There are some benefits of having a global government, whether as an extra tier (beefed-up UN) or by simple merger of all countries into one. It does, of course, benefit the poor regions more since it gives powers greater incentive to pay them attention. Not going to happen for a long time though, I think. Even if the EU eventually does completely merge its member nations into a whole, that seems to be decades away, and other regions of the world are much further. Africa is, if anything, still divided; the Middle East nations can't stand each other; most major powers, such as Russia, China, America, Japan etc wouldn't agree to relinquish any kind of sovereignty.
I thoroughly oppose the idea. Countries are, at their core, groups of people with a unique ideology. If you try to place them all under the same law, they won't accept it.
The idea is that the people will move closer togeather idealogically and create blocks of powers. Such as the EU, or a North American Union. Slowly and surely since countries aren't really destroyed or conquered anymore.
I don't think ideological convergence is very likely, considering there are several more countries existing today than 20 years ago. Ex-Yugoslav countries, ex-Soviet countries, Eritrea, Timor-Leste and Slovakia, for example. The only unification I remember is East and West Germany. Countries are conquered routinely even today, they just don't tend to become part of another country anymore (East Germany being the sole recent exception). Instead the government is changed to suit the conqueror's purposes. Iraq and Afghanistan are post-2000 examples of that. In the last hundred years, almost every country on Earth has been conquered, temporarily or permanently, by some faction or other.
i think it will be a time when every country will be part of a bigger faction. and with time a world goverment will take place. i just hope is with human evolment and not brute force by a wealthy country or company. some places in the world are far not ready for that. like some places that just you mentioned, they have a grate hate for each other and they kill each other for no better reason that he is a ... ! but in time there is a chance that a UN will resive more inportance and more countries will take their time and listen to it, and not act with out the suport of the rest of the word. little by little people will loose the nationality and maybe respect other people religion and way of think. creating a gate way so they can worry for the other places in the world as they do for they oun country. when that hapends you may have start. but you need them to get there by their of will and not by pushing it,
I think as time has gone on nationality has become strengthened instead of weakened. Unless there would be some tangible benefit to all involved to converge it won't happen.
well, my simple input is that it would be like communism... works well at first until the leaders become corrupt and such. Then we'd all be fucked and there'd be a 'civil war' sort of thing, which would suck considering the whole world would be involved in it.
Good. Now that it is written in stone, people can be free to express their opinions and ideas without fear! Good good good. I disagree to a world government, mostly because of the fact that the world is BIG and it would be hard to control it all without giving power to minor governments to govern each country, and then what's the point anyway? However it would be easier to deal with the world problems, such as famine, human rights, and unfair trading.
What your saying is exactly the reason why there's federalism, which divides powers down to lower states based on responsibilities agreed upon. This is how rather large countries like Canada and the United States function. What would most likely happen would just be another layer of control on top of a system like that already in place.
Sounds like you're trying to give power to more and more people, increasing the chances that someone corrupt will be one of those people, and fuck shit up.
there's already a tendancy for that to happen, but if worrying about corruption is your main concern, the government already in place would prove inadequate.
So according to me, and the current state of our governments, there is no solution? Being a pessimist rox.
The problem is how do you balance it? Does each state get a say in the new government? Is it only by countries? Does the US and other wealthy countries have more say then say Nicaragua? Will it work on a majority vote system? Because I am sure some developing nations would not like what we would tell them when we totally rearrange their economy/industry and I am sure wealthier nations are not going to want to foot the bill for said changes. "Hey Mexico knock off polluting like that and implement some better living conditions, you can't have people living in boxes" "Uhm we don't have any money, we don't have advanced industry and are a destitute nation" "Oh ok, lets just tax everyone else to make it better for you guys while we reap no tangible benefit" then the flip side: "American's want to implement a universal health care system" "EAD you guys have too much stuff already, for now we are working on catching up 3rd world nations in South America and Africa. You North American people are so spoiled" "Oh, ok I guess we can continue devoting our resources to people in a country we will never see and reap no economic benefit from" neither scenario sounds like a good time.