Plus there is the practical side of things, people would disagree on definations and scope. To take an example, people from Europe perfer a lot more government intervention, while people in Middle East and S Asia generally like less involved governments.
All in all, its something that could happen but the present political climate will have to change drastically.
I would totally support it, along with one currency and one military.
The international government doesn’t have to micromanage everything. You could still have concentric layers of autonomy with the international government only legislating on a specified scope of concerns which affect the world as a whole.
I don’t know why people think provincial government is somehow safer than federal government. The more localized and provincial a power is, the more totalitarian and controlling, and culturally narrow it becomes.
Cause those bastards live down the street and can be taken care of if need be…
And if you cant take care of em, you can usually at least get away from em.
I would support a One World Government if the constitution could guarantee the principle of subsidiarity (no fair creating loopholes like inter-state commerce).
Most issues can and should be handled a local level. Some can’t. A smaller few need global attention.
Why would the one world government need a military?
That is itself a safeguard; see post #16.
No; the RR does not have predominant power; it merely, because it is very well-organized and vocal, has power which is arguably out of proportion to its numbers (but not very far out of proportion; probably almost one American in four is sympathetic to it, certainly one in three is a religious conservative of some kind). Yet abortion remains legal, school prayer still is not allowed, etc. The organization and zeal of the RR merely assures that these issues never drop off the public agenda entirely. IOW, the situation is Mostly Harmless.
Every state, however democratic or popular, needs some sort of military or paramilitary establishment, to defend it against internal rebels as well as external enemies. To be an effective government (as distinct from a mere association, like the UN), a world government would need a more powerful military establishment of its own than those of all its member states combined; otherwise it could be overthrown. Of course, over time, both the member-states’ and the world governments’ military establishments could be drawn down to token forces.
Martians.
As strong as the EU? Yes.
As strong as the US? Hell, no.
Absolutely not. I think the Federal government here in the US has too much power; I would not want to see more power ceded to an authority even more removed. As one travels up the tiers of authority, the power wielded should be used in a much broader context: simply outlawing those things deemed completely unacceptable (murder, theft, rape) or protecting those things deemed absolutely essential (freedom of speech, religion etc.). Micromanaging the world from Brussels, as most here recognize, is a terrible idea. I think micromanaging the US from DC is a poor choice as well, though I realize others may not agree.
Really, in no conceivable situation (outside of the fantastical idea of interstellar war against a threatening species) would I want to see a world government.
I don’t think a world government is a realistic possibility in my lifetime but I think it is highly desirable in the very long run and I hope the world moves some way in that direction over the next few decades. The main purpose of government is to solve problems which are beyond the private sector and increasingly these problems from climate change to terrorism are global in nature.
Incidentally the RR doesn’t have much real power in the US. The GOP does a great job of riling up the faithful for election day but when they are in power their actual policies are focussed towards business interests and wealthy taxpayers. Recall how the gay marriage issue was dropped like a stone after the 2004 election.
Absolutely not. As previous posters have pointed out, what if something goes wrong? Suppose for whatever reason the government becomes one under which I don’t want to live. Not having any other options is terrifying.
Think about it this way. If you want a one world government, it’s probably because you’re dissatisfied with your own government. Well, don’t be so sure the one world one would turn out any better. And then what?
Now, if you suggest some sort of global free trade federation, we might have something to talk about.
No; I’d prefer to see lots more small governments. I’d like the U.S. to be broken up into a few dozen tiny nations.
I second this.
If you hate America so much, then why don’t you leave?
I am flabbergasted that anyone thinks this is even remotely a good idea, besides in a “perfect world, 25th century, something like Star Trek” kinda way.
Have any of these folks every worked for a crappy company, been in or seen a dysfunctional family, had crazy neighbors, dealt with gubment red tape, or tried to get something taken care of hundreds if not thousands of miles away ?
Have you meet the other people on this planet? They are idiots! 
You want them in charge ?
Again, flabbergasted.
No, it is because you are dissatisfied with the world having a multiplicity of governments, frequently in conflict with each other and frequently escalating to armed conflict; also for economic reasons. Why, after all, did the Founding Fathers decide the new United States needed a real federal government, something stronger than that provided by the Articles of Confederation?
I don’t know. I came in here to read the objections, but none of them seem really deal-breaking:
- Dictators and such would exercise power.
- Why would they be given more power than anyone else? And if they do attempt to band together, why wouldn’t we have provisos in place to deal with such a situation?
- Too much diversity to agree.
Well - that would be our saving grace as well, IMO. - Can’t go anywhere else
- But wouldn’t we have provisions to elect in a new government? And the whole government is going to go bad? All of the tiers?
I also came in here to read and see how it work. Tiered structure sounds good. I like the idea of “as strong as the EU”, “not as strong as the US”, (apologies, Tom Scud, for stealing that).
In short I don’t really see how the objections couldn’t be dealt with. What about not a one world government but perhaps all of the countries that would be agreeable to run things as a democracy? How would that work?
:rolleyes: Who said anything about hating America? I think this country is great, though flawed. I think the federal government is much to powerful, and if this union was returned to a coalition of states that worked together, rather than one ruled from DC, things in general would be much better. No more drag down knock out fights over UHC or gun control or welfare. Each state could make their own policy, and watch with interest the successes or failures of other states.
You know, no government in history has ever been organized on a “Love it or leave it!” principle; that leaving sometimes has been a realistic option is incidental and irrelevant.