Amazon.com Widgets
  • This will be a good thing!

    With a world government, we can have more peace. It will save so many lives. We can also work together with the other countries to meet our goals faster. I believe that it would work like this: all of the world leaders would be representatives for their respective country. They would work together to make laws, kind of like the United Nations does now, except with more power.

  • But not right now, because the world is still too diverse.

    We should move towards a one world government, but VERY VERY slowly. A world government would prevent exploitation of poor, ensuring a thriving middle class across the world, and help grow the economy. It would also get rid of the pesky all-life-on-earth-ending problem of nuclear war. However, as others have pointed out, the current world has far to many differences in languages, culture and basic economic prosperity, and a world government would not be any more efficient than the current system at dealing with local problems. However, as single languages become more popular (Mandarin in Asia, Spanish in South America, English in NA and Europe, and French/English in Africa) and third-world countries move closer to First-world countries, it will become a lot easier to unify, and will make more sense for a homogeneous society.

  • But with caution and strong system of checks and balances, MAYBE

    I see a common argument against saying we would be stuck with one system of government. I dissent from this opinion. Every system of government has pro and cons. Who is to say that we cant learn and take all the best parts from various systems and combine them into one. Also, a single united global body would likely result in more effective legislation on issues such as climate change and trade. Perhaps war would become a thing of the past. However, there is always the risk that global war would be waged in order to obtain this one world government. There are significant challenges which must be overcome and stipulations that must be meant. In the end, whatever gets us to a more symbiotic relationship with each other is the way to go. We are all human beings and we all live on the same planet, it is time we embrace one another as brothers and sisters of Earth. If it takes being under an umbrella of a singular government then I am for it. Also, if it can be accomplished through current conventional measures with multiple governments (the UN) then I am for that too. It is taking to long for us all to be at peace.

  • We should move toward one world government so we can devote more resources to things and make more clear changes across the entire planet.

    One issue is different governments want different things so its hard for them to cooperate and do things. I also imagine that having one world government would benefit many places in poverty or torn in civil war simply because all of the resources would be leveraged across every single area that is under this one world government insuring that recovery and growth can occur.

  • People cannot be trusted to do what is good for them

    A one world government completely ruled by a hyperintelligent computer programmed by moral experts where its prime directives are based on basic human rights, environmental concerns, quality of life would be efficient and free of corruption, illogical decision making from emotional and self serving humans. The computer would never falter but is open minded to new ideas, discoveries, changes in needs but never violate those original prime directives.

  • Preemptive solution and mitigation against various countries abilities to wage thermonuclear war against one another.

    I need only mention the fact that USA and Russia nearly engaged each other with nuclear or large scale convention war. But, I will end with mentioning the current situation in North Korea.

    I should also mention the fact that we are biologically poisoning ourselves and more importantly our future generations of humans by allow corporations to weed out externalities. Only commodification of externalities would incentivise corporations to fix the problems they create. Basically we are destroying our own habitable environment .

    If we want an extraplanetary future, then a one world government is the ONLY option available to us.
    I understand differences in cultural norms must be overcome. But the people if they work together can accomplish this with relative ease.

  • Some countries must concede their bestowed power but rapid rising 'equality' will grant happiness to all the poor.

    Ultimate power onto few contries keep making unfair balance on economy and social culture. This begets unfairness on all people in the world to be unhappy.
    If we stop all the tension among countries and stop investing money on army, enhancing investment for poor people and cosmology more, we would see new world I am sure it.

  • Dangerous to humanity

    Different types of government on this planet is like different types of ice-cream flavors. Some taste good and some taste bad. That's the beauty of it. We learn from all the government. Both good and bad. One world government would get us stuck with only one flavor. Good luck people.

  • It is impratical

    Even if the world government would work for democracy, not everyone will be able to agree with its idea. By one word said by the world government the world government would not be able to persuade everyone in the whole world. Also if we vote for one world government not everyone will be able to vote for the world government.

  • "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" - William Pitt The Elder

    A one world government would effectively be granted unlimited power over the world. No matter what checks and balances were in place, that government would always be tempted to misuse that power. The kind of people who desire to make a career in politics and governance are, for the most part, precisely the kind of people who would succumb most easily to that temptation, and should, therefore be excluded for applying. Looking back through history, I have not ever seen a single politician whom I would trust to be a member of a one world government. The few who have shown true integrity and unshakeable morals, like Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Martin Luther King, have always been devoted to just one issue, and have had little interest in the day-to-day dealings of the rest of government. Those who do not have that desire to govern, conversely, are without the sufficient knowledge, interest or drive to do the job. Several suggestions have been made for how to address this issue, but all fall short of a true solution. The people who have suggested the idea of "governance by computer" obviously don't really know about computers. A computer is a box of binary bits which does exactly and only what it is programmed to do by its operator(s). Those operators would need to be highly trained and skilled (most good ones have IQ's in excess of 140!), and by virtue of that, very difficult to oversee, as very few people on the planet would understand the programming at the core of the computer. One change in one line of code, whether accidental or intentional, could bring about a global holocaust. Imagine, for example, in the line of code which states "Killing equals wrong" if "equals" were replaced by "not equals", which, in computer programming terms, is the addition of one single "/" character! Another suggestion is to abandon democratic elections in favour of a random selection process, where everyone on the planet above a certain IQ level was eligible to serve in the government, and selected by random lottery. This could quite easily result in a totally uninterested and "clueless" government who would be quite happy to sit back, do nothing and let anarchy ensue. The primary reason that one world government cannot work, and will never be able to work, therefore, is Human Nature itself.

  • Unnecessary one world govt

    Its only gonna provoke cultural clash between minorities and majorities. Dominant culture will keep suppressing the minor culture such as Amazon tribes culture and that would only cause resentment toward other cultures. Also, one govt wont be able to accomplish anything. One leader will have to look over 200+ countries and that is obviously too much for him/her to handle. Even if they do some kind of representative democracy, there are still so many policies and problems to decide.

  • Different Places, Different Cultures

    I suppose one could try, but it would be near impossible to run, because all of the different regions of the world have their own traditions and culture, and almost any law that you would set would be a violation of someone's culture somewhere. Even if you made these laws anyway, they would be near impossible to enforce, as the world's population is spread over many continents. Each country has enough trouble governing itself right now. There is no way every country would agree to a single government to rule over them all.

  • Some Issues Are Best Handled Locally

    Every country has a different set of needs and realities. It's harder to manage malaria problems in Africa when the people calling the shots are actually not in Africa. The same could be said for running the New York City sewer system, or American interstate commerce; nobody in Belgium will have enough local knowledge to set the right policies into motion.

    Posted by: rpr
  • We're Far From It

    We are not moving close to a one world government. As a matter of fact, we are probably farther from it than ever before. The policies of countries are very different and each chooses theirs by what their leaders think and how their area functions. There would also be a power issue that would prevent this.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.