I-is a one world government unavoidable? were the communists r-right?

>neoliberalism is good

hahahah. Neoliberalism is just as failed as socialism.

What? if anything we're moving away from that sort of thing. If other countries start seceding from the EU as Britain has done, we're going to end up with a lot of independent nation states rather than a single world government.

Can someone give me a valid reason as to why a global government is automatically considered bad and must be fought against?

Christian meme and "muh nationalism"

It stems from the question of "if there's going to be one government who will be in charge?"

preserve sovereignty at all costs
foreigners can fuck off

Because a global government would only be possible in two scenarios:

a) Some large and powerful group of people (culture) subjugates everyone else via force (economic, military or whatever)
b) The world shares either a single culture or cultures that could be considered to be in the same group

a) is bad, b) is good

but what if they can run your society better than your government?

if my own government can't even run my society halfway decently, what makes you think some shitter in Brussels or NYC can do better

So there is something inherently better in this foreigners that make them better at running a state?

Because they actually have experience running a country well.

Yes, but not as soon as people think. I'd give it 500 or so years before the UN actually coalesces into something that can wield authority and even then nation-states will still exist, just closer to the way states exist in America, with general guidelines and laws they must follow but free to add or have variations of them

>were the communists r-right?
Fuck no. Communism is impractical unless you have some kind of post-scarcity economy, and people are very suspicious of sucking the state's cock, something like the USSR could only happen again trough collapse and violent revolution, and even then not on a global scale.

But for example the people in Brussels don't know how to run a country well. Their perspective on economics and society is fully anchored to their place of origin.

But they don't have experience running my country, and my country it's not easy to run.

Besides we need many models of society running, in case some of them just doesn't work, no one knows how the future may look like, that's the big lesson of history, the roman empire was glorious, while modern Italy it's a shithole.

People will list lots of reasons but they're full of shit, the real reason is they fear someone will take their women, as simple as that.

with the west there is a large and powerful group of people who are subjugating everyone else via force (economic, military) and also projecting western culture to assimilate the others

and a) isn't bad, that depends on the results for each person

Why not just have the United States of Earth? USE

Every nation is now a state with many of its own rights, laws and currency, but the Earth Parliament has a fair bit of sway on how these states interact. Like an EU for the world, but not shit.

Because it dissolves nations and organic communities into one mass so that a tiny elite can profit from a common market and labour force?

>like an EU for the world, but not shit

But that's exactly how it would turn out

>b) is good

Yeah, the world would be great if everyone had the same cancerous materialistic consumerist non-culture like what dominates the US.

I'd take another empire over communist anything.

Fuck the collectivists

I don't get why people think a one world government is necessarily a bad thing.

It's pretty much inevitable now that we are overcoming geographical boundaries more and more. It's only a matter of time before we end national boundaries.

>but not shit

It will be shit.
It will.
The EU Lords over one of the most cultivated and (post60s) pacifist regions of the earth and still fucks up.

When has one culture ruling over another ever been good

Why would you ever, ever oppose a world state?

Take a good long look at the troubles the EU has and then ask yourself that question again. For example: speaking as an American citizen I don't want communist china having any say whatsoever on my first or second amendment rights. I can't imagine a global government being all that much better then the PRC with respect to free speech and the right to own weapons of various kinds.

Well I'm a Brit, so NO

No and no.

We're gonna hit the limits to growth like a fucking plane to a mountain, and once cheap energy is gone globalism is fucked. As a positive tangent, we also die on earth.

It's preferable to the alternative anyway: one world government or not, privacy is on it's last legs.

Single point of failure.
If that one government becomes corrupted, or pursues goals I dislike, what foreign power can I make an appeal for rescue to? The Martians?

>giving more and more power to fewer and fewer individuals

I'm sure this will be fine

I dont know if the collapse can be blamed on the EU.

Surely this time absolute power will not corrupt absolutely.

>World government must mean a few leaders
No, a council of 5000

>government and culture is the same thing

lol

As an American, surely you see the value in our own union?

Under federal constitutions like our own, the liberty of all men on Earth could be guaranteed to the same extent as here.

I see no reason to think that a global union would value individual liberty as we understand it over here, fuck even we are hypocritical about it on various issues.

>I'd give it 500 or so years before the UN actually coalesces into something

The UN is probably in the second half of its life already.

If national governments are better than a global government, are city-states better than a national government?

Almost certainly, but a city-state obviously can't draw upon as many resources as an entire nation and is doomed to be swallowed up.

>5000 people governing 7 billion
surely this time absolute power will not corrupt absolutely

>i-is a one world government unavoidable? were the communists r-right?
Name one bad thing about a one-world government that isn't corrupt.

A loss of sovereignty. A one world government would enact policies that represent the aggregate views of the world. As of right now, if all of Asia voted in favor of a certain piece of legislation, they would outnumber the wrest of the world. And this is assuming a one world government wouldn't turn out like the EU, where the actual views of the people are lost somewhere in the process. The larger the government, the less agency individual citizens have. It's bad enough that I have to live under laws dictated by over 300 million other people, why would I want to add on top of that another government that represents the views of 8 billion people?

power corrupts. that much power over one planet will drive even the kindest person into madness.

What about a federal government that distinguishes between matters which the federal government has authority over and those of its provinces (presumably based on current nation states)?

>why would I want to add on top of that another government that represents the views of 8 billion people?
So quite frankly, you are an idiot. And you want a system which allows you to be an idiot.

Nah, son.

Get ready for megacorps running the world. Governments will slowly fade into figurehead-status as global interconnectivity and labor automation place most of the world on even footing.

That's certainly better than a top-down system where the highest government has all of the power, but I have two problems with that.

One, I think it's kind of inevitable that a federalist government will slowly transform into unitary state. The US is a good example of this where, through various coercive carrot-and-stick methods, the federal government is able to exert itself in areas that are traditionally state jurisdictions.

Two, I think that while a federalist system is superior to a unitary system in increasing the agency of the people, a system with no federal government at all (or in this case a world government) would provide even more agency.

>Wanting a larger say in the legislative process that rules over you makes you an idiot
Jesus, how big of a cuck can you possibly be?