No, it reduces the effort needed for corruption.
The smaller the circle of power is, the less effort is needed to corrupt the entire system.
Also, it would prevent experimentation. Trial and error is an important method of finding out what works. One governing body would have one set of rules, we would never discover if a better set of rules exist.
I feel like it would be one of two things... It would go spectacularly well or it would be absolute garbage. Based on what I've seen from humanity... I lean towards the later lol
It would be bad. Governments like one solution that fits all. That is impossible over geographic regions. Take the EU, rules that apply to Denmark about housing insulation would be horrific if implemented in Spain.
Are we talking like a New World Order that acts as one set of rules for the whole world?
Or an alliance of all nations (like the UN) that makes sure nobody gets too out of line?
The first, has WAY too much potential for absolute corruption, the second would be much better if there were set human rights that COULD NEVER be revoked and 100% cooperation among ALL nations.
12 Comments
flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz · 11 pts · 2h
No, it reduces the effort needed for corruption.
The smaller the circle of power is, the less effort is needed to corrupt the entire system.
Also, it would prevent experimentation. Trial and error is an important method of finding out what works. One governing body would have one set of rules, we would never discover if a better set of rules exist.
kibblebits@quokk.au · 5 pts · 48m
Sure as long as it agrees with me 100%
6_Electrons@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2h
I feel like it would be one of two things... It would go spectacularly well or it would be absolute garbage. Based on what I've seen from humanity... I lean towards the later lol
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org · 3 pts · 1h
Cultural differences are much too much.
slazer2au@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1h
It would be bad. Governments like one solution that fits all. That is impossible over geographic regions. Take the EU, rules that apply to Denmark about housing insulation would be horrific if implemented in Spain.
AnotherUsername@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1h
Depends on how it's structured. "Global governing body" could be fantastic or absolute ass.
luthis@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 1h
No. Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts completely.
Oh lol yes I'm definitely on the anarchist side. There has never been any genocides, wars, etc that weren't committed by people in power.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1h
Are we talking like a New World Order that acts as one set of rules for the whole world?
Or an alliance of all nations (like the UN) that makes sure nobody gets too out of line?
The first, has WAY too much potential for absolute corruption, the second would be much better if there were set human rights that COULD NEVER be revoked and 100% cooperation among ALL nations.
BorgDrone@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 29m
Yes. It’s insane that you have different laws, rights, taxes, etc. based on your location.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 14m
We kind of have a global legislature already. We would just need a global executive.
OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4m
One global governing body trying to balance a shit load of different cultures? Oof I dont want that job
zxqwas@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1h
No. We are not at a point where we could agree to anything like that at the moment.