Note: This essay was originally published when England had the vote to exit the European Union, August 2016. It has been updated and re-published because of its continued relevance.
UK’s vote for Brexit is an anti-thesis of my goal of a world government. I believe we should orientate all international policies towards and eventual world government, based upon limited democracy.
As the Brexit voters showed, there are plenty of sacrifices to be made by establishing a world government. Here are some: invasion by immigrants, minority cultures taking over the national culture, and less control over one’s fate.
However, here are some of the problems with only national governments:
Interminable wars, for example Syria, Afganstan, Iraq, Iran (treatening war), and China (possibly threatening war in the near future). Perhaps a 1,000 year war of attrition between Islam and Western civilization.
Civil wars that can’t be controlled by other countries, for example the jihadist wars in Nigeria and Senegal.
A constant threat of World War III, especially with the possibility of Iraq getting a nuclear bomb.
International crime that cannot be controlled by national governments, for example cyber theft (hacking and theft of intellectual property stored on computers) and cyber fraud.
Other international problems that can’t be controlled by independent governments, for example global warming, global pollution, and depletion of raw resources (e.g., water, sand, coal, fish, and minerals).
Over population, which national governments can’t control.
A world government won’t result in paradise, just like the European Union isn’t a paradise. But a world government is infinitely better than the destruction of civilization. For example, the problems of the European Union are infinitely better than the problems of World War I and World War II. A world government is better than World War III.