If we had a constitutional system with checks and balances, and an impeachment process, I think we’d be ok.
Besides, I doubt the world would choose Bush. 
I am kind of curious about what candidate could possibly appeal to the majority of the world though.
I honestly don’t know if it is better or not. 
It would be nice if SOMEBODY went into those countries and cleaned them up. The people there are suffering for no reason.
But I think a world government strong enough to do that would cause worse problems.
_
_
MG, I don’t think that this would be a problem. A OWG system would only work if there were very functional regional governmental systems that would address local needs (economical, social, etc). This system would hardly be functional if all matters of governance had to be decided at the global federal level. For example: The seasonal needs (i.e. winter) of citizens of New York are very different from those of citizens of Los Angeles. Local government addresses these needs and should be able to look to the Federal system only in the case of an emergency.
A system of generally agreed-upon laws is not a government. The medieval Holy Roman Empire, with its princes periodically making war on each other without asking leave of the emperor, had more of a general government than the world has today.
Nobody. Nobody could appeal to 51% of the world’s six billion people, even if you winnow it down to people over the age of eighteen who are not now incapable of communicating with the outside world. The issues of the whole world are so many and so varied across regions that nobody could water-down his image enough to appeal to most people, worldwide. I doubt anyone could water-down his image enough to reliably avoid deeply offending a goodly plurality of people, worldwide.
The One World Congress would be an absolute mess. If you think a national legislature is messy, you have to realize that all of the legislators share a common language and culture, and only rarely does a national legislature address the topic of a genocide carried out by one gentleman’s constituency against another gentleman’s constituency. Plus, the legislators can’t go home and raise militias with their very own nukes.
The UN cannot be used as a real example: Only a few states have veto power, and only a few states seriously set the tone of debates and actions. A One World Government that is so elitist would be taken down by massive civil war, and good riddance.
Finally, the sheer expense would be staggering. If the recounts in Florida in 2000 were expensive, imagine the expense of ensuring the safety of voters in places where the One World Government would be replacing decades of chaos. And that, of course, is assuming the voters can read, write, and actually be made to care that there is a whole wide world beyond their cholera and malaria and grinding, starving, desperate poverty.
There has been something like a One World Government since about 1900.
First it was called The Great Powers, after WWI it was (a weak) League of Nations, and since WWII it has been the UN, now it is a US hegemony.
Consider the case of Mexico (or Congo, or Pakistan, any small country). They have issues they would like to submit to a World Parliament, President, whoever. If they could do so, such a body would consider their case and make a ruling.
Such a ruling would be largely arbitrary, such is the nature of any government. The Mexicans would have a chance to make their case, but their opinion would be secondary to the desire of the Big Important Nations. Again, this is sad, but quite true.
So under an ideal situation, Mexico would get told what to do within limits.
So now look at the real world. Mexico has grievances. They took their case to the Great Powers, the League of Nations, the UN, or to Washington and they got a hearing. Their input is considered.
But their input is secondary to the desires of big, rich, powerful countries.
I would suppose the arbitrary decisions of the US, the World Bank and all the rest of it is no worse (and no better) that those that would have been issued by a more formal One World Government.
Strictly speaking, opposition to a one-world government (indeed, the only people to whom this is an issue worth discussing), comes from evangelical Christians who believe that such an institution would be run by the anti-christ.
Yes, other people in this thread have some valid points, but when you get down to it nobody but the born-again even talk about a world government, despite what’s going on with the European Union.
True, in the sense of the OP question – but it’s not just the “fundies”, it’s also a lot of the US Right Wing in general. Because they are conscious that the political position of the USA is centered further to the right than the rest of the world, and they are concerned that even in the best-case benevolent World Government scenario, the US and kindred nations would become the “blue states” of the Planet.
JRDelirious:
So much for “values”.
Without getting too deeply into semantics, I think we can agree that there are different levels of “government”. Consider the powers of the United States Federal government when the constitution was signed compared to now.
When would you agree that the U.K. existed under a single goverment? If you haven’t read the history of their government, I think it would significantly inform you in regard to the merit of my post.
You don’t get the “experimentation” element with one government. How do you know what modes of government and laws will work best with the situations at hand?
Right now, if a country wonders what the effects of capital gains taxes are, they can look at countries like the US that have low CG taxes, and countries like [insert country with high CG taxes] and compare. In a world gov’t, decisions would all be based on which politicians convinced the electorate based not on example, but on retoric.
Which means you don’t wind up with a US two-party system. You have multiple parties, and gaining power requires a broader consensus on a range of issues and demographics.
This is not necessarily a bad thing.
So, even with a 500,000 party system (a very conservative estimate), how do you pick the guy in charge, or a ruling coalition small enough to be effective? You have to consider that not every member region will recognize the existence of every other member region (think Israel and Palestine, or China and Taiwan), or will recognize the right of the population of every other member region to exist at all (Turkey and Kurdistan, perhaps, or something like the Hutu and Tutsi violence).
You will also have to deal with less murderous prejudices. I don’t think any Islamic-majority region will elect a female to high power, or that China wouldn’t use its clout to ensure Tibet could never send a delegate to the World Congress. Sectional disputes can completely derail an election if a substantial plurality doesn’t recognize the right of a candidate to have any political or public existence whatsoever. And you have the problem of a region not admitting that it has internal dissent while making sure its dissidents never get to vote or otherwise influence the political process in any way (like, say, by breathing).
In short, picking a ruler would be maddening and frustrating and, in the end, futile. There would be regions violently in support of their own candidate, regions where certain candidates risk being shot on sight, and regions which simply will not vote for any candidate of a specific type. I don’t think any specific group would get more than 1% of the total vote.
Why would a single world government need an executive/ruler? Couldn’t a weak federal system exist without a president? Doesn’t Switzerland have no strong executive?
The Swiss cantons are, I believe, all very similar in their political organization; they are different only in language. A better model would be the European Union, an international quasigovernment of states with very different constitutions. In the EU, executive power is distributed among several different institutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_union
Do you think with a one world economy already in the works, a OWG is inevitable?
Not to make a assumptions, but I’ve heard people refer to things like the TPP, NAFTA, etc. as steps to a one-world economy.
Our population and technology has reached the point that we need one but we can’t even run big national governments.
All we can do is sit back and watch the crap fall apart.
psik
The might be, but they needn’t be.