Thought experiment

Lets pretend a United Earth is formed.
Either through some grand conquest or global union or some other combination or format I can't really imagine.
In this new world order, it is split among ethnic and linguistic lines, is a democracy with equal representation and a state system where people can make laws that fits the needs of the people within without having to accommodate all without (as long as basic human rights are met). Everyone of all ages is given 15 years of education where they learn the highest standards possible, and religion has no place in the political world other than the freedom to express it.
Would this be the best possible scenario or the worst event in history?

Other urls found in this thread:

novara.anpi.it/attivita/2015/manifesto di ventotene.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

What would be the point of a world government?

The only way to ensure we don't stagnate is the continue the competition that having different nation states provides. If the laws or tax system of one country is not competitive, then that country declines and others prosper.

Edward Snowden could not exist if there was a world government since that government would have jurisdiction everywhere (so no whistleblowers). In short, a world government was be a one short step away from total dictatorship.

It'd probably end in a one world despotism.

Actually, I suspect that that will be the inevitable ending of human history if space travel isn't technologically feasible.

Leviathan

Monopolies work okay when the owners are also the consumers of the products they produce. I'm not saying such a monopoly is perfect, it's just that the conflict of interest that arises when owners and consumers are different is what causes those market distortions. When consumers are owners, you compare profits to costs and try to equalibriate.

Good point, but that would assume that all the people in all the cultures around the world would be ok with that and also that some states wouldn't be ok with harboring certain people.
A world government would have little need of a military and would probably keep peace with local police force, though that wouldn't be obvious or necessarily what would happen.
A world government would have to be the most transparent government to exist in history if it would be truly democratic or good

If the scenery you propose happens then a bloodbath would follow, some groups would try to take power and impose their worldviews

Only through violence and tyranny could such system be maintained

>Only through violence and tyranny could such system be maintained
This. A country the size of Spain has separatist movements, how the fuck is a goverment that spans the whole globe going to maintain itself?

Best possible scenario, aliens appear and humanity sees itself much more as one as opposed to the current us v them dynamic.
Worst scenario, aliens appear and a charismatic despot rises to power and sells us out to neferious aliens.
Humans need tribalism. If there is no us v them, one will be created. At least that's my opinion as to how socially 'mature' human beings are.

>Would this be the best possible scenario or the worst event in history?
Neither. Although judging by your description it probably falls on the better side of the spectrum

Everytime some talks about world governments I think of a Heinleinian Terran Federation.

What about religions which mandate the conversion of others or the suppression of rights granted under this government?

Sounds like something I could get behind.

>no place in the political world other than the freedom to express it.
Express as in do religious practices like observe holy days and traditions
if they attempt to subjugate then it is violent discrimination which would be against the law

I'm afraid this guy hit the nail on the head. There can't be a united Earth until there's a great foreigner to expand 'us' to include all humanity.

if you are thinking about how actually a project of unification and freedom can be processed you need to read this, it will make many things clear

novara.anpi.it/attivita/2015/manifesto di ventotene.pdf

And then you have a significant percentage of that culture engage in revolt against the world government, which leads to weakened confidence in said government, which leads to instability and eventual balkanization.

>A world government would have to be the most transparent government to exist in history if it would be truly democratic or good

That's a big if, for one, and I also don't think "more transparent" follows from "more powerful."

Like yes, in your hypothetical scenario everything seems to come up roses, but it's very idealistic.

>what's the point of villages
>what's the point of towns
>what's the point of cities
>what's the point of duchies
>what's the point of kingdoms

etc etc etc

...and countries larger than spain have no separatist movements

Yeah sure buddy I'll just scroll on through your Italian document

Brazil does, so does Russia, I believe.

We need a God Emperor of Mankind first.

Your original statement didn't have any point

Some countries have separatist movements, so what?

My point is that a nation that spans the whole globe is going to be full of people that don't want to be a part of it.

the reason why most of those separatist movements exist though is because the culture isn't being represented and are in many of those cases being actively marginalized or assimilated.
In this scenario the borders would be redrawn so they are able to represent themselves

So a very loose federation?

yeah pretty much

Is a world state inevitable, Veeky Forums?

Probably assuming we don't explode ourselves

Not necessarialy, in Brazil for example, South Brazilian separatists believe they should be independent not mostly because of cultural reasons, but mostly because of economic reasons, believing the money the federal goverment takes is being used on other, less productive parts of the country, even if they don't feel culturally subjulgated in the country.
That is also bound to happen in such a world goverment I believe.

It would be a bad thing, because 95% Democracy™ is mob rule. We don't have democracy almost anywhere because it is a bad system, a system where the majority can fuck over the minority. We mostly have (as an example) things like the USA's representative republic. Not democracy.

It's a piece of shit and falls apart after a year

High population nations like China and India already have trouble managing their nations as it is.

How can a government be capable of micromanaging 8 billion people?

Depends on the power it excerpts on its various regions. If the former counties are highly autonomous and the world government simply enforces human rights and such, it wouldn't be so bad. But if the world government is heavily centralized and such, there is lots of potential for power abuse and the government, however democratic it may be, can't properly represent the populous.

Democratic simply means rule by the majority, if so then basically China and India will rule the world.

I highly doubt Africa, Europe or America will accept this.

>the freedom to express it

what about the freedom to practice it?

actualy the mob rule democracy youre describing is usualy a way for small minorities to fuck over the majority, and then make them pay for it, which indeed is what many if not most of us living in modern democracies get to live with

It all depends on how you feel about China. China has the world's largest population so in a world democracy they would have most power, with India as a close second.

In fact, it would probably be a disaster because every group would start doing everything in their power to produce more kids just to expand their share of votes. You also have to consider that 30% of the world is Muslim, so they would have HUGE political influence in a world democracy.

France got extremely minor independance mouvment. So cultural genocide is the way to go for world peace.

There is literally not a single democracy that has done this to my knowledge.

That too, yes

Thats why I said divide by ethnic and linguistic lines
You do realize that there is more people in china and India than the "Chinese" and "Indians" right?

Not really, as this user said Unless the world has one culture, and living conditions are homogenous across the entire planet, it will be hard to maintain such a state.