One World Government

[Powerogue]

I think every attempt at a One World Government has failed catastrophically, and it's something best left in the imaginations of supervillains more ambitious than Dr. Doofenshmirtz (the tri-state area, now that's a reasonable conquering radius).

[arandomuser]

national socialism sounds alot like NAZI, dunno why anyone chooses that. but a 1 world capitalist neoliberal government would be pretty swell. Unfortunately people like trump and putin want us to all hate eachother

[endersblade]

When my people finally find me and start their invasion of your planet, you're going to wish you had a unified government.

Ahem.

None of those options, but I do firmly believe the world needs to get rid of all the petty and archaic differences and unify. The two primary reasons we haven't yet are money and religion. I really don't see any other reason why we can't just have one government, one set of rules. It doesn't make any sense that imaginary borders magically change what rules you should follow.

[d00mGuArD]

Large governments are a bad idea. Just imagine the bureaucracy ... it's insane. I would go entirely in the opposite direction: city governments. There are no nations, just cities/towns.

Sounds good. The smaller the size, the more direct it is and the bigger effect each individual voice has.

Huge governments mean the voice of each person is a drop in the ocean.

[mostvp71]

It truly isn't. They're not all gonna magically program themselves to kill humans.

The fi in sci-fi stands for fiction.

Lmao, you don't think AI will become aware at some point? You're dreaming.

[Dastreus]

Democratic Socialism.

[Stardrift]

Lmao, you don't think AI will become aware at some point? You're dreaming.

Lmao, you think AI will become aware at some point? You're dreaming.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Are the ones that voted "National Socialism" aware that this literally means "Nationalsozialismus", which was and still is abbreviated "Nazi"?

It's ideology, the other is a group and a party, there is no intention to suggest one is the other in my question. The question is simply about what government or system one would choose over the other options.

[alturic]

Are any of the options something akin to "democracy to where people are elected and can put bills together but ultimately a machine decides yes/no on if the bill passes"? If so, I'd choose that option. Frankly, that would be head and shoulders better than a typical democracy.

Dictator-type government wouldn't be good, but the other end of the spectrum is a bunch of people who fight incessantly and nothing get done as well, or it does get done but it's either gutted or extremely stuffed with pork - in other words, the original intent of the law (one that perhaps a majority of people were behind) isn't the actual law that was passed.

[Nihilist74]

I don't think it would work unless a self-aware intelligent AI was in charge of it. Machines would feed and clothe us. Nanobots would make sure we don't reproduce too much.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Are any of the options something akin to "democracy to where people are elected and can put bills together but ultimately a machine decides yes/no on if the bill passes"? If so, I'd choose that option. Frankly, that would be head and shoulders better than a typical democracy.

Dictator-type government wouldn't be good, but the other end of the spectrum is a bunch of people who fight incessantly and nothing get done as well, or it does get done but it's either gutted or extremely stuffed with pork - in other words, the original intent of the law (one that perhaps a majority of people were behind) isn't the actual law that was passed.

Well outside of what I explicitly laid out, there really is not limitations as to your interpretations, some people are obviously going to imagine in the scope of what is practical, while some are going to take the opportunity to reply with an edgy comment.

The only underlined understanding need be this, Nobody gets everything they want, no choice is without a cost, the idea isn't to drive an agenda or get anybody to choose anything other than what suits them based on what is written, but after that, whatever else they imagine.

Practical or simply goofy.

[alturic]

Well outside of what I explicitly laid out, there really is not limitations as to your interpretations, some people are obviously going to imagine in the scope of what is practical, while some are going to take the opportunity to reply with an edgy comment.

The only underlined understanding need be this, Nobody gets everything they want, no choice is without a cost, the idea isn't to drive an agenda or get anybody to choose anything other than what suits them based on what is written, but after that, whatever else they imagine.

Practical or simply goofy.

See, that's the beauty of a computer simply spitting out passed/not passed. You type in "Affordable Care Act", for tracking purposes of the result hehe, and it literally says passes/not passed there is ZERO bias. I know it's a silly concept, but at least in the US, and unless major changes come (term limits, literally ONE thing per bill, etc) the current form of government is, has been, and always will be utter nonsense.

It's asinine that "to get Johnny on board with a yes vote, I had to include a earmark for studying whether fruit flies become lonely (done in Johnny's home district mind you) in the latest healthcare bill".

[Doctor Amadeus]

See, that's the beauty of a computer simply spitting out passed/not passed. You type in "Affordable Care Act", for tracking purposes of the result hehe, and it literally says passes/not passed there is ZERO bias. I know it's a silly concept, but at least in the US, and unless major changes come (term limits, literally ONE thing per bill, etc) the current form of government is, has been, and always will be utter nonsense.

It's asinine that "to get Johnny on board with a yes vote, I had to include a earmark for studying whether fruit flies become lonely (done in Johnny's home district mind you) in the latest healthcare bill".

I can’t disagree with any of this. But an A.I in a hypothetical unbiased objective manner would be the enslavement and end of humanity.

I personally rather an educated population with all citizens with skin in the game dedicated to the overall greater good for everyone.

[Theodarzna]

See, that's the beauty of a computer simply spitting out passed/not passed. You type in "Affordable Care Act", for tracking purposes of the result hehe, and it literally says passes/not passed there is ZERO bias. I know it's a silly concept, but at least in the US, and unless major changes come (term limits, literally ONE thing per bill, etc) the current form of government is, has been, and always will be utter nonsense.

It's asinine that "to get Johnny on board with a yes vote, I had to include a earmark for studying whether fruit flies become lonely (done in Johnny's home district mind you) in the latest healthcare bill".

Human social cooperation ultimately is the art of gift giving, I know in this day and age basic human interaction is alien to people, but that is how you get things going most of the time.

[Lochton]

I've voted national socialism but seeing out world today with politics and aggressions, we would have to be put under and A.I. overlord with Automated Collectivism before we could even transcend to National socialism. We're just too different. It is a myth that our planet can be under one government.

[Galactis]

Socialist Republic. Done!

- - - Updated - - -

Socialist Republic. Done!

I would go farther than that and thinking of something along the lines of a Utopian Socialist Federal Republic. Something like and advanced civilization would have. Almost like Star Trek! An advanced nation, system, empire, imperialist, federalist, republic, would need to just have basic things understood. Like having "Hydrolozer". It's in Star Trek and Back to the Future. Instantly, healthy, food recombiner and cooker. Second, It's understood that this level of society has the technology that does not need currency. There is no need for wealth because, the universe is so vast, and so plentiful, that a machine can create, make, design, build, anything a person can dream or think about.(Star Trek).

Essentially stepping into High Fiction Fantasy right now. (Dyson Spheres, Huge planetary, orbital class space stations capable of housing a million persons). I want advanced civilizations, for instance Michio Kaku's type 3 civilizations.

These civs would have to just inherently know that it is bad to hurt, steal, kill. It is almost like a complete understanding that one just must not do these things ever. Under penalty of whatever restrictions of heavy magnitude the "State", deems fair based off the severity of crime.

Ok back to reality. So if we get to a one world government which is a smaller form of a "Utopian Dream". There would almost certainly need to be an economic system that is better than capitalism and communism. There are parts of both that work extremely well and using those best parts to create something that works even better should be the goal. In fact, I would go further and say that taking parts of all systems of government from all of human history is probably the best method to create the most balanced, and structured form of civilized existence. I would even say that adopting the "prefecture" style from Japan or Regional sectors would be a must. There must be tiers of government as it gets larger and larger.

However, the problems with larger and larger government is that it takes longer and longer for things to get accomplished. Hence the Region system and prefecture system. Each geographical "Region" or "Prefecture" should specialize in whatever is good for the region. Having free reign to grow, develop, build, enact it's own local policies. However, I will say that it would not make much sense to have one zone completely specialized in industry because, it would choke the life out of the land, resources, air quality, etc. So that specializing allows for more a "type" of resource to be developed is all, the regions and prefectures should allow for farmland and zoning rights to compensate for the the increased industrialization. However, on the flip, would be that some zones could in fact be entirely designated to farming.

Farming though has it's negatives and those should be countered with effective means of ridding the region of or keeping clean of those hazards. Obviously each region is going to be great at what the particular climate zone and location offer. Then maximize those effects of whatever region therein. However, complement those specified regions with nearby other regions with goods and services that those in opposite regions and prefectures do not have. Thus maximizing the, "I have what you want" needs system; no need for currency again.

Now scale it up to a global size with regional enacted laws like: Clean Air, Water, Soil, Food, Habitat(Living Space), and surroundings.

I like to think big with no limits. Lets get it done society...

Of course I really need more detail on this though. I could scale this "Branching Tree Theory" I penned it myself system of government. Though, streamlined, and efficient.

- - - Updated - - -

I would also like to state that there are lots of drawbacks to a collectivized government. I am reminded of this from watching many a anime that has this concept and the lower class always revolt or rebel because, lack of representation, or lack of food, support, social laws. Or, even the tightening of laws that really hurt the lower class. In my eyes the system that I have in place would not have a class. Basically thinking that, your "Class" is how lazy or unlazy you want to be are. If you want something you just go get it or do it; however, when someone else wants something from the region you live or prefecture the collectivized region should have to be and needed to produce whatever it is that opposing region is asking for. It's a two way street, you have what I want or need, meanwhile someone else has a need for something we can produce. We can't just not produce and be lazy because, we want to be. The system would not work that way. It has to be enforced to the benefit of all citizenry and benefit of effort, time, for everyone and every region. Think active diplomacy.

[smityx]

Human nature, cultural and religious differences will not allow it on a global scale. Peacefully at least. The only way it could is through ruthless military control to keep the ones wanting to be independent of a leader/ruling class on the other side of the world under control. Even then the 4th reich wouldn't be able to last forever.

[JohnBrown1917]

Only if its communist.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

There are two versions of globalism.

In one version every citizen has a gun in their hand and money in their pocket.

In the other we are so poor that we shit in the streets and use our clean hand to salute the eternal party chairman.

[Kokolums]

Also of note, over 50% of the population of the earth lives in the China to India region of Asia. So in any voting system, they are going to carry more weight than the rest of the globe unless you create an Electoral College (but I hear Electoral Colleges are evil).