Steemit user @sauravrungta recently wrote a well-meaning apology for global governance, Could a One World Government Actually Work? This started out as a comment reply to that, but quickly became large enough I decided to make it an article outright. I look forward to your responses. If you reply in article format, as I have, please link to this somewhere in your article and link me to yours in the comments below—so we can all easily find and enjoy it. One request, please keep all arguments ad rem. Ad hominem arguments stymie.
―❦―
I'd like to first address his arguments, point for point.
① An End to Wars
I think it it highly presumptive to assume war would end. War is based in some fear modality deep within the global psyche. There have long been wars fought within political borders, because ideologies have no borders. Even within the confines of a city there is gang warfare. I believe the elimination of the underpinning emotions that lead to war must be eliminated through common understanding of our fellow man and striving to increase the reach of our compassion. Governments have attempted to legislate morality to little success. It's up to each of us as human beings to make sure right-words, right-thinking, and right-actions become globally diffused. Depending on a government to do so is the crutch of a lazy will.
② Economic Simplicity
The current development in cryptocurrencies is an excellent example of how human inginuity and non-governmental organizations can develop better currency models. Governments can, but need not, apply.
③ One Race, The Human Race
Your example of how the Internet brings people together counters the claim that we require a global government to do this. If I wrote more, I would be repeating the thoughts I made in point ①.
④ Better Resource Management
Global government means global serfdom in regards to global resources. Experience shows that the larger a governing body is, the more is wasted, the longer it takes to get anything done, and the easier to corrupt the entire apparatus is. We can still develop resource usage optimization models without governmental coercion. See The Venus Project as an example.
⑤ A More Equitable World
For the same reasons mentioned above, we ought to be spreading the message of compassion of our own accord. Moral actions undertaken at gunpoint—a hyperbolic metaphor for executively enforced action—are not truly moral actions, are they?
All of these counter-arguments come down to three main points. First, the need for global government presupposes that human beings are, of their own accord, so incapable of right-action that they must be coerced into into it. Second, it defies equitability by placing a few global leaders in charge of everyone else, discounting people's ability to effect positive change via free association. Third, when power is concentrated among fewer individuals, those people are more easily corruptible—regardless of their original intentions—than if that same power were distributed among the masses.
All images sustainably sourced from https://pixabay.com/.
