> we do not live under world government where sovereign nations are subject to international legal restrictions
We ought to. The notion that nation-states are allowed to run rampage and be as anarchic as they please, internationally, is stupid.
We ought to. The notion that nation-states are allowed to run rampage and be as anarchic as they please, internationally, is stupid.
My family emigrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh. It's a place where you see women covered up in the name of Islam, etc, and its getting worse over the last 20 years, not better. I have absolutely zero desire to be part of a democratic community with people who believe these things, and I bet if you're honest with yourself neither do you. But that's what happens when you mix international legal norms with democracy. You oblige yourself to follow the votes of people who have totally different cultural values to yourself.
And this isn't a one-way street either. I imagine most Europeans would prefer not to be part of a democratic community that included Americans and their notably more conservative approach to many issues.
Now, I know what you're thinking. Can you take iran and israel and make one country out of them? What a ridiculous idea, it would only end in bloodshed. Here's the thing that's ridiculous to me: that we tolerate it when countries deny people their human rights because it happens inside their borders. Team America, World Police, right? Well, despite being a European I'm all for that if it means we finally get rid of human rights violations. It's not ok to deny women their human rights, so Iranians must eventually comply with that or face consequences before a court of law. Similarly it's not ok for Israelis and Palestinians to deny each other their human rights, so eventually they must comply with that or face consequences before a court of law.
The way I see it, the discussion is not about what needs to be done, only on when it will come about. Economically, we've already formed frameworks that span the globe, like the WTO and IMF, and we have somehow managed to bring everyone into a single unified economic theory, even the communists. Now we just need to do the same thing for the other half of what governments do and unify the social theory.
To be fair, in America, and on paper at least, that's why we don't have a straight democracy, but we actually have a federal republic, and a bill of rights that protects all.
In a democracy, you end up effecting the will of the majority, even where that majority is wrong. In America, there is no shortage of people who would be more than happy to restrict one's right to free religion, free speech, etc., etc. In a pure democracy, even with political parties, we'd be subject to whichever party happened to be the majority. In the case of Russia, that may be the Orthodox Church, in the case of Iran, it may be Islamists, in the case of America, it could be the Catholic Church.
We set aside a purer democracy for the notion that all beliefs that do not harm others are allowed, and we have (in theory at least) protections that exist specifically to shield the minority from the majority. While we don't allow for the stoning of adulterers in this country (as that would most specifically infringe on the rights of those being stoned), we do allow for freedom of religion, even where that religion is Satanism, Islam, or any other religion that does not share the majority view.
I'm sure the range of viewpoints within the U.S. is bigger than the difference between the average viewpoint in the U.S. and the average viewpoint in Bangladesh. But what's the really relevant measure is the average viewpoint in the U.S., weighted by 300 million people, and the average viewpoint in Bangladesh, weighted by 150 million people, and the gap between those two huge masses of beliefs.
Moreover, we have internal boundaries in the U.S. to ease certain internal disparities in belief systems. E.g. right to work versus right to unionize? That's decided at the state level. "Rights" that are recognized at the national level tend to be supported by national consensus, and when they're not
> and why we have constitutions and courts of law to uphold them
Who decides what's in the constitutions? Unelected Philosopher-Kings? If, instead, people get input into the constitutions by which they're governed, then you're back to square one. Bangladesh, originally created as a secular republic, amended its constitution in the late 1980's to make Islam the state religion. The new Egyptian constitution makes "the principles of Islamic law the main source of legislation..." Which courts of law are going to tell them they can't do that? What of the real danger that they tell us that we have to do that?
Nitpicking: That is impossible - besides both variations are equally large - because the USA is a part of the planet. But I guess the variations in many countries are not much smaller than across the whole planet.
A democratic world government would be a disaster. Democracy works best when all the participants have common interests and culture. Since the incredible diversity of humanity would never naturally align on any given issue, it would just get co-opted by pre-existing powers. Probably the first things that would happen are the creation of a global central bank, followed by price-fixing in the fossil fuels markets.
I believe I'll just sign up with the rebels now, to save time.
A world government sounds nice in theory (let's call it 'The Federation'), but I don't think you could even joke about one without peeving off more than half of the global populace. We simply aren't at a place in human history where international law can actually be binding or where nations can put aside their differences and work together (also known as a Power-of-Friendship-ocracy).
So, yeah, a total lack of enforceable international law/government is a stupid idea; I'm just not sure anyone has a better idea yet.
That said, I fully support the formation of a real planetary government.