You might ask, what problems is globalism going to solve that treaties and national cooperation can't today? More importantly, what will those mechanisms be and will they be just as vulnerable to the problems of corruption and interconnection that plague the meaningful enforcement of treaties and agreements today?
The difference is, much as the same with a democratic nation.
In a democratic nation, citizens collectively elect representatives, and then laws are passed. Once in place, citizens are bound by those laws, and will be encouraged by various means ; fines, jail, etc, to obey that collective decision.
Now imagine if our democracy was "treaties are made with all citizens of the nation, but you don't have to agree or sign the treaty."
Succinctly put, treaties aren't something you can make another nation sign, and if signed due to force, really force them to comply with in their local area.
A global government however, could punish citizens of any country, should they fail to follow global laws passed.
That said, I am highly uncomfortable with the idea of a global government, because there is such a wide range of belief systems out there, some of them totalitarian, many of them non-democratic, many of them tied deeply to religion, and I don't think the outcome could last, or be pretty.
People's actions do not need to be violent in order for the governments to respond with violence. Disobedience is enough. You know it very well. This is just how it works.
What the key difference here is, between a democracy and a totalitarian government, is just who decides when violence will be employed.
In democratic states, violence is allowed by specific actors, such as the police, in specific situations, such as when other forms of mediation fail, under specific guidelines.
This means that democracy attempts to replace the mob (anarchy), and the totalitarian (no law, power vested in one), with a more structured form of violence.
Note that absolutely no system will work perfectly, at all. There will be flaws, issues, but from where I sit, most western democracies do a fairly good job of this.
That's because the truth is, violence absolutely will occur, no matter what, no matter the form of government (or lack of) in place. Humanity always has individuals which will prey upon itself, and the only response in such cases is violence of some sort.
So how do you want your violence?
The anarchistic mob? Emotionally run, able to fly out of control, meting out punishment on emotion and adrenaline?
The totalitarian, deciding rule of law on whim, then meting out punishment in any way chosen?
Or the democratic approach, with laws debated, considered, and meted out by democratic choice, in a controlled way?
Again, democracy is not perfect, but it is the best we currently have.
And yes, it is violent at times, for humanity is violent at times.
We always have been, and will be, else we will no longer be human.
You may be thinking, "No! Democracy let thing $x happen to person/group $y. It has failed us!"
The thing is, most democracies attempt to constantly improve upon this.
Take the US, for example. Compare racism in the 50s, to now.
If you think racism, and police brutality connected to it is bad now, your head would spin, and probably explode, if transported to the 50s.
What you really need to consider, is what happens under alternative forms of governement.
Do you believe a totalitarian would do better at the above? Anarchy?
Hardly.
So how do you want your violence?
Pick carefully.
If you pick democracy, as I have, then the next step is to work on improving how that violence is meted out.
Help steer it, to make it as fair, as gentle as possible.
I am not 5 year old kid and I do understand how things work so there is no need to move so much air. Out of 2 murderers I would "prefer" the one that kills 10 people instead of 10,000. They're still murderers to me.
>"The thing is, most democracies attempt to constantly improve upon this."
Judging by last 30 years I'd say that government in most "democracies" are working to make things worse for common people.
The difference is, much as the same with a democratic nation.
In a democratic nation, citizens collectively elect representatives, and then laws are passed. Once in place, citizens are bound by those laws, and will be encouraged by various means ; fines, jail, etc, to obey that collective decision.
Now imagine if our democracy was "treaties are made with all citizens of the nation, but you don't have to agree or sign the treaty."
Succinctly put, treaties aren't something you can make another nation sign, and if signed due to force, really force them to comply with in their local area.
A global government however, could punish citizens of any country, should they fail to follow global laws passed.
That said, I am highly uncomfortable with the idea of a global government, because there is such a wide range of belief systems out there, some of them totalitarian, many of them non-democratic, many of them tied deeply to religion, and I don't think the outcome could last, or be pretty.