February 22, 2018
Dear Friends and Family,
When considering the merits of Global Government/Governance one first needs to recognize that globalization with its multiple forms and newly developing problems (economic, political, justice, and religious) is not a good fit with today’s nation states and democracy. In fact. the paradox of such governance is the world can not have hyper-globalization, democracy, and self-determination all at once as Dani Rodrik posits in The Globalization Paradox. At most you can have two of the three. For instance: the existence of sovereign nation states is a large barrier to achieving to achieving globalization in its entirety – a global community without borders. Further, having a true global democracy would be extremely difficult given the huge populations of China and India, whose proportioned votes would overwhelm the rest of the world.
Yet, the problems of global inequality (both income and human rights) and the fears of not taking adequate care of the planet’s environment indicate to many that some type of global government is needed, and the need is growing. The model many turn to for designing such a global government is the European Union. The EU is fundamentally run by a group of elites none of whom are elected. Net an EU model would greatly reduce the sovereignty of a nation state and would not be a true democratic governing system as is the case today in Europe. While such a governance change would be dramatic for citizens of the United States, it was not as dramatic for the change in Europe. Why? Because the democratic process in most European countries is limited to voting for a single party system versus a slate of candidates as is the case in the U.S. In Europe, the elected party appoints people to the various political positions.
Globalists advocate for a centralized government whose officials are career bureaucratic elites similar to the EU. They feel this is the best, if not the only way, to solve the income inequality between nations and between the poor and the rich within a nation. Further, they believe this, or something similar, is necessary to ensure the survival of the planet environmentally and to maintain worldwide peace. To achieve such an end state requires that nation state sovereignty be limited, as otherwise some such nation states will create insurmountable barriers to achieving an effective global government and society.
The anti-globalists argue that the developed world, particularly the U.S. would lose too much with such an arrangement. They raise concerns that such an arrangement would lead the world and its standard of living to gravitate to the weakest link over time, and they fear that with the loss of democracy they would lose many of their individual rights as the elites assume power. Specifically, they fear the consequences of the non-free and partially free countries gaining more influence as theirs lessens in the global government, thus redistribution of more and more wealth from rich to poor countries and the deterioration of individual rights and liberties as the Global Government’s power is not balanced and would remain unchecked.
Worldwide surveys show that most people throughout the world would identify with their country first, their community second, and the global community last. In many democratic countries that has translated in recent years for populist parties and individuals being elected to positions of power which has slowed the globalist agenda. But history has shown that as economic globalism thrives the overall global inequality gap widens fueling the fire for global governance. So, the issue is unlikely to go away. Further, a predominance of opinion concludes the United Nations is not equipped or competent to transition to a Global Government. Something better would be needed.
Happy Learning,
Harley
Dear Friends and Family,
When considering the merits of Global Government/Governance one first needs to recognize that globalization with its multiple forms and newly developing problems (economic, political, justice, and religious) is not a good fit with today’s nation states and democracy. In fact. the paradox of such governance is the world can not have hyper-globalization, democracy, and self-determination all at once as Dani Rodrik posits in The Globalization Paradox. At most you can have two of the three. For instance: the existence of sovereign nation states is a large barrier to achieving to achieving globalization in its entirety – a global community without borders. Further, having a true global democracy would be extremely difficult given the huge populations of China and India, whose proportioned votes would overwhelm the rest of the world.
Yet, the problems of global inequality (both income and human rights) and the fears of not taking adequate care of the planet’s environment indicate to many that some type of global government is needed, and the need is growing. The model many turn to for designing such a global government is the European Union. The EU is fundamentally run by a group of elites none of whom are elected. Net an EU model would greatly reduce the sovereignty of a nation state and would not be a true democratic governing system as is the case today in Europe. While such a governance change would be dramatic for citizens of the United States, it was not as dramatic for the change in Europe. Why? Because the democratic process in most European countries is limited to voting for a single party system versus a slate of candidates as is the case in the U.S. In Europe, the elected party appoints people to the various political positions.
Globalists advocate for a centralized government whose officials are career bureaucratic elites similar to the EU. They feel this is the best, if not the only way, to solve the income inequality between nations and between the poor and the rich within a nation. Further, they believe this, or something similar, is necessary to ensure the survival of the planet environmentally and to maintain worldwide peace. To achieve such an end state requires that nation state sovereignty be limited, as otherwise some such nation states will create insurmountable barriers to achieving an effective global government and society.
The anti-globalists argue that the developed world, particularly the U.S. would lose too much with such an arrangement. They raise concerns that such an arrangement would lead the world and its standard of living to gravitate to the weakest link over time, and they fear that with the loss of democracy they would lose many of their individual rights as the elites assume power. Specifically, they fear the consequences of the non-free and partially free countries gaining more influence as theirs lessens in the global government, thus redistribution of more and more wealth from rich to poor countries and the deterioration of individual rights and liberties as the Global Government’s power is not balanced and would remain unchecked.
Worldwide surveys show that most people throughout the world would identify with their country first, their community second, and the global community last. In many democratic countries that has translated in recent years for populist parties and individuals being elected to positions of power which has slowed the globalist agenda. But history has shown that as economic globalism thrives the overall global inequality gap widens fueling the fire for global governance. So, the issue is unlikely to go away. Further, a predominance of opinion concludes the United Nations is not equipped or competent to transition to a Global Government. Something better would be needed.
Happy Learning,
Harley
GLOBALIZATION – SEGMENT 7
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE -- EXCERPTS
THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBALIZATION: In the years ahead, the challenges to the process of globalization are only going to get worse. Those who seek to limit immigration tend also to be in favor of cutting foreign aid budgets. Admittedly, there are plenty of reasons for questioning the efficacy of aid, but unless economic opportunities grow rapidly in Africa, its demographics suggest that many African people will eventually go in search of opportunities elsewhere. Borders are there to be breached. If we are nervous about accelerated immigration, we need to think more about supporting development in poorer parts of the world.
Those who are opposed to the European Union need to explain how a divided Europe would more easily cope with a nervous Russian bear next door, particularly if Washington becomes increasingly isolationist. And, lastly, those who favor insularity and protection should be challenged to explain how they could possibly think that history is on their side. Should their views prevail, it really will be a Grave New World.
Source: Grave New World by Stephen King. (2017)
The fundamental political trilemma of the world economy is: we cannot have hyper-globalization, democracy, and national self-determinations all at once. We can have at most two out of three. If we want hyper-globalization and democracy, we need to give up on the nation state. If we must keep the nation state and want hyper-globalization too, then we must forget democracy. And if we want to combine democracy with the nation state, then it is bye-bye deep globalization.
A major move in the direction of global governance, in whatever form, necessarily would entail a significant diminution of national sovereignty. National governments would not disappear, but their powers would be severely circumscribed by supranational rulemaking and enforcement bodies empowered (and constrained) by democratic legitimacy. The European Union is a regional example of this. The halting way in which political institutions within the European Union have developed, and the persistent complaints about their democratic deficit, also indicate the difficulties involved – even when the union comprises a group of nations at similar income levels with similar histories.
Source: The Globalization Paradox by Dani Rodrik (2011)
PRO-GLOBAL GOVERNANCE/GOVERNMENT ARGUMENTS: It is no longer just cranks and wide-eyed utopians who entertain the idea of global government. Many economists, sociologists, political scientists, legal scholars and philosophers have joined the search for new forms of governance that leave the nation state behind. Few of these analysists advocate a truly global version of the nation states: a global legislature or council of ministers is too much of a fantasy. The crudest form of such global governance envisages straight-forward delegation of national powers to international technocrats. The Achilles’ heel of global governance is lack of clear accountability relationships. In a nation state, the electorate is the ultimate source of political mandates and elections the ultimate vehicle for accountability. If you do not respond to your constituencies’ expectations, you are voted out. Global electoral accountability of this sort is too far-fetched a notion.
Source: The Globalization Paradox by Dani Rodrik (2011)
There are three ways in which the advanced industrial countries can respond to the challenges of globalization. One is to ignore the problem and accept the growing inequality. The second tack is to resist fair globalization. In this view, now is the time for America and Europe to use their economic power to make sure that the rules of the game favor them permanently – or at least for as long as possible. This option is not really possible, given how far we already are down the path of globalization. One of the successes of the last three decades has been the creation of strong democracies in many parts of the developing world. Too much is at stake -- and there are too many who have already benefited from globalization – to allow America and Europe to pull back from globalization. That leaves but one course – coping with globalization and reshaping it. For America, coping means recognizing that globalization will mean downward pressure on unskilled jobs.
We also have to learn how to manage globalization better, with a greater concern both for the poor countries and for the poor in rich countries, and for values that go beyond profits and GDP. At the international level, we have failed to develop the democratic political institutions that are required if we are to make globalization work -- to ensure that the power of the global market economy leads to the improvement of the lives of most of the people of the world, not just the richest in the richest countries.
There is a pretense that decision making can be delegated to technocrats, who are assigned the complex task of finding and managing the best economic system, and who are thought to be better equipped than politicians to make objective decisions. But delegating the writing of the rules of the economic game to technocrats can be justified only if there is a single best set of rules, ones that make everyone better off than any other set of rules. This is simply not the case; this view is not only wrong, but dangerous. It is only through the political system that these choices can be properly made. What is needed, if we are to make globalization work, is an international economic regime in which the well-being of the developed and developing countries are better balanced: a new global social contract between the developed and less development countries.
Source: Making Globalization Work by Joseph E. Stiglitz (2007)
To be sure, there are powerful voices of ‘anti-globalization’ – national-populists and economic protectionists such as Donald Trump and most Tea Party adherents in the United States. Marine Le Pen in France, Nigel Farage in the UK, and Franke Petry in Germany. Their respective programs look very similar in their fierce opposition to globalizing dynamics. Unless we are willing to let global problems fester to the point where violence and intolerance appear to be the only realistic ways of confronting our unevenly integrating world, we must link the future course of globalization to a profoundly reformist agenda. We ought to reject the siren call of national populists and instead welcome greater manifestations of social interdependence that emerge as a result of globalization.
Source: Globalization by Manfred G. Steger (2017)
ANTI-GLOBAL GOVERNANCE/GOVERNMENT ARGUMENTS: In the development of ideas on global governance there was one concrete example people had in mind: the European Union. European nations have achieved an extraordinary amount of economic integration among themselves. They have signed on to 100,000 plus pages of EU-wide regulations—on everything from science policy to consumer protections--that lay out common standards and expectations. The standardization of EU foreign policy set in motion in 1974 required coordination between every member state and the transfer of their sovereignty to the EU, a supranational body which established its power by eliminating local nationalisms. To favor multilateralism and weaken American power, the EU has been active since the 1990s promoting projects and initiatives that increase the power and influence of international organizations – UN, UNESCO, the Arab League, the Muslim World League, the OIC, etc. – thereby weaving powerful networks of world governance.
Source: Europe, Globalization, & the Coming Universal Caliphate by Bat Ye’or. (2011)
Instead of a hereditary system of nobles and kings, the IMF and EU governing elites style themselves as a meritocracy of educated experts who want to appropriate to themselves the power to decide our futures. These meritocracies are nothing but a continuation of government by self-perpetuating elites, the new aristocracy.
In Europe, democracy is discredited. When an elected official speaks out in the United States, we give him credit for legitimacy that stems from his selection by the people. An appointed civil servant has no such credibility. But in Europe, it is quite the opposite. The elected official is usually written off as a demagogue pandering to the voters, while the civil servant is a disinterested expert whose opinion can be trusted. The very word populist is a compliment in America and a putdown in Europe. While Americans vote for hundreds of thousands of elected officials in our federal, state, county, city, school board, and town governments, Europeans don’t. In most Continental parliamentary democracies, there is not effective local government. And, even on the national level, a voter casts only one vote every four or five years. And that vote is for a party. There are no separate votes for prime minister and members of parliament. The elected officials who govern are named, not by the voters, but by the parliamentary delegation of the party they elect. There are no primaries. The party, not the voters decides who will be the prime minister. Once the election is held, a parliamentary system is essentially an elected dictatorship. Since, by definition, the prime minister’s party controls parliament, he can usually pass whatever he and his cabinet want. Since members of the party’s parliamentary majority are voting themselves, essentially, out of office if they defeat a government proposal, very few fail to pass. Voters cannot even choose who should represent them in parliament; the party selects all.
Any nexus between the will of the voters and the actions of their European Union leaders is far, far removed. European voters can and do elect a European Parliament, but it is totally powerless. It can act only on bills submitted to it by the EU bureaucracy and may not initiate legislation. It has never rejected an important proposed piece of legislation.
Source: Screwed by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann (2012)
Global governance will simply create a government body with no democratic underpinnings, run by bureaucrats with no accountability to anyone. Geographic countries will no longer be important. In 1995, the United Nations’ Commission of Global Governance published its final report, titled Our Global Neighborhood. This document recommends among other things:
The oft-stated goal of global governance – one-world government – begs the question of whether such rule would be democratic and freedom living or autocratic and arbitrary. The fact is that the nations we would be entrusting with our sovereignty are not worthy of the trust. Were this a better world, filled with better nations and rulers, it would be different. But the world is crammed with tiny nations – barely as large as any of our states – who could easily gang up on us and become the tail that wags the dog. And far too many of the nations of the world – more, much more, that would be needed to out vote us – are autocratic, not free, corrupt, and regular violators of human rights. There is nothing inherent in the idea of global governance that is wrong. We are all human and we all inhabit the same planet so eventually some form of global government may be appropriate. But today, such a government could only be as strong and just as it component parts. The failure of freedom to spread to more than a minority of the world makes the submersion of our sovereignty into such a worldwide body an act that will lead to the surrender of our freedoms.
Source: Here Come the Black Helicopters by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann. (2012)
SUMMING UP: A recent round of surveys asked people in fifty-five countries about the strength of their local, national, and global identities. The results were similar across the world – and quite instructive. They reveal that attachment to the nation state overwhelms all other forms of identity. People see themselves primarily as citizens of their nation, next as members of their local community, and only last as “global citizens.” These surveys uncover an important divide between elites and the rest of society. A strong sense of global citizenship tends to be the highest levels of educational attainment. The nation state and what it does matters a lot less to these people than it does to less mobile workers and others with fewer skills who have to make do with what’s nearby. This opportunity gap reveals a certain dark side to the clamor for global governance. The construction of transnational political communities is a project of globalized elites attuned largely to their needs.
Source: The Globalization Paradox by Dani Rodrik. (2011)
Internationally the United Nations is a makeshift expedient, the best organizational structure to date that our feeble imaginations have been able to imagine for addressing problems that cannot be solved by states within the existing multilateral system. But one significant change is noticeable on the contemporary landscape. Not only is there no world government or likely to be one in my lifetime, but the goal of most contemporary proponents of global governance is no longer the creation of world government. This is a dramatic change in relation to the more idealistic generations of the past.
Source: What’s Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix It by Thomas G. Weiss. (2016)
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE -- EXCERPTS
THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBALIZATION: In the years ahead, the challenges to the process of globalization are only going to get worse. Those who seek to limit immigration tend also to be in favor of cutting foreign aid budgets. Admittedly, there are plenty of reasons for questioning the efficacy of aid, but unless economic opportunities grow rapidly in Africa, its demographics suggest that many African people will eventually go in search of opportunities elsewhere. Borders are there to be breached. If we are nervous about accelerated immigration, we need to think more about supporting development in poorer parts of the world.
Those who are opposed to the European Union need to explain how a divided Europe would more easily cope with a nervous Russian bear next door, particularly if Washington becomes increasingly isolationist. And, lastly, those who favor insularity and protection should be challenged to explain how they could possibly think that history is on their side. Should their views prevail, it really will be a Grave New World.
Source: Grave New World by Stephen King. (2017)
The fundamental political trilemma of the world economy is: we cannot have hyper-globalization, democracy, and national self-determinations all at once. We can have at most two out of three. If we want hyper-globalization and democracy, we need to give up on the nation state. If we must keep the nation state and want hyper-globalization too, then we must forget democracy. And if we want to combine democracy with the nation state, then it is bye-bye deep globalization.
A major move in the direction of global governance, in whatever form, necessarily would entail a significant diminution of national sovereignty. National governments would not disappear, but their powers would be severely circumscribed by supranational rulemaking and enforcement bodies empowered (and constrained) by democratic legitimacy. The European Union is a regional example of this. The halting way in which political institutions within the European Union have developed, and the persistent complaints about their democratic deficit, also indicate the difficulties involved – even when the union comprises a group of nations at similar income levels with similar histories.
Source: The Globalization Paradox by Dani Rodrik (2011)
PRO-GLOBAL GOVERNANCE/GOVERNMENT ARGUMENTS: It is no longer just cranks and wide-eyed utopians who entertain the idea of global government. Many economists, sociologists, political scientists, legal scholars and philosophers have joined the search for new forms of governance that leave the nation state behind. Few of these analysists advocate a truly global version of the nation states: a global legislature or council of ministers is too much of a fantasy. The crudest form of such global governance envisages straight-forward delegation of national powers to international technocrats. The Achilles’ heel of global governance is lack of clear accountability relationships. In a nation state, the electorate is the ultimate source of political mandates and elections the ultimate vehicle for accountability. If you do not respond to your constituencies’ expectations, you are voted out. Global electoral accountability of this sort is too far-fetched a notion.
Source: The Globalization Paradox by Dani Rodrik (2011)
There are three ways in which the advanced industrial countries can respond to the challenges of globalization. One is to ignore the problem and accept the growing inequality. The second tack is to resist fair globalization. In this view, now is the time for America and Europe to use their economic power to make sure that the rules of the game favor them permanently – or at least for as long as possible. This option is not really possible, given how far we already are down the path of globalization. One of the successes of the last three decades has been the creation of strong democracies in many parts of the developing world. Too much is at stake -- and there are too many who have already benefited from globalization – to allow America and Europe to pull back from globalization. That leaves but one course – coping with globalization and reshaping it. For America, coping means recognizing that globalization will mean downward pressure on unskilled jobs.
We also have to learn how to manage globalization better, with a greater concern both for the poor countries and for the poor in rich countries, and for values that go beyond profits and GDP. At the international level, we have failed to develop the democratic political institutions that are required if we are to make globalization work -- to ensure that the power of the global market economy leads to the improvement of the lives of most of the people of the world, not just the richest in the richest countries.
There is a pretense that decision making can be delegated to technocrats, who are assigned the complex task of finding and managing the best economic system, and who are thought to be better equipped than politicians to make objective decisions. But delegating the writing of the rules of the economic game to technocrats can be justified only if there is a single best set of rules, ones that make everyone better off than any other set of rules. This is simply not the case; this view is not only wrong, but dangerous. It is only through the political system that these choices can be properly made. What is needed, if we are to make globalization work, is an international economic regime in which the well-being of the developed and developing countries are better balanced: a new global social contract between the developed and less development countries.
Source: Making Globalization Work by Joseph E. Stiglitz (2007)
To be sure, there are powerful voices of ‘anti-globalization’ – national-populists and economic protectionists such as Donald Trump and most Tea Party adherents in the United States. Marine Le Pen in France, Nigel Farage in the UK, and Franke Petry in Germany. Their respective programs look very similar in their fierce opposition to globalizing dynamics. Unless we are willing to let global problems fester to the point where violence and intolerance appear to be the only realistic ways of confronting our unevenly integrating world, we must link the future course of globalization to a profoundly reformist agenda. We ought to reject the siren call of national populists and instead welcome greater manifestations of social interdependence that emerge as a result of globalization.
Source: Globalization by Manfred G. Steger (2017)
ANTI-GLOBAL GOVERNANCE/GOVERNMENT ARGUMENTS: In the development of ideas on global governance there was one concrete example people had in mind: the European Union. European nations have achieved an extraordinary amount of economic integration among themselves. They have signed on to 100,000 plus pages of EU-wide regulations—on everything from science policy to consumer protections--that lay out common standards and expectations. The standardization of EU foreign policy set in motion in 1974 required coordination between every member state and the transfer of their sovereignty to the EU, a supranational body which established its power by eliminating local nationalisms. To favor multilateralism and weaken American power, the EU has been active since the 1990s promoting projects and initiatives that increase the power and influence of international organizations – UN, UNESCO, the Arab League, the Muslim World League, the OIC, etc. – thereby weaving powerful networks of world governance.
Source: Europe, Globalization, & the Coming Universal Caliphate by Bat Ye’or. (2011)
Instead of a hereditary system of nobles and kings, the IMF and EU governing elites style themselves as a meritocracy of educated experts who want to appropriate to themselves the power to decide our futures. These meritocracies are nothing but a continuation of government by self-perpetuating elites, the new aristocracy.
In Europe, democracy is discredited. When an elected official speaks out in the United States, we give him credit for legitimacy that stems from his selection by the people. An appointed civil servant has no such credibility. But in Europe, it is quite the opposite. The elected official is usually written off as a demagogue pandering to the voters, while the civil servant is a disinterested expert whose opinion can be trusted. The very word populist is a compliment in America and a putdown in Europe. While Americans vote for hundreds of thousands of elected officials in our federal, state, county, city, school board, and town governments, Europeans don’t. In most Continental parliamentary democracies, there is not effective local government. And, even on the national level, a voter casts only one vote every four or five years. And that vote is for a party. There are no separate votes for prime minister and members of parliament. The elected officials who govern are named, not by the voters, but by the parliamentary delegation of the party they elect. There are no primaries. The party, not the voters decides who will be the prime minister. Once the election is held, a parliamentary system is essentially an elected dictatorship. Since, by definition, the prime minister’s party controls parliament, he can usually pass whatever he and his cabinet want. Since members of the party’s parliamentary majority are voting themselves, essentially, out of office if they defeat a government proposal, very few fail to pass. Voters cannot even choose who should represent them in parliament; the party selects all.
Any nexus between the will of the voters and the actions of their European Union leaders is far, far removed. European voters can and do elect a European Parliament, but it is totally powerless. It can act only on bills submitted to it by the EU bureaucracy and may not initiate legislation. It has never rejected an important proposed piece of legislation.
Source: Screwed by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann (2012)
Global governance will simply create a government body with no democratic underpinnings, run by bureaucrats with no accountability to anyone. Geographic countries will no longer be important. In 1995, the United Nations’ Commission of Global Governance published its final report, titled Our Global Neighborhood. This document recommends among other things:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council to oversee worldwide economies
- Authorizing the United Nations and its agencies to impose global taxes
- Instituting a UN army
- Terminating the veto power of the permanent members of the UN
- Creating an International Criminal Court
- Creating a new body of the UN for “civil society,” where advocates for the environment, populations control, etc., can play a role in policy making
- Placing the authority for regulating the production and distribution of arms in the UN (gun control by another name)
- Ceding jurisdiction over the global commons, such as oceans, space and the environment, to the Trusteeship Council of the UN.
The oft-stated goal of global governance – one-world government – begs the question of whether such rule would be democratic and freedom living or autocratic and arbitrary. The fact is that the nations we would be entrusting with our sovereignty are not worthy of the trust. Were this a better world, filled with better nations and rulers, it would be different. But the world is crammed with tiny nations – barely as large as any of our states – who could easily gang up on us and become the tail that wags the dog. And far too many of the nations of the world – more, much more, that would be needed to out vote us – are autocratic, not free, corrupt, and regular violators of human rights. There is nothing inherent in the idea of global governance that is wrong. We are all human and we all inhabit the same planet so eventually some form of global government may be appropriate. But today, such a government could only be as strong and just as it component parts. The failure of freedom to spread to more than a minority of the world makes the submersion of our sovereignty into such a worldwide body an act that will lead to the surrender of our freedoms.
Source: Here Come the Black Helicopters by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann. (2012)
SUMMING UP: A recent round of surveys asked people in fifty-five countries about the strength of their local, national, and global identities. The results were similar across the world – and quite instructive. They reveal that attachment to the nation state overwhelms all other forms of identity. People see themselves primarily as citizens of their nation, next as members of their local community, and only last as “global citizens.” These surveys uncover an important divide between elites and the rest of society. A strong sense of global citizenship tends to be the highest levels of educational attainment. The nation state and what it does matters a lot less to these people than it does to less mobile workers and others with fewer skills who have to make do with what’s nearby. This opportunity gap reveals a certain dark side to the clamor for global governance. The construction of transnational political communities is a project of globalized elites attuned largely to their needs.
Source: The Globalization Paradox by Dani Rodrik. (2011)
Internationally the United Nations is a makeshift expedient, the best organizational structure to date that our feeble imaginations have been able to imagine for addressing problems that cannot be solved by states within the existing multilateral system. But one significant change is noticeable on the contemporary landscape. Not only is there no world government or likely to be one in my lifetime, but the goal of most contemporary proponents of global governance is no longer the creation of world government. This is a dramatic change in relation to the more idealistic generations of the past.
Source: What’s Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix It by Thomas G. Weiss. (2016)
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
| glo_7l_global_goverance_--_segment_7.pdf |