Does a world government already exist?

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

No, this is not a conspiracy theory, according to which a covert global syndicate orchestrates its nefarious politics without the possibility of our consent. Rather, this theory starts with the question: what would a world government consist of? A government is a system with government agents; no agents, no government. So a world government is a government where some agents have global jurisdiction, let us suppose.

Presumably, then, if a world government exists, we should see people, in government positions, with global authority, in our system of things. Do we see this? Suppose we represented the United Nations Security Council as a group of five congressional bodies (the five polities that are part of the UNSC). Although each legislates in its own way, the outcomes of these processes, due to the goals of this legislation in general, end up highly interrelated due to such things as the requirements of economic cooperation. So in a sense all five nations are "working for" a government system that stands, however abstractly, over them.

Objection: there is no written codification of this higher system. It might seem as if it is being said that nature is the higher system, to wit the government agents of the distinct UNSC states also count as agents of the transnational regime, but just because the "goals" of this regime are the satisfaction of natural desires (for economic values, etc.), and so really we are just saying, in a fancy way, that people do what they want to, even if they are government agents.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Could you rephrase this a little more in the vernacular? :-/
I'm having trouble with it and I'm real smrt.

but just because the "goals" of this regime are the satisfaction of natural desires (for economic values, etc.), and so really we are just saying, in a fancy way, that people do what they want to, even if they are government agents.

Some things are just creepy to think about....

[SerScot]

No.

[ussusimiel]

Mighara, there is a general trend towards increased cooperation, especially economically, which would have the effect of what you are proposing (I think). At the moment however, as I observe it, there is no effective overarching government.

(This may be obvious, but I'll lay it out anyway) there are some attempts at global institutions like International Court of Justice and the United Nations. However, when the most powerful nations (e.g. the U.S., China, India etc.) either do not sign up to the institutions, or use those institutions to veto any actions that do not meet with their geopolitical interests (e.g. Russia, U.S.), then there can be no real claim that an international government exists.

Certainly nations and groups do act together in their mutual interest (e.g. U.S. + EU + Britain, the Arab League of Nations, the African Union, the Union of South American Nations), but the conflict that is evident between nations (e.g. Russia + Ukraine, Japan + China, Saudia Arabia + Iran etc.) argues against the existence any overarching global government (unless an attempt is made to argue that all these conflicts are being orchestrated to institute a global government, at which point we would definitely be into conspiracy theory territory )

u.

[Vraith]

There isn't.
And there shouldn't be YET---though eventually there probably will be and probably should be.

The reason there shouldn't be yet: because it would require violence on an intolerable [and probably unimaginable] scale...and there is no guarantee the "good guys" would win.

Why should there eventually be?
Because the violence in the divided world is pretty intolerable itself.
But we're growing out of it.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

but the conflict that is evident between nations (e.g. Russia + Ukraine, Japan + China, Saudia Arabia + Iran etc.) argues against the existence any overarching global government (unless an attempt is made to argue that all these conflicts are being orchestrated to institute a global government, at which point we would definitely be into conspiracy theory territory )

u.

On the contrary, though, I would suggest that these local conflicts are merely civil wars within the world system. For a parallel case, consider China in the mid-1850s [EDIT: this should have read "mid-1800s"]. We could say that China was actually several countries, fighting various wars with each other (the various rebellions and the Taiping one especially overall), or we could say China was one country, fighting several civil wars in different regions. (In fact, I wonder how the people in China view the idea that China has been a single nation for the last 2,500-odd years or so.)

[Vraith]

(In fact, I wonder how the people in China view the idea that China has been a single nation for the last 2,500-odd years or so.)

The impression I get from a cousin's wife [who is second-gen immigrant, so that might make a difference] is they're proud of it in some senses, but it's a load of crap in others.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

(In fact, I wonder how the people in China view the idea that China has been a single nation for the last 2,500-odd years or so.)

The impression I get from a cousin's wife [who is second-gen immigrant, so that might make a difference] is they're proud of it in some senses, but it's a load of crap in others.

tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/f/fei90.pdf or "Plurality and Unity in the Configuration of the Chinese People," which I only skimmed tbh, might contain information regarding this topic.