Who Would You Choose to Lead a 'World Government'?

[Doc Martin]

The BBC held a vote for the leader of a "world government". The results:

1 - Nelson Mandela
2 - Bill Clinton
3 - Dalai Lama
4 - Noam Chomsky
5 - Alan Greenspan
6 - Bill Gates
7 - Steve Jobs
8 - Archbishop Desmond Tutu
9 - Richard Branson
10 - George Soros
11 - Kofi Annan

Interesting that Clinton ranks so highly, and Chomsky for that matter. (Was there some sort of campaign for the latter, I can't help wondering?)

There's a distinct broadly leftish tinge to the list - perhaps reflecting the sort of people (15,000 in total apparently, half from America) who are likely to be intrigued by the question

But, surprise surprise, no women. The BBC reports:
"Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi [was] the highest-ranking woman at 13th. Hillary Clinton was the next most popular woman at 16th."
J.K. Rowling was 49th - presumably with the youth vote.

Who would I choose? I think Mary Robinson, former Irish President and UN Commissioner for Human Rights might get my vote, although I'm open to other suggestions ...

[Felix]

Originally Posted by DocMartin

Who would I choose?

Well, me, of course!

There's a distinct broadly leftish tinge to the list

What's wrong with that? It's certainly better than a rightish tinge. OTOH, Bill Gates?

Anyway, I must be feeling a little anarchist today, because I think if we ever do get a world government, I don't think it should have one single leader, even if the job is symbolic. That would be too much for anyone! (Imagine: you're leader of the world!)

[cookie]

I don't even like to *think* about a world government. According to the fundies who raised me, a world government is a sign of the end-times and from whence the anti-christ comes. The thought alone scares the hell out of me.

I hope it never happens. I think countries should work together. sure, but governed together? Not practical nor smart IMO.

[rollhead]

The Jobs ranking no doubt came from the technocrat, hope I get a trickled-down iPod vote.

[claude]

Originally Posted by cookie

I hope it never happens. I think countries should work together. sure, but governed together? Not practical nor smart IMO.

I'm with you Cookie, I've come to the conclusion that the idea is completely impractical.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Felix

Anyway, I must be feeling a little anarchist today, because I think if we ever do get a world government, I don't think it should have one single leader, even if the job is symbolic. That would be too much for anyone! (Imagine: you're leader of the world!)

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There'd have to be a system of checks and balances that works a lot better than the American system is currently working.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by Felix

What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all, just an observation.

[Tom Storer]

I'd vote for Pete C.

[Gordon B]

I hate the idea of a world government.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I hate the idea of a world government.

As do most John Birchers

... but this is one issue on which John Birchers and unionists can find some common ground

[sonic1]

I hate the idea of a world government, but it is inevitable. It freaks me out because we haven't even figured out how to manage a country yet. How are we going to manage a world? It will most definately be corrupt. I don't care if you have mother theresa leading it.

[stonemonkts]

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

broadly leftish tinge

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by sonic1

I hate the idea of a world government, but it is inevitable...

How so?

[lazarus]

Originally Posted by Doc Martin

There's a distinct broadly leftish tinge to the list -

The only "leftist" I see on that list is Chomsky.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Douglas

How so?

Because, much the same as the rise of the nation states, eventually someone is going to have to regulate, secure, and mediate a global economic system.

[clinthopson]

I nominate Gromit

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

Because, much the same as the rise of the nation states, eventually someone is going to have to regulate, secure, and mediate a global economic system.

Which bits of the global economic system do you have in mind in particular and why does it have to be a world government? I appreciate that this is potentially difficult to answer succinctly

(+ for me its late and tomorrow is gonna be busy, but I'll look forward to something to ponder over)

[Rob C]

Who Would You Choose to Lead a 'World Government'?

The Freemasons seem to be doing a pretty good job.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Rob C

Who Would You Choose to Lead a 'World Government'?

The Freemasons seem to be doing a pretty good job.

Sure you don't mean the Illuminati or the Knights Templar?

[Felix]

Originally Posted by Rob C

Who Would You Choose to Lead a 'World Government'?

The Freemasons seem to be doing a pretty good job.

Careful, man, the Nazis said that too...

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Douglas

How so?

The economy is going multinational. At some point regulatory measures are going to develop, in other words, international law. The world is increasingly getting smaller and smaller due to technology. At some point, world government will develop. I don't know what it will look like. But just out of practicality it will develop. It may, at first, stick to economics. But it will eventually, slowly evolve into something bigger. There is no other way to manage the ease in which crime can be done now due to the internet. All that will increasingly get easier and easier. If regulation does not internationalize, then crime will run rampant.

In fact, I find it hard to imagine it NOT happening.

[Tom Storer]

Increased regional rapprochements as in Europe, increased cooperation among regions, international agreements and regulation--these I can see happening, although even these prove tough to set up and maintain. I guess it depends on what you mean by "world government." If you mean common government institutions that run the entire world, as in a "United States of Earth," I don't see it happening before some very distant future. Hell, European countries can't even agree on a common constitution. Can you see national governments giving up their sovereignty? Only way it could happen would be through force, and that's one huge war. Not even the US of A, with the world's largest military budget, could afford to wage a war of conquest against all the nations of the world.

Originally Posted by sonic1

It will most definately be corrupt. I don't care if you have mother theresa leading it.

Well, hell. Small towns are most definitely corrupt. The only difference is scale.

[Stuckinagroove]

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by Felix

Careful, man, the Nazis said that too...

Oops, I actually mean the Stonecutters.


Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs the cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscars night?
We do! We do!

[Gary Sisco]

Nobody.

Can't even keep national goverments under control as it is.

Some of the answers are hilarious, though. The Dalai Lama being one. A state's power resides in its violent force or potential force -- any state, anywhere, at any time in history.

Chomsky's an even funnier response, since he's allegedly an anarchist (albeit one who makes up his anarchism as he goes along, as he's championed numerous states in his time). I guess his readers don't read very closely or perhaps they are as confused as he.

[Lore]

Well, there's always Emil Matalik a/k/a Matalik Emil:

http://antipodes.org/matalik.html

[RedJazz]

The democratically organized working class. Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to loose but your chains. You have a world to win.

[Enforcer]

Tough call. Probably George W. Bush.

[Paul B]

Dizzy.