Great topic and definitely pertinent to many of the challenges we face as a species today.
I think that its obvious that if humanity wishes to make it to the next "step", we need to eventually come together. I don't think the division of people by imaginary lines is serving us as a whole anymore (if it ever was).
One of the problems I see with a world government is that a centralized government is intrinsically a violation of individuals as it assumes ownership over individuals. They are also easily corrupted.
I think the brightest future may hold a united world with a decentralized governmental system of some sorts where each person is sovereign (unless they choose not to be). I am not exactly sure how this would work, or what it would exactly look like. I feel like people must be free and in complete ownership of themselves in order for us to reach our highest potential. At the same time people will need an effective and efficient way to cooperate with each other.
RE: Debate: One World Government - Advantages and Disadvantages
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Debate: One World Government - Advantages and Disadvantages
I tend to feel the same way about nationalism...i.e. the imaginary lines. I also see that same 'violation of individuals' being the case whether it's national or a world government...hence the need to something else.
I like the idea of each person being sovereign or choosing to buy in to some group system they align with. While it's not a 'dealbreaker of sorts,' when each person is sovereign, I have problems thinking of a way to prevent/solve conflicts beyond the age old 'might makes right' side of things. At least in the group sense, we'd be buying into to some set of rules that we would agree to agree on, and I'd assume some sort of repercussions (i.e. being kicked out) if they weren't adhered to. I'm not trying to argue your points here, merely where I hit a wall myself right now.
Short of 'trusting' everyone in the world to have that complete ownership (and hence responsibility) for themselves, I'd suspect some mechanism would have to deal with aggressive violence, theft, etc. since I'd see that becoming the norm, would drive many people to join a group out of fear/security needs. Idk, I'm just kinda thinking outloud at this point.
I've toyed with the idea of quasi-decentralized patterns for this for a while, where there are the larger groups with their smaller offshoots, but at least hold to some core, agreed upon concepts (like murder outside self defense is bad as a cheesy example) but then the smaller groups could have their differing 'local agreements' like whether marijuana was allowed or not (again just a cheesy example.)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You make some valid points. I think one way these will be addressed is through the advancement of technology. If we can get to a place were robots and computers (AI) can take care of most menial tasks, and energy is renewable and abundant (free), we will not have the perceived scarcity and fear of meeting our needs. We will be able to get rid of money and everyone will have necessities and even physical wants available to them for free. I believe this will dissolve a majority of the crime and even unethical behaviour in society. At this point it will be easy for people to freely agree that they are all better off if they work together and at the same time respect each others freedom.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit