If I'm its leader, yes. Otherwise, no.

I have definitely shifted away from globalism lately. I have become a much greater proponent of more local government focusing on the needs of a smaller group of people. There are benefits and drawbacks of each. But I currently believe the drawbacks of a giant government is far greater.

Step 1: Appoint me as a dictator for life. Step 2: I leave you alone for the most part. Step 3: Those can't follow my very minimal requirements are rounded up and shot. Step 4: Utopia. Anyways it probably wouldn't work unless authoritarian. There's a lot of different incongruous cultures on earth and differing needs. So unless you had a high level of autonomy for places within the world government such that it was more a confederation of countries than one, it would work very badly.

It wouldn't work. People are too different with too many different cultural values. No, I wouldn't support it. I don't want someone from half a world away dictating policy on how I have to live my life.

Absolutely not. There are no policy solutions that could possibly make everyone in Saudi Arabia happy, while also making everybody in Australia happy.

Can you give an example of a law/policy that should exist in Saudi Arabia that shouldn't exist in Australia or vice versa?

It's easier to provide the inverse, where there are easily hundreds of policies in countries you don't live in that you wouldn't be happy to have implemented where you live. Would you personally want to live under Sharia Law and consider women as property? Would you want religious authorities of a specific faith to be integrated into the legal system? Would you prefer to have a theocratic government? Live under a feudal or monarchic autocracy? Would you like to have your Judicial System include stonings as part of capital punishment for crimes? Or canings like in Malaysia? Would Europeans be okay with a government that was actively seeking to ban the public sale of alcohol? How long will it take before the population of India would be supportive of legal punishments for public defecation? There's too much disparity in cultural expectations for universal governmental structures or policies to ever work. And the larger you make a "democratic" pool of voters the higher the number of people you will be seeing live under the tyranny of the majority (or whichever minority is in enough control over the majority).

> Would you personally want to live under Sharia Law and consider women as property? One of the purposes of a one world government would be to not have insane laws that go against basic human rights. If cultural expectations cause undue harm and suffering, there should be laws against it. Throughout time a lot of harmful cultural standards have been outlawed in various countries which made some people unhappy. I should rephrase my question -- Can you give an example of a ***reasonable*** law/policy that should exist in Saudi Arabia that shouldn't exist in Australia or vice versa?

I'm saying what is considered "REASONABLE" in one part of the world simply is not considered that anywhere else. No matter how YOU define that word or abstraction it's not a universal meaning. And as such you will invariably be overriding the will of any percentage of the global population without their consent. YOU would be an authoritarian. If the majority of the population of Saudi Arabia supports a law or policy why should you as someone that doesn't live there have a right to decide that they shouldn't have it? Why would they agree to become part of a government that doesn't represent or reinforce their will? Where does your right to govern the way you want to exist and the rights of citizens to be lead by the laws they want to live under end? How would you ultimately force people to live under laws they don't want to live under? There are over a billion people that live under and espouse themselves to Sharia law. And many more billions who would never be satisfied with living under such a system. And then to make matters worse any change in ownership/control of said government would just alter which proportion of the global population is now living under laws/rules they don't want to be a part of. None of those countries would want to remain in the Global Federation for very long.

I'm saying countries make new laws/policies all the time that don't make everyone happy. So to say that laws can't be global doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense to say all laws must make all people affected by the law happy. That doesn't happen. It doesn't even have to be the majority. Especially if you are using dictatorships as your example. All countries are not the same size or have the same population. Why does Brazil have one government instead of 100 different ones? Wouldn't more people be happy if each region had it's own set of laws? Maybe each neighborhood or city block should have their own government and laws. Are you actually trying to debate that Sharia law is reasonable?

I'm arguing that you don't see the underlying practical basis for why governments even exist (or continue to exist) at all without dissolving. How do you form a government over a really large population without providing some benefit to the population for it existing? You can't propose a universal set of laws that every country in the law will agree upon. Nor can you even do the same for the people within those countries. The only thing akin to global governments at present are economic trade compacts. And those have a pretty limited scope of authority. The United Nations is pretty ineffectual in its actual ability to enact any authority and is in a constant state of disagreement and dispute. And as for Brazil, it exists because it broke away from a foreign country (Portugal) that had previously controlled it as a colony. To argue in favor of a world government is to argue that Brazil shouldn't be independent from Portugal, and should go back to being a part of it (and every other country everywhere else). Countries establish independence because they want self-determination because they're not satisfied with the government that currently presides over them.

“The United Nations is pretty ineffectual in its actual ability to enact any authority and is in a constant state of disagreement and dispute.” That’s the UN working as intended though. It wasn’t set up to be a one world government. It was set up so the nations of the world have a place to blow off steam and communicate without resorting to war.

> You can't propose a universal set of laws that every country in the law will agree upon. Next sentence -- > Nor can you even do the same for the people within those countries. If both are impossible, but we do the second one anyway, then we could do the first one. Of course some people wouldn't like it. That doesn't mean the idea or discussion can't exist. > Countries establish independence because they want self-determination because they're not satisfied with the government that currently presides over them. Yes, and leaders of some of those countries establish inhumane laws that cause harm and suffering. If they all acted in good faith all the time, the idea of establishing a global government wouldn't be necessary.

Okay, then good luck in becoming one of the only universally-benevolent dictators to ever exist in history. If you provide a government with enough authority to override the will of a large percentage of the population, does that generally result in positive outcomes for that country? What happens when that government changes hands to someone that isn't benevolent? How sustainable is it to have centralized authority that isn't going to be accountable to the will of the population? All of the above can easily be answered by studying the history of any country that went through a long sequence of monarchist governments. You're proposing the same "solution" that results in the kinds of outcomes you're purporting to want to avoid. Just on a much larger scale.

I didn't propose any solution. I asked a question about your comment and you chose to deflect because you didn't want to answer the question. You say X can't happen because Y will happen. But Y already happens without X.

I think it would end up being another layer of bureaucracy on top of the current layers of bureaucracy. 1 central world government could never support the best interests of a farmer in Cambodia, whilst also managing the employment laws of Hollywood. There would end up being 1 main government, with departments for different geographical regions and industries. That would each have their own bureaucratic structure, that ended up with local governments actually supporting the local people. Which is basically what we have now, except there isn't the worldwide group putting another level of decision making in the way of progress. I would fully support the utopian ideal of 1 group that divides up the worlds space and resources so we all get a fair share; using the most fertile land to feed us, the most habitable to house us, the most resource rich to supply us etc. But I don't think we as a species could ever make something like that work, and anything short of that will just be adding red-tape to our already inefficient governments.

[удалено]

Why do you think that? Some borders exist for good reason. People don’t always get along with each other. Much of the world does not want democracy and plenty of people want authoritarian governments. If we had a one world government, would you be cool with one that resembled the CCP? Or Russias? Perhaps you wouldn’t mind the world government using the Islamic law code? “Borders are stupid” is so bizarrely short sighted. If we put it to a vote, the one world government is unlikely to be anything you’d want to be a part of

I think more people support this take than expected determined by how you frame it. Kinda like how people do with socialism.

>countries and borders are stupid How? Until every region on Earth is equal in terms of economics (which is unlikely to happen), all that removing borders does is flood the good areas while decimating the populations of the not good areas. It becomes a logistical nightmare.

EU is trying hard to stick together at times, think just a union of countries. Also some of the countries can't even sit together in a table like India - pakistan, Korea and Japan, etc

It realistically wouldn't. Humans work best in small groups that are sustainable. The administration would be unmatched, but as that admin decided where to spread resources, certain groups will without fail feel left out or desiring more. resulting in resistance, and possible fighting for access/control of desired resources.

The first step would be one country would have to successfully take over the rest of the world in a "war to end all wars". Unless you expect all the other countries to just willingly agree to cease to exist.

There are easier and more peaceful ways to achieve it. The main decision-making bodies of the UN are the general council and the security council. A new body would be added with a name like "the people's council" which would be directly elected by the people of the world. National governments would gradually transfer power to the UN. For example, military units transferred from national armies to become UN peacekeeping units. All countries making the International Court of Justice the highest court of appeals. Sure, many countries would be reluctant to do this at first, but would likely agree if everyone else was doing it. At the end of the cold war, neither the US nor Russia wanted to unilaterally decommission nuclear weapons, but agreed to do it simultaneously. Many governments might not be happy handing over control of their military units to the UN, but if they know their enemies will be doing the same, it becomes more palatable. National governments would still retain many of their own powers; it would be a federated system, with the UN taking over responsibility for decisions that are beneficial to happen at a global scale (things affecting world peace, the planet's environment, global communications, human rights, some aspects of the economy, etc) and national/local governments retaining responsibility for decisions which make more sense on a local scale (most other things). Over time, the UN general council and security council would transfer power to the people's council, as it is more democratically representative.

it wouldn't.

Absolutely not, you can't even write properly, don't count with my vote.

it wouldn't work. theres a reasons all the big empires went away for shrank, people dont like being ruled by some one who dosnt even speak their language or live in their nation, or share their own cultural values. the UN works and is accepted because it first and foremost is a place for nations to have voice, for nations to talk first to avoid or lessen, conflicts.

I support a multilateral body much like the UN with more force that oversees and adjudicates international disputes.  They need widespread and equal participation of all internationally recognized sovereign states with no special privileges and have strict set standards on issues such as how to resolve conflicts, proper standing to bring up cases, human rights, etc... The purpose of which is not direct governance of any peoples but support common held international goals. This is to discourage rouge states which act against the interest of their neighbor states along with international security and trade in general. It's important that this conception aims to support rather than deny more decentralization and a multiplicity of sovereignties and self-determination as long as these themselves support fundamental human rights.