United States of the World

As I have written before, I believe the following simple correlation exists between human behaviour, interests and power:

Where human behaviour and interests exist, human power is needed to regulate behaviour and protect interests.

Therefore, if behaviour and interests are global, a global, human power is needed, that is, a World State.

Historically, power has adhered to this correlation: First, we had herds of humans with a single or a few alpha males, then tribes, city-states, states, alliances of states; for example the United States and the EU.

The power has adhered to and complied with such correlation with respect to the expansion of power because as behaviour and interests developed, the need arose.

If we consider the human behaviour and interests of today, it is obvious that both are global.

Look at, for example, the fundamental interest in the survival of mankind. This global interest is threatened on at least two fronts:

By weapons of mass destruction and climate change.

That is why we need, as a minimum, a global power to ensure the survival of mankind in these two areas; in other words, a global power that can legislate and enforce laws related to war and peace and protection of the environment.

As mentioned, power has historically developed in line with urgent needs arising from the development of behaviour and interests.

Therefore, it seems obvious that the next step in the expansion and development of power will be a global power, a World State. 

If this is true, it is equally obvious that it is vital for such future global power to be free and democratic, not based on despotism or dictatorship.

That is why today’s leaders of the world should join forces to formulate and create a free and democratic constitution for a World State, for example initiated by a world congress for peace and protection of the environment.

Failure to do so would, I fear, lead to a global dictatorship, driven forward by despotic leaders who will protect their global (for instance economic) interests with force and weapons.

So we have a choice: Whether the world should (predominantly) remain free, or whether it should go down into the impassable swamps of despotism and barbarism.

I see that as the most important, global political challenge of our time.

%d bloggers like this: