I'mma gonna hafta call bullshit on this video here. The Copenhagen treaty says nothing about creating a world government, unless you consider the UN a world government.

Oh yeah, this guy. Isn't he the same guy who said anyone who has AIDS should be isolated from society in all forms?
>"there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

>>13058
I'm pretty sure the UN would like to think it's the start of one.

Someone's going to have to explain to me why a world government is wrong, outside of the biblical implications.

>>13065

Aside from the fact that the bigger a government is, the more controlling it is, the more distant it is from those it governs, and generally the more corrupt and useless it is?

Having a world government would mean that the guys that have turned Africa into the Hell on Earth that it is would have a say in your day-to-day goings-on, among other things. Think about that one.

>>13065

Because the entire world isn't homogenized in its values. Aside from what Sechs said, a world government would attempt to be a one size fits all for over 6 billion people with different backgrounds, needs, wants, etc.

>>13065
Basically, it's not the concept of a world government that's bad so much as its practical implementation -- there are simply no good options to do that at this time, and that might never change.

>>13066

The argument of "bigger government = more attempt to exert power" is a bit tenuous, because sure, a world government would be huge, but at the same time, it would be proportional to the size of the inhabited earth, -in theory-.

>>13081
>The argument of "bigger government = more attempt to exert power" is a bit tenuous,

Tell that to the EU.

>>13081

...

>>13081

If a bigger government doesn't try to exert its power, why are you paying taxes to all those people? It would be bigger than necessary if it spends all its time with nothing to do.

A government always has to match the size of the place it governs, at the very least. That's why a small government would in theory work for the USA, because of state level governing, making up the lack of federal government. Governments can overstep this needed size (see China, Britain) but one cannot go under such sizes, or the government lacks the power to enforce any laws. In theory, a world government would be large, but it would be proportional. Now the practicality can be debated, and the reality can be debated, but in theory, a government should be and needs to be large enough to effectively govern the area it "controls", and a world government would follow suit.


In the topic of government excess, here's something interesting. People always say "OMG USA SPENDS MORE ON MILITARY THAN ANYONE ELSE IN ENTIRE WOOOORLD", but its actually proportional - Its only 4% of our GDP, where, for example, North Korea spends 25% of their self-reported GDP on military. Hrmm.