Liberty Under a World Union

The question of liberty under a world government is among the most contentious, with opponents of a Union worrying that freedoms could be undermined on a global scale. But world government also has to bring freedom on an unprecedented scale to everyone equally in the world, as opposed to it being the special privilege of those who live in a few nations.

In Nature of World Government, Fruf identifies that with a world union many freedoms will be enlarged to a worldwide scope by the mere removal of national boundaries. Regardless of the nature of the world government, even an ideal nation-based system cannot possibly equal the level of liberty humans will enjoy in some regards.

One such freedom is that of movement and migration (to be covered in detail in a future paper). When national boundaries are completely abolished, every human will have the unrestricted right to move anywhere in the world without having to seek permission from nationalists. Similarly, people will be able to freely associate with others around the world without the ingroup narrow-mindedness that prevails in the national order. Even commerce and trade will be freer without any of the trade barriers nations impose in their selfish interests, and with standardization of rules and regulations (Fed. 6).

Fruf further outlines four indirect reasons for an increase in liberties under a world government: the world’s large size, the regime’s founding principles, the lack of an exit option, and the end of nationalism.

The world is simply too large to come under the centralized control of an authoritarian entity. Despotism requires the continuous application of large amounts of force to sustain itself and keep the population in control, and at the scale of the entire world this simply means more strength than any one entity can muster. This makes remote the chances of the rise of a world dictatorship or oligarchy, or even a tyrannical majority.

In fact it is nations that are far more prone to coming under tyrannical rule. Because of their smaller size, it is easier for them to be dominated and controlled by power-seeking entities. The size of the world is a great safeguard in itself against despotism. Perhaps there is no other way the world can be governed as one except in a free manner.

The world government, as a new regime, would be built on some founding principles, and at the world level these would be principles that all humanity agrees on. If freedom is desired by humans, it will become part of the regime’s principles and the government will have to live up to them. Should it fail to do so, humanity can always bring it down, and if it is to survive it must ensure what the people want of it.

Liberal nationalists would worry that if a world government does degenerate into tyranny, there would be no other place to escape to from the world and people would be stuck under authoritarianism, while in a divided world they have the option of fleeing elsewhere. Yet this factor itself works to ensure greater freedoms in a union—people would become more active citizens and stand up for their rights and principles instead of fleeing. This in turn will mean a government that is more responsive to the people, especially given public pressure from such a large number of people. Also regarding this exit argument it is important to keep in mind how limited mobility is in the national system, so that there is mostly no exit option at present.

The fourth reason outlined in Nature of World Government is that nationalism itself will cease to be a justification for curbing liberties. It will no longer be possible for the government to place any restrictions on freedom in the name of ‘national security’ or ‘anti-national activities,’ whether for the purposes of tyranny and repression or genuine national interests.

Besides these four points, several other factors in a world union mitigate the possibility of a tyrannical government. In particular, the potential of a certain kind of tyranny—military rule—will be eliminated in a world union because there will be no military (Fed. 5). In today’s world, militaries often seize power, setting up authoritarian regimes with few liberties; and while the nation-based order lasts they will remain threats to freedom. Under a world union, though, this threat is non-existent and therefore the likelihood of an overthrow of the government and its replacement by an authoritarian regime decreases immensely.

One particular freedom which a world union will enhance is that of thought and belief, which is being undermined in the national world order by the universal indoctrination of nationalism into every individual. That is because nationalism is the ruling ideology of the world, and at present everyone is forced to accept it. With world unity, nationalism will lose its dominance over the world and people will be free to hold other views as well. ‘Worldism’ itself, at least in the near future, would not have that sort of uncritical dominance because of the multitude of identity divisions in humanity.

In general, in a world union it would be the case that no belief system will be enforced onto the people of the world. This is because no social or cultural group has a majority in the world, and none of them is powerful enough to impose its beliefs and practices upon the rest of humanity. Therefore, unlike in restricted societies like nations, there will always be a multitude of beliefs operating in society. With this diversity in thinking it is difficult to constrain an individual to one set of thoughts, undermining any efforts at group-based indoctrination. Moreover a world government has no particular need to indoctrinate citizens, unlike nations which by nature try to present themselves as glorious, superior, and great, and must rely on indoctrination to further their own narratives.

In a world no longer organized on the principle of separation of groups, no individual shall be compelled to follow group-specific norms. Nations today abuse their legal power to enforce individuals’ conformity to a lot of identity-based practices besides other laws (Fed. 7), which is a major restriction on freedom for those who do not wish to go with the group. It is in group-based states where this tyranny is exercised, but not in a world government which brings together all humans. The world’s legal system shall not be used to impose group norms on people (since no group has the numbers or power for that), but only to uphold the universal standards of justice across the world in a fair and equitable manner. Without this enforcement of group preferences, individuals will enjoy more freedom to make their own choices.

On the other hand, laws protecting liberties shall be enforced across the entire world, bringing freedom to people who have been deprived of it under the national system. With the law being implemented to the same standard across the world (Fed. 7), individuals everywhere will enjoy the same level of legal protection for their rights and will no longer be limited to those rights which a nation ‘gives’ them. No person shall be deprived of their liberties just because they happened to live in an authoritarian nation.

By the same token, with a world union there will no longer be any oppressors and tyrants hiding behind national boundaries, enjoying impunity in their despotic rule because of state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. When humanity is no longer alienated from each other by national identities, people will no longer let tyranny pass by anywhere in the world. Freedom everywhere shall be universally upheld when there is one World Government, while with nations we only have the fact of despotism covering much of the world. Let liberty no longer be the privilege of those who live in some nations; let us bring it to everyone with a world union.