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

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

No it would be terrible. The world is too big and complex for a single central government to run.

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.

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.

Good? Bad? The format doesn't matter. Good is subjective based on what they do, and more importantly, for who.

Sure as long as it agrees with me 100%

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cultural differences are much too much.

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.

Depends on how it's structured. "Global governing body" could be fantastic or absolute ass.

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.

One global governing body trying to balance a shit load of different cultures? Oof I dont want that job

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

Yes. It’s insane that you have different laws, rights, taxes, etc. based on your location.

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.

Possibly in the short term with the understanding that this isn't the end all be all solution.

Yes if it was functioning well. It would definately need individual and environmental rights and likely would need to have powerful checks.

We kind of have a global legislature already. We would just need a global executive.

No. We are not at a point where we could agree to anything like that at the moment.

No, everyone is too different. We should go back to tribes