Should earth unify or remain divided?

[Great Imperium of Man]

I'm curious to see what the general consensus here on NationStates is when it comes to the topic of world unification, meaning our planet Earth united under a single democratic government. Assuming it were possible, would you believe it to be a good or bad idea?

Honestly, as much as I like the idea of a unified earth, I think we should remain divided, having a single government that controls the entire planet makes it too easy for a corrupt politician to take over and install a dictatorship, we're better off being our own separate nations, in my opinion.

I don't know what else to say in this since the topic is relatively simple, so feel free to discuss it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

A united earth government would collapse in about an hour so that's gonna be a no from me.

[Eurasies]

There is no way that a single world government does not end in anarchy

[The Holy Therns]

Never gonna work.

[Nuroblav]

Under a government? It would be too complicated to manage in my opinion, much as I like the idea.

[Punished UMN]

Think about the issue seriously. What is in it for any one nation to become part of a one-world government? There's not really any unless it's a hegemony. It's just not feasible because it's in no one's advantage, and thus few would agree to it.

[His Excellence]

Uniting every nation under a singular government is a wonderful idea, if you feel like the concentration of power in the world is spread out among too many people.

Maybe we should ask the United Nations for advice on how to achieve this without simultaneously being both laughably inefficient and disgustingly corrupt.

[Stellar Colonies]

We're nowhere near ready for that, if we ever will be.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Think of the ethnic and cultural conflicts. I can see how this can seem desirable, but this is a pipe dream.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'm curious to see what the general consensus here on NationStates is when it comes to the topic of world unification, meaning our planet Earth united under a single democratic government. Assuming it were possible, would you believe it to be a good or bad idea?

Honestly, as much as I like the idea of a unified earth, I think we should remain divided, having a single government that controls the entire planet makes it too easy for a corrupt politician to take over and install a dictatorship, we're better off being our own separate nations, in my opinion.

I don't know what else to say in this since the topic is relatively simple, so feel free to discuss it.

The only way we get a unified earth government is if we have 1 person living at most.

Unless they person is either an economist or has multiple personality disorder, then all bets are off.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm curious to see what the general consensus here on NationStates is when it comes to the topic of world unification, meaning our planet Earth united under a single democratic government. Assuming it were possible, would you believe it to be a good or bad idea?

Honestly, as much as I like the idea of a unified earth, I think we should remain divided, having a single government that controls the entire planet makes it too easy for a corrupt politician to take over and install a dictatorship, we're better off being our own separate nations, in my opinion.

I don't know what else to say in this since the topic is relatively simple, so feel free to discuss it.

The only way we get a unified earth government is if we have 1 person living at most.

Unless they person is either an economist or has multiple personality disorder, then all bets are off.

A one world government would need to be a dictatorship to have any chance of holding onto power. It would need to suppress any form of nationalism, dissent, incompatible cultures, certain religious groups, etc. It would need to have an iron handed leadership and secret police.

[VoVoDoCo]

It’s one thing to like the idea of the world Having a unified purpose and basic set of ideas (freedom, democracy, secularism, equality, etc.), But it’s another to literally unify the world governments. It’s bad enough with just 50.

[Plzen]

...the consensus seems to be very strong here, but I will offer a dissenting opinion and speak in favour of world government.

---

Why is government necessary?

First, and most obviously, it creates a political sphere clear of violence, by preventing grievances from being resolved by violence. In the far past, of course, there were no such thing as organised States. States then formed, but for much of history was not internally dominant, being vulnerable to civil wars from its component sub-States and unable to interfere heavily in the lives of its citizens. But in the 21st Century, for the vast majority of humanity, the dominance of State violence is unquestioned. 80% of humanity can expect that when their neighbour is murdered, the police will show up and show up promptly. Coups and revolutions in the 21st Century are not fought between armies, they are fought over the control of the army, singular. Consequently they are rather less bloody and disruptive than coups and revolutions of the 19th and 20th Centuries. As people got used to settling disputes by law and custom rather than by naked force, society grew more peaceful from early agrarian society, when archaeologists estimate that something like 15% of deaths were by violence, to today, when more people kill themselves than are killed by their fellow human beings.

Second, it compels people to act cooperatively. I'm sure everyone's heard of the prisoner's dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, and other such game theory tropes. The basic premise behind these scenarios is that what is good for any given individual is not the same as what is good for the people of the community as a whole. Obviously it is better for everyone if people act for the common good instead of for themselves, and the conventional libertarian theory for achieving this is by mutual agreement (everyone agrees to stay silent in the prisoner's dilemma, or put grazing limits on the commons). But in anarchy, how can anyone trust that the agreement will be followed? If I know that you benefit from cheating me, I can't trust you not to cheat me, and what good is an agreement that won't be followed? But if we all live under the aegis of some powerful State, then I can trust you to abide by any agreements we make, because if you don't I will take you to court for contract violations and I trust you to not want that.

Tangentially related to that is the issue of rights. If we all philosophically agree that, for example, nobody should be permitted to violate the privacy of another's communications, enforcement by some authority turns the philosophical abstraction that is a "human right" into something more tangible - a deterrent that discourages people from violating my supposed rights.

Now apply these basic necessities to the concept of world government.

States have largely eliminated political violence within their borders, but the world is still rife with political violence. In the less developed parts of the world, there are States whose supremacy in violence are still open to question, and of course there is still war between States. Not only is this a tragedy in and of itself, but it also distracts efforts better used for human progress. People and organisations that do not prioritise security in times of instability do not tend to survive, and there is strong social-evolutionary pressure towards security when your society is at war ("all is fair in love and war", eh?). Not only is economic effort that could go towards schools, opera halls, or clinics get diverted towards defence, but it also incentivises an efficient way to live, as measured on a battlefield, instead of a desirable way to live.

A single world government would not only eliminate wars between States (obviously), but the combined resources of a civilisation united would also be able to better maintain order against small-scale disruptions.

We also have vast challenges that would require the cooperation of the world to fix. Climate change, is the most obvious one. A big part of the reason why so little meaningful progress has been made on this front despite decades of effort is that no nation has the ability to compel another to act in the common good. Each nation is not considering what the world can do that will be to the world's interests, but what each nation can do that will be to their interests. Not to mention, since there is no coercion, a single large dissenting vote can sink entire landmark projects (how meaningful is the Paris Agreement without the US in it?) and mutual negotiations can be paralysed.

A single world government would be able to act far more decisively, and at least nominally be interested in the common good of civilisation.

Consequently, I hold that it is desirable that there be a world government.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

A free world with no border gates

[Galloism]

We're nowhere near ready for that, if we ever will be.

There will come a time...

[-Ocelot-]

Both! Have global institutions with actual power that would constitute something like a global government, but let all nations be sovereign for the most part.

One world government is necessary for the advancement of our species, but it can't be done by simply unifying all things. Nations are still important and relevant, and for a good reason. You can't just bundle all people into a single socio-political entity.

[SD_Film Artists]

It's the natural step from tribes, city-states, Nationstates (Heey he said the thing!!) and continental unions. We're just a little blue dot so we should unite and focus on space travel.

[Diahon]

Yes.

A world that agrees on all major sociocultual issues is by necessity a prologue to the unification of the earth under a single government. Never mind the herculean logistics that might hobble our progress towards such a conclusion -- a unified world government is a desirable conclusion, acting on behalf on all of us instead of those of a single patch of earth or even many of those, acting on issues that matter to all of us, from global warming to poverty eradication to space exploration.

[Galloism]

It's the natural step from tribes, city-states, Nationstates (Heey he said the thing!!) and continental unions. We're just a little blue dot so we should unite and focus on space travel.

Space conquest.

[SD_Film Artists]

It's the natural step from tribes, city-states, Nationstates (Heey he said the thing!!) and continental unions. We're just a little blue dot so we should unite and focus on space travel.

Space conquering.
[snip]

I was thinking more 'Imperium of Man' but that's good too.

[Diahon]

Space conquering.
[snip]

I was thinking more 'Imperium of Man' but that's good too.

To protect the world from devastation!
To unite all peoples within one nation!
To announce the virtues of truth and love!
To extend our reach to the stars above!

[Anatoliyanskiy]

Well looked here, I have a fix, a very, very simple fix. Unite all world countries under one banner, but give them an extremely large amount of autonomy. So basically a bumped up version of the UN, but countries can't refuse laws set by it. Like per se the International Court of Justice can actually persecute war criminals, or can set minimum standards of living and laws n stuff (mostly in a constitution), whilst states can still make a good amount of decisions, like over their economy just with some standards. We still get the benefits of an international government, like one unified space agency that can far better explore space, while still not collapsing into a state of complete and utter chaos.

[Cordel One]

Selected both options in the poll because I can.

There is no way that a single world government does not end in anarchy

Awesome.

[Xasperia]

I prefer a United States of Terra option. The UN already functions as a puppet of the United States, plus, with American "rulership," it'd be fair and balanced.

[Purpelia]

The following text should be read as a whole, analyzed as a whole and carefully (if at all) responded to. Please do not dissect it into tiny pieces and attack individual sentences without care for the context they are given in. Not that you shouldn't attack an individual sentence if you feel it is important to do so. But again, please first look at the context in which that statement is made because the context informs the content. Because this is going to be a long post for convenience in doing this the text is split into distinct segments separated by a double newline. These can be seen as thematically separate points to be addressed if you so choose.

This being out of the way my answer to the OP is no, the earth should newer ever unite under a single government. Not if the goal is human happiness as opposed to cultural genocide and misery. And the reason why has to do with culture.

Culture is at its base most reduced definition a set of rules, beliefs, and practices that define how a person or group think a good and happy life should be lead. These can be literally anything. Examples off the top of my head include:
1. Love of freedom.
2. Atheism.
3. Religious beliefs and a desire for religious law.
4. Religious beliefs without a desire for religious law.
5. Love of firearms.
6. Hatred of firearms.
7. Language.
8. Approach to work ethic.
etc. etc. etc.

The key here is that there are no wrong rules and no wrong answers. Every culture is as it is. And its people like it that way which is why they keep it the way it is. The moment the people want change the culture changes and evolves with their wishes. This process is natural and inevitable. But only so much as it happens by the people, through the people and with the consent of the people. We will get to this part later.

Now, it is very clear from all this that one of, if not the greatest requirement for a person to be happy is that he is free to live in the way his culture demands. And since humans are social creatures and live in groups that means living surrounded by people whose culture is the same, or at least heavily compatible with ones own.

Emphasis on compatible. Every individual is different and we all differ from one another in small ways. And the larger the number of people the greater the extreme points of these differences are going to be. Newer the less within the same
culture all individuals agree on most of the basic core principals. And as long as we do we are compatible. And as long as we are compatible we can live and function together and not just next to one another.


This is where communities come in. The purpose of a community, be it a friendship, book club, family, tribe, town or even country is for a group of individuals who share the same core culture to create a protected environment for them to practice that culture. And the purpose of a state and government is to create a framework for this community to be governed in a way that protects it and its interests (primarily the right to practice their culture) from threats both internal and external.

Internally that means enforcing rules that make sure people don't do what the culture says shouldn't be done and do things it says it should. And yes, of course, because cultural things can be just about anything that means the rules can be just about anything. You have the old classics of "don't rape" and "don't murder" but also modern stuff like "don't torture animals" and "don't beat your children". And than of course there are the good old fallback of "don't blaspheme", "believe the proper religion and only that religion" or even "the sun demands we rip your heart out and feed it to the gods". Again, anything goes as long s the people want it and it makes them happy.

Externally that means protecting the group from foreign groups that would force their culture upon the original group either via conquest, threat, economic or political pressure or even migration.

The reason you want this to be done, and this is where we return to cultural change, is that whilst change and evolution of culture is inevitable and good when it happens from within with the intent and consent of the people it is also very bad when that change happens without those. One is adaptation to fit the needs of the people whilst the other is a disruption of their lives and happiness. So you want to have your community and thus government to function in such a way that it protects and promotes one but also protects from the other.


And this is where we get to countries. You see, in a perfect world where everyone was nice and resources are infinite we would not need governments. But we do not live in such a world. Instead we live in a world of savage tribes struggling for limited resources. Thus maintaining a functional community requires gaining strength. And the primary source of strength are wealth and numbers. So in order to survive, thrive and by necessity conquer others communities tend to bunch up as much as possible. Individuals form families, families form tribes and so on and so forth. Nations, and by extension countries are simply the ultimate extension of this.

A perfectly formed nation is at its core the largest possible group of people whose culture are similar enough that they share the same core beliefs and can agree to enforce the same core rules and practices that benefit them all whilst having just enough leeway to accommodate the inevitable differences between individual subgroups. And a nation-state, which is what modern countries are is a nation with its attached government and claimed territory.


This ultimately is why having a common world order that mandates international relations is good but having a world government that enforces the same rules for internal governance is bad. We need and want a system by which countries are regulated from ruining things for everyone but at the same time each culture needs the freedom to be it self and live by its own rules in order to be happy.