Pros: -Easy to keep the peace. -Humanity would no longer be split. Cons: -Absolute government corrupts absolutely. -No more uniqueness. Cultures merged and forgotten. Add more.
It would likely be with a parliamentary system, and democratically driven. I hate that. Our Republic is not perfect, but it is better than what the Brits and Canadians have.
No way for me, sorta reminds me of Star Wars. For the rebels at least they have some far off galaxies to hide. For us, if an authoritarian government manage to take over and govern, we will be worse off than slaves.
We can't get our government to function when it has responsible for 300 million people, how the hell is it going to get anything done with he has to manage 6 billion people.
What is worse, it may not be your government (which is clearly not the best) at the helm, who knows a Stalin type strong man may be at the helm, all of us will suffer I rather not take the risk, I think the advantages of one world government is clearly outweight by its disadvantages.
That is the problem with centralizing power. The highest levels of authority are furthest from the individual. How many people can go to their nation's capitol, and lobby effectively for change? A lot easier to do it at your local city hall. Btw, this is only going to come as the result of a global crisis, and massive trade documents like NAFTA, which are similar to the precursors of the EU. Once you have a NAU, then an AU, along with an EU and an Asian Union, it's game over. Effectively another layer will be added on civilization to keep the people from being able to confront the UN, the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF. It will be game over.
Its called feudalism. Im a politics major. Im in favour of it. In fact its rather communist but based on each individual country being democratic. Every individual country that forms the one government, have to have the same structure. Or simply it has to many flaws. Its virtually impossible. But the way i see it, it could work with success. That or having a bipolar world is the safest and all i wish for is world peace.
There would have to be a vote of around 300 individuals from all states that form the government. And we have to place trust in those 300, they could well appoint a bad and inhumane leader.
I had eerie thought. While the huge majority of us oppose a one world government - what anyone really do when it all fits together? It's not like you could vote against it - I think choice would be nonexistent. Currency would probably also be completely consolidated then too, into one single currency.
There is to many different cultures, political structures, religions and genuine differences in opinion for one government to work. I would like it to work. But in this diverse world i doubt it would.
I don't support even having an european government, how could I support having a world government. They would have too much power and the "humanity will no longer be split" argument isn't really true. We're not split by our governments, we're split by our national identities, languages, cultural differences, etc. I'm sure there would be lots of groups of people who would oppose having such a government and fight against it which would lead to more people being opressed because they oppose the government.
Yeh possibly. I think the way we have it now, may be the best we could ever get the world in terms of stability. Although a bipolar world has been proven throughout political schools of though to be the most stable.