One-World Government

What are the arguments against a one-world government, if it could be formed and stabilized? Surely you can make a case for inefficiency or disagreement with policy, but there must also be great benefits for research and standard of living, right? Expecting a lot of flaming for this one, but that's fine, I just want to hear good reasons from eithet side. Pic unrelated.

>eithet
>either
it's 4:15 am here.

It's Satanic

If you believe a one world government would issue in the antichrist, don't you want it to happen so God could come in and usher in heaven on earth?

>but there must also be great benefits for research and standard of living, right?
No.

Assuming you won't have several different currencies inside of that world-state you will have huge problems related to prices, wages etc. which will make addressing any issues a chore. For example take a bureaucrat and his wages. He certainly needs less USD's in Africa to survive than he needs in the middle of San Fran but how you're gonna manage all this shit?

Secondly, welfare, legal code, ID's, driving licenses, regulations on variety of things etc. aren't standardised across the world(no shit senpai). Fuck this, screws aren't standardised - Americans still use imperial system, it will be a hell to transfer to metric for the industry. Same applies to energetic system, various engineering norms and other awful lot of things.

Thirdly what about borders? If you'll open them up the current-day underdeveloped and developing countries will go on a "going to the promised land tour" to the developed world. Current migrant crisis Europe faces would be a small thing in comparison to what would happen when you'd open borders globally. If you'd maintain them... wait isn't that supposed to be one-world government?

Fourthly - the issue of scale. The reality would be that 90% of old "governments" would be still there since it would be impossible to maintain the rule over such huge amounts of people, land, etc. so instead of Hollande being French president he'll be the Vice Governor of French federal state/administrative region/whatever you call it. The hierarchy of it would be of course enormous and regionalised making the whole thing even bigger mess than it was.

And would it be benefit for research? Why? Researchers can communicate with others without issues, visit other countries with only minor problems(much smaller than average person) etc. etc. So it changes nothing.

For standard of living? Yeah, you'll make life shitter in developed countries because of influx of people, the rest wouldn't really change. So, globally the standards will drop.

Standing is an absolute legend.

I wouldn't nail Christ to the cross either

the fact that the peole who really desperately want this one-world gov't also clearly want to control and enslave us. They have set up many deceptions like fake climate crisis, "people are cancer" meme, nationalism=Naziism meme, etc...
I wouldn't trust anyone who wanted to be at the head of said gov't/
Under which system do you think your particular group's interests would be best served? A local/national gov't comprised of people most like you, or a planetary govt where the decisions are made halfway round the world?
It's a scam. If anything, we should moving toward direct democracy or decentralized govt not toward complete centraliation
Fuck off if you actually think it's a good idea
You are an idiot or a shill

Immigrants move to developed countries might lower wages but global living standards won't drop. Developed countries standards might drop but the quantity of people living there unlike the poorer undeveloped nations would increase, therefore global standards would increase.

MUH PRECARIAT

and where would the head of government be? Washington, DC? fuck off, i don't want to be a cultureless american eating burgers while watching fox news or wtvr the fuck you guys like doing on the other side of the pond.

Basic income soon, my friend!

How about the immigrants work on developing their country instead of pulling down the industrialized world

>Basic income
Okay, but only if everyone does 'Basic Labor' to earn their share

When has centralisation ever worked?

The United States

Aren't the states quite independent?

Take a look at the last paragraph at pic related. A government for all is a government for none. Patriotism is what you call a virtue in government. A patriotic government can only be made when those politicians are intrinsically motivated to help the people, where they see their interests lie. In other words, the politician must me his own benefit in helping the people, and no where is that more clear when the politician perceives himself to be a part of the people by sharing either the same blood, history, religion, culture, language, etc.

A global government would be an elitist organization where the only way they'd "help" the people is by appealing to universal human desires. The only things that unite humans are base, carnal motives, which to an extent can be good when you're deprived of them, but are ultimately unfulfilling if they're the only value reflected by the government. Money, food, shelter, work, education are all necessary and valuable things. But let me tell you this: how would a one world government reflect cultural values? As an example, I'll take American values.

No where else in the world do people see a value in smaller government, absolute freedom of speech (no "hate" speech laws), gun rights. This rigid values are unique to the US. Some less unique values are separation of church and state, property rights, etc.

The ethics divergence grows as the government expands. A one world government is inherently bureaucratic in order to manage such a vast empire. The values of the elites would grossly divergence from the values of everyone else. There is no common man, people will no be able to act against the government. People will be dissatisfied with lack of representation.

Considered the country is 200+ years old, I'm surprised the states have maintained as much independence as they have at this point

>Okay, but only if everyone does 'Basic Labor' to earn their share

Tbqh, that's actually not a bad idea.

One-world "government" is a bit reductive, but if you think about the progression of technology it's pretty clear the species will eventually reach a sort of constant global commercial interconnectedness. This is basically already the case. Once companies like Lockheed and shit get their quantum computers working, we can analyze data sets from the internet and model huge human movements that, up until now, we had to describe with ideology and propaganda. If we can create accurate predictive models of, say, entire economies, then ideological debates about free-market vs. gov't. interventionism will disappear in the face of objective data.

One world government isn't necessarily bad but it is bad for right now because we're not good enough at governing to create an efficient, just, and effective one world government. When we improve governmental systems to be able to handle the entire world's population correctly then by all means we should but until then we must keep many governments all over the world as experiments in the efficacy of different systems. Adopting one for the entire world means that it better work well the first time.

>I'll take American values
>posts a pic that refers to the French revolution as a masonic revolt

Can't make this shit up

We need a false democratic world government actually led by a secret master mind

But what to do when there are too many people and not enough labor? How to combat Unemployment (for lack of a better word)? Create redundant and unnecessary jobs to fill in the gaps?

France.

You can do some simple things, like ask people to donate blood to get the money, clean trash in their neighborhood etc. Things that show solidarity with others.

>like ask people to donate blood to get the money, clean trash in their neighborhood etc. Things that show solidarity with others.
But those are not things that can be done every single day, whereas basic income and basic labor would require a regular and steady source of income/work

And what to do with the people who try to weasel their way out of working any way possible or outright refuse?

Well it can be tied to giving blood once a month for example, or once every 2 weeks.

If it's not absolutely focused on space colonization, it's a waste of time.

Our current socioeconomic status exchanges suffering for progress. A one-world government, in all likelihood, focuses on slightly less suffering while allowing stagnation.

Basic Labor will be replaced by robots.

When robots out-compete humans for living wage, humans go bye-bye. With humans having no money, economy stalls.

Basic Income would simply put the money and drive the economy once again.

I have to remind myself that Satanic doesn't mean "cool" around here.
Die christcuck scum. Catch AIDS.

>Basic Labor will be replaced by robots.
No they won't

Stop repeating this meme

>T. Engineering major with a minor in computer science

Centralization =/= unification