What do you think of the idea of a global government?

@ FC-in-the-UK said in #6:
> Since there would no longer be countries or borders, people would be absolutely free to go wherever they want... But also since all regions would be treated equally, presumably no one would have to leave their home for a different country.
Well, what would happen if I would not agree with something, if something the government does bugs me? Like, be it a minor inconvenience like a street lamp that won't be getting fixed or something way more serious like how schools are instructed to teach children or something else. I could move away - but that won't change the outcome, as everything is governed by this one government, right? Or with other words: If I don't like it, I won't escape doom, regardless of where I go.
Besides, I reckon that wars will stop, but not really, as there is a very high chance of a civil war coming instead. And a civil war may lead to freedoms being taken from the citizen by the government.
Now, to make a global governemt work I reckon you would have to eliminate or "re-educate" lots of people, their culture, their religion, their relation to the country they've been born in and probably lots more. Do that and we have two things: 1. Slap 1984 on the cover of this new world and 2. The humans that are not from the past, can't remember the past will have a nice life in a global government - at least a nice life for a machine.
But I am probably over-exaggerating.
@ FC-in-the-UK said in #17:
> @ ak_saha @ george_mcgeorge care to explain why you downvoted #1? I didn't say that I was for a world government. Or against, for that matter. I just listed arguments for and against in an objective way. Which is considerably more than you did.
Look, I disagree, that was the reason for -1. If it hurt your feelings then I am sorry. I can remove it anytime you want.

@george_mcgeorge but your objections are PRECISELY those I wrote in #1. Do you disagree with yourself then?

I am not hurt that you downvoted. Couldn't care less. I just don't understand why you people assumed I was arguing for a global government.

The reason I asked what people think about it is precisely because I don't have a definite opinion myself (although I tend to be leaning against), and I wanted to hear others thoughts.

I gave arguments for, arguments against, and so far most of the people who said they are against only more or less repeated the arguments against that I mentioned in #1. Sure there where more arguments for than against, but if the arguments against are stronger that doesn't matter.

@ FC-in-the-UK said in #22:
> @ george_mcgeorge but your objections are PRECISELY those I wrote in #1. Do you disagree with yourself then?
>
I am not sure I can follow you: Yes, the cons are pretty much the same, but the majority of points in favor of such an institution are - in my opinion - invalid, as I pointed out that there won't be an "[e]nd of all the wars", well, unless you don't see a civil war as some kind of war.
> I am not hurt that you downvoted. Couldn't care less. I just don't understand why you people assumed I was arguing for a global government.
>
Who said that you were in favor of a global government, who said you weren't? I - as far as I can remember - did not. And asking for a reason normally (what is normal again - I am not!) indicates some sort of interest... Well, maybe we've misunderstood us. After all, we are only human, only human...
> The reason I asked what people think about it is precisely because I don't have a definite opinion myself (although I tend to be leaning against), and I wanted to hear others thoughts.
>
I wish more people would be like that. Though I also wish that more people would state their opinion and work together to get a compromise of sorts... well, maybe another time another place.
> I gave arguments for, arguments against, and so far most of the people who said they are against only more or less repeated the arguments against that I mentioned in #1. Sure there where more arguments for than against, but if the arguments against are stronger that doesn't matter.
I guess if the only thing I could bring to the table in this discussion is a reference to 1984 I shouldn't partake in this discussion.

To be the devil's advovate, one could argue that a global government would reduce civil wars as well. We haven't seen a war in the US for centuries, or in Western Europe since WW2. Here's why.

1) Economic wealth grants stability. People usually only engage in a civil war or a revolution (and mass emigration for that matter), no matter how much they dislike their neighbour or the government, if they are desperate enough. Under a global government, every areas of the world would ideally be equally economically advanced.

2) US and Western Europe governments have the police and military power to ensure stability. An hypothetical global government would have this power as well. Kind of what the UN's trying to do with its peacekeeping forces, except UN is limited by the conflicting interests of its members, and by its modest military means.

Of course to 2) you could object that

3) the UN's peacekeeping forces have also committed numerous exactions.

4) police and military power can as well be used to maintain a dictatorship.

And then to 4) you could counter-object that

5) the US and Western Europe have strong police and military power but are not dictatorships.

And then you could reply

6) Or are they?

But now I feel like I'm doing all the debating on my own :D