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.
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%
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
Good? Bad? The format doesn’t matter. Good is subjective based on what they do, and more importantly, for who.
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.
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.
Cultural differences are much too much.
Depends on how it’s structured. “Global governing body” could be fantastic or absolute ass.
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.
No it would be terrible. The world is too big and complex for a single central government to run.
Ever heard of decentralised governence?
Are we talking like a New World Order that acts as one set of rules for the whole world?
Or an alliance of all nations (like the UN) that makes sure nobody gets too out of line?
The first, has WAY too much potential for absolute corruption, the second would be much better if there were set human rights that COULD NEVER be revoked and 100% cooperation among ALL nations.
One global governing body trying to balance a shit load of different cultures? Oof I dont want that job
No. We are not at a point where we could agree to anything like that at the moment.
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
