Assuming it's the US style of government. Or even better if the US becomes the one world government.

- brb every country is now a US state, and pays federal taxes for the benefit of the world
- brb no more war?
- brb can travel anywhere with eased restrictions

The only downside I see is that the status of a US citizen would be downgraded, globally. But there would probably be a hierarchy of 'states' like there is now in the US. Mississippi wouldn't be close to the bottom. Some place in Africa would.

I sometimes think about if there's other intelligent life in the universe how they would see us. Fighting over the stupidest stuff. Literally killing each other when we are supposed to be "advanced".

You're not accounting for what history has taught us about human nature.

Because government is one word, I don't think anyone thinks it's bad.

OP red AF

Absolute power corrupts absolutely


That's why it's a no go

Those "places" in Africa with their 800 million population would outvote every single American, so knowing that to be factual, guess what system you'll actually be living under??

Liberal democracies typically mog in every aspect of life on earth?Imagine having to walk 10 miles every day to carry 100lbs of water on your head back to your village so your family can drink.

Vs.

Opening the tap in your sink to fill a pitcher of water and walk 10 feet to the dining room table.

Pretty sure most people would choose the latter and bow down to their western overlords so they too can benefit from infrastructure, better technology, medicine etc...

But to your point: once they get clean drinking water and HIV vaccines with ease, they might have a tendency to vote in corrupt leaders who will mess it all up again.

So...

What if there is an electoral type voting system so countries with a higher gdp per capital get more voting power? That would incentevize poverty 'states' to make something for themselves.

Its just hard for me to believe we are at the height of civilization yet yell at each other over stupid things like race, religion and ethnicity and kill each other over the same bull**** plus imaginary lines on a map. We can do better..I think a one world government might be the answer. You don't see NY and NJ wanting to fight each other over anything except pro sports.

Absolutely phucking retarded. People in different parts of the world have vastly different goals and interests. What's good for one is often bad for another.

You should have comradery with your fellow countrymen. It helps keeps things running smoothly. The more people in a country have in common, the better. Diversity is definitely not a strength.

San Francisco paedos and the Taliban all living together. What could go wrong?

You should just walk into your neighbor's home. Eat the food, take a chit, sleep there. Those are just imaginary lines dividing your property from theirs.

Oh wait you don't have any property marxist trash

What are you even talking about? This makes no sense. Use the NJ / NY border as an example of how states can independently govern themselves yet be a part of larger federation of states, and not want to kill each other.

Do you even understand the question in the OP?

Maybe if the Taliban wants to move to CA. However CA has pretty strict gun laws and goat f'ing is illegal so they probably wouldn't live there. Just to sell their Afgani poppies then bounce back to Kabul probably.

Nothing in the Op is really against that. If you want to pledge allegiance to your state flag, go ahead. If you want to live in a state that has more like minded people, you can. But competing for more military strength vs a state on the other side of the 'country' wouldn't make sense since you're a part of the one world government. Instead we'd reallocate military budget towards more constructive things. Like defending the planet against a species killing meteor.

Well, I mean if you take a look at the EU, it is definitely as close to a "world government" as one can get; members have to be democracies, have to respect, follow, and abide by universal human rights, centralized bureaucracy, one currency, mutual defense pact, for the most part culturally/linguistically/historically connected with shared values, norms, culture, etc. But clearly, it's not working to its ideal capacity; there is a degree of inequality and hubris among the powerful EU member states vs smaller ones; there is unequal development, as well as economic disparity between many member, states especially eastern European countries. The migrant/refugee situation has placed a lot of burdens on some EU countries forcing them to adopt more nationalist attitudes because people are fed up.


Basically, it's very difficult to have one world government.

lets put all the eggs into one basket, what could possibly go wrong

Oops. Didn't know I was engaging with white supremacist/Nazi. Later.

Yeah I Invision the migrant/refugee situation would be solved if the 3rd world countries would become a part of the global federation. Like Cubans wouldn't need to risk their lives swimming to FL anymore. US companies would just open up call centers or manufacturing plants there and pay the Cubans $3/hour. Would be a huge win/win situation. Same goes for Europe and the African refugees. They wouldn't need to immigrate if they had their basic needs met in their home countries. They could farm or sew Levi's for a living.

In a way, it would be as if the US colonized the world. But the colonies would need to get more benefits for them to willfully submit. They would need to keep autonomy, similar to our state system.

As another poster mentioned itt, the wrong people could be democratically elected and F it all up. In a way that's what's good with the current set-up, that there's a power balance between opposing super powers and their allies. Unfriendly competition I guess you can say.

However, if the US system is adopted, like I said earlier, we could limit a 'states' power based on their overall production. But then the Chinese could gain control and F it up I suppose. But if we put limits of power based on a states human rights record then we could keep it more in check.

Imagine taking the military budgets of every country in the world to reallocate towards constructive technology to make the world a better place. Or even space travel. We'd be so much better off as a species.

Why does evil need to exist?

I'm not. I was thinking of how we could keep a similar system to ours, yet not allow a geography to dominate solely based on population size. Wed need a different metric. Similar to States electoral votes but based on other factors like output and maybe human rights record. Would keep 800K population 'states' honest. Also china.

Not really. Just like NJ doesn't pay for poverty in NY. States pay for unemployment, housing, etc... 'we' (aka every state) would need to pay for some infrastructure but that's more an investment/start-up cost to create incentives for companies to set up shop.

People from poverty nations wouldn't need to come here if they made $3/hour in a call center or picking mangoes. They would live very comfortably in their own 'states'.

This plan would actually reduce immigration. Think about it.

A one world government may end war between governments(since there can only be one) but it leads to war on the individual.

Conservative Americans are the only people remaining across the entire world who respect individual rights.

A one world government dilutes that with people who don't care about speech, guns and privacy.

A one world government would be a consolidation of power against the people.

Look at Brexit and the EU, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Independent you lose leverage, dependent you lose rights.

How so? If we (America) were the one world government. Wed keep the constitution, bill of rights, etc...and convert every other countries 'laws' into state constitutions, respectively. They'd actually get more rights and we'd keep ours.

Instead of 50 States we'd have 195. We keep our US flag, as the one world government flag, and they would convert their country flags into state flags. Like Texas has a state flag. So too would Italy and Venezuela.

Well I guess we'd need a new flag with 195 stars but you get the idea.

Well this is complicated and deserves a post with more substance than I'm willing to give right now.

Suffice to say that America will come under similar rule as the EU to compete globally with China, for America to compete with China it needs to bring itself into parity, this means more people and less rights("don't battle with monsters...", "slavery anywhere is...", "it's about the economy...").

This North American Union will bring people into the fold through an effective open border policy between Mexico, Canada and America. Mexicans, Canadians and a large number of "Americans" do not respect gun, speech or privacy rights. If we form a union we will gain economic leverage against China but we will eventually lose our right to self determination.



Once China and American are polar powers with similar governments then the One World Government forms against every person across the world.

If this plan fails, there are back up plans to use India against China and Russia against the U.S.

Like I said... complicated.

I see where you're going with it. In order for other countries to buy in to the idea, they would want us to be more like them i.e prohibition on civilians with firearms, etc...

And yeah that would be tricky if our federal law grants the right to bear arms, freedom of speech etc ... If for example in Saudi Arabia women have to wear headscarves in public. If NY made that a state law it would be declared unconstitutional. So how would we govern a one world government where Saudi Arabia is a state?

It's complicated. But I think it's the direction we are going and based on your post here you do too, but see the downside if we have to sacrifice our rights. A one world police state. Scary. I don't want that. Gotta be a better way.