It seems to me that the only justification for the state is a utilitarian one, that governments provide people with social security nets that increase the general standard of living as well as prevent people from committing at least some anti-social acts against each other. Utilitarians are egalitarians, since they don't believe that any one person's welfare or preference deserves any more or less consideration than any other's. Taking this to it's logical conclusion, do utilitarians have to support the idea of a one world government, at least in theory? Whether or not a one world government is practical is another matter.

I'd consider the only justification for anything a utilitarian one.

We would, in theory, support whatever kind of government is most practical. We don't care about the ideology. That's what Utilitarianism is all about.

People are scared of world government. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.

A world government (or similar singleton) is probably the only way we can get a good future in the long run. See THE FUTURE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION

A compelling line of argument goes like this: it's preferable for many democracies to exist with free passage between them. Then, we can get into small groups and elect people who truly represent us. The smaller the government is, up until a reasonable limit, the more freedom we have to choose our own laws. Furthermore, this arrangement would force governments to compete with each other in a way that resembles evolution so that they will represent us more and more democratically.

Although there are decent counter-arguments, I think this small-democracy argument is a decent guiding principle.

Once you make the governments compete, why bother making them democratic? Dictatorships would have to compete with democracies, so they couldn't exploit the people, they could focus on running the country since they wouldn't have to campaign, and they could get rid of all the administrative costs related to voting.

The biggest problem is that any attempt to rob the rich to pay the poor would result in the rich moving. As such, welfare would be impossible.

I would agree that the only way to lead the planet in anything close to the optimal direction would be to establish a single government under the rule of a long series of benevolent tyrants over the centuries. I doubt that this will ever happen because of the psychology that drives people to power and the psychology that leads the masses to support people who speak to their inner fears and needs.

Research that describes the support for authoritarian rule also show that the traits that lead to such power are not conducive to concern for principles like social justice, peace, freedom (for other people), and other such things that philosophers might want. A good starting point for understanding this is a two-volume work by Adorno et al. (1950) who studied the characteristics of right-wing authoritarianism to better understand how the fascists in World War II were able to gain power. They wanted to see if there was a personality that is “susceptible to antidemocratic propaganda” (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 1). Part of the effort was to examine ideology, which they defined as “an organization of opinions, attitudes, and values—a way of thinking about man and society” (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 2).

Adorno et al. (1950) identified various themes that differentiated people with respect to the tendency to believe anti-semetic statements, endorse the use of military force, and other such things. They studied many people then used two case studies that exemplified the two types of people with respect to authoritarianism: the right-wing guy made broad generalizations of Jewish people using negative stereotypes (p. 41). Part of his view was focused on power: he criticized Jewish people for obsession with power while simultaneously criticizing his own race for failing to gain power (p. 44). An underlying theme for him was to not critically analyze himself or White people while forming his images of other groups without evidence or critical thinking (p. 45). He also failed to acknowledge his motives with regard to these issues (p. 45). Other chapters go into more detail on these issues.

The other guy, who did not fit the authoritarian model, was more inclined to consider a person’s situation when evaluating that person, acknowledge his own motives, and he otherwise contrasted with the right-wing guy on each point (although there were some non-characteristic traits).

Another way to view authoritarianism is from the work of Schwartz (1992), Schwartz and Bilsky (1990), and Schwartz and Sagie (2000) who found a relatively stable pattern of values across many countries with traits related to power, security, conservatism opposing traits for open-mindedness, equality, peace, and so forth. These values were framed withing a larger structure of values that was thought to be all-inclusive (or at least spanning the main values thought to be relevant). More recently, Mavor, Louis, and Sibley (2010) found a three-factor structure to right-wing authoritarianism: Aggression, Submission, and Conventionalism.

My point is that the masses will support leaders who appeal to their needs for power and their tendency to degrade out-group members. This rise to power is facilitated by unwillingness to think critically about their own motives and fears and their tendency to emphasize security over freedom. We see these things alive and well in the U.S., and even if a benevolent tyrant gains power (Obama?) that rise to power will activate all these psychological traits of people who would oppose the benevolent tyrant. Although education might help, eventually these underlying psychological traits would lead people to oppose educational measures or other policies that would sacrifice national security (at least in their minds). Thus, I would not hold my breath while I wait for a benevolent one-world government to guide us to the land of milk and honey.

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., Betty Aron, R. N. S. with, Hertz-Levinson, M., & Morrow, W. (1950). The authoritarian personality (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Science Editions.

Mavor, K. I., Louis, W. R., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). A bias-corrected exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of right-wing authoritarianism: Support for a three-factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 28–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.006

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–62). San Diego: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal con- tent and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–891.

Schwartz, S. H., & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 465– 497. DOI: 10.1177/0022022100031004003

DanielLC, I accept your criticisms of that small competitive democracy idea.

Rehoot, I'd strongly disagree with your central idea, that for the world to be run "close to optimally", there should be a benevolent dictatorship. I think the key issue here is that utilitarianism doesn't demand us to imagine some utopia, then figure out how to get there. It demands us to consider political systems that we can actually realise and then decide which is best. It requires us to be practical. I don't see how you can encourage benevolent dictatorship without also permitting ordinary malevolent dictatorship. I'd say that democracy seems the least bad system of politics available to us.

RyanCarey wrote:utilitarianism... demands us to consider political systems that we can actually realise and then decide which is best. It requires us to be practical. I don't see how you can encourage benevolent dictatorship without also permitting ordinary malevolent dictatorship. I'd say that democracy seems the least bad system of politics available to us.

From the set of realistic alternatives, democracy is currently the best. My previous post argued that, hypothetically, a benevolent dictator might be the most efficient way to good ends (in a utilitarian sense), but that it would not work in the real world. I gave some reasons why I think an authoritarian regime would fail: the motives that drive people to power are inconsistent with the motives that would lead to a good society by my standards (and other arguments about never-ending power struggles). I did not intend to suggest that people work toward a benevolent dictatorship.

As for how good democracy is, it might be the best realistic form of government today, but it isn't optimal. So the search continues as far as I'm concerned. Consider this: in creating a society to one person's standards, it cannot be optimal according to a person with different standards. As you work toward one goal, another works toward another goal. That is just the struggle for power that has characterized much of history (although so far the net effect of democracy has been gradual improvement in some areas, such as civil rights).

I suspect that the search to improve "political systems" must go beyond (or along side) politics. I think that motivating people to seek truth and helping people acquire abilities to do so might help voters and politicians make better choices. The scope of this task is immense and might need to operate, in part, by creating a culture that fosters behaviors that help this process. As for how practical this is... perhaps small steps over the centuries will lead somewhere.

An excellent read on the topic is Peter Singer (isn't he the best?) and his "One World" book: http://www.amazon.com/One-World-Ethics-Globalization-Lectures/dp/0300103050/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1319339501&sr=8-4

In it he argues for a more broad concern for the well-being of others and points out how a set of world-governing institutions is now necessary to tackle many problems in the world: e.g. poverty, pollution & genocide. The WTO and the UN are bodies that are in a position to improve the world, but currently they are not set up in a way to solve numerous pressing issues.

While we may not need one unified world government, it seems certain that we need some bodies with legal means to influence nations for the better.