Would the whole world be better under a one world government that operates based on a democratic government? If so who would the best country be to run it? In theory it works, but what about in practise?
keyword being in theory.
Yes, more centralization. That’s definitely what we need.
/sarcasm
One goverment is too dangerous. We need variety, not everyone likes the same rules.
I say, hand world governance over to those who crave it most. 
In theory it’s not a horrible idea, but without a basis of ethics for this NWO to stand on, it will turn into a big brother dictatorship and fall quite quickly.
We’ll likely see a push/attempt towards this which will be unsuccessful, in the coming 5 years.
Can it really be said that DC is the district that runs the US? Sure, it’s the seat of government, but its citizens have no more say in national politics (less, actually). Why, then, would a global government based on democracy have any particular country running it? If you simply mean to ask where the seat of government would be located, I think you are skipping just about every other step.
If the world was run under a single governemnt, countries would be like states in the US, equal to each other, and reserving certain rights to themselves.
What’s wrong with a central government?
Simple numbers - the Chinese and Indians would run everything. Still, that’ll probably end up happening anyway…
Human beings are probably simply biologically inferior to organizing such a large mass into a cohesive whole. The only technology we would find capable of managing it would probably be technology that disregards us altogether.
I believe the public ambition behind the UN’s creation is a good idea (even if the political reasons are never quite so open). We cannot at this point create a useful system that will make all countries “behave.” But we can, in theory, make simple rules that will prevent one country from screwing all the rest. With this theoretical government, there is still fascism, genocide, starvation, and all the common atrocities of the world. But there is also prevention of dictatorship. There is at least one hope that a person can, with some hard struggle, attain permanent residence in a rather safe, ideal situation.
If I were to fight in a war, it would be this cause I would want to fight for.
With cultural and religious differences, a single world government would mean an endless civil war from it’s onset, on hundreds of fronts.
Exactly.
That’s what I mean by big brother – to squash the public protest/unrest.
Keep in mind, though, that countries and areas of the earth would in theory be able to keep their practices and such. There is nothing which says there must be a one religion world – though that’s how it would be under big brother, of course.
This isn’t about THEM it’s about us, and our ability to come together as a species.
true, but what about the countries who are run by a certain set of laws that directly reflect their religion, IE: Sharia Law? It would pretty much be, several countries, with several governments, with one body overseeing them all; sort of like a UN with global representation, with unlimited say so and rights to mediate where/whenever.
I think it’d most likely turn into a world-wide terror state, or something like society in “The Running Man” ( there’s your big brother).
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully”
There would be, of course, cultural borders. We already thrive under somewhat of a hegemonic system.
-OK Computer
The Running Man is bunkum. It’s just a cheap ripoff of Rollerball, which is far more accurate. But ultimately, we live in a cross between Brave New World and 1984. If we’re going to make dystopic literary allusions then we may as well be accurate.
NO!
Without basis of ethics, certainly. Try without basis of meaning.
I cringe when an acronym like NWO survives both the Nazis and the republicans, to find its way into intelligent people’s minds.
I cringe when someone lets three letters dictate an entire paradigm.
Trust me, man, I hate the elites of this world as much as the next guy (and probably more). It’s all I talk about, actually – but that doesn’t mean that a new order for the world has to be bad.
One way or another this world will be moving into a new paradigm. To deny that is preposterous.
Democracy is a dead-end philosophy that eventually funnels all the riches back to the top. Money always talks loudest.
The world would be better governed under a single social philosophy based on responsible planet managment. This can be accomplished by educating the next generation of children to become global stewards and stewardesses.
Centralized adminstrations never work efficiently. Party politics always ends up too polarized to cooperate.
The globe should be devided into its natural eco-systems and the people living in them should call the shots - with their eye always on the larger global picture.
Instead of the United Nations which is mired in politics, global managment discussions and sharing of resources should take place over the internet.
We can find out if we give it a try.
I think we could have a sort of collective world government if nations were not based on territory but on individual choice. If people could organize themselves into political groups of like minded individuals unrestrained by territorial boundaries, there would be far more cooperation and tolerance and far less coercion and violence in the world.
People would be reluctant to separate themselves from their language, customs and regional history in favor of an artiificial political ideology in a different locality. The only reason they do it now is basically because of economic hardships brought about by those unsustainable political dictates. Besides, that Age of social revolution is about over. There are too many people on the planet now to accommodate the luxury of further social experimentation.
The only practical form of existence in the coming centuries will be dicated by the effect of human population increases impacting on the global enviroment. Our entire focus will be in finding ways and means to apply our technology to the point in which it can sustain tens of billions of humans without exhausting the planet’s natural resources. Training children to become global stewards is therefore only viable social ethic that can make planet management a success and continue our existence - until such time when our evolutionary cycle reaches that final stage where no further children are born.