What If We Wanted a World Government? (feat. Soliloquy)
Articles,  Blog

What If We Wanted a World Government? (feat. Soliloquy)

I’m gonna show you a document that’s…wild-
and was really hard to find. You’re only going to see it because a library
research assistant dove into some congressional archives and pulled it out for us. You’ll notice the year was 1949; the United
Nations Charter, signed in the wake of World War II, was a mere 4 years old. And in the House of Representatives, the Committee
on Foreign Affairs was holding hearings on H. Con. Res. 64, for humans out there that’s House
Concurrent Resolution 64. And the reason H Con Res 64 was so significant,
and the reason I’m showing the hearing you is- if it were reintroduced today in our political
environment, it would most definitely end political careers, of both the author and
the sponsors. The hearing was titled, “To Seek Development
of the United Nations into a World Federation” and if that doesn’t make it obvious to you
what this is about, hear for yourself the words of the Resolution discussed, “…it
is the sense of the Congress that it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign
policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek
its development into a world federation open to all nations with defined and limited powers
adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the
enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law.” This was a serious discussion of reforming
the United Nations into a type of World Government, a sovereign power with enforceable law, the
aim of which would be to create a permanent peace. No, this wasn’t just some obscure niche
issue- the Chair noted that “About 100 Congressmen” were sponsoring the various resolutions dealing
with a world federation, including future Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and future
President of the United States, a Mr. Kennedy from Massachusetts. Just imagine if something like this were introduced
today. The idea of world government is a conversation
relegated to online conspiracy theory websites, and even there it’s only addressed as something
to desperately avoid. It would be too simple to dismiss House Concurrent
Resolution 64 as an after effect of World War II- politicians so shocked by the tremendous
loss from the conflict that their capacity for political calculus slipped away. World Government had been a strain of thought
for a very long time. In De Monarchia, Dante calls for a Universal
Emperor, one to push human kind towards a shared potential. In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant argued
for perpetual peace through a federation of republican states. Even Albert Einstein, who in 1929 referred
to nationalism as the “measles of mankind”, called for a world government which would
control “offensive weaponry” after the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually
has a great article on this if you’d like to read further. Einstein wasn’t alone. There were many in the US and Europe who saw
the United Nations and the NATO alliance as potential stepping stones towards world peace
enforced by well…force. At the same time, in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe, a global governing arrangement wasn’t a foreign concept either. Though Joseph Stalin employed a doctrine of
‘communism in one country’, the Communist International he funded clearly desired world
communist governance or an association of sovereign communist states. The point being that dismissing world government
as quixotic is a modern phenomenon. What if we wanted world government? The potential economic consequences of more
fluid trade, movement of people, and resource distribution are massive, but how would it
be structured? …I usually hate caveats, but I feel like
I need to make one just to be clear with you. I’m not an proponent of world government
and neither is my collaborator for this video, Soliloquy. We made this exploration in order to research
an idea with you. So, let’s go deeper with this topic. Thomas Hobbes argued in the 17th century that
you are capable of killing any other human. Sure, he says, the other person might be ‘manifestly
stronger in body, or of quicker mind’ than you, but with either tools or the help of
others, even the weakest can defeat the strongest. In a time of scarcity, when there isn’t
enough water, food, shelter, mates to go around, before civilization- if you and I want the
same thing, Thomas Hobbes thought we would endeavour ‘to destroy, or subdue one another’. As he wrote in chapter 13 of his book ‘Leviathan’:
“There Is Alwayes Warre Of Every One Against Every One. Hereby it is manifest, that during the time
men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which
is called Warre” In this “natural condition of mankind”,
life is ‘solitary’, and you and I are in ‘nasty’ and endless competition. This ‘short’, ‘brutish’ life is what
Hobbes called ‘the state of nature’ This is a pessimistic vision of human-kind,
but also, you might have noticed, a vision of total freedom. Surviving is your natural right and therefore
you may take any action that helps you obtain the things you need. Because this life is miserable, ephemeral,
and full of violence, Hobbes presented a solution. We could emerge from the state of nature by
coming together, giving up some of our natural rights, and entrusting them to a sovereign
through a social contract. Whether one person or many, the sovereign
government ends the ‘state of warre’ among the many by force. The social contract is binding; the sovereign
has absolute authority. For the sake of our discussion, expand this
concept to the international stage. Instead of individuals existing in a constant
state of competition for resources, we have nations, fighting for dominance of the globe. Though they may enter treaties between one
another, history has shown that without a higher power, paper holds no sway when one
nation becomes aggressive against another. As Hobbes wrote, “Covenants, without the
sword, are but words” Perhaps then, in the same way individuals
could come together and give up natural rights to achieve peace through a sovereign, so too
could nations end their state of war, give away some of their sovereignty to one greater,
and achieve a perpetual peace. In this frame, whether speaking softly or
not, without a global leviathan, diplomacy between nations will default to the one with
the biggest stick. Now, if you’ve been listening so far, you
might be wondering: the United Nations is already an institution with 193 member states,
a peacekeeping force, the ability to sanction, and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why doesn’t it qualify as world government? Though the 1945 UN Charter has the goal of
saving “succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, it is “based on the principle
of the sovereign equality of all its members” (Article 2). As Mary Ann Glendon puts it in “A World
Made New”: “The Great Powers [the USA & Soviet Union] had gone along with the human
rights language, but they made sure that the Charter protected their national sovereignty”
(Glendon, 19). She then goes on to quote Article 2 Section
7 of the UN Charter, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the
United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of any state,” (UN Charter, Art2 Sec7). There’s nothing within the UN Charter to
allow for offensive enforcement to keep the peace. It’s no global leviathan. So what would real world government look like? Though the mind naturally drifts to dystopian
tyranny forcing chains upon the globe, serious proposals don’t go in this direction. An ambitious vision of world government comes
from the 1945 book by Emery Reeves , “The Anatomy of Peace”. Known as the ‘bible of world federalism’,
it called for something more direct than the UN Charter: “Just as peace, freedom and
equality of the citizens of a nation require within their state specific institutions…so
peace, freedom and equality of men on this earth, between nation-states require specific
institutions, authorities separate from and standing above national authorities,” (Reves,
214). Specifically, Reves called for a world constitution,
either independent or emanating from an amended UN Charter, for an international police force
to maintain order, one more powerful than the armed forces of the nations it would rule
over (Reves, 228). To prevent a nuclear holocaust, a “common
sovereign order of law” would be necessary. “Outside of that, any security is but an
illusion,” (Reves, 280). Elected delegates of each nation would receive
mandate from the people to draft this constitution and debate world law. “There is no ‘first step’ toward world
government.” he wrote. “World government is the first step.” (Reves, 283). Another prominent plan can be found in the
1958 textbook, “World Peace Through World Law” which called for a proportional World
assembly based on member state populations and an exclusive military, meaning all other
militaries would be banned. “The World Development Authority” in Article
IV of their proposed revised UN Charter would be given the power to redistribute wealth
across the globe, to forcibly solve “economic disparities between different regions of the
world” (1). Though serious, both these proposals were
written without the expectation of implementation. Reves mentioned the chances of world government
were “not much”. More realistic activists see the need for
incremental change. A campaign for a UN parliamentary assembly
seeks to form a parallel body to the UN General Assembly which at first would be a “consultative
body” but over time would grow to be able to “adopt universally binding regulations”. In his book, “The Idea of World Government”,
James A. Yunker gives us a pretty fleshed out structure for a Federal Union of Democratic
Nations. Based on two unique rights of member nations
1) “the permanent and inalienable right…to withdraw peacefully.” and 2) “right to
maintain under its direct control whatever military forces and armaments it deems necessary,
including nuclear weapons” (Yunker, 107). This means nations could join and depart at
their discretion, keeping substantial sovereignty while inside the organization. Additionally, the Federal Union would include
separate branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) while pushing members
to uphold ideals of open and free elections in comportment with the name, “Union of
Democratic Nations” for their citizens. To illustrate the structure of the proposed
system, let me bring in my friend Jonathan, you may know him better as the YouTuber Soliloquy: Any such union will need to establish its
own governing bodies; legislative, executive, and judicial; and a system is proposed for
each of these. The legislative branch, the Union Chamber
of Representatives would consist of approximately 200 representatives, directly elected by the
populations of their respective districts for five year terms. Given the number of members currently sitting
in national assemblies, this number seems ambitiously low and results in about one representative
for each of today’s nations. It therefore seems natural that the districts
would be equivalent to the nations that join with a sole representative. This of course is a disaster for minorities
within the districts who would be unlikely to be represented; and so I would expect this
number to greatly increase. This also raises a question of disproportionate
population, however here we are presented with an answer. Any measure would need to be approved by two
methods. First with votes from each district weighted
based off district population and second weighted by financial revenue of each district. This simulates a bicameral legislature with
unicameral one; although as a New Zealander I have little problem with a unicameral parliament. However the primary motivation for this is
to ensure that any measures passed are approved by both populous and prosperous regions, thereby
preventing a drastic redistribution of current world income, which would be opposed by the
wealth districts or any measures that poorer nations view as re-establishing colonial style
exploitation. The head of the executive branch, the Union
Chief Executive would be elected by popular vote across the union for a term of 10 years;
and the judicial branch, the Union High Court, would be composed of 25 judges, five of whom
are elected each quinquennial legislative election for a 25 year term. Yunker’s presumption of separated powers,
and that every nation reserve the right to leave at any time sets his structure apart,
but for the other plans, the permanence and eternity really, leaves you and me with a
terrestrial conundrum. On one hand, there’s a growing proliferation
of nuclear weapons across the globe. While less than 10 states have nuclear weapons,
according to the Council on Foreign Relations, “more than thirty others (including Japan,
Germany, and South Korea) have the technological ability to quickly acquire them.” With each successive sovereign controlling
such weapons, the chance that one might violate international treaties and use them increases. Again, ‘covenants without swords are just
words’. Each day carries the risk for the breakdown
of international order. Emery Reves called on this in 1945, writing:
“How long will the United Nations Charter endure? With luck, a generation? A century? There is no one who does not hope for at least
that much luck- for the Charter, for himself, for his work, and for his children’s children. But is it enough to have Peace by Luck?” But if we, the community of world nations,
can’t hope to restrain ourselves from using weapons of mass destruction in perpetuity,
the option to avoid that is equally terrifying. Under a global leviathan, one would ensure
that no armed conflict could break out, that no nation use nuclear weapons–but, how could
we object to a government so powerful? In the Hobbesian model discussed earlier,
we couldn’t, but thinkers like Locke upon which the American constitutional system is
based, reserved the right of citizenry to depose oppressive regimes if they fail to
protect our inalienable rights. It is the right of people to be governed by
consent or change their government. Or in the case of world government, the right
of humanity to demand a new regime. How could something like this be achieved
with a global leviathan enforcing peace? What if it, like many authoritarian systems
do, declared non-violent dissent a disruption? Furthermore, how presumptuous would we be
to see our time as the end of history, our revolutions as the last to ever be necessary? Our blood the last to be spilled? We had the American, French,the Haitian revolutions. We had decolonization, a new international
order after two world wars, a great leap forward, a wall’s collapse-. Let’s just have one more revolution, one
more to bring about a world government, and we can have peace between nations forever. An enticing, arrogant option. Having said that, we are primordial in the
nuclear age, apes with eyes pinned on a lightning-induced eruption of fire. Less than a hundred years have passed since
the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. the vast proliferation of globe destroying
weapons, controlled by imperfect, often delusional and craven human beings leaves us but a minute
from midnight. Will our grandchildren hold us in disdain,
that we sacrificed their world in order to starve the leviathan, our bestial savior from
armageddon? This video was a collaboration with Soliloquy. On his channel he animate your curiosity-
and he does a good job of it. You deserve each other. Watch some of his best content here, or in
a linked comment below. Go binge-watch- go subscribe to Soliloquy. Later guys.


  • An Ano

    im in favour of putting the world government on paper otherwise it already happens at the hands of the capitalists unregulated. the key part is "´´limited powers´´ adequate to preserve peace and prevent agression". its the only way we can actually get free states of adequate size for their communities, otherwise imperialism will prevail

  • Orppranator

    No world government, but maybe an organization like the UN. So long as they respect national sovereignty, unlike the UN.

  • Brandon Stringfield

    we will have a one world republic and I will make it into an empire it is for the own good of the human race especially those in the 3rd world

  • LongshotRecordsTV

    People always divide themselves. Rivalries exist within Nation-states so a world government would suffer from this same thing. People feeling under represented people feeling as its us vs. them. People having differing political views. Civil wars and separatists movements happen all the time people don't want to stay together; Scotland wants to leave the UK, UK wants to leave the EU, Catalonia wants to leave Spain, Quebec often talks about leaving Canada, Sudan and South Sudan recently separated.  I think we can't have world government without abolishing all which divides us.  Hispaniola is occupied by two nations with disparity between them and they can't even come together for the good of the island.

  • Dalmar yare

    Well as i always say… A government strong enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything from you. Its too risky to give one government so much power and influence over the whole world without a single rival and hope that it would use it for good. Cant pin the fate of humanity on hope!

  • Cheydinal

    The EU for example, as well as many similar organizations across the globe in earlier stages (ASEAN (South-East Asia), Mercosur (South America), African Union), are actually the first step towards world government, in a way. Ok, that sounds conspiratorial, but certainly they are a peaceful way to ensure no military conflicts arise between its member states, without a central authority threatening military intervention. Instead of force, it relies on incentive systems: You don't want to fight another country if war would only mean massive monetary losses and a deep recession because the free trade you currently have with that country is blocked. One big reason why the EU exists, is the common foreign trade policy, collective bargaining if you will. With it, each member state gets a tremendously better deal than they could ever dream of getting on its own, imagine Denmark negotiating with the US. That wouldn't be a factor with world government

    Unfortunately, free trade without some sort of money transfer from the net-exporting countries to the net-importing countries will inevitably lead to growing inequality between nations as there's continually capital leaving one country and going to the other. That's why the US got over the financial crisis relatively quickly, but Europe didn't, as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal stayed just above bankruptcy, which decreased the European consumer market, which lead to less production, which led to less income, which led to less consumer demand, etc. In the US, because of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal infrastructure spending, and even the army, funded through progressive taxes which take more from rich states than from poor states, net-benefits poorer states over richer states. Without that, the free trade within the US would lead to the same chaos we have in Europe right now

  • Jorge B.

    The Human Race would require a greater threat that would put our petty differences aside. Perhaps an invasion? Or extinction? Or make education easier to access.

  • Daniel

    It seems like so many people in the comment section just see this as a black and white issue: either we have no world government at all or we have full-blown nation-like governance. It doesn't have to be that way. The way I see it, although take it with a grain of salt because I'm just a lamen who has spent only about an hour of my life thinking about this kind of thing, is if the UN expanded its military and was able to enforce its human rights laws.

  • WaveHello

    You didn't mention advantages like climate change, standardization, epidemics, and international crimes –
    these are best solved by a world government and not individual nations. Either because individual interests compete to make a worse situation for all (e.g. Tragedy Of The Commons, the Prisoner's Dilemma and Global Warming) or because nations lack the means or motivation to solve an issue past their borders even if mutually beneficial (e.g. the Zodiac killer was so dangerous only because separate state departments didn't share information).
    The world is more interconnected than ever and we're already affected and controlled by other nations' economies and industries. It's a matter of whether this is moderated by a democratic, constitutional institution or by the nation with the biggest stick.
    However this in no way justifies a world government outside these narrow domains and I don't consider a world govt to be beneficial or even possible. When would the USA, Russia and China even allow a superpower to legislate over them?

  • The Master

    I think we SHOULD try to go towards something like this world government. BUT, with none of the already existing "isms" and political structures. If all of humanity should be in peace and prosper together as one, then we need to make sure it is fair for 99% of the people in the world. Anything less will spawn a resistance or a rogue nation that wants to destroy the good that a peacefull world government could bring.
    This can only be achived by grooming our children and young people to strive for peace above all else, with as much non-violence as possible. Until the new generation takes over for the old generation, and the knowledge of war is slowly phased out. But the lessons and history never forgotten, and viewed as "a dark age of humanity, back then when we still behaved like primitive apes".
    The building blocks for a successfull world peace, starts with nuclear disarmament world wide, and a global standdown of the military, also disclosure of all secret organisations, and the abolishment of religion. Atleast the endoctrination into religions, since family traditions are still good to have, but children should be shielded by all religious talks of all kinds, and instead taught morality by "what if that happened to YOU" kind of techniques. e.g. "dont kill, because what if someone tried to kill you, how would you like that?".. its infinitly more effective than to put a gun in peoples hands and hope they dont use them.
    It sounds hopeless tho.. with more and more people buying into the idea of "the purge" and something similar, we shall probably never see a world peace proposal happen. Maybe we are in a state where its too late.. ??

  • Babis Andrikopulos

    I have a question for those in the comment section who are in favor:

    Would you still like the idea if someone like Trump was in charge?

  • metafa84

    World government is THE ONLY way to lasting peace. Just think about it: The conflict in the Middle East would be a mere criminal matter, solving it probably within weeks or months at most. World hunger would probably cease within 10 years. Economic growth and prosperity would grow near exponentially the first decades. Peace and progress would create a golden age.

  • metafa84

    To answer: "How could we oppose a 'global leviathan?'" By having the executive split, like the early republic of Rome, between 2 consuls, or even more, or by a kind of executive Senate. In any case there need to be effective checks and balances on the executive. And tell you what! Why does the American president hold so much power? To be able to defend against an attack from the outside, like the Russians! But with world government there would not be any "outside" (if we don't consider an alien invasion for now) so the need for absolute power vanishes. We NEED A WORLD SENATE!

  • Erik Bongers

    Hmmm, this video is very technical. Let me look at this from a completely different point of view.
    A couple of decades ago, my home town, and half a dozen others, became part of the nearby city. The town became a borough. It kept a form of assembly and some mandates, but many political positions, administrations and it's full budget were centralized. There had been no form of consultation of the people, no (public) negotiation of any kind. It just happened. And, like most people, I thought "Oh…that's a bid sad…", and then moved on.
    Let's rewind to the, say, Bronze Age, same place, same borders (more or less). The city would have been a small kingdom, and the surrounding towns, rivals. There would have been frequent wars between the city and the towns and even among the towns. A peaceful merger at that time? Laughable! At the same time, World Wars didn't exist yet.
    Why this difference in behavior? Because of group identity. A few decades ago, we hardly identified with our town, thus weren't prepared to die for it. Similarly, in the Bronze Age, World Wars weren't a thing because the groups we identified with hadn't reached global level yet.
    It's clear that our borders represent the groups we identify with, but always with a delay. Corrections happen, in the worst case, through war, in the best case…see the town merger above.
    So, at what group-identity-level are we currently? There is a simple rule-of-thumb question for that. What group are you prepared to die for? Are you prepared to give your life to defend your town against a city merger? Don't think so. What about your country? I think this is gradually changing. It becomes harder to find mothers proud that their boys are going to give their life for the fatherland.

    This is getting a bit long. Let me wrap up.
    So, when will we get a real World Government? Well, look at my hometown merger and project that to the global level. The "world-merger' will happen when…it's no longer an issue for most people.
    Although, unlike my town merger, at global level, this is already happening, at a very gradual pace. Perhaps it started in 1776: the merger of the north-american states, followed by the UN, the creation and still ongoing expansion of the European Union, …)

    And a last remark: note that, as a result of global communication, group-identity is becoming less of a geographical thing, – I feel more related to like-minded people across the globe than I do to my radically different-minded neighbor.

  • Aardvark Banana

    I think global governance more akin to the European Union is the future. Emery Reeves and James Yunker had good ideas. An exclusive military is definitely a terrible idea.

  • B Nagy

    I have no problem with a world government. I am even willing to sacrifice my language(Hungarian) for English – just to help unification and demolish barriers.

  • dra6o0n

    You need a world government if you want to colonize space and enable progress to the human species to travel in space… Because with all the infighting on earth, you will basically doom the human beings.

  • Dichtsau

    this video is redundant, because all of it is based upon stuff that got worked out before we had the internet.
    we could have MUCH better and MUCH easier solutions today.

  • Mechadroid 3000

    People who want a one world government want their ideologies in stewed over everyone, and what can I say I don’t blame them I want that too. My point is that just because the whole world becomes one government doesn’t mean that that government will uphold your beliefs and ideologies.

  • Soroush Falahati

    You understand that what you describe as terrifying is actually happening in some scale with ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS on earth? Including USA which is LITERALLY a federation of smaller states?

  • Jesse Stewart

    There are too many bad connotations with "World Government". People hear that and immediately think of communism. A world government could still be a Democracy, and I believe that it could be done correctly. It would have the potential to thrust every country on the planet into prosperity. Of course I don't think this will be possible for a very long time. People are too old-school and self interested.

  • Wh0_Am_ 1

    Yunker presents an interesting Idea, while it does sound appealing though, I still find it scary. For It would be too easy for it to doom too large a portion of humanity. Because humans are an imperfect existence, while organizations and technology, are designed for good, it is all too easy for them to be used for evil, thereby the it is the responsibility of a people and the moral right of a foreign right of foreign nations (in certain conditions) to resist and destroy oppressive organisations that infringe on human rights. To achieve that there are time when a nation must go to war to defend her people from an oppressive force, or defend other peoples from an oppressive/evil force. Also it is a fact that when presented with a challenge, people tend to act to the best of their abilities. If there are none to challenge such a power, then what would we be able to do to stop such a malicious power? Fight a conflict on a scale that has never been imagined, or serve that oppressive power to the death.

  • john gleason

    Most arguments that can be used against a global government can also be used to justify the 50 states in the U.S becoming their own independent nations

  • The God Emperor of Mankind

    There will be a global government eventually or we won't move much further, especially if we want to ever become a type II civilization

  • Lightning

    I don't see a problem with a world government, as long as every citizen is treated the same by the system and that instead of using the huge budgets the rich countries got on only itself every country would have the same budget. The thing is that if you live in a rich country, every luxury you got comes at someone else expense. I think that every person should be eligible to become a leader in the new government and that every vote counts as the same no mater your background. I believe that every place in the world should have the same health care, the same school system etc… Think of it as having the us government as the government that was controlling the world. well obviously not the exact government as the us, but a better one. Well this is easier said then done, but the truth is that the biggest things that are holding us back from this are the people with power, because they don't want to loose it. If this government were to be enforced there would obviously need to be new leaders because the ones we got right now would never go along with this. But the truth is that if the "rich" (with rich i mean the average American wealth) of us are willing to sacrifice some of our luxuries to give the other places in the world the same benefits as us, shouldn't we do it?

  • Sufficient

    All these people in the comment section who think that we can only become a space-faring civilization by uniting the entire species into a single state have to be the most narrow-minded people possible, all we have to do is have any entity or entities build colony ships and spread.

  • backsfx

    it is a STUPID idea to think just because you are in the same country that it somehow gonna bring peace..
    some are always gonna hate others no matter what
    skin, idea's, ideology, religion, anything that make a "group" of people

  • OBZRV82

    I don't care how much historical facts there is this a conspiracy theory!!! All governments love their ppl and would never oppress them.. 😏

  • M K

    This comment is about the NEED for a world government..

    The advancements in hypersonic nuclear missiles and space weaponization are very alaraming…

    A global nuclear holocaust can erupt under 6 minutes!!! And the only defence is "if they nuke us, we will nuke them back"!!! One simple accident or sabotage is enough to end all human civilisation!!

    The only way to remove the incentive of using nuclear weapons is a world's government that is not race nor geographically based..

    The basis for this government MUST be:
    1) Full human rights (freedom of thoughts and expression, and individual liberty)
    2) Scientific ruling
    3) true democracy = meritocracy

    The need for more resources can be satisfied by mining asteroids…

    Maybe the space age will be the catalyst for this unity, if we don't wipe ourselves off first!!!

  • Luchingador

    good thing there is not future global series of events that would change the life of all humans and reduce resources and natural balance…….

    oh wait…

  • nooranik21

    If the UN had any actual power their first order of business would be marching soldiers into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I am not saying that a UN like organization has no potential, but the UN as it is now is ineffectual at best. It is incentivized to ignore some issues and exacerbate others simply by the structure of the Security Council. While the EU is very flawed as well, that kind of arrangement holds more water than the UN style treaty for world government. Brexit aside, what ties nations together is tying their wallets together, not their good words and "mutual pursuance of world peace."

    (Added After Edit)
    Although, what's worked better than any kind of world government at preventing massive war such as that of the world wars is nuclear weapons. Fear of nuclear war for stepping on each other's toes has worked pretty darn well as a means for keeping nations in check. Yes, I agree there have been instances where we came precariously close to nuclear holocaust. However, a 20th century without nuclear weapons is certainly darker than that of one with nuclear weapons.

  • D e a t h S k u l l

    We as a human race will never evolve till we have a one world goverment when we have reached that point in time that would mean we dont have wars we are finaly united as a human race and we can concern ourselves with making improvements with technology and exploring space

  • D e a t h S k u l l

    Honestly we cant make this world better by begin divided into countries races and relegions these are the things that cause war and we can never evolve without being united as human race

  • Brent DeBoer

    Just think of the digital spying power available today. Also- imagine a world with only digital currency. No paper money. No coins. 7 billion people monetized digitally under one regime. Now the stage is set. Rule number one under this benevolent global government of peace: get a nifty cool new chip under penalty of law. But don’t worry it’s super cool!!! You just walk in and out of stores without those annoying checkout lines! No more boring tax forms to fill out! Yay!!!! But wait…. this new peace loving government does something you don’t like. Maybe they ban porn. Or certain types of music. Maybe they don’t like combat sports. Or they try to find a middle ground between eastern morals and the west and make all women, not cover up entirely, but let’s say…no more bikinis. Bikinis are now against the law. Women must cover their legs on public streets. Legs offend certain people in some specific parts of the world. Whatever it might be, you decide don’t like it. You protest. Facial recognition identifies you as a problematic citizen, yelling in the street and causing “problems”. Well that’s easy! They can just turn off your chip! No more groceries for you! Obviously that would never happen because…. well… you would never protest. You would just do as you are told because you want to eat. And you love your children and don’t want them to suffer for your want of a bikini. Or a car. Or whatever. And you don’t like jail. Think I’m being extreme? Then try reading a book.

  • KuraIthys

    There are plenty of reasons why we might want a unified world government, and also plenty of reasons why we wouldn't.

    One of the issues we have in the world at the moment is multinational entities (primarily corporations) abusing everyone by playing different countries off each-other in a way that essentially (at least partially) negates the rule of law.
    They can do this because there is no over-arching authority that can hold them accountable irrespective of where they are based or operating at any given point.

    The internet, even without corporate involvement is another perfect example of something which for all practical intents and purposes exists entirely outside of the jurisdiction of any country.
    Because… Strictly speaking it has no 'location', thus you can't apply laws to it in an ad-hoc regional manner, since you always run into issues of jurisdiction.

    Youtube is a perfect example of this; If I upload a video and run into copyright issues (either because I included 3rd party content, or someone tries to use my content somehow), whose laws are we subject to here?

    Mine, as the uploader? (which would be Australian law), youtube's as the host company? (US law), the laws of the country or countries in which the video file is being hosted (completely unpredictable and could be pretty much anywhere, and could vary with who is viewing the video)
    Maybe the people that are viewing the video dictate the jurisdiction?

    Yet not a single one of those answers technically makes sense.

    Both of these problems would go away if there were some unified global authority for this stuff.
    (the internet in particular could be solved independently of a global authority if it's considered it's own jurisdiction – eg, we make the 'internet' a separate country with it's own laws. – however, that seems like it would be extremely unpalatable to the governments of most nations, so that probably wouldn't work out so well.)

    Of course, all this stuff has massive downsides too.

    The more you centralise power, the more easily that power can be abused.

    And if you create a world government but don't give it any real authority, you end up with it being a toothless institution that doesn't really accomplish anything.
    (in a way we could say we already have a 'world government' of this nature – since that's basically what the UN is. An organisation that unifies the whole world, but in practice is basically incapable of doing anything.)

  • Just Another one

    We seriously need a world government if we're gonna end unnecassary conflicts and dictatorships anytime soon. Also, maybe now we can finally get to the more important issues like building dyson spheres lmao.

  • Buck Dog

    if we wanted one, then after probably half an hour we'd say "hey I don't like this." and then what used to be Texas and all the states that allow guns would say "hey, stop it." and shoot the new world government and then everything would be sunshine and rainbows 👨🏼rainbows cuz I can't find the emoji👦🏿

  • Buck Dog

    Seriously, there would be a massive uprising if all the leaders in the world stupidly agree to that. Almost all western-world countries would fight the new government, which, they're literally communists, and I think that the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and probably Germany, would be easily able to win a world war against pretty much just Russia, China, and North Korea.

  • Bryan Guevara

    Why does everyone dickride Hobbes. He’s so dated and we have much better contemporary philosophers that talk about the state of nature

  • Niko Macias

    History & the basic understanding of humanity isn’t enough for these people in this comment section… utopian idealism is equal to wishing to wake up 2; 1 billion $ in ur account.

  • boson96

    "Humans" can't form a make a one world government work, too much conflict of interests. An artificial superintelligence on the other hand…

  • The Jolly Kangaroo

    Who would want to live in a unified world? I mean if the United Kingdom decided to Colonise the whole world and make the monarch the ruler of British Earth, sure! But under some 'elected by the sheep' president or chancellor, no thank you.

  • Natheria

    Satan will have his reign alongside of the Antichrist, and the beast. He will be this global leviathan, and with it, he will damn us all.

  • André Morais

    Yeah all I can hear is this is bad and all but no actual reason why, I don’t really see why it would be bad…. just because you are a citizen of your city and a citizen of your country do you stop being a citizen of your city because your a citizen of your country??? I think not, and it would actually make world peace, end starvation, world effords in the environmental problems and pollution that there is today and it would truly make a great advance in technologically and in every field of human evolution!! Nationalism only leads to xenophobia racism and hitler like situations. Why can’t we all play on the same team, the HUMAN team.

  • Ak Ak

    That would be the perfect world. If we want to become great as a species,we have to create this Terran Federation.
    I imagine this as a world government ruling with democracy, uniting all countries into one but at the same time,divide them in autonomous countries (that can't go to war with one another) and each country has its own government that takes part in the world government,and protect its own culture and history and so on. There would be no official religion but everyone could believe in any god,and the official language would be Esperanto or some other world language,and in every country is used the official regional language and the world language. All together would solve the problems Earth has today,and who knows,maybe even jump out of Earth and explore our galactic neighborhood!

  • Mischa

    i think the whole world would starve because of bureaucracy being too slow in getting the necessary papers together to permit food production

  • I Play Games

    You need to make another video with the name What If humanity united COUGH COUH Halo intensifies let’s be a species and colonise space.

  • KingIceHunter

    A one world government is a HUGELY BAD IDEA.

    Can it happen? Is the man called Cesar in the Roman Empire any evidence?

    Look to History to see your Future, look to the Bible to understand it.

    Not to mention the EU and brexit is a great example on how things are flying out.

    But here’s the thing, if you have a one world government out in the open, who will the masses be angry at?
    You always need a villain.

    If the world is divided into parts, you have more flexibilityto pick your allies, villians, and change them over time.

    Edit: unless you make a specific group of people your enemies ounce again.

    Jews for the nazis as it were….


    Oh no! A world government based off the United States!! What a terrible and oppressive idea!

    Gtfo out of here a strong unified democratically elected government based of the US would be the best thing to happen to the whole world since sliced bread.

    Try and prove that wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *