Edit~hey gang, when I posed this question and had some opinions. I realized I don’t really feel one way or another about it and I can’t really articulate a stance (probably just too tired). I won’t be engaging. I don’t want to just delete it though because some people made interesting points. Up to mods what to do with this.
Depends on how it operates. Fact is a global governing body would have to be heavily decentralized.
If it comes to actual form: the swiss model. A council and only one first among equals to represent the council to the outside, is the best solution to govern any size
It would be bad. Having more distance between decision makers and the impact of those decisions is not good
It means everything must be boiled down to metrics, and when you make decisions based on metrics you tend to ignore externalities and miss large parts of the picture
It also means every power hungry asshole is going to be drawn to the world government like moths to a flame. It’ll instantly become a very political environment, where human well-being becomes the chips in a games of power
I’m of two minds. A global government could be used to keep corrupt world leaders like Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu in check. On the flip side, if one of those people managed to take control of it, it could be really hard for good world leaders to fight back. So, like any government, it’s good as long as the right people are in charge
yes
No, it reduces the effort needed for corruption.
The smaller the circle of power is, the less effort is needed to corrupt the entire system.Also, it would prevent experimentation. Trial and error is an important method of finding out what works. One governing body would have one set of rules, we would never discover if a better set of rules exist.
Who says one governing body means only one set of rules? What if one governing body kept different rules for different areas?
Sure as long as it agrees with me 100%
Good? Bad? The format doesn’t matter. Good is subjective based on what they do, and more importantly, for who.
No it would be terrible. The world is too big and complex for a single central government to run.
Ever heard of decentralised governence?
I feel like it would be one of two things… It would go spectacularly well or it would be absolute garbage. Based on what I’ve seen from humanity… I lean towards the later lol
No. Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts completely.
Oh lol yes I’m definitely on the anarchist side. There has never been any genocides, wars, etc that weren’t committed by people in power.
Sir, this is Lemmy.
But seriously, we’re on a social media platform that is all about decentralization. Of course a lot of people here dislike the idea of a single world government, for all the reasons already mentioned and more. Everything we dislike about centralized social media platforms would be present at a much greater level in a single world government.
Depends on how it’s structured. “Global governing body” could be fantastic or absolute ass.
It would be bad. Governments like one solution that fits all. That is impossible over geographic regions. Take the EU, rules that apply to Denmark about housing insulation would be horrific if implemented in Spain.
one global governing body to ensure equity among peers would be a natural progression of democracy. however, democracy has failed in the modern era due to capitalist greed and thirst for power.
the only way to guarantee equity would be to set worldwide wealth caps on individuals, corporations, and governments. along with setting a world currency that’s traceable to ensure wealth is fairly distributed.
problem is, wealth changes shape or form. today wealth is gold, tomorrow it’s wine, day after that it’s people.
if we manage to find a way to stabilize wealth equitably, we have a chance at building a Utopian society.
