Edit~hey gang, when I posed this question and had some opinions. I realized I don’t really feel one way or another about it and I can’t really articulate a stance (probably just too tired). I won’t be engaging. I don’t want to just delete it though because some people made interesting points. Up to mods what to do with this.

  • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
    0·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Dookieman12@piefed.socialEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Who says one governing body means only one set of rules? What if one governing body kept different rules for different areas?

  • 6_Electrons@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    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

  • slazer2au@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • BorgDrone@feddit.nl
    0·
    2 months ago

    Yes. It’s insane that you have different laws, rights, taxes, etc. based on your location.

    • Dookieman12@piefed.socialEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I like having the option to pack up and leave a place if I don’t like the laws there. Already did it once, worked out great for me. YMMV.

  • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
    0·
    2 months ago

    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
    0·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
    0·
    2 months ago

    I’m of two minds. A global government could be used to keep corrupt world leaders like Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu in check. On the flip side, if one of those people managed to take control of it, it could be really hard for good world leaders to fight back. So, like any government, it’s good as long as the right people are in charge