Yzermandius19

What is more rigorous? What you are suggesting is no different from the free press as it exists today, you just put a different label on it, and pretend like it's something else entirely.

The free press does not require a world government to operate, a world government would simply impede a free press. Again, you are proposing zero changes to status quo, and somehow consider that to be a World Government, very strange.

If you are talking about a worldwide intelligence agency that airs every nations dirty laundry to everyone in the world, so the public can "keep an eye on them", that also already exists, it's called the free press.

I don't see how that even constitutes a one world government, governments are being submitted to surveillance as we speak. If that's all you got, you aren't even proposing any changes to the status quo, whatsoever. Multi-national surveillance is already a thing, ever heard of Five Eyes?

Well if you don't have time to bring me up to speed, then perhaps you should cut me some slack for not knowing where you are coming from. If you want your World Government to do so much economic regulation, that it would make Orwell blush, again, that sounds like World Socialist Revolution to me, and even if it wasn't, I don't see how that is somehow preferable to the economic current status quo, there is too much regulation as it is, and you want to double down on that? Doesn't sound like a good idea, what specific kinds of regulations are you talking about though?

Well you remain vague on what kind of economic regulation your World Government would be doing, and until you clarify, I will simply judge based on what I've been given, which is, you want a One World Government to exist so it can regulate the economy, because you feel big corporations wield too much political influence over nation states, which until otherwise specified, reeks of World Socialist Revolution to me. No one is stopping you from clarifying just what it is you are proposing, and until then, all we can do is try and fill in the blanks as best we can. If my impression of your beliefs is incorrect, you are free to correct the record at any time, and clear up the confusion, if you so desire.

Where we differ is that, I don't think you should throw the global economy out with the bathwater, when there are no alternatives yet devised which result in more progress, and just because it's not a perfect system doesn't mean that a One World Government is going to work any better, in reality it would work a whole lot worse. When there is a better alternative, let me know, settling for a worse state of affairs, in a lame attempt at change for the sake of change, to make me feel like I'm doing something, even when that something is clearly counter-productive to my stated goals, that isn't my cup of tea. Change can be positive, change can be negative, change can be somewhere in between, the people who hate on free market capitalism the most, they seem to think that changing the status quo can only lead to positive outcomes, nothing could go wrong by attempting it, but I disagree. It's a whole lot easier to make things worse than make things better, especially when judging by the suggested alternatives to the current economic status quo.

Indeed, however a one-world government doesn't seem like progress to me, it seems like something that will hold back progress, especially within the foreseeable future, and that's where we differ.

The best thing about the Star Trek Discovery is that, they decided that they wanted it to be more like Deep Space Nine, and less like the rest of the franchise, and those are always my favorite versions of Star Trek, here's hoping they keep it up and don't deviate from that plan.

I like the new Star Trek too, haven't seen any of the new season yet, but Captain Lorca was the shit, I hope they find the non-mirror universe version of him at some point, pretty please with sugar on top.

From where I am sitting, with the world as divided as it is, a One World Government simply can't work the best, and until the world is significantly less divided, that isn't going to change any time soon. You may notice some people starting to identify more with humanity than the nation state they live, but it's going to be decades if not centuries before you hit a tipping point on that.

If you think most people would be more attached to a one-world government than their own nation states, that is you projecting on the masses. Earth isn't a system of governance, it's a planet, nothing about it is conducive to a one-world government, this ain't Star Trek, too many different people and cultures with vastly different interests for such a government to function adequately to meet their desires. Unless there is a global-monoculture that aligns the interests of all humans together more than their nationality aligns their interests, than it simply isn't realistic, and that is long ways off, if it is ever attained in the first place.

Change for the sake of change, isn't going to produce a better result. Being able to point out the flaws in one economic system does not mean that changing the system will yield better results, the alternatives matter, and a One World Government is not preferable to the current state of affairs. Come up with a better alternative before you suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because free market capitalism is the best economic system humanity has yet devised to serve as the foundation of the economy, and until that changes, slow your roll on demanding change.

People don't care about keeping an eye on something they have no attachment to, they do care about keeping an eye on their nation states though because they are infinitely more attached to them than a one world government. National governments are by definition smaller in size than a One World Government or a multi-national government framework like the EU, and thus easier to keep track of, it's not like the technology to keep track of governments is only available to a One World Government.

Look how well the EU is working right now, a world government would be even more unwieldy, and would include nations with even more separate interests, and it's suppose to work better? That makes no sense, the One World Government plan simply isn't well thought through.

Smaller more limited government is easier to keep an eye on than a big government with it's hand in everything, because there is less to keep an eye on. Creating a big complicated multi-national government isn't going to be easier to keep track of, just the opposite, not only that but people would care less about keeping track of it, because they have no attachment to it, unlike the nation states they live in, which they are far more attached to and more prone to keep an eye on.

It reveals poor taste when it comes to politics, but it is certainly no crime. Also if the multi-national government is going to crack down on nations that are industrializing, then good luck getting China or India to join the One World Kumbaya, or any other developing nations for that matter. It's like Dougie says, eyeball doesn't have the votes, and like I say, even if he did, be careful what you wish for.

What makes you think that one world government is any more likely to make them remember than the current state of affairs? Sounds like pie in the sky wishful thinking that simply changing the system of governance will solve the problem of corruption, but corruption is inherent to any system of governance, and the more power that is concentrated with a system of governance, the more prone that system is to corruption. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, a One World Government is no exception. Big Government and Big Business go hand in hand. Putting all your eggs in one basket will make a One World Government far more corrupt than many of the nation states around the world are today, be careful what you wish for. If you want to diminish corporate influence, One World Government is probably the worst way to attempt to achieve that goal, I for one recommend taking a different approach.

It's not easier for citizens to keep an eye on, they will remain just as ignorant as before the One World Government got put in place. Democracies are not immune from being bribed by big corporations, don't know what gave you the impression that they are.

Ah so World Socialist Revolution to save humanity from Climate Change. Eskimo Communism is so predictable, SIFCLFs gonna SIFCLF.

No, it would just give them one government they need to buy off, instead of hundreds, you are saving them the trouble of having to bribe more governments with differing interests and focus on just bribing the one. Putting all your eggs in one basket, and that way if that one basket gets bribed by big corporations, and it will, the whole planet has to suffer the consequences. You aren't taking power away from corporations by proposing a One World Government, you are giving them more.

A one world government is easier to buy than hundreds of national governments, if you want to talk undue influence, the very people you want to have less influence under a One World Government will actually have more undue influence. Your proposed solution to the problems you are complaining about, is counter-productive, to say the least.

What powers are you redistributing to a One World Government, that can't be better redistributed on the non-worldwide level? Invoking a One World Government to regulate the economy sure sounds like you are talking about redistributing wealth worldwide. If that isn't what you are talking about, then what kind of worldwide economic regulation are you talking about?

Redistribution isn't going to create any wealth, it just move it around, and too much redistribution results in killing off the economic engine that actually produces the wealth. Why would a One World Government be any better at redistribution than many different national governments? In all likelihood they'd be worse at it. If you want the disenfranchised to raise their station in life, then "robinhood economics" is one of the least effective ways of getting there. Punishing the enfranchised is not the best way to help the disenfranchised, economics is not a zero-sum game where the only way one side wins is if the other side loses, win-win scenario's occur all the time. Fact of the matter is, punishing the rich too much actually hurts the poor.

Invoking it to regulate the economy sounds like World Socialist Revolution to me. Not knee-jerk, just the duck test. A one world government would do an even worse job regulating the economy than nation states already do, all you'd be doing is concentrating power in the one world government which would make it even easier for the wealthy and powerful to buy off, since they'd only have to bribe one government instead of hundreds of national governments with competing interests. The road to the World Socialist Revolution is paved with bodies of those supporting it out of "good intentions", I'd watch your step if I were you. Having good intentions won't save you from the negative outcomes of a One World Government.