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.
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%
It would be bad. Having more distance between decision makers and the impact of those decisions is not good
It means everything must be boiled down to metrics, and when you make decisions based on metrics you tend to ignore externalities and miss large parts of the picture
It also means every power hungry asshole is going to be drawn to the world government like moths to a flame. It’ll instantly become a very political environment, where human well-being becomes the chips in a games of power
Good? Bad? The format doesn’t matter. Good is subjective based on what they do, and more importantly, for who.
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.
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 it would be terrible. The world is too big and complex for a single central government to run.
Ever heard of decentralised governence?
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.
Depends on how it’s structured. “Global governing body” could be fantastic or absolute ass.
Cultural differences are much too much.
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
I’m of two minds. A global government could be used to keep corrupt world leaders like Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu in check. On the flip side, if one of those people managed to take control of it, it could be really hard for good world leaders to fight back. So, like any government, it’s good as long as the right people are in charge
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.
Are we talking like a New World Order that acts as one set of rules for the whole world?
Or an alliance of all nations (like the UN) that makes sure nobody gets too out of line?
The first, has WAY too much potential for absolute corruption, the second would be much better if there were set human rights that COULD NEVER be revoked and 100% cooperation among ALL nations.
One global governing body trying to balance a shit load of different cultures? Oof I dont want that job
