Quote:
Imperator Fyron said:
A unified world government is _never_ for the greater good. It is for the greater _evil_. The bigger an area a government controls, the more tyrannical it becomes. The fewer external enemies a government has, the more it turns upon it's own people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, afterall.
Some sci-fi universes have more of a UN type world government than an actual unified one. Babylon 5, prior to Clark creating his dictatorship, had Earth like this. The "UN" body had actual power, but it was still essentially a confederation of semi-autonomous nations.
|
If that is true of X then it is true of X/2. Sorry. I cant find a unified world government to be a completely bad idea or a completely good idea without finding the same faults in the concept of a government for a country.
In other words if a unified world government has its pros and cons, then a unified continent has the same. And a large nation which tries to encompass many smaller satellite nations. And probably the same pros and cons for a government over many states or provinces, state/province of counties, counties over cities, cities over neighborhoods, neighborhoods of clans (households).
The biggest hangup on the subject of world government is the mine is best syndrome. The same one I find in many discussions. What is the "best" xxxxxx. No matter what the question, a knowledgeable person will come back with questions trying to define what kind of "best" the person wants. That is a person with a wide enough background to know the pros and cons of various choices. Then there are the people who spit out an instant answer, which to me means they have experience in pretty much just that one answer (and happen to like it). When someone answers immeadiately with a best, I treat it as a vote rather than a real answer.
It doesnt matter if the question is about the best dog, car, sport, food, drink, programming language, operating system, political party, religion, government, country, or game (well ok, maybe not game)