To be clear I wasn’t suggesting they are, just that many discussions I’ve read between people talking about free trade agreements tend to coalesce around the ideas of either a one world government or a one world economy.
Forget possible tyranny.
What if it gets bloated/inefficient/beauracratic? Which seems to be the natural evolution of such things.
And then, attempts to fix itself are based on theories that don’t work or avoiding the hard choices.
So, eventually the whole word gets bogged down in the mess until there is a world wide revolution and or some level of the collapse of moderns society.
To me that is the real danger and IMO not a low probability one for that matter.
Does a OWG have to be a strong central government? Couldn’t it work like this maybe, regional confederations of states (EU, Eurasion Union, North American Union or things like that) that are finally tied into an international confederation? This would help ensure that each region gets a proportional representation in the government.
However. yes, I think bureaucracy and inefficiency would be much greater under a OWG. However we’d also have to weigh that with potential benefits of a OWG setup.
Damn, people. It’s like you’ve never heard of separatists before. We can’t even get everyone in a single country to agree on a government. What could possibly make a OWG feasible, let alone stable? How are you going to enforce a law that an entire continent hates?
That sort of thing is why we have wars, people.
Yeah, and how soon will individuals be able to whip up genetically engineered viruses in their basements?
psik
I was under the impression transgenesis was already being done DIY 
I could see that as a conspiracy theory, but the reality is probably the opposite.
It’s trite, but Frost wasn’t entirely wrong that good fences make good neighbors. I see free trade agreements more as countries and blocs deciding to be neighborly - with very clearly defined bounds and rules so that everybody can be nice and friendly with the same sort of neighborly prohibitions on taking one step over the line without say-so or else we’ll have to take this to court or the police will have to be called in because of that unfortunate accident with the gardening shears.
There’s only one thing I can’t figure out.
Who in their right mind would want to be in charge of running the world?
Because sometimes smaller is better. I dont think it coincidence that many of the best run countries in the world are of a certain population size - Scandanavan countries etc.
A one world government also takes away healthy competion between States. If one State proves it is well run then that is an encouragement to other States to copy/improve on their own running. A poorly run State also become a warning to other States.
It worked well for Rome.
Nobody, Which is why the people who are *not *in their right mind would inevitably end up in charge.
Reduces local representation.
Reduces competition.
Reduces cultural representation and imperatives.
Increases odds of world wide tyranny.
Bureaucratic rules get increasingly stupid and out of touch (see also: EU)
One size fits all only works to a point, then it becomes counter productive.
Personally, I think a one world government is inevitable. But it will take time, and have to come into existence gradually. It will probably come from an organization like the UN gradually getting enough power to actually influence the largest/most powerful nations, like the US and China. However, as ease of communication increases and economic forces become more widespread, there will be a gradual homogeneity of world peoples to the point that resistance to a single governing body will be outweighed by a desire for a governing body to level the social differences between one part of the world and another.
A point was made how in science fiction, a one world government was used as a counterpart to alien governments. I don’t think it needs to be that. A global climatological event (man-made or not) could be the impetus to unite. Or perhaps an astronomical calamity. Governments form out of necessity, and they dissolve when their required resources exceed their benefits. The reason that the US is having the troubles it currently suffers is that the perception is that we don’t benefit from it very much. (Remember the whole “I built this” boondoggle during the last presidential election?) When it comes down to it, the US will continue because we really do need each other, whether we are willing to admit it or not. Likewise, there will almost certainly come a time when all the people of the world will need each other more than they despise each other. Then we’ll get the OWG.
[shrug] We have interstate economic competition within the U.S., but we still have Union.
It isn’t bad provided it emerges in a natural manner. I think it ought to start with a union of the developed Western nations which gradually incorporates other countries until a world government isn’t formed.
As things stand now, though, there are many, many people around the world who I wouldn’t want to have any power over me.
**Why would a one-world government be bad?
**Because while everybody figures everything would be *so *much better if people over there did it like we do down here, nobody down here wants those idiots from over there to have a say in how we do things. Simple as that.
True, but with all the world signed up to some kind of global union, there are many more options than war or nothing.
e.g. sanctions could be a much stronger threat with all the world on board. China right now can bully its neighbours because of its relative size. Imagine instead everyone is signed up to a maritime agreement where if you violate another country’s territory, automatic (i.e. no need for a round of voting) sanctions are applied by all the other world’s nations.
It’s true beyond that that there are some world leaders who are just nuts and prepared to devastate their own countries just to stay in power. Just as now, if we care sufficiently about that happening, then, yes, we would need to go to war. Although, even then, that doesn’t necessarily entail the need for a federal army.
A one-world government is the next logical step in human development. We, as a species, are not yet ready to take that step yet.
*All *the world’s nations? Really? You think a big, rich country like China wouldn’t be able to find some friends? Chances are, a world government would let China *annex *the entire South China Sea and surrounding nations.
In other words, don’t be so sure that this power you’re creating will be used for good.