TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

One Worldwide Government

Just picture this if you will, a world with no war, a world where everyone is provided for, a world that is. . . perfect.

Hypothetically speaking, if every individual country acted as if it were a state rather than many states combined, and there was one central government (similar to the U.N.) than that would allow for one "Super-Country" if you will. Thus, eliminating the need for big scale wars and global hunger. Everybody everywhere could be provided for. Every child could have an education. Religions would still be separate but have different Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques etc. One last and very important point, the political view. I believe, should become one of both Democratic and Communistic views, a mix of both. Now I'm not saying at all that the world should be a dictatorship or that i support that kind of stuff, but that I simply believe having every individual on the same social level is a wonderful idea. It would eliminate poverty! Though while at the same time still keeping a more Democratic way of doing things. (voting, electing representatives etc.) And on one last note, the economy might be a mixed economy, leaning more towards command than free-market, while still having most characteristics of a mixed economy. In many ways i think that life could be less. . . chaotic.

Please, let me hear your thoughts on why or why not, this would work. Give me your opinions and feedback, also. Feel free to help "add-on" or improve if you wish. (and please remember, this is just, for me, an ideal world. You don't have to agree.)


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 27 2011: I am an advocate of one world government. Especially in our modern age of global communications and travel, it seems like we are the only thing that is holding us back. Though I think we should be very careful with any system we immplement globally.

    I've actually given a lot of thought to this, and have come up with a system that I think would be a vast improvement on the current forms of government. The name I've given the system: Demaritecnocracy. A mouthful, I know. It's mearly a blend of the terms democracy, maritocracy, and technocracy.

    Here's how it would work: The democratic pillar would guarantee everyone equal opportunity under the law, and equal access to the services offered by the government. The meritocratic pillar would assure advancement based on one's predicted performance, so personal biases would not dictate promotions, and you'd gravitate to having the most important possitions occupied by the most compotent persons, instead of those with the best connections. The technocratic pillar would hand legislative power to the professional community, with specialists regulating their own field of expertise for the benefit of society, and the advancement of their profession. With those having lower meritocratic standing having command over more localized systems (neighbourhood, city), and those who are the most compotent in their fields having command over larger tracks of population (district, state, nation, world).

    I think this system would confer several benefits to its regulated constituents. It could guarantee every citizen the possibility of voting on national, or even global policy, given a high degree of education. It would also mean that citizens could diversify their city policies based on their individual needs and limitations. Not to mention the boon of larger policy being set by the most compotent professionals. Another great part about this is that it has built in checks and balances. With every profession naturally reliant on the others

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.