowing the implementation of truly effective responses against global threats such as global terrorism and climate change.
In this essay, I will defend the thesis that the creation of a world government is highly desirable for the human race. Several reasons have convinced me of this, since I believe that the creation of a world government would bring great advantages, including world peace, total freedom of movement, the end of world hunger, the end of colonialism, the end of slavery, the disappearance of xenophobia and racism in mainstream society, the end of sex discrimination, the end of ethnic discrimination, as well as allowing the implementation of truly effective responses against global threats such as global terrorism and climate change.
I must emphasize that, by writing this essay, I do not aim at convincing those who do not wish to be convinced of something that constitutes a departure from their familiar set of accepted political ideas. I know perfectly well that there are many people who are not willing to accept the ideas that I propose in this essay. They are too emotionally dependent on their normal political conceptions to accept the bold ideas that I put forward in the Republic of Men. I write this essay instead for those who who are willing to think about the world that surrounds them and consider any proposals that might lead to the creation of a better and fairer world order.
To this day, at least to my knowledge, no one has dared to propose a theory with similar implications as those of political humanism. I wish to go beyond the mere hypothesis of a world government. I will defend why it must be created, how it should be created and how it should work once it is created. In other words, I wish to create a theory that proposes a total revolution in world politics.
I can distinguish between two types of men. The first is the nationalist man, the second is the political humanist. The first believes in the nation and the second believes in Man. I'm a humanist and therefore I call my theory political humanism.
Political humanism is founded upon the belief that every men are born equals, and that they should be treated as such. I believe that we all belong to the human species, and that nations are nothing more than artificial creations, that by their very nature separate a species that in fact should be united. There are historical reasons that can explain the existence of nations but the present time no longer requires their existence. Therefore, a new and better kind of political entity must come into existence, one that respects the fact that all men belong to the same fundamental unity, humankind. I believe that it is time to relinquish our old political allegiances, and admit a new one. It is time to start regarding the planet earth as our home, our common home, and forget nationalist grudges. Nationalist feelings should be replaced for one which is much nobler, the love for humankind. When people stop feeling part of one specific nation, they will be free to accept a new identity, and consider themselves to be true world citizens. These world citizens will see how nations are obsolete, and how the greatest improvements to our conditions could be provided by a new Republic of Men. The merits of a World government, I believe, would be so many that in the future, men would look behind and consider the founders of the new order to be the greatest heroes in history.
Wars between nations would no longer happen. If there were no nations, they could not wage war at each other. All national armies would be dissolved and a world army would have to be created in order to defend the integrity of the new world republic.
Borders would disappear. All men would be allowed to travel, study, work and live in any part of the world. Passports and visas would no longer be necessary, restrictions to immigration would no longer be enforced and all men would have the freedom to choose where they would like to lead their lives. There would be total freedom of movements for every man and woman in the planet.
A Republic of Men would also bring an end to world hunger. There are enough resources at our disposal to feed the whole population of the world several times, and yet thousands die of hunger every day in the poorest places of the planet. This cannot be accepted and it is completely unnecessary.
The world republic would have enough resources to provide every man, woman and child the minimal provisions in order for them to live their lives with dignity. This would represent the end of misery for many millions across the world that currently do not have enough to eat. The Republic would have the resources and the will to extinguish hunger and it would do so. Meanwhile, nations continue to wage war against each other, using precious resources to commit mass murder, instead of using those resources to save lives.
The war of a universal republic would be against the common enemies of humanity, such as misery and hunger.
The creation of a Republic of Men would also bring an end to Colonialism. For centuries, the most powerful nations have colonized and exploited the weaker peoples. Colonialism has been the predominant policy of the world powers for the last five hundred years and its practices perfectly illustrate the undesirability of a future made of competing nations. The only way to avoid the reiterate exploitation of some peoples by others is to create a World State capable of providing safety to every man in the planet.
Currently, two of the greatest evils that torment the human race are racism and xenophobia. Although nations can try to fight racism (although so far they have been mostly unsuccessful) the very existence of nations promotes xenophobia. Only a World State would have enough power to prohibit the discrimination of people based on their origin or ethnicity and enforce such a prohibition. On the other hand, anyone who adopts political humanism will consider every man to have the same rights, no matter their ethnicity or place of birth. The political humanist is a natural enemy of racism and xenophobia.
Finally, the war against climate change requires a stronger response than the nations are capable of providing. It is an obstacle that can only be surmounted by a united humankind. The inability of countries to stop destroying the world and to set in motion any effective plan to fight global warming is a conclusive proof.
For all these reasons, I believe that we should consider a shift from Nationalism to Humanism. And after accepting the fundamental ideals of political humanism, it will only be a matter of time before every man in this planet also accepts that it is time to abandon a world of nations and to embrace the idea of a Republic of Men .
Posts
9 comments:
The British, Mongol, Roman, French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Russian, Ottoman's all attempted to create this one world government.
When the British colonised India, it put an end to tribal wars, barbarian practices (such as burning womens), it allowed free trade and freedom of movement between 1/4 of the empire, strategic decisions and military decisions were taken in London, interior policies were made in Delhi, local religious practices were authorised and the empire implemented the democratic institution that are still in operation today.
When WWII broke out and Britain fought against Nazis the native inhabitants of some of the member states of the empire volunteered to defend the interest of the British realm, not because they were forced or threatened but because they believe in the ideas you have laid out in your essay; an example of this can be found in India where 2.5 million men volunteered to fight for Britain, the largest volunteer army in history.
However the empire just like your plan will fail, we already recognise that we are all human e.g. soviet russia did not annihilate the US and vice versa; we should admit that humans are different and that nations and borders are the natural expression of these differences.Removing borders don't reduce differences it just creates internal divisions. Imagine if this one world state had been implemented after WWII naturally we would of turned towards a socialised or communist organisation of work has such we might no have had the level of wealth/technology we have today maybe the computer revolution might not of happened and comparatively we would be poor; Rather we remained different and for instance in the 80's Britain introduced monetarism and this spread across the world. So this is so called divisions of nation is actually a strength and allows us to experiment with what constitutes the best model for humanity.
Hi Paul, thank you very much for your comment, what you said was really interesting.
However, I feel obliged to respond to your criticism, and I believe that, although your point is valid to some extent, it is actually based on some very wrong assumptions. You conclude by saying that my world government will fail just like any other attempt to build a world government has failed in the past. Well, this could be a good argument if the historical examples you gave were actually anything like the Republic of Men that I defend, but the thing is, they are not.
In the first place, every single example you gave correspond to Empires. On the other hand, the Republic of Men is a federation. Empires are built by conquest, which is led in a violent way, whereas a federation such as the one I propose is buit on very different foundations. The federation I propose is built through law and consent. I will elaborate on this later on, but the important notion is that people agree to belong to the federation, they are not forced into it. On the other hand, in an Empire, some people submit others, while in a Federation every one benefits from the state of mutual cooperation.
Nevertheless, there are some other problems with the examples you gave. Particularly in the case of the European nations you have mentioned, the assumption that they wanted to create a world government is completely wrong. All of these nations led a model of colonialism that basically consisted on a metropolis who exploited the colonies. This is not what I'm talking about when I talk of world government. I m talking about men living together in a state of cooperation, and not some men exploiting other men. Actually, the European Empires of the past is exactly what I want to avoid with a world republic.
You have insisted in the example of the UK and India. Well, I can just say that, although I can respect your view, I tnk it is completely mistaken. You have clearly implied that the UK has done a favour to India by colonizing it and that Indians were quite happy about that. Actually, not very long after the WWII, the Indian people, led by Ghandi, has desperately fought (albeit in a non violent way) against the British occupation of India. Not only they were unhappy with their situation as a british colony, they were desperate to get rid of British rule. This is only normal, because for 200 years Britain has enslaved and exploited the Indian people. If you do not believe me, than I suggest you read a history book about the subject.
The Ottoman, the Roman and the Mongol empires are a different case, since they did not follow the European colonialist model. However, they failed because they have tried to conquer the world resorting to their military. As history has taught us, thiis not possible. That is why I think a federation is the best option in this case, and I will go into further detail on this aspect on a further stage.
Finally, do not think that we have proved that we are capable of not anihilating each other. We only had the nuclear bomb for 60 years, and during the cold war there were a couple of situations where we almost started a nuclear war. Fortunately this has not happened, but this doesn't mean that it will not happen in the future. Actually, before only the USA and the USSR had a considerable nuclear capacity. In the future, everything indicates to the probability that much more countries will develop nuclear arsenals. In that scenario, it would be considerably harder to avoid a nuclear conflict for a long period of time.
Once again Paul, thanks for reading and thank you very much for your comment, it was really good to see that you are interested in this and I hope that we can keep discussing this subject in the future. Take care.
A few important things I'd like to add:
I am not pro-collonialist or pro-empire, my case was the exact opposite.
I just wanted to illustrate through a clear verifiable tangible historical example (e.g.. that states of the empire volunteered to fight for Bitain's interest in WWII) that saying that the British white man just enslaved native populations for 200 years is a complete simplification and just one of the many points of views that can be taken on the subject.
Take Gandhi for instance, he did not preach a message of hate for the British, his belief was simply said that it was time for India to have its own destiny in its hands and that this had to be a destiny different of that of Britain hence a peaceful revolt.
In fact Gandhi beneficiated from a free education within Britain itself at the university of London which is hardly the sign of enslavement had he not had such an education would of he been able to voice his thoughts and beliefs the way he did ? arguably no, so I think this modern romantic idea that colonialism "enslaved" the world is ridiculous and very narrow minded, historical books are not factual truths they just relate the point of view of authors and if you'd read several books on the subject you'd find that the situation is much more complex and subtle that the one you portray.
I can still not get my head around this idea of world wide federalism, I think there is an argument for division and non co-operation. I don't think that removing borders will remove differences, borders are just expressions of our differences and we should value these difference because practically speaking they allow us to experiment with different ways our society can be organised, the best way then being spread across nations. I you implement federalism these differences will disappear over time and we might not have an organisation of work/society that is the best for all of us.
Additionally I still believe that you can find cases where empires had an honest goal of creating mutual benefits for all of us, obviously it always resulted in violence and conquest because borders are not random constructs rather they are expressions of our cultural/historical differences that have nurtured over 1000's of years.
Anyway I've decided I am quite interested in these things and that different views on different topics are a good thing, hence I will be creating my own blog exposing my own ideas on localism and modern society so stay tuned ;).
Hi Paul, thank you very much for your second comment. Let me say that I am very impresed with your debating skills. You raised, once more, some very good points. Again, I will try to answer as best as I can, since I believe that although you are right in some aspects, your final conclusions are wrong. I was also very happy to hear that you are thinking about writing your own blog. One of the main objectives of this blog is to inspire people in this way, to think more about politics and to engage on valuable political discussions, so I'm happy that in your case this discussion served that purpose. I would also like to add that, in case you are interested, I would be happy if you decided to write some articles for this blog. Although I have my own political ideas, I believe it would be greatly beneficial to share this space with someone like you, who is skilled, motivated and has different views from mine. Think about it and let me know. Now, in relation to your arguments:
I understand that the historical situation of the British colonization of India is complex. However, I think that it would not be right to imply that Britain was doing a favour to Indians by occupying the Indian sub-continent. I am saying this, because in your first comment you clearly implied this, and I could not accept that. Other than that, it is true that Britain did not only enslave people in the course of ther world conquest. However, that was one of the consequences of the British imperialist effort. You say you are anti-colonialist. If that is the case, you must acknowledge that European nations are guilty of pursuing a colonialist policy for 500 years. I don't think Europeans should feel guilty about this forever, but it is important to understand history in order to correct our mistakes in the future. That is why history and politics are so closely related. I'm sure you've heard the very famous sentence: he who does not know the past is doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Well, this is absolutely true, and that is why a correct assessment of historical events is absolutely necessary in order to addopt a correct political stance. The fact is that although the European colonial empires did some good things for their colonies, these "good deeds" are very diminished when compared to all the atrocities that have been commited.
Also, I did not say that I don't believe that some empires of the past were trying to create something like a world republic that could benefit all of their citizens. I have just said that this was not the case of Britain, or any other modern European nations. However, the Romans, the Mongols and the Arabs (and others) have tried to do this. In those cases, the problem was not that they did not have the intention of creating a world empire for all men. The problem was how they tried to create the empire. In my response to your first commentary I claimed that the reason why they have failed to achieve a world community was because they tried to conquer everyone else, and this led to their demise. Especially with today's weapons, all attempts to create a world community via military conquest is doomed to fail. My point is that the reason why a world federations is likely to succeed is because it will not be a military effort, but rather an act of consent and legal union. A good example to ilustrate this idea is the European Union. The European Union is the only example of a successfull political system that comprises most of the European territory in more than a thousand years. Although many have tried to reach this goal through war, like Napoleon, it was only through law and consent that Europeans managed to create a European political community. In a similar way, my world federation would triumph where world conquerors have failed in the past, because it would use a better strategy.
I also understand that you think that national borders are the natural expression of our diferences. Well, that argument is harder to refute, since it is anchored not on a logical position, but mostly on a way to perceive the world. In other worlds, you see politics through the lens of nationalism, whereas I'm proposing a change of lens. I am proposing a completely different alternative. That kind of change is predictably hard to stomach for any nationalist such as yourself, and I can only hope that you come to apreciate the validity of my position after some time. I believe that I have not developed my theory enough to convince nationalists to change their positions, but after I complete my theory, I believe this might change.
I also acknowledge the validity of your other point, that the existence of diferent political systems allow us to see clearly which one is the best. Well, I think you are absolutely right, but I also believe that the advantages of having a world government far outweight this disadvantage.
I hope you find my response interesting, take care.
Hi Bruno sounds cool yea sure I will write an article for your blog! Additionally If you could select what you think is the most important article on your blog it I will post it on mine when it is ready for launch.
I didn't want to imply that Britain did a favour to India. I wanted to show that the intention of the empire were not evil and I believe this is confirmed by the following: that (1) it implemented democratic institutions and political institutions that were seen as mutually beneficial and that are still in operation today (2) that it decentralised power to India in order for regional decisions to be taken there and that (3) Indian citizens volunteered to fight and possibly die for the empire and finally that (d) the uprising of India was peaceful and non violent and the message conveyed wasn't one of hatred towards the British but rather one attesting that India should be master of its own destiny.
I don't believe in any kinds of empire/global government/global unions. The reason being is in your words that I believe in nationalism, indeed I think we we are still tribesman, take a look at Leeds for instance and you will see obvious distinction and separations: white people live in Holdbeck, Chinese people live towards Eastgate, Indians/Pakistanis live near Hyde Park and streets near Blenheim are almost all inhabited by Black people… from this observation and from seeing how people work/choose their friend/vote/where they decide to live, I conclude that their must be a natural tribalism still in us.
And I believe it is wrong and unfeasible to try and nurture this and even if we succeed in nurturing our nationalism/tribalism I believe it would only be temporary because the difference anchored within us are too great and would eventually resurrect. Therefore I will always be opposed to global unions because it would only creates internal division rather I prefer the idea of strong sovereign "tribal" states.
As for the EU, I believe that a partial integration of some European countries (such as France and Germany) are indeed beneficial. However my view is that the British tribalism is too different to ever form perfect a union with the continent… the reasons are mainly economic (belief in the laissez faire approach) religious (anglican country that lets priest marry) and historical/cultural (it is still closer to ex-empire states such as the USA, New Zealand and Australia, and besides Romans nobody from the continent successfully conquered this island).
I agree the EU as it's accomplishments and a role to play, however I would like to point out that a EU skepticism is here the strongest in Europe, that British politicians have always hesitated in further integration and have never dared to held a referendum on the subject of Britain and its membership to the EU the reason being that the majority of British citizens are against it. I think is a sad day for democracy when people are no longer given a choice on whom and how they should be ruled....
Just to clarify: I am against empire, I think the intentions weren't evil but the methods used to achieve them were and as such Yes we should take lessons from what has happened and as far as I am concern the lesson we should of learnt but have not really is that we are all part of tribes… Additionally I have tried to shown that in my view the empire did not fall because suddenly the oppression of the white man became unbearable otherwise I believe the empire would not have lasted so many generations rather it was the tribes differences that reemerged and as such India had the need for its independence...
As for the EU I think there is a need for Europe to speak with one voice one many issues, however I do think it would be a far more efficient institutions if it had several levels of integration rather than just one…Then current issues such as Turkey joining, the UK keeping sterling, Greece having the euro, or the sudden influx of new members would become non issues…
Milton Friedman's view on the subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY&feature=related
First of all, the video is very interesting. Second, I agree with almost, if not everything he says. Third point, it is important to clarify that the video is not related or is relevant to my article. Fourth, you could say that this video "proves" to some extent what you have said about colonialism, but I would have to disagree. Mr. Friedman's assessment is purely economic, and is valid as such. But you could not infer, correctly, from what he says that India or any other Asian colonies were better-off under European administration. Because India is poorer, it does not mean it is worse-off now. Would you prefer to be a slave and rich, or a free-man and poor? To me, the answer to that question is fairly obvious.
Post a Comment