TED Conversations

Blake Ekelund

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The World would be a better place with one government.

The World right now is struggling--different currencies, new ordeals within countries, and the fear of others is on our minds everyday.

With one government most of this would be abolished--

How is one government not better?

Topics: government
+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 26 2012: One government would not be better. The mess that current governments make is primarily because power is an agent of corruption. Politicians do everything they can to suppress their mistakes and remain in power. This appears to happen at all levels in politics from local town hall politicians to national politicians. International summits meetings appear to encourage delusions of grandeur and the power of world government positions would be likely to create government member's positions which are absolute and unassailable.

    No! Thank you very much. This notion is dystopia writ large. I don't need people telling me how to live. I particularly do not need well-meaning amateurs imposing their vision of a bright future upon me. Your idea appears to derive from the erroneous school of thought that states that if something is good, more of it just has to be better.

    Until government positions are mandatory for all and handed out for a limited time period (for say... not more than 3 months) to all of the population (mimicking jury service which is an assigned public function that is supported by career professionals) Any form of government, world or local is a poor compromise that serves narrow interest groups.

    If I want to do my bit to ensure law and order, I could buy a gun and dispense a form of justice that would ensure that people leave me alone. Perhaps the population numbers would be reduced but the remaining citizens would be very polite. /sarcasm

    I doubt that the self-interest of politicians could be sufficiently subordinated so that it was subsumed by the wider public interest. This requires vision for humanity and a will to do what is in humanity's best interests. Generally speaking, the people who want the power to change the world, are precisely the people who should not be let anywhere near the levers of power. Such positions will only attract big business (big pharma is already willing to drug drinking water supplies) and psychopathic personalities.
    • May 26 2012: Sounds like you have a problem with the way governments are currently structured rather than the idea of a global government per se. Would You still be against a global government of there were no politicians? Instead as you suggested all government positions could be mandatory for all and handed out for a limited time period (for say... not more than 3 months) to all of the population (mimicking jury service which is an assigned public function that is supported by career professionals). If so why?
      • May 27 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal

        Follow the link to see what passes for government in the UK. The excuses offered by the thieving representatives were many and varied. Only a few were actually prosecuted and punished. What was actually required was immediate and long jail sentences with a concomitant lifetime ban on holding public office. Instead the majority of these thieving MP's handed back the minimum amount they could get away with and the matter was quietly forgotten.

        Our local councils, which are managing people lives in thousands and tens of thousands, can barely make sensible decisions... for the public good. What chance is there than an organisation which is responsible for managing the whole planet and 7 billion lives, will make sensible decisions?

        Governments require power to act (supposedly in the interest of the many) and power implies enforcement. Non-compliant individuals and institutions would provide a massive logistical problems. e.g. how to police the globe or how to solicit the views of a 7 billion population. Huge inequalities are inevitable... particularly while many people do not have enough basic food or shelter for their needs. One could not even consider how to give everyone equal communication rights and internet access, for example.

        Power at a local level is often incompetent. This is often magnified in larger organisations. Giving more power to incompetent people is not a solution to the mess which governments tend to make. With short spells (as I have proposed) in government office, vested interests would find it difficult to build the relationships with legislative bodies that are so corrosive to so-called democracies such as that which exists in the UK.

        Does anyone have the right to decide what would be best for the globe?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.