World Federal Government: The Death of the Nation State and the Rise of the City-State

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
I was digging around for information on something and i stumbled across this article (March 2021) from the London School of Economics(LSE) blog. Rather than dropping the article in another thread, i think this subject of a "world federal gov't" deserves it's own thread and to explore what people think about this proposal. While the prospect of a World Gov't is a staple in conspiracy circles, this thread is meant to chronicle the growing calls, presently in mainstream publications, to actually create one....since Covid has presented such a very convinient opportunity.

"In a previous EUROPP article written during the first wave of the pandemic in Europe, I examined ways of financing measures to tackle Covid-19 and the relaunch of the global economy. In the concluding paragraph, I proposed a world federal government.

Federalism has many advantages, as explained in the Federalist Papers more than two centuries ago, including peace and free movement of people and capital within defined borders. The inability of states to deal with the pandemic should encourage us to explore new approaches to governance, drawing on our knowledge of what has worked in the past. With this in mind, there are at least seven reasons why we should now consider moving toward a world federal government.

....Major innovations in governance are often based on a shift in requirements triggered by a particular event. If the world has not already moved to global federalism today, it is in part because there has yet to be a trigger for pushing states in this direction.

In the past, crises such as the two World Wars of the 20th century have acted as triggers for change. Today, we face a war against a virus. Perhaps, the situation created by Covid-19 might serve to highlight the particular advantages of shifting to a world federal government. This may trigger a change that would not only help mitigate the damage caused by the pandemic, but would also offer a solution to many of the other challenges humanity currently faces."



From Wikipedia
"World federalism or global federalism is a political ideology advocating a democratic, federal world government. A world federation would have authority on issues of global reach, while the members of such a federation would have authority over local and national issues. The overall sovereignty over the world population would largely reside in the federal government."
 
Last edited:

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
Nov 22nd 2021
"Will Covid-19 encourage us to make that order even stronger? Past great catastrophes made us think differently. New ways of managing international relations came out of the Napoleonic wars and the two world wars. The pandemic has highlighted weaknesses, for example in supply chains, and exacerbated inequalities. The world’s nations have too often resorted to blaming each other, and the distribution of vaccines to poorer countries has been shamefully slow. Yet there was an impressive international effort to develop and administer vaccines. Are we going to learn some lessons?

We had better do so quickly, for we face more pandemics, more global turbulence and, above all, the existential threat of climate change. Can we start, as Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan recently suggested in an article for Foreign Affairs, with a new Concert of Powers, with the limited goal of maintaining stability? The obstacles are formidable. Rogue nations defy world opinion. Regional rivalries threaten to spill over into war. Powerful leaders act as if there is no tomorrow, leaving long-term damage. Donald Trump betrayed and insulted allies. Britain continues to alienate its neighbours and biggest trading partners. “Donnez-moi un break” is not going to bridge the gulf that has opened up with the French.

You have to be an optimist at the moment to believe in a world government built on cooperation and shared values. If Hobbes and his followers are right, a state of anarchy among nations is all we can hope for. Or does the future hold one of those other models? A Concert of Great Powers, or something else? We thought the age of empires was over; maybe it has merely been resting."
 
Last edited:

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
March 2020

July 2020

"According to Blair’s policy institute, a global pandemic response must be able to perform a wide range of tasks: to coordinate mass testing and contact tracing, equip countries with the medical equipment they need, raise production capacity, avoid supply-chain bottlenecks, and coordinate industrial production. It should be in a position to prevent equipment seizures, overcome export barriers, ensure data sharing and technology transfers, coordinate economic support, and supervise food and agriculture to alleviate catastrophic food insecurity.

Some of this agenda could be achieved straightforwardly enough through interstate treaties rather than a new global executive. However, much of it would require real governmental authority for the new body, not least the ability to compel national governments to obey its directives, even if Blair — always the savvier public relations operator of the Brown-Blair duo — makes no explicit mention of the term “world government.”

Gordon Brown seems to be taking action to put this into effect. He convinced more than 200 former prime ministers, presidents, and other senior politicians to sign a letter supporting the creation of a G20 executive task force to deal with the twin viral and economic crises. Signatories included the ex-leaders of Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain, Pakistan, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, South Africa, and South Korea, not to mention former UN general secretaries, European Commission presidents, World Bank heads, and many more besides.

This “G20 on steroids” is only meant to be the temporary, quick-fix precursor of something more permanent:

The longer-term solution is a radical rethink of global public health and a refashioning — together with proper resourcing — of the global health and financial architecture. The United Nations, the governments of the G20 nations, and interested partners should work together to coordinate further action.

Brown has introduced a clear line of thinking into the public realm — one that has been taking shape among figures of the technocratic center for some time now, identifying a need for some form of global governance in the face of worldwide threats.

The world is already “governed” by some 1,000 treaties and agencies that involve varying levels of finance and enforcement. For these centrists, moving toward a world government would not be a revolution so much as the next logical step, accelerated by the pandemic and the accompanying economic downturn.

In the fraternity of “anti-globalists,” the libertarians of the Mises Institute have issued a warning against any move to exploit the pandemic so as to establish a world government. Another cry of alarm has come from a transnational group of conservative Catholic bishops and cardinals. The group, which included senior clerics from Europe, Asia, and the United States, issued an appeal warning people against “powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population,” allegedly with the goal of imposing illiberal measures that would be “a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control.”
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
2008

The Resurgent Idea of World Government
[Full Text] Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 22.2 (Summer 2008)


"The idea of world government is returning to the mainstream of scholarly thinking about international relations. Universities in North America and Europe now routinely advertise for positions in "global governance," a term that few would have heard of a decade ago. Chapters on cosmopolitanism and governance appear in many current international relations (IR) textbooks. Leading scholars are wrestling with the topic, including Alexander Wendt, perhaps now America's most influential IR theorist, who has recently suggested that a world government is simply "inevitable." While some scholars envision a more formal world state, and others argue for a much looser system of "global governance," it is probably safe to say that the growing number of works on this topic can be grouped
together into the broader category of "world government"—a school of thought that supports the creation of international authority (or authorities) that can tackle the global problems that nation-states currently cannot."


Pretty much all the big thinktanks and NGOs have their little "global governance" centers/programs. I'll only post WEF and the CFR.
1651774405169.png

1651774436989.png

1651774470015.png
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
Written by the big man himself (Schwab), he bemoans how many people are blaming our present predicament on the "Davos Man".

"A new governance model is crucial for our world - the primacy of society and nature needs to be at its focus instead of prioritizing the business and finance world.
Global governance has an unresolved problem: both our institutions and our leaders are no
longer fit for their purpose.


As the Fourth Industrial Revolution and climate change continue to disrupt our current lives, public and corporate governance needs to change, too.

When the COVID-19 pandemic ends, the world will need a new governance model that differs from its predecessors in several fundamental respects. In particular, while finance, economics, and business remain vitally important, they must serve society and nature – not the other way around. In 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic and the myriad crises it spawned may finally start to recede. But even in that best-case scenario, a tsunami of new challenges – from the failure of climate action to the erosion of social cohesion – is within sight. Addressing them will require leaders to adopt a different governance model.

When our institutions are well governed, we pay little attention to them. They are simply invisible infrastructure supporting the economy and virtually all aspects of the social order. And “good enough” governance in the second half of the twentieth century enabled income growth and social peace. Today, however, many people have lost faith in their leaders. Faced with mounting risks and our collective failure to address them, we have started looking for culprits. Some point the finger at inept political leaders, others blame “Davos Man” CEOs, and a desperate, growing minority sees an elite conspiracy behind the current doom and gloom.

The truth is more complicated. At the heart of our failure to foresee and manage global risks – not only climate change and deepening social divisions but also the reemergence of infectious diseases, debt crises, and inadequate technology regulation – lies an unresolved problem of global governance. Our institutions and their leadership are no longer fit for purpose."
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
2019

"This is the crux of the problem: nation-states rely on control. If they can’t control information, crime, businesses, borders or the money supply, then they will cease to deliver what citizens demand of them. In the end, nation-states are nothing but agreed-upon myths: we give up certain freedoms in order to secure others. But if that transaction no longer works, and we stop agreeing on the myth, it ceases to have power over us.

So what might replace it?

The city-state increasingly looks like the best contender. These are cities with the same independent sovereign authority as nations, places such as Monaco or Singapore. The city-state has recently been feted by Forbes magazine (‘A New Era For The City-State?’ 2010), Quartz (‘Nations Are No Longer Driving Globalisation – Cities Are’, 2013), The Boston Globe (‘The City-State Returns’, 2015) and the Gates Foundation-funded How We Get to Next (‘The Rebirth of the City-State’, 2016)."
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
1,829

The Health Assembly met in a Special Session, the second-ever since WHO’s founding in 1948, and adopted a sole decision titled: “The World Together.” The decision by the Assembly establishes an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, with a view to adoption under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, or other provisions of the Constitution as may be deemed appropriate by the INB.

...and submit its outcome for consideration by the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024.


It seems we will have a world constitution in 2024. This is not an international law authorized to punish the governments, but a constitution that directly tells governments what to do. The first two from the legislative executive judiciary are being prepared. Although there is talk of an intergovernmental body, we know who will make the rules. They ruled 200 countries in two years, although they didn't have a recognized authority. Now "de facto" becomes legal.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Messages
629
View attachment 74089





I reckon they have miraculously deduced an impeccable solution to a large practical problem i.e. an intermediate step between the current state of distributed ownership of Earth's landmass (i.e. arbitrary lines/borders on world map; maximum area) to reaching a state of complete omission of all territorial borders/boundaries.

Should city states come into being then a lot of landmass (in all nations) might be declared 'common' via UN (akin to already established 'common ****ing wealth').

Post this is achieved, then, in say a warlike situation, the humongous problem of sweeping entire landmass of another country by a military wont be that of a preposterous task no more and this task will be minimised as it will merely be a task of taking control the city-state geographical miniature area.





N.B.: btw schwab is merely a puppet of the beast. schwab didn't introduced 'great reset' blueprint first time to Gaia and her inhabitants on #03Jun2020
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
I reckon they have miraculously deduced an impeccable solution to a large practical problem i.e. an intermediate step between the current state of distributed ownership of Earth's landmass (i.e. arbitrary lines/borders on world map; maximum area) to reaching a state of complete omission of all territorial borders/boundaries.

Should city states come into being then a lot of landmass (in all nations) might be declared 'common' via UN (akin to already established 'common ****ing wealth').

Post this is achieved, then, in say a warlike situation, the humongous problem of sweeping entire landmass of another country by a military wont be that of a preposterous task no more and this task will be minimised as it will merely be a task of taking control the city-state geographical miniature area.
Yes, the creation of City-states (Agenda 21) certainly requires the redrawing of geographical boundaries, dissolving constitutions and national sovereignty because they would be governing huge chunks of territory that would have been part of other countries. Ofcourse there is the problem of getting a group of people and shoving them into another region that they don’t like…different food, weather, traditions etc. TPTB are working hard to overcome that obstacle. “Climate change”/natural disasters could be used to induce mass migration OR If you suddenly have no memory of the past and have lost the concept of your identity, culture or traditions, there would be no resistance if you were picked up and relocated to a different part of the world.


1652182409942.png
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
1998
"Imagine a land in which the dominant culture is an internationalized one, at every level; in which the political units that really matter are confederations of city-states; in which loyalty is an economic concept, when it is not obsolete; in which "the United States" exists chiefly to provide military protection. That is the land our correspondent glimpses, and it is no longer beyond the horizon"
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
2021
1653305531677.png

This essay is part of a series exploring bold ideas to revitalize and renew the American experiment. Read more about this project in a note from Ezekiel Kweku, Opinion’s politics editor.

“From its beginning, the United States was built to expand. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to create states. Starting with the Vermont Republic in 1791, as America grew, the country’s roster of states expanded as well.

But since the addition of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959, America hasn’t increased the number of states, and unless some future president winds up buying Greenland, the United States is unlikely to expand territorially. Nonetheless, it continues to expand —demographically. Since 1960, the country has added over 150 million people through a combination of immigration and natural population increase. Yet we haven’t upped our state count.

This is a problem. America needs new states not only to provide representation for those living in territories but also more urgently to provide adequate representation to those who have congressional representation but whose votes perversely carry less weight because of their state’s size.

And America needs new states to improve the internal governance of the states and the country. We need new states — and the place to start is to carve them out of the largest states that already exist.

Similarly, splitting California into at least three states — as has been proposed before, most recently in a failed ballot initiative —would allow its very different regions to pursue policies appropriate to their character and interests.
California could even plausibly be broken into as many as five states, if the Bay Area and Los Angeles were hived off to become city-states, which they are certainly populous enough to be.

There will be sentimental objections to these suggestions as well as practical ones — how could we even consider breaking up the Empire State? But sentiment about the past should not obscure the possibilities of creation. How often does a political community get a chance to choose a new name for itself, a new flag to fly? We shouldn’t pass up the opportunity to refound political communities on a new and more inclusive basis.

It sometimes seems the United States is flying apart into mutually hostile factions. The genius of our federal system is that it provides a framework for a multiplicity of communities, with different interests and values, to live together as part of a single country. If that system feels as though it’s breaking down, maybe it’s partly because its components are out of balance.”
 
Last edited:

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
1654983150954.png

Local Government Will Emerge Stronger After the Pandemic

By Robert Muggah, founder of the Igarapé Institute and SecDev Group, and the co-author of Terra Incognita: 100 Maps to Survive the Next 100 Years

The coronavirus pandemic is exposing the quality of governments around the world. Many national leaders have failed the test—in contrast to the leaders of regions and cities, who have faced the pandemic head-on in their communities, showed greater competence, and earned the trust of their constituents. In the process, the virus is clarifying the division of powers between different levels of government and strengthening the hand of regions and cities.The virus is clarifying the division of powers between different levels of government—and strengthening the hand of regions and cities.

The current focus of governors and mayors is on saving lives, delivering essential services, maintaining law and order, and supporting economic recovery. But already, there are local leaders looking beyond the pandemic and actively reimagining life in their communities. Limited finances will favor cost-effective policies that generate multiple benefits—including better ways to provide health care to the most vulnerable and promoting greener economies. Future government services will be more digitalized, leaner, and more distributed.

Throughout history, infectious disease outbreaks have had a profound effect on local governance. The bubonic plague in the 14th century led to a rethinking of squalid urban spaces. Cholera outbreaks in the 19th century triggered massive urban redevelopment schemes and a dramatic buildout of sewage systems. The current coronavirus pandemic will likewise generate transformations in governance—from invasive surveillance technologies to track infections and enforce quarantines to major spending on health care to keep this and future diseases under control.
 
Top