I wasn't referring to all of the other issues with 19th century America, just its role in world politics.
There are a few problems with your scenario.
First, experience has shown us time and again that governments must be ratified by active, regular, popular participation. There must be a mechanism in place to switch parties or plans. There's simply too many countries which do not fit that role currently. And a gang of dictatorships is just that: a gang. It's not a functioning government. You have to have representation. Elected leaders.
Second, one of the roles of government is to be the sole entity that enjoys the legitimate use of force. I can't see any scenario where governments are going to forgo their monopoly on force. In other words, as a treaty organization, which the UN is, it's wonderful. Countries decide how much they want to help and how to interpret treaties. As a world government, it would suck.
I'm sure we need to move towards better treaties, no doubt. But world government is a long way away due to foundational problems with both the U.N. and existing member states. You have to remember, the U.N. was supposed to keep us out of WWIII, not become a world government. It's done its job so far, but I'm not optimistic for the future. As Korea shown, countries will do what they please UN or no. At the end of the day, deciding to flout the UN or not is a PR decision.
I hope that one day we'll have a world-wide representative government. But, alas, hope is not a strategy! (wink)
There are a few problems with your scenario.
First, experience has shown us time and again that governments must be ratified by active, regular, popular participation. There must be a mechanism in place to switch parties or plans. There's simply too many countries which do not fit that role currently. And a gang of dictatorships is just that: a gang. It's not a functioning government. You have to have representation. Elected leaders.
Second, one of the roles of government is to be the sole entity that enjoys the legitimate use of force. I can't see any scenario where governments are going to forgo their monopoly on force. In other words, as a treaty organization, which the UN is, it's wonderful. Countries decide how much they want to help and how to interpret treaties. As a world government, it would suck.
I'm sure we need to move towards better treaties, no doubt. But world government is a long way away due to foundational problems with both the U.N. and existing member states. You have to remember, the U.N. was supposed to keep us out of WWIII, not become a world government. It's done its job so far, but I'm not optimistic for the future. As Korea shown, countries will do what they please UN or no. At the end of the day, deciding to flout the UN or not is a PR decision.
I hope that one day we'll have a world-wide representative government. But, alas, hope is not a strategy! (wink)