World Government

I think that there should be a world government, but that it should be very limited in its authority. I want to allow different nations the freedom to try different methods of rule, both because not everyone wants to live in the same type of environment, and because someone could come up with a better system that what we currently have.

I envision this world government as only enforcing two basic laws:

1) Freedom of Protest.

2) Freedom to Leave.

and two basic powers:

1) Freedom to draw armed forces from cooperating countries.

2) Drawing borders along cultural boundaries.

I define "Freedom of Protest" to include both the right to say what you think about what's going on in the world, and the right to hear what others are saying. It also includes the right to be informed about what is going on in the world. It basically derives from our "Freedom of Speech", but I wanted to allow countries to ban pornography, or other things that could legitimately be found offensive.

I know there are some gray areas here, for example distinguishing pornography from art, but that will be up to individual countries to deal with. I know that what some people may consider 'art' will be banned as pornography in some countries, but they can always protest that.

That is the key issue here. These laws don't solve any problems, they only allow people to identify what the problems are and provides them with some power to try to force a solution.

I define the second law, "Freedom to Leave", as the freedom to leave the country you're in and to move to a different country. With the first law, there is nothing to force an evil despot from simply ignoring all of the complaints and continuing to run the country the way he wants. Sure, with "Freedom of Protest", everyone in the country will know what an evil despot he is, and his support will erode, possibly to the point of collapse, but what if it doesn't? With the second law, people who are not satisfied with the government can simply leave for a different country.

Note that this law doesn't include the freedom to enter another country, only to leave a country. Countries will still have the right to protect themselves from being overrun by immigrants.

Okay, so what happens if all of an evil despots citizens leave the country, and he still continues to rule badly? Okay, I don't have an answer to this question. My hope is that whatever it is that motivates him to rule will be unsatisfied with this situation and he will do whatever he can to bring his people back, including going to the outside world for help on ruling his people well. If that doesn't happen, then these rules will have to be expanded to take this situation into account. Nonetheless, I think this is a very good start, and I would hate to add additional restrictions that may not be necessary. I say, start with these rules and only add new ones if these prove unsuccessful.

How are these rules enforced? I don't believe economic sanctions work, so I'm not going to suggest that. Instead, I believe war is the only answer here. If possible, it should be structured to only enforce the two laws, i.e. getting information into and out of the country, and allowing people to leave the country. In other words, we could just send protection in for reporters, news people, and escorts to escort people out of the country. These protectors would only use force to protect themselves and the people they are protecting. However, I don't think this would be as effective as an all out war. It would result in higher losses of lives of both the protectors and the people they are protecting than an all out war, and it would take a lot longer.

This, of course, is the reason for the first power. This will be a "World Government", which means that all countries will be under its jurisdiction, but obviously not all countries will be cooperating, at least not at first. All cooperating countries will be obliged to provide military forces to be used in enforcing the two laws. These forces will still be under the command of their respective countries, but will be under the direction of the world government. I'm not a military expert, so I'm sure there are some issues here that need to be ironed out, but I believe that they are not insurmountable.

The second power is actually to solve a different issue than the two laws and first power. The two laws and the first power are intended to resolve problems within a country. The second power is to help resolve conflicts between countries.

Current borders are often the result of some power grabbing as much land as it can. When it can't grab any more, a border is drawn. Often these borders don't lie on cultural boundaries, and the result is often conflict. India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Croatia and Serbia, and the Kurdish situation in Iraq and Jordan are all examples of this type of conflict.

Another thing that is bound to happen over time is that societies will shift. If we want a world without war, we need to have a mechanism in place for shifting the boundaries controlled by various peoples.

I think it makes sense that this should be controlled by some world-wide governing body. Although it doesn't have to be the same body that enforces the two laws. I envision that this group has some set criteria for determining where borders should be based on history, natural geography, and the cultural makeup of an area. It should not change the borders unless petitioned to do so by one or more of the affected people.

This whole border issue is, of course, very complicated, with more issues than I can address here. The main point I'm trying to make is that by assigning authority to make these decisions to a global governing body, we move the conflict over territory to the courthouse rather than the battlefield.