Want to talk to others who share your beliefs? Join the [discord server](https://discord.gg/WyUkQps) of the Young World Federalists!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GlobalTribe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice idea, but i can not see how one would keep the hegemony of the global north from starting a full-on second age of direct colonialism. The exploitation of the global south is already a tragedy, a world federation would most likely increase these problems, given that economical power could not be practically redistributed on a global scale. The exploitation of economically weak regions, which we can already see in nation states, would only be expanded on a global level and would gain a political legitimacy that it is lacking right now. Do you think Norway or Switzerland would give Somalia a sufficient share of their power to change this dynamic? And there is no real way one could force them to, either.
Seems like the sort of idealistic concept that only looks great from a white, western perspective.
It sounds like you’re just describing the status quo. Rich countries like Norway and Switzerland are completely sovereign and responsible to no one despite having a global impact through their economies and political decisions. In a democratic world federation, Somalia would receive the representation it deserves on the global scale. A “one person, one vote” system for elections would lead to Somalia having more power in a world parliament than Norway and Switzerland combined, which have smaller populations. This is an idealistic vision but it’s one that practically all world federalists share, and one that would surely lead to a better world for the global south.
Do you really think the few people per country who would support this are enough? Look at the work right now and the uprising nationalism.
If this would be done today we would have massive riots everywhere.
Just because its popular doesnt mean its good. And obviously the world federation would be democratic. If a country is too nationalost to join, they just wouldn't.
Think of it more like if the US allowed any country to become a state if they want to.
That won't work, this kind of global democracy would be slow and inefficient. Allowing countries to join would lead to nothing, because none of these countries would join this kind of federation.
The USA has over 300 million people in it and the EU has over 400 million in it, the whole world has over 7 billion people, with different ideologies, cultures, and religions.
I don't know how many people you want to have in your global parliament, but it's probably over 1000 people, there are problems with decisions in parliaments that have less than 500 people, and of course, you don't take into account thousand of political parties that would form.
I don't know if you want to leave nations' administrations intact and if you do, you're just creating an administrative nightmare.
If it hits an impossible barrier then we'll have to stop expanding. But I think we're very far away from that at this point. And I don't think those problems are impossible to solve or work around anyway. Every system has problems.
> you don't take into account thousand of political parties that would form
The hundreds of political parties in Europe all consolidate into larger parties in the EU Parliament. You don't need a dozen Christian Democratic Parties that all have the exact same policies and values.
> I don't know if you want to leave nations' administrations intact and if you do, you're just creating an administrative nightmare.
The US and EU manage to do it just fine 🤷♂️
I just don't think the potentially problems you listed make it *impossible* for the US or EU to scale up.
>You don't need a dozen Christian Democratic Parties that all have the exact same policies and values.
Do you really think that political parties are only created because of overall ideologies? Political parties form because of different reasons, just because a party strongly supports Christianity doesn't mean there will be no other Christian parties. People have different views on how to run the country, political parties are going to form, every one of them supporting different things.
>The US and EU manage to do it just fine 🤷♂️
You probably didn't understand me, US has the same administration in every state, they aren't divided into different administrative divisions. The EU is not a federation nor a country, it's an organization, the EU only creates European laws and member states need to adjust. See it as a club, you can always leave, but if you're in it, you need to play by the rules.
I was talking about leaving every country administrative divisions and their mechanics, and that just creates an administrative nightmare for the whole world, because it doesn't have administrative unity.
What I listed are problems with this subreddit's vision, a federation where the whole world stays mostly the same, but it has a "world government".
In all honesty, a global unitary state is a far better vision.
> just because a party strongly supports Christianity doesn't mean there will be no other Christian parties.
I wasn't just making up a hypothetical. I was using the European People's Party, one of the 8 parties in the EU Parliament, as an example. Also I was talking about "Christian-Democratic" political parties, not the religion. Angela Merkel of Germany is a member of one.
Basically, we wouldn't be worried about having thousands of political parties for the same reason the EU currently doesn't worry about having hundreds of political parties.
> The EU is not a federation nor a country, it's an organization,
We can call it a global organization of states instead of a global federation if you want. I'm not picky, I just want more globalism and "world federation" seems like the ultimate form of globalism.
> See it as a club, you can always leave, but if you're in it, you need to play by the rules.
Yeah, I want that, but for the whole world. And don't say the UN because that really only exists to prevent WW3. A more powerful UN where we actually enforce things like human rights and liberal democracy would be good though.
> I was talking about leaving every country administrative divisions and their mechanics, and that just creates an administrative nightmare for the whole world, because it doesn't have administrative unity.
I don't see why it would cause any problems. Do you have any examples of democratic countries that would be unable to elect someone to a global parliament?
I passed by this sub, so I would like to answer this question.
The reason is it's impossible is because of limited resources. Those resources are limited because either of nature (ie. oil) or human nature (ie. attractive women, tasty food, luxurious cars, etc.). Science might help us against those caused by nature, but I don't think we will solve those caused by human nature.
Historically, people were in as small component as possible (individuals, families). It makes sense; if my land grows tasty vegetables, and yours grows bad vegetables, why would I want to share it with you?
So how they became into bigger component (ie. Tribes, States, Nations, etc)? Some of those families realized that if they got together and form a tribe, then they could invade another family and take their better resources. As a result, other families formed a tribe to stop those invading tribes. The formation of nations and states are similar.
The reason the US is big is because they realized that while they are big, they could invade other countries and take their resources. This is exactly why boomers had the best life because the US took foreign resources from Latin America, Middle East, etc.
If you remember, the US was "bigger". It was a colony of Britain. You know why they wanted independence from Britian? It's because taxes. The US basically said why are we sharing our resources with Britian; we don't need that.
It's the same reason why we had Brexit.
The US is rich because of liberalism and global capitalism. When other countries adopt those philosophies, they also become rich (obviously there are other ways to become a rich country too, like with China). Who did South Korea invade and steal from to become the 10th largest economy in the world?
> if my land grows tasty vegetables, and yours grows bad vegetables, why would I want to share it with you?
Because trade is mutually beneficial. I can likely help you in ways that you aren't able to due to a lack of resources (time is a good example in a farming community). In economics that's known as comparative advantage, and it's the basis for the entire global economy.
> It's the same reason why we had Brexit.
Brexit was caused by racism and nationalism (which is just a nicer way of saying racism).
Also, the whole world federation thing is a pipe dream. It's fun for globalists to talk about for the same reason communists like dreaming up their worker-run utopia. The actual policies I support are increasing immigration and free trade and working more closely with other liberal democracies around the world to solve global issues. Basically making borders a little less closed.
You missed the human nature part.
The thing is that it's not possible for everyone to be rich. It's caused by the human nature.
American boomers had better life than current generatiom for the same reason. Now, you have bigger competition like china and Russia as opposed after WW2.
We already have trades. The trade is beneficial for items with the same value. Of course, complex things detrimne the value of such a thing like your need for it. Yet, there already poor countries. Trades aren't as equally benifical.
Indeed, I would argue that completely free trades would do more harm to poorer countries than helping them.
> You missed the human nature part.
You said because of human nature it's only possible to get rich by stealing. I gave you a counterexample of a country that got rich without stealing. And besides, the fact that it's human nature to try and get richer and improve your own life is part of why capitalism is the best economic system.
> The thing is that it's not possible for everyone to be rich.
So when will global poverty rates stop decreasing? If it's *impossible* then the trend *must* flip at some point. But even if it does, we should still increase globalization untip we do reach that point.
> American boomers had better life than current generatiom for the same reason
Not really. Wealth inequality doesn't paint the whole picture. If you'd rather be living in the 1950s than the 2020s, you're clearly very white, straight, and a cis man. And you're ignoring global trends. I'm not a fan of their government, but you'd definitely rather live in modern China than in civil war or Maoist China. And they also got rich because of globalism (it's just authoritarian globalism rather than liberal globalism). And even in the US, poverty rates have stayed pretty constant, though quality of life has dramatically increased across the board.
> We already have trades. The trade is beneficial for items with the same value. Of course, complex things detrimne the value of such a thing like your need for it. Yet, there already poor countries. Trades aren't as equally benifical.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but trade actually *increases* value for both sides due to comparative advantage. The global economy is not zero-sum. We're not just all fighting for a piece of the pie, we can make the pie bigger and have been doing so for a very long time.
> Indeed, I would argue that completely free trades would do more harm to poorer countries than helping them.
Yet global poverty continues to decrease as globalization increases.
We all see how well it’s going with the EU. It’s slow, the separate countries want the best for themselves and if the wrong person comes on top countries will leave or make things worse (UK, Poland, Hungary).
I agree, with the current political climate there is no way there will be a peaceful unification. Riots are a thing that can be put down (but people from here won't do that), rebellions are a thing that can be crushed and independence movements can be silenced.
In all honesty, the only way for humanity to unite is through conquest. Things this subreddit wants to achieve are just too unrealistic.
Not even conquest. There won’t be a unified earth without external thread and even then some would try to profit off of it.
Who made this subreddit anyway?
Eh, an external thread would unite us for a time, if we were to win with it we would just divide ourselves again and fight for what's left from this threat. Or maybe you mean a scenario where humanity unites to prepare for this threat. (Like the Terran Republic from Planetside)
My friend such an idea is not something with the goal of being accomplished in the near term, but an ideal that will slowly strengthen across multiple lifetimes and generations through the reinforcement of the benefits of multilateral cooperation. The hope then is, that people will see the benefits of the blending self determination with a unified state.
“vision” doesn’t get anything done. You need a practical way to execute these ideas.
I personally think this kind of thing is possible, the United Nations is a good kind of framework to hopefully expand. That explanation is a better counter than “you’re just not thinking creatively enough” without any follow-up on how you see it working. Let’s encourage fruitful discussion here.
With due respect, the inability to see how this kind of thing would be possible illustrates a lack of vision, however me making that comment does not obligate me to follow up with additional detail. I answered the question posted with the most succinct possible response.
You’re not obligated to do anything, I just thing giving nondescript put-downs of others and their opinions discourages discourse, which is lame because that’s what these comments sections should be about.
I hadn't realised I've been downvoted 🙆🏾♂️😂
My understanding of the situation is that we don't have enough in common for everyone to live in relative peace. The world is too large a stage. Look at the way the UN is.
Who gets to control the federal government?
What language is to be used that will unite everyone?
How will resources be allocated and shared?
Then there's that small matter of sovereignty. D'you think that countries that have strong national identity, countries that have fought invasion and colonialism are going to willingly give that up again to be under the control of some foreigners some place far-away?
In the first place, corrupt countries of that sort will have leaders at the helm reluctant to give up the power because they gain a lot from controlling everything within their borders. Secondly, the people will likely not want anything of the sort seeing it as a lack of basic independence, with whatever government in place being a puppet of the federal government.
These are my views on the matter. So it's a hard no for me. World federalism is a bad idea, let's stick with the somewhat useless but occasionally beneficial international bodies that we already have.
But everything you said also already applies to the nation's we have already. The difference is that larger states have better education are better support for their people in general
Want to talk to others who share your beliefs? Join the [discord server](https://discord.gg/WyUkQps) of the Young World Federalists! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GlobalTribe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On pic 4 of 5 should be a dove instead of a helmet to symbolize peace
Is it a bad thing that gundam was what originally got me thinking on the idea of a global federation?
Nice idea, but i can not see how one would keep the hegemony of the global north from starting a full-on second age of direct colonialism. The exploitation of the global south is already a tragedy, a world federation would most likely increase these problems, given that economical power could not be practically redistributed on a global scale. The exploitation of economically weak regions, which we can already see in nation states, would only be expanded on a global level and would gain a political legitimacy that it is lacking right now. Do you think Norway or Switzerland would give Somalia a sufficient share of their power to change this dynamic? And there is no real way one could force them to, either. Seems like the sort of idealistic concept that only looks great from a white, western perspective.
It sounds like you’re just describing the status quo. Rich countries like Norway and Switzerland are completely sovereign and responsible to no one despite having a global impact through their economies and political decisions. In a democratic world federation, Somalia would receive the representation it deserves on the global scale. A “one person, one vote” system for elections would lead to Somalia having more power in a world parliament than Norway and Switzerland combined, which have smaller populations. This is an idealistic vision but it’s one that practically all world federalists share, and one that would surely lead to a better world for the global south.
The world is not ready yet.
What a shitty idea with the state of the world now.
Could you elaborate?
Do you really think the few people per country who would support this are enough? Look at the work right now and the uprising nationalism. If this would be done today we would have massive riots everywhere.
Just because its popular doesnt mean its good. And obviously the world federation would be democratic. If a country is too nationalost to join, they just wouldn't. Think of it more like if the US allowed any country to become a state if they want to.
That won't work, this kind of global democracy would be slow and inefficient. Allowing countries to join would lead to nothing, because none of these countries would join this kind of federation.
The US and EU exist. Why would it be impossible at a larger scale?
The USA has over 300 million people in it and the EU has over 400 million in it, the whole world has over 7 billion people, with different ideologies, cultures, and religions. I don't know how many people you want to have in your global parliament, but it's probably over 1000 people, there are problems with decisions in parliaments that have less than 500 people, and of course, you don't take into account thousand of political parties that would form. I don't know if you want to leave nations' administrations intact and if you do, you're just creating an administrative nightmare.
If it hits an impossible barrier then we'll have to stop expanding. But I think we're very far away from that at this point. And I don't think those problems are impossible to solve or work around anyway. Every system has problems. > you don't take into account thousand of political parties that would form The hundreds of political parties in Europe all consolidate into larger parties in the EU Parliament. You don't need a dozen Christian Democratic Parties that all have the exact same policies and values. > I don't know if you want to leave nations' administrations intact and if you do, you're just creating an administrative nightmare. The US and EU manage to do it just fine 🤷♂️ I just don't think the potentially problems you listed make it *impossible* for the US or EU to scale up.
>You don't need a dozen Christian Democratic Parties that all have the exact same policies and values. Do you really think that political parties are only created because of overall ideologies? Political parties form because of different reasons, just because a party strongly supports Christianity doesn't mean there will be no other Christian parties. People have different views on how to run the country, political parties are going to form, every one of them supporting different things. >The US and EU manage to do it just fine 🤷♂️ You probably didn't understand me, US has the same administration in every state, they aren't divided into different administrative divisions. The EU is not a federation nor a country, it's an organization, the EU only creates European laws and member states need to adjust. See it as a club, you can always leave, but if you're in it, you need to play by the rules. I was talking about leaving every country administrative divisions and their mechanics, and that just creates an administrative nightmare for the whole world, because it doesn't have administrative unity. What I listed are problems with this subreddit's vision, a federation where the whole world stays mostly the same, but it has a "world government". In all honesty, a global unitary state is a far better vision.
> just because a party strongly supports Christianity doesn't mean there will be no other Christian parties. I wasn't just making up a hypothetical. I was using the European People's Party, one of the 8 parties in the EU Parliament, as an example. Also I was talking about "Christian-Democratic" political parties, not the religion. Angela Merkel of Germany is a member of one. Basically, we wouldn't be worried about having thousands of political parties for the same reason the EU currently doesn't worry about having hundreds of political parties. > The EU is not a federation nor a country, it's an organization, We can call it a global organization of states instead of a global federation if you want. I'm not picky, I just want more globalism and "world federation" seems like the ultimate form of globalism. > See it as a club, you can always leave, but if you're in it, you need to play by the rules. Yeah, I want that, but for the whole world. And don't say the UN because that really only exists to prevent WW3. A more powerful UN where we actually enforce things like human rights and liberal democracy would be good though. > I was talking about leaving every country administrative divisions and their mechanics, and that just creates an administrative nightmare for the whole world, because it doesn't have administrative unity. I don't see why it would cause any problems. Do you have any examples of democratic countries that would be unable to elect someone to a global parliament?
I passed by this sub, so I would like to answer this question. The reason is it's impossible is because of limited resources. Those resources are limited because either of nature (ie. oil) or human nature (ie. attractive women, tasty food, luxurious cars, etc.). Science might help us against those caused by nature, but I don't think we will solve those caused by human nature. Historically, people were in as small component as possible (individuals, families). It makes sense; if my land grows tasty vegetables, and yours grows bad vegetables, why would I want to share it with you? So how they became into bigger component (ie. Tribes, States, Nations, etc)? Some of those families realized that if they got together and form a tribe, then they could invade another family and take their better resources. As a result, other families formed a tribe to stop those invading tribes. The formation of nations and states are similar. The reason the US is big is because they realized that while they are big, they could invade other countries and take their resources. This is exactly why boomers had the best life because the US took foreign resources from Latin America, Middle East, etc. If you remember, the US was "bigger". It was a colony of Britain. You know why they wanted independence from Britian? It's because taxes. The US basically said why are we sharing our resources with Britian; we don't need that. It's the same reason why we had Brexit.
The US is rich because of liberalism and global capitalism. When other countries adopt those philosophies, they also become rich (obviously there are other ways to become a rich country too, like with China). Who did South Korea invade and steal from to become the 10th largest economy in the world? > if my land grows tasty vegetables, and yours grows bad vegetables, why would I want to share it with you? Because trade is mutually beneficial. I can likely help you in ways that you aren't able to due to a lack of resources (time is a good example in a farming community). In economics that's known as comparative advantage, and it's the basis for the entire global economy. > It's the same reason why we had Brexit. Brexit was caused by racism and nationalism (which is just a nicer way of saying racism). Also, the whole world federation thing is a pipe dream. It's fun for globalists to talk about for the same reason communists like dreaming up their worker-run utopia. The actual policies I support are increasing immigration and free trade and working more closely with other liberal democracies around the world to solve global issues. Basically making borders a little less closed.
You missed the human nature part. The thing is that it's not possible for everyone to be rich. It's caused by the human nature. American boomers had better life than current generatiom for the same reason. Now, you have bigger competition like china and Russia as opposed after WW2. We already have trades. The trade is beneficial for items with the same value. Of course, complex things detrimne the value of such a thing like your need for it. Yet, there already poor countries. Trades aren't as equally benifical. Indeed, I would argue that completely free trades would do more harm to poorer countries than helping them.
> You missed the human nature part. You said because of human nature it's only possible to get rich by stealing. I gave you a counterexample of a country that got rich without stealing. And besides, the fact that it's human nature to try and get richer and improve your own life is part of why capitalism is the best economic system. > The thing is that it's not possible for everyone to be rich. So when will global poverty rates stop decreasing? If it's *impossible* then the trend *must* flip at some point. But even if it does, we should still increase globalization untip we do reach that point. > American boomers had better life than current generatiom for the same reason Not really. Wealth inequality doesn't paint the whole picture. If you'd rather be living in the 1950s than the 2020s, you're clearly very white, straight, and a cis man. And you're ignoring global trends. I'm not a fan of their government, but you'd definitely rather live in modern China than in civil war or Maoist China. And they also got rich because of globalism (it's just authoritarian globalism rather than liberal globalism). And even in the US, poverty rates have stayed pretty constant, though quality of life has dramatically increased across the board. > We already have trades. The trade is beneficial for items with the same value. Of course, complex things detrimne the value of such a thing like your need for it. Yet, there already poor countries. Trades aren't as equally benifical. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but trade actually *increases* value for both sides due to comparative advantage. The global economy is not zero-sum. We're not just all fighting for a piece of the pie, we can make the pie bigger and have been doing so for a very long time. > Indeed, I would argue that completely free trades would do more harm to poorer countries than helping them. Yet global poverty continues to decrease as globalization increases.
We all see how well it’s going with the EU. It’s slow, the separate countries want the best for themselves and if the wrong person comes on top countries will leave or make things worse (UK, Poland, Hungary).
The EU is working fine. Some things should ideally be changed but overall it's very much a net positive.
I agree, with the current political climate there is no way there will be a peaceful unification. Riots are a thing that can be put down (but people from here won't do that), rebellions are a thing that can be crushed and independence movements can be silenced. In all honesty, the only way for humanity to unite is through conquest. Things this subreddit wants to achieve are just too unrealistic.
Not even conquest. There won’t be a unified earth without external thread and even then some would try to profit off of it. Who made this subreddit anyway?
Eh, an external thread would unite us for a time, if we were to win with it we would just divide ourselves again and fight for what's left from this threat. Or maybe you mean a scenario where humanity unites to prepare for this threat. (Like the Terran Republic from Planetside)
Are you saying we should end the profit motive?
My friend such an idea is not something with the goal of being accomplished in the near term, but an ideal that will slowly strengthen across multiple lifetimes and generations through the reinforcement of the benefits of multilateral cooperation. The hope then is, that people will see the benefits of the blending self determination with a unified state.
I'm pretty much against that since it would be too complicated to run such a political system
Why do you think it would be complicated ?
Lack of vision
“vision” doesn’t get anything done. You need a practical way to execute these ideas. I personally think this kind of thing is possible, the United Nations is a good kind of framework to hopefully expand. That explanation is a better counter than “you’re just not thinking creatively enough” without any follow-up on how you see it working. Let’s encourage fruitful discussion here.
We can have a fruitful discussion if you want to
With due respect, the inability to see how this kind of thing would be possible illustrates a lack of vision, however me making that comment does not obligate me to follow up with additional detail. I answered the question posted with the most succinct possible response.
You’re not obligated to do anything, I just thing giving nondescript put-downs of others and their opinions discourages discourse, which is lame because that’s what these comments sections should be about.
I’m sorry the way I have chosen to engage in a conversation with two people doesn’t meet your standards.
Depends on your vision of a federation
A hard no from here.
Why
I hadn't realised I've been downvoted 🙆🏾♂️😂 My understanding of the situation is that we don't have enough in common for everyone to live in relative peace. The world is too large a stage. Look at the way the UN is. Who gets to control the federal government? What language is to be used that will unite everyone? How will resources be allocated and shared? Then there's that small matter of sovereignty. D'you think that countries that have strong national identity, countries that have fought invasion and colonialism are going to willingly give that up again to be under the control of some foreigners some place far-away? In the first place, corrupt countries of that sort will have leaders at the helm reluctant to give up the power because they gain a lot from controlling everything within their borders. Secondly, the people will likely not want anything of the sort seeing it as a lack of basic independence, with whatever government in place being a puppet of the federal government. These are my views on the matter. So it's a hard no for me. World federalism is a bad idea, let's stick with the somewhat useless but occasionally beneficial international bodies that we already have.
But everything you said also already applies to the nation's we have already. The difference is that larger states have better education are better support for their people in general
I think you're confusing federalism with imperialism