Monday, November 10, 2014

All for One


Blogg Post 3
GVPT200
Professor Lugg

All for One
            The international financial system that is currently in place protects countries of financial obligations post war.  Implemented after World War II, the Bretton Woods System is system that leading countries of the world all take part to keep the worlds economy afloat.  I argue that the current system of international economy is the base building block for a world government.
            Narrowing our focus two key components of a powerful state: the military power and financials stability.  Of course, there are other factors, but we will focus only on these two factors.  After World War II, the world suffered economic turmoil.  The losers of the war economies were shattered.  As well as, the winners had war debt to repay.  In addition, the states lost multiple military resources.  Nuclear power and mutual assured destruction had begun to arise.  As a result, the Cold War began. 
            Aside for the military perspective of global power, the financial stability of the world needed regulation.  Therefore, upon urgent agreement sovereign states must agree monetarily.  So began, a cooperative financial system, the Bretton Woods system, to compensate for floating exchange rates, to establish fixed rates, to limit convertibility, and lastly an institution to regulate these factors.  Under these circumstances, the leading sovereign states agree on a system that regulates financial factors is close to a world government.  Take note that, the institutions that regulate the international economy, systematically run on the power of voting and consecutive agreement, much like a democracy.  A vital clue is uncovered and begs the question: if the world’s finances can run democratically, what else can function democratically on the global scale?  Would a global Constitution work?  Would global individual rights work? 
            On the contrary, establishing a global democracy comes with four contradictions.  First, Religion is a major factor will hinder this argument.  Although, the different religions differ with specifics, so lets' boil down religion to: treating all people equally, or along the same lines of a feminist.  The specific nature of religion begins with a belief above ones’ self.  Likewise, forcing one specific religion is unethical; therefore, the religion factor is simply treating all people with respect. Secondly, another set back to a global government is the lead country in charge.  This notion is can be answered just like our financial problem.  Every sovereign state will have a vote and evenly distributed power.  Thirdly, the military factor, as discussed in lecture mutual assured destruction (MAD) has prevented nuclear war, so it is safe to assume that MAD can work on a lower scale.  In the same light, states that cause global intervention, e.g. Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan will have to dealt with by killing off the regimes that break the only religion rule, treating all people equally, obviously they can not function.  That statement may sound harsh, but a global government will have to make drastic decisions for the common good.  Lastly, a global language, this factor branches into culture and citizen’s heritage; similar to the religion factor, imposing one language for the world is unethical. 
            A global government may give the impression of only a few countries have over all power.  Therefore, staying focused on how our global finical system like the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and others alike will be he base line building block for a global government.  All the set backs of this argument are inconclusive, but these main deterrents are typically the causes of world issues presently.  In conclusion, will a global government work? 

2 comments:

  1. Hey Kai,

    I really liked your post and how you supplied counter arguments to your own thesis of a world government. Some of these counter arguments can be dealt with if the world government gives certain rights to their citizens. I see no reason a world government could not allow freedom of religion, allowing each person to practice what ever they wanted to. For the third objection of killing dictatorial regimes I think it will be easier and more swift with a world government. Instead of one actor always doing the intervening the U.S an entire world army would descend upon them, drastically reducing the likelihood that these regimes would be created in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kai, I find your very utilitarian argument very relevant, if a little disconcerting. Can it really be a responsibility of a global government to modify entire states because they have a religion-based government, Not all states want to or should be secular and that is one factor of many that does not need regulation when states are formed-just a thought.

    ReplyDelete