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.
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
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
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.
Sure as long as it agrees with me 100%
