Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: United Nations as future World Government and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Posted 2 years ago on March 22, 2012, 10:48 p.m. EST by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Although I may not be around to see it, I believe that the day is coming when the United Nations will emerge as the "Federal Government" of the "United States of the World". Whether this is good or bad is a moot point. The trend of international events seems to indicate that the world will be faced with either adopting such an arrangement to preserve itself, or else being forced to adopt it after some terrible global catastrophe. Either way, the UN is the logical body to assume such a role. It already has an International Court of Justice (aka World Court) which is analogous to the US Supreme Court, a Legislative body of sorts in the form of the Security Council and General Assembly that routinely pass UN Resolutions, and a Secretary-General roughly analogous to the US President. All three of these "branches" of the UN could easily be adapted to function in a similar manner as the three branches of the US Government currently operate. Due to the size and scope of governing the entire world, there would no doubt be differences between the current US Constitution and the UN "Constitution" (my suggestion would be NOT to have the Secretary-General in charge of the World Armed Forces -- that role would logically fall to the Security Council). But logically, there would appear to be no impossible barriers to forming a world government under the framework that already exists. 

Some people are terrified to think of the possibility of a World Government. While some of those fears may have some basis in theoretical possibility, my personal opinion, for whatever worth it might have, is that many of those fears will prove unjustified, for the following reasons.

As more and more countries acquire nuclear capability, wars between nations now hold the real possibility for global destruction on a scale that we cannot begin to imagine. Additionally, the world economy would collapse on an unprecedented scale. Because of these nightmare scenarios, the nation-state paradigm that has governed the world for thousands of years has become dangerously obsolete. If one adopts the view that we are all ONE people, on ONE planet, with ONE world economy, it is only logical and sane that we would institute ONE government. Without it, as things stand now, we are World Citizens engaged in World Civil War with all of these international conflicts and "police actions" around the globe that are constantly going on. It is a remnant of Colonial Imperialism. A mechanism to at least attempt to control this age-old tendency to war among ourselves, like children fighting over toys, must be found if we are to save ourselves and the rest of the life forms on this biosphere. 

Governments exist primarily as institutions of law. Legislatures create laws, Courts interpret laws presented in disputes, and Administrations enforce those laws.  Just as US Federal Law trumps US State Law, the UN Law would trump national laws of the various nations of the world.  There is no need to assume that because there is World Government that sovereign nations cease to exist, anymore than because US Federal Government exists that US States cease to exist. It is merely the next logical step in establishing another tier of government to cope with the global problems that have emerged in the 21st century as the world has grown increasingly smaller, more technologically united, and yet more dangerously politically divided. 

Occupy should be quite interested in the development of the UN as the eventual body responsible for curtailing large multi-national corporations world-wide. It is not hard to understand why. Consider the best-case scenario possible in the US. Even if We The People are successful someday in passing legislation that severely alters the Corporate landscape in a significantly favorable way, those Corporations will simply move to another country where they are free to operate unhindered. They will keep moving around forever if need be, always looking for a national government that could be bribed and/or owned through powerful lobbying or other forms of influence. If the UN passed legislation outlawing their destructive activities globally, they would have nowhere else to run. They would have to comply and behave themselves. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, holds theoretical potential to transform the planet. It greatly surpasses the US Bill of Rights in scope, lays the foundation for adoption by world nations as a guide toward an evolving global legal system, and provides a blueprint for Global Citizenry for the 21st Century. Should World Government come about, this document must stand center stage as the legal basis for that New World Order's existence.

Please see the below link for an example of how the future rights of Global Citizens may be protected by World Government. It (WG) may not be as bad as some people fear, and it has the potential to solve problems that cannot be solved under the current national sovereignty paradigm. 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

38 Comments

38 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Blank213 (6) from McCracken, KS 2 years ago

No it is not a "moot point" ! That is nothing more than a road to ruin.

[-] 2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

look up Agenda21. one world govt, all under the UN,.....world wide fascism.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Is what we have now the road to paradise? Is it the road to anywhere other than a super-highway to environmental destruction, mass species extinction, and eventual nuclear Armageddon?

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Government is best that governs locally. Power to the people, not to another layer of government run by more politicians.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

When you say "governs locally", what exactly is your vision for that? What is your definition of local? A government for each town, therefore, no State or Federal government? Is that what you are advocating?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Fewer layers of government are more responsive to the wishes of the people. Should the Kurds in northern Iraq be governed by Baghdad? They are perfectly able to govern themselves and create their own nation.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So then we should be happy to eliminate the hundreds of redundant national govts,

Have a UN world govt that deals with only thelargest issues and implement real emocracy at thelocal level.

The elimination of nations doesn't mean no local direct democracy! It can facilitate it.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

And a bureaucrat in Geneva would make a better decision regarding Los Angeles than one in Washington D.C.?

"Government is best which governs least" and "government is better near than far".

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ok great. Let's have local govt, governing least with direct democracy.

Eliminate all national, & state govts. And one world govt to make sure worldwide resources are used fairly, to eliminate the need for wars over borders and multiple redundant standing armies.

See no fear. We don't have to envision the worst case. It can be good for everyone.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

I think UN is new world water, which is governed locally. i mean, who is really dictates the agenda? And who always deny the leadership? http://thekeytoeternity.blogspot.com/2010/12/worldwide-great-lakes-water-conspiracy.html still trolling

[-] 2 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

And you believe that this would be a good thing?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I believe just about anything would be better than what we have now, because what we have now is leading us toward a very bad end if we cannot reverse the trend, both environmentally and politically (oh, and yes, economically).

[-] 2 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 2 years ago

I don't agree that " just about anything" would be better. Be careful about what you wish for. You may get it.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I've come to believe that we're already there to an extent, even though it's not being talked about openly. Seems like the UN and the US are playing 'good cop/bad cop.' The UN is using the US' superior military to take over countries in the middle east in order to 'westernize' them so that they can better fit into a global world.

Our society evolves just like humans have..gradually. I think the major discussions at the top are whether the global society should be socialist or capitalist. I view OWS as pawns for those that want socialism, and the tea party as pawns for those that want capitalism.

[-] 2 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the tea party people want the USA to be the country upon which principals it was founded. Do you have a problem with the constitution and the bill of rights?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Civilizations evolve so therefore political charters should evolve with it. To think that any charter EVER should remain constant indefinitely is not logical. So to answer your question I love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but to think that they are perfect and should remain constant is a dangerous idea. We've created a "straight jacket" of a society for the younger generations.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the constitution has evolved through the ammendments .

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

So if it's essentially an evolving document, then it's already removing itself from the principles it was founded upon.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

no it isnt, it is not changeing any of the founding principles,...........it is adding amendments but none of the original articles ( principles) I through VII have been changed

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Interesting and intelligent response. Do you believe Socialism or Capitalism should prevail? Or do you have no opinion about that?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

What I'd like to see happen would be closer to socialism than to capitalism. One reason being is that right now, capital is actively getting rid of human labor in favor of machine labor (computers, robotic systems, etc) and this trend is only going to accelerate. This is a positive advancement for our civilization, but our system needs to change to accommodate it. The people at the top that prefer capitalism know this, but realize that any kind of transition will involve them giving up not only 'wealth' but power too, and they are afraid of this, which is understandable, so they are using free market rhetoric as a defense.

The key word I think is 'sustainability' which is a word that the UN uses frequently. We have the resources and the knowledge to create a sustainable society that can cushion the fall from a rapidly declining labor market. I believe we will ultimately move in the right direction, but I'm afraid that things may not move fast enough until the baby boomer generation dies off. I know that sounds sort of harsh, but there is a huge divide between that particular generation and the younger folks. Things are changing so fast right now, especially in terms of technology, so it's understandable why there's a divide.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I am quite impressed with your insights. As a Boomer born exactly in the middle of it (1955), I express my generation's sadness and regret that we are passing along quite a mess to you guys. I had hoped that the idealism of the 60s would have produced some improvements. But then a large number of Boomers just decided to cash-in and became Young Republicans. They just couldn't break with their parents influence/worship of materialism after they (parents) went through the Great Depression.

That is part of the reason I stand in support of Occupy I guess. I accept part of the responsibility and apologize to the younger generation for what is being handed to you. We Boomers must plead guilty as charged.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Thanks! I'm impressed with your insights too. My parents are boomers as well. I'm hoping that my generation (I'm almost 30) will be better, but, I think the changes with generations will be incremental. Every generation a little bit better. I have a friend that thinks a lot of the baby boomers will change pretty fast if the social security crisis takes hold like many are expecting.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Your friend is right!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Excellent POST Underdog !

I believe in the hearts of the majority, we all want global peace and prosperity. And to accomplish this we will need a communicating government of reason. At best we prevent nuclear catastrophe.

The universal declaration of human rights, is a wonderful document.

As time goes on , I too see this globalization taking place .. it's our only course we should take , as we [ mankind ] reach towards the future . building a better tomorrow.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Go peddle your UN-One World-NWO-Globalist trash elsewhere. It ain't inevitable. Get lost.

What you are selling is actually the peace of the prison yard. We would all work in FOXCONN hells, except for you and the .01%ers. I guess you'd be serving the nectar of the gods to and rubbing the feet of the Sky People.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Thank you for that intelligent and well-reasoned response.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We WILL NOT see it. You're right. but in the 100 years we've seen the UN, Org American States, Arab league, African Congres, Asian organization, EU.

The movement of consolidation is unmistakeable.

We must recognize it and seek to control it so it serves the 99%

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

This is the final decision that is inevitable. It has the most potential for greatness but also has the most potential for badness. It is the way I want things to go. The USA needs to answer to a higher power for all of its failures (war crimes & citizen crimes) & this is the only way it can happen.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I also think that it is probably inevitable also. I have mixed feelings about it. I regret that the world could not solve all of its multitude of problems without it coming to this. My hope is that it will be structured with enough safeguards to prevent World Dictatorship. That is, after all, everyone's greatest fear associated with it. I think, by and large, it has the potential to solve more of these incredibly complex world problems than it would create (hopefully).

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

quark = another amercain apologist.

[-] 1 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Is your brain always so quick to label with compartmentalization? Are all your thought fragmented? Did your parents teach you any better?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The United Nations may be a good model for capitalist and hierarchal nation states to organized themselves, but that doesn't make it necessarily a good model for a non-hierarchal society. Right now we are still working out how to govern ourselves locally and there are only a handful of general assemblies in this huge nation. I think our efforts at international solidarity have been outstanding but it will be a long long time before we are in a position to coordinate our assemblies or similar bodies internationally.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Just so I understand you, are you saying that the future US government, and other governments of other nations should adopt a decentralized non-hierarchical government operating along the lines of Occupy GAs? Is that what you're advocating?

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Personally I think there are a lot of problems with the way general assemblies are organized and the way they conduct business. There is no consensus in OWS regarding its vision of the future beyond the notion that it supports non-hierarchal social organization. As a movement OWS seems to be committed to the spread of general assemblies as the basic unit of social organization. Personally I am skeptical of this and I don't think that geographically based general assemblies are the only possible form of non-hierarchal social organization.

But the fact is OWS is a very young and very small movement. General assembies represent only a very tiny proportion of the general pubic, undoubtedly far less than on tenth of 1% at this point. As OWS continues to grow and evolve it will undoubtedly experiment with a variety of decision making mechanisms.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

If I am understanding you, the point of focus then is on non-hierarchical society. I have no concept as to what that would look like. Is it harkening back to the 1960s commune experiments that ultimately failed? How do I find out more about this?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Whenever humanity is embarked on something new, it is by definition an uncharted course. Very often it tries to make sense of a new course by harking back to something very old. For example, the Protestant Reformation tended to claim that it was trying to restore first century Christianity rather than on embarking on something really new.

I don't think that there are many good examples of truly egalitarian social relations, though in a sense it is like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography. You know it when you see it. If it's not working it is probably not a good example.

[-] -2 points by F350 (-259) 2 years ago

This is an OWS wet dream.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Whether wet, dry, or something else, it is only a possible vision of tomorrow...one of the more sane ones, I believe, given our current course toward self-destruction.

I am open to any rational ideas that can be provided as to how we can alter our current direction toward eventual oblivion. Got any?

Perhaps we are just on the normal evolutionary path to extinction like any other species. 95% or so of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Maybe our time is drawing near.

Shame. So close yet so far...