Edit~hey gang, when I posed this question and had some opinions. I realized I don’t really feel one way or another about it and I can’t really articulate a stance (probably just too tired). I won’t be engaging. I don’t want to just delete it though because some people made interesting points. Up to mods what to do with this.
Sir, this is Lemmy.
But seriously, we’re on a social media platform that is all about decentralization. Of course a lot of people here dislike the idea of a single world government, for all the reasons already mentioned and more. Everything we dislike about centralized social media platforms would be present at a much greater level in a single world government.
Yes but it would have to be extremely limited to major crises that can only be realistically managed at a global scale. Wars, climate change, etc. It shouldn’t be trying to run your local library or tell you what clothes you’re allowed to wear. It would also have to be largely voluntary with participation incentivized by carrots instead of sticks.
In fact, I’d say there shouldn’t be one global government but several. A new and independent one could be formed for each specific situation that merited it, and then it would be dissolved when or if it was no longer needed. This might be slightly less efficient but it would prevent scope creep from turning into authoritarianism like we’ve seen with the US government.
Good? Bad? The format doesn’t matter. Good is subjective based on what they do, and more importantly, for who.
one global governing body to ensure equity among peers would be a natural progression of democracy. however, democracy has failed in the modern era due to capitalist greed and thirst for power.
the only way to guarantee equity would be to set worldwide wealth caps on individuals, corporations, and governments. along with setting a world currency that’s traceable to ensure wealth is fairly distributed.
problem is, wealth changes shape or form. today wealth is gold, tomorrow it’s wine, day after that it’s people.
if we manage to find a way to stabilize wealth equitably, we have a chance at building a Utopian society.
No, it reduces the effort needed for corruption.
The smaller the circle of power is, the less effort is needed to corrupt the entire system.Also, it would prevent experimentation. Trial and error is an important method of finding out what works. One governing body would have one set of rules, we would never discover if a better set of rules exist.
Who says one governing body means only one set of rules? What if one governing body kept different rules for different areas?
Sure as long as it agrees with me 100%
Yes if it was functioning well. It would definately need individual and environmental rights and likely would need to have powerful checks.
With global trade and most of all the internet, we already have and need it. We have the WTO and the ICC, plus many _very_comprehensive trade agreements. I would honestly rather have that governed by a democratically elected governing body than whatever it is now.
I think the right to be forgotten in the EU is a very interesting case in this regard. To recap: the right to be forgotten is the concept that if someone is associated with something they don’t like in the news, they can make a request to be “forgotten” by search engines (yet not by the news sites themselves which I find a tad odd, but anyway). There was a later court case where someone had used a VPN to look up something and as such appearing to be outside of the EU, and the court ruled that even in that case Google wansn’t allowed to serve up those results. So, essentially, it is applied to people around the world. What happens when a country implements, let’s say, for instance, an anti-censorship law that forbids artificially removing or housing search results? Oops. This is the kind of thing we could use a global government for. But again, very great care has to be taken to ensure that it is a well functioning democratic system.
Possibly in the short term with the understanding that this isn’t the end all be all solution.
Depends. One central authority responsible for everything seems like a really bad idea. On the other hand, one central authority responsible for things like human rights and ecological risks seems like a really good idea. In general I like recursive federated government, with the highest levels having the narrowest scope and deferring most things to lower levels.
I feel like it would be one of two things… It would go spectacularly well or it would be absolute garbage. Based on what I’ve seen from humanity… I lean towards the later lol
No. Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts completely.
Oh lol yes I’m definitely on the anarchist side. There has never been any genocides, wars, etc that weren’t committed by people in power.
It would be bad. Governments like one solution that fits all. That is impossible over geographic regions. Take the EU, rules that apply to Denmark about housing insulation would be horrific if implemented in Spain.
Anybody who answers yes to this question, would your answer change if the one in charge was Trump (or a group of people like Trump)?
A benevolent dictator is a very efficient system. Hard part is finding the benevolent dictator
One global governing body trying to balance a shit load of different cultures? Oof I dont want that job
