World government

[Pyrrho]

A world government could be the best government possible, or the worst government possible, or anything in between.  So it is not inherently either good or bad.

Advantages include the elimination of the cost of having militaries, as there is no other country from which one needs to defend oneself.  No nuclear weapons, etc.  So there would be a huge savings of resources that would come with one government.  There would also not need to be so many redundancies as are presently the case.  Think of all of the people in government who do the same thing as others, but only influence one country instead of the whole world.  For example, we would only need one head of the department of education, not one in each and every country.  (Of course, there would still be a need for local governments, as in city governments and such, but the national governments could be trimmed down greatly.)  There would be no need for diplomats and embassies.  So the savings in resources could be incredible.  All of the savings could go to good things, like better education and improving the plight of the poor.

A big downside would occur if the government were bad:  There would be no escape to a better country.


So, if the one world government were good, it would be a huge improvement over having many governments.  If it were bad, it would be worse.

[Jenny A]

Just don't let me anywhere near a position of power and we should be fine

The problem is that it's people with your attitude that I'd like to see in power.

[Dystopia]

I sincerely wish that a one world government never happens - The only difference is that the world would be slit by regions which would correspond to the former countries and the most powerful ones would continue to dominate weaker ones. The EU has been experimenting with a one regional government and it's working out great - For Germans, English and other strong economies, but smaller or weaker countries are being submitted to the will of the majority (which is to say the will of the most powerful). A one world government will never happen not only because power corrupts, but because humans are tribal in nature and most of us don't want to give up our identity in favor of some random noble cause without guarantees to work. It is working poorly for the EU, so imagine how it would work for the whole world. Too many differences, too many peoples, too many languages, too many currencies, too many different visions and ideologies. I personally would never approve to be ruled by strangers - Because that's exactly how I would see a one world government.

[Dystopia]

A world government could be the best government possible, or the worst government possible, or anything in between.  So it is not inherently either good or bad.

Advantages include the elimination of the cost of having militaries, as there is no other country from which one needs to defend oneself.  No nuclear weapons, etc.  So there would be a huge savings of resources that would come with one government.  There would also not need to be so many redundancies as are presently the case.  Think of all of the people in government who do the same thing as others, but only influence one country instead of the whole world.  For example, we would only need one head of the department of education, not one in each and every country.  (Of course, there would still be a need for local governments, as in city governments and such, but the national governments could be trimmed down greatly.)  There would be no need for diplomats and embassies.  So the savings in resources could be incredible.  All of the savings could go to good things, like better education and improving the plight of the poor.

A big downside would occur if the government were bad:  There would be no escape to a better country.


So, if the one world government were good, it would be a huge improvement over having many governments.  If it were bad, it would be worse.

I'm still amazed how people see it as bad only if the rulers are bad but forget that the loss of identity and culture is something most people despise - Globalization is already erasing part of our identities and trying to homogenize some cultures, and there's strong reactions against that. I think one of the worst problems is that centralized government couldn't work with just one department for any issue - Education in Finland, America, Nigeria and China is different, needs different methods of education and it isn't going to work with the same department trying to make everything similar even with minor differences.

[Pyrrho]

A world government could be the best government possible, or the worst government possible, or anything in between.  So it is not inherently either good or bad.

Advantages include the elimination of the cost of having militaries, as there is no other country from which one needs to defend oneself.  No nuclear weapons, etc.  So there would be a huge savings of resources that would come with one government.  There would also not need to be so many redundancies as are presently the case.  Think of all of the people in government who do the same thing as others, but only influence one country instead of the whole world.  For example, we would only need one head of the department of education, not one in each and every country.  (Of course, there would still be a need for local governments, as in city governments and such, but the national governments could be trimmed down greatly.)  There would be no need for diplomats and embassies.  So the savings in resources could be incredible.  All of the savings could go to good things, like better education and improving the plight of the poor.

A big downside would occur if the government were bad:  There would be no escape to a better country.


So, if the one world government were good, it would be a huge improvement over having many governments.  If it were bad, it would be worse.

I'm still amazed how people see it as bad only if the rulers are bad but forget that the loss of identity and culture is something most people despise - Globalization is already erasing part of our identities and trying to homogenize some cultures, and there's strong reactions against that. I think one of the worst problems is that centralized government couldn't work with just one department for any issue - Education in Finland, America, Nigeria and China is different, needs different methods of education and it isn't going to work with the same department trying to make everything similar even with minor differences.

Canada seems to have settled on a way to keep cultural differences while being one country.  Québec is keeping French as their primary language even in a country that is predominantly speaking English.  So one overall government does not entail losing cultural identity.  And I very much like the French influence, and hope to visit Montréal again.  I like Canada generally, but I really enjoyed my time in Montréal.  Vive la différence!

[The Grand Nudger]

Just don't let me anywhere near a position of power and we should be fine

I know right, it would be too much.  I'd be makin lists....................it just wouldn't work out for anyone, not even me.

A one world government and the homogenization of culture are separate topics Dys.  One doesn't guarantee the other.  The US has a diverse cultural makeup from state to state, and city to city, despite it's central government.  Our central government even goes so far as to promotes this.  Notoriously, there is demarcation between cultural mores from -neighborhood to neighborhood-..even within the same city. Education in Detroit has different requirements than education in Tampa Bay, we both recognize that to be true and engage in strategies to manage. I doubt that schoolboards in Detroit and Tampa are each invested in precisely the same things to precisely the same bill. On the topic overall, I suppose whether or not a person sees us trending towards "one world government" depends on the timeframe one's considering. World government might be seen to have a centralizing trend over this or that timeframe, but not another. Are there more countries today than there were 50 years ago, I wonder? Is authority dispersed within those governments, today, moreso than it was 50 years ago, or has it been consolidated, on average?

Who's got stats?

[AFTT47]

It is inevitable by the end of this century. I'm amazed that we have the situation today where so few countries are capable of nuclear weaponry - as old as the technology is. Dangerous countries like North Korea and Pakistan have it though and Iran is probably next. It will get to the point where it will be too dangerous to not have a world government. I think it will be a relatively weak government - at least at first. It will be a tough transition but once it's done, it will be a much better world.

[Nope]

It means humans are often devious shits who once they attain the smallest bit of power abuse it as fully as any despot. See traffic wardens, teachers and tax office clerks.

I'm inclined to agree, you get one Nero wanabee in such a government and we're all fucked.Even if ran by majority rule we're all fucked because majority rule would be theocratic rule.

And the Stanford prison experiment, and the one where they think they're electrocuting someone in another room (Forgotten what that one's called)
When a person is told 'You have control over these people and as long as you obey your superiors you'll be fine' they always go too far.

It was the Milgram Experiment.


I don't know if a world government would be good or bad because I can't imagine how it would be run. Would we all vote for a council that runs the world or a single person? Would different groups get more votes or would each person get one vote?  Would there be basics rights for everyone? What kind of economic system would work best with a one world government?

[Excited Penguin]

It is inevitable by the end of this century. I'm amazed that we have the situation today where so few countries are capable of nuclear weaponry - as old as the technology is. Dangerous countries like North Korea and Pakistan have it though and Iran is probably next. It will get to the point where it will be too dangerous to not have a world government. I think it will be a relatively weak government - at least at first. It will be a tough transition but once it's done, it will be a much better world.

I agree. It's the logical next step, really. How else will we ever be able to take care of our home planet and stop human violence? Plus, if nothing else, imagine what an advanced civilisation we would become, if only we put [all] our heads together.

---

Dystopia@

EU? Are you kidding me? What about the US?

[brewer]

Makes me think of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbN1NaQ7yQI