Power always corrupts. People have been saying this forever, and it's pretty much a proven fact. A one world government would be a dark age for humanity, with corruption and misery on a scale never seen before.
I also see it the same way as natural selection or evolution. One world government is inherently flawed because it removes the possibility of progress of humanity through natural selection, the exploration of different rules of law, with the best/most effective ways of life continuing, and worse/ineffective ways dying off. One world government is like a species with no competition, no pressure to change. It's a dead end of evolution like the shark that hasn't changed in a 100 million years. The effective schooling systems of Finland, drug decriminalization of Portugal, public healthcare of Canada, free college tuition in Germany. Programs like these might be impossible in a one world government, or they exist, there is nothing to compare against to know if they are "good for humanity".
Yes, power corrupts. That's why there are checks and balances. It seems like you're assuming a global government would be a 1984-esque oligarchical collective. I see a world government having a similar relationship to an individual country as that between our states and our federal government. Just one step higher. I think a more realistic version of global government would be closer to several "union"-style cooperatives like the EU or other trade/mutual defense arrangements, but that's just a guess.
Your argument regarding evolution is flawed.
One world government is like a species with no competition, no pressure to change. It's a dead end of evolution like the shark that hasn't changed in a 100 million years.
Evolutionary pressures are always being exerted. Sharks and alligators for that matter haven't changed much, that's true. This means that they are very well suited to their current environment. Evolutionary biology isn't really relevant, so I'll move on.
The effective schooling systems of Finland, drug decriminalization of Portugal, public healthcare of Canada, free college tuition in Germany. Programs like these might be impossible in a one world government...
Source please? They seem to be possible now, so I don't see why that would stop.
As to whether or not something is "good for humanity" as you say it, sure there is a way to quantify that. Statistics. Per capita GDP, standard of living, employment, birth rates, death rates, crime rates, and vast amounts of others can be measured objectively.
view the rest of the comments →
seeker ago
There are two things:
Power always corrupts. People have been saying this forever, and it's pretty much a proven fact. A one world government would be a dark age for humanity, with corruption and misery on a scale never seen before.
I also see it the same way as natural selection or evolution. One world government is inherently flawed because it removes the possibility of progress of humanity through natural selection, the exploration of different rules of law, with the best/most effective ways of life continuing, and worse/ineffective ways dying off. One world government is like a species with no competition, no pressure to change. It's a dead end of evolution like the shark that hasn't changed in a 100 million years. The effective schooling systems of Finland, drug decriminalization of Portugal, public healthcare of Canada, free college tuition in Germany. Programs like these might be impossible in a one world government, or they exist, there is nothing to compare against to know if they are "good for humanity".
boltsand ago
Yes, power corrupts. That's why there are checks and balances. It seems like you're assuming a global government would be a 1984-esque oligarchical collective. I see a world government having a similar relationship to an individual country as that between our states and our federal government. Just one step higher. I think a more realistic version of global government would be closer to several "union"-style cooperatives like the EU or other trade/mutual defense arrangements, but that's just a guess.
Your argument regarding evolution is flawed.
Evolutionary pressures are always being exerted. Sharks and alligators for that matter haven't changed much, that's true. This means that they are very well suited to their current environment. Evolutionary biology isn't really relevant, so I'll move on.
Source please? They seem to be possible now, so I don't see why that would stop.
As to whether or not something is "good for humanity" as you say it, sure there is a way to quantify that. Statistics. Per capita GDP, standard of living, employment, birth rates, death rates, crime rates, and vast amounts of others can be measured objectively.