Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The need for world government

kk.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 133 posts

Re: The need for world government

#41

Post by kzrdude »

i5heu wrote: post #6
invig wrote: post #2

I’m sure there’s no chance of corruption becoming an issue within a single all powerful entity.

Not if this entity is publicly and totally surveilled with all its members.

I think you need accountability and regular rotation of leadership.

There must be some reason that global sports organizations so often attract corruption. I'm thinking of UEFA, FIFA and many of the other less well known sports associations - FIDE for chess etc, and many more. They usually don't have a democratic governance structure and let interests of the involved people entrench themselves.

I don't think total surveillance is enough.

Re: The need for world government

#42

Post by thecolorblew »

ultim8k wrote: post #17
inglor_cz wrote: post #15

"It seems obvious to me that planetary problems demand planetary government." That does not seem obvious to me at all. And I can't imagine a common set of governing principles acceptable to Iceland, China, Russia and the Taliban. For example, looking at what is currently rocking the U.S., what would be the global policy on abortion?

Abortion should be a human right. All countries that don’t respect that should pay huge fines. Thanks for giving that example.

Counterpoint: Abortion is murder. All countries that don’t respect that should pay huge fines.

See how silly you’re being? The parent comment already shared that large parts of the world have different values.

I’d be curious of your take when your proposed value isn’t chosen and there is no recourse.

Re: The need for world government

#43

Post by vbezhenar »

I'm pretty sure we do have world government. May be not a single person, but something like a council of few most powerful persons. I bet they include Rothschild, Rockefeller, may be someone else. And most powerful governments are controlled by that council.

Re: The need for world government

#44

Post by mpfundstein »

chii wrote: post #32
oifjsidjf wrote: post #25

1) If you centralize everything into one government: what if that one government becomes corrupt? Then you cannot run to any other governments. 2) Cultural differences will require that different populations operate and behave differently, you will never be able to put the same constraints on different cultures.

> Cultural differences will require that different populations operate and behave differently so you have local/regional government, responsible for local and regional policies. But global policies would be controlled by a global gov't.

sounds a lot like Russia

Re: The need for world government

#45

Post by hutzlibu »

zthrowaway wrote: post #31
ultim8k wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortion should be a human right. All countries that don’t respect that should pay huge fines. Thanks for giving that example.

Many don’t believe this is a human right, and you enforcing this on them is going against their will. This is authoritarian.

It is authoritarian to tell people, it is authoritarian to tell women, they do not own their body?

But yes, the basic problem remains, humanity remains divided on very basic things. And enforcing unity would be ugly.

Re: The need for world government

#46

Post by mpfundstein »

freedom2099 wrote: post #40
zthrowaway wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many don’t believe this is a human right, and you enforcing this on them is going against their will. This is authoritarian.

Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! If you force your opinion on something that should be exclusively her concern then you are the “authoritarian”

what about the childs body?

Re: The need for world government

#47

Post by zthrowaway »

freedom2099 wrote: post #40
zthrowaway wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many don’t believe this is a human right, and you enforcing this on them is going against their will. This is authoritarian.

Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! If you force your opinion on something that should be exclusively her concern then you are the “authoritarian”

The mother decided to have unprotected sex. There’s a reason women get pregnant. This isn’t some magical thing that is forced on women. Cause and effect.

The body inside her body is not hers. Unfortunately biology does not conform to our fantasyland.

Forcing those who are against this to pay a fine is against their will.

Re: The need for world government

#48

Post by jka »

inglor_cz wrote: post #15

"It seems obvious to me that planetary problems demand planetary government." That does not seem obvious to me at all. And I can't imagine a common set of governing principles acceptable to Iceland, China, Russia and the Taliban. For example, looking at what is currently rocking the U.S., what would be the global policy on abortion?

> what would be the global policy on abortion?

The U.N. Human Rights Committee has a recent (2019) publication[1], "General comment no. 36, Article 6 (Right to Life)" that contains an entry that is relevant to this question.

Page two, item eight under "General Remarks":

"Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary termination of pregnancy, those measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights under the Covenant. Thus, restrictions on the ability of women or girls to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives, subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering that violates article 7 of the Covenant, discriminate against them or arbitrarily interfere with their privacy. States parties must provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion where the life and health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the pregnant woman or girl substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or where the pregnancy is not viable. In addition, States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in all other cases in a manner that runs contrary to their duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to resort to unsafe abortions, and they should revise their abortion laws accordingly. For example, they should not take measures such as criminalizing pregnancy of unmarried women or applying criminal sanctions to women and girls who undergo abortion or to medical service providers who assist them in doing so, since taking such measures compels women and girls to resort to unsafe abortion. States parties should remove existing barriers to effective access by women and girls to safe and legal abortion, including barriers caused as a result of the exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers, and should not introduce new barriers. States parties should also effectively protect the lives of women and girls against the mental and physical health risks associated with unsafe abortions. In particular, they should ensure access for women and men, and especially girls and boys, to quality and evidence-based information and education on sexual and reproductive health and to a wide range of affordable contraceptive methods, and prevent the stigmatization of women and girls who seek abortion. States parties should ensure the availability of, and effective access to, quality prenatal and post-abortion health care for women and girls, in all circumstances and on a confidential basis."

[1] - https://www.refworld.org/docid/5e5e75e04.html

Re: The need for world government

#49

Post by aguacaterojo »

These things form when the will or the power to implement is there. I would think the possibility of such a unified cross cultural & properly effective institution would be down to power & strategic interests i.e. game theory. Humans will seek power when it's available and wield it to do things in their interest.

Also a world government making decisions on "immigration" whose effects are distributed unevenly on its constituents. Look at Poland in the EU right now. https://www.bbc.com/news/59348337

"We could replace the war model with the policing model". How? Total fascism or weaker punitive measures? Also does the omission of one correlate strictly with the absence of the other? And over what time scale? Look up "Mediocristan" & "Extremistan" to get an understanding of how the urge to control from a top down level can blow up.

"we could institute the basic human right of mobility on the planet" some ecosystems cannot support free mobility.

Re: The need for world government

#50

Post by kzrdude »

ilammy wrote: post #23
enykeev wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it sounds like we need multiple world governments operating over the same area rather than having a bunch of monopolies around the globe.

Which is exactly what we already have. There is what your local government says you should be doing, and there is what your friendly (or not so much) neighborhood superpowers say your government should be doing.

We also already have in most countries a hierarchy of governments - a state government, a central government, etc.

In the EU we certainly have regional government, member state government and EU institutions. All of these are different shades of government and in some cases conflict with each other.

In some areas EU has been a boon - a "safety valve" where the member state government is put into a competitive system where it has to align itself with external expectations from the EU institutions. I.e. breaking up their monopoly power in that sense.

Some national governments want/wanted to completely control the sale of medicine, foods, alcohol etc and to some extent EU has broken up that control.

Post reply on HN