Give UN Sovereignty

In the United States, we had a system called the Articles of Confederation. It was the first system to govern the thirteen former colonies, and it was famously ineffective. The central government could make laws, but not enforce them, and each state acted as an independent country. Then the Constitutional Convention amended the Articles of Confederation into the modern United States Constitution, the model for the constitutions of most modern democracies. The states had to give up some of their powers, but the new federal government provided unity, stability, and was able to push and enforce a lot of important ideas from the top-down that might not have otherwise penetrated some states (think Civil Rights in Alabama).

The UN is a good idea, though it could definitely use a post-Cold-War makeover, but it suffers from the same shortcoming as the Articles of Confederation. It can pass resolutions but not enforce them. Nations can sign on to treaties on human rights and then violate them with practically no consequences.

We're all in this together, and we need to start acting like it. We need to transcend our petty, local viewpoints and do what's best for the world. That means surrendering some national sovereignty to an international federation of some kind, and the UN is in the best position to take on that role.



  • I object because Winston Churchill would turn in his grave. UN was geared to create peace its functions have been corrupted by the USA. It really a place to stop disputes or to aid an healing solution. It should be the worlds policeman not a central word government it is highly corruptible. I like the idea of having a credible citizens global government that will be credible enough for elitist to see their short comings, and the media to agree that such a government should be followed by the elitist. People gets more powerful when it comes up with very workable sensible solutions. What you are saying is handover sovereignty to a Union with the strongest elitist running the said union. Yes these elitist should listen to the world citizens with a very sensible loud voice. We really have to keep the POW looking credible as a powerful adviser.

  • I'm not sure of which way to vote on this. My ideal global structure would contain highly localized governments with only as much personal involvement as their peoples allow and a global military powerful enough to deter intraplanetary war. This would basically be a global confederacy. The problem I have with the wording of your idea is that you seem to imply that localization is inferior to centralization. My question is this: How involved would each person be in the affairs of people thousands of miles away from them in the system that you are proposing?

  • I agree because my multinational corporation would save billions in off balance sheet donations if you catch my drift ; )

    lol seriously though, if we do move towards a government of Earth it will have to account for a lot more possibilities than the American constitution did. One of the greatest works written by man and it couldn't account for events just 200 hundred years in the future.

    With the pitfalls evident in the EU, I've come to the conclusion that such institutions should be little more than a forum to streamline international agreements. Trying to use blanket solutions for diverse problems is a bad idea.

    I'll vote on this if you propose which sovereign powers we would be giving up?

  • I object because this proposal violates the concept of individual sovereignty, which is what "democracy" (the Rule of the People) is. We would jump from one oligarchic "frying pan" into another. : ) > -

  • I simply want to say I am just neiwbe to blogging and site-building and certainly loved your page. More than likely I’m want to bookmark your blog post . You really come with outstanding articles and reviews. Kudos for sharing with us your web site.

Similar Ideas: