It is going to occur and we will probably see it materialize within the next 7 to 10 years.
Not 7 to 10 years. Maybe 70 to 100 years.
It has it's disadvantages and advantages. Probably the best advantage is near complete elimination of wars. If it was like the U.S., with countries acting like states, it might work.
It would result in less or no wars between countries but a certainty of a violent revolution from many of the 7 billion enslaved people. For this reason, they will pretend to be separate countries as long as possible, while still creating the same laws regardless of our votes.
A world government is something I wanted when I have still been naive too, but seriously, look at how society works. Usually smaller societies work far better than bigger.
If a small society wants to create big weapons and believe in a god that says all nonbelievers must die, or many other possible motivations to kill people, what must the other small societies do?
A world government is stupid, because even if thinks look like they would be more efficient they are not. The opposite is true. We actually should split things.
You're thinking of a global dictatorship. That's not what I mean. In a real democracy, we could vote to give more choices to local groups.
I know that's exactly the opposite of what most of us always thought to be the truth, but simply look at sizes of countries and then tell me that bigger countries are doing better. Simply not true. Big organizations have big problems.
As we network our thoughts together through the Internet, we will find very unexpected solutions to those kinds of problems, but we have to communicate globally and have people take those global things seriously first.
Also, you are making a mistake if you think that there is something like a good politician or a good government. The thing is not only that you can't measure it in first place, but also that even if there is a politician where most of us could agree on to be good or at least not too bad it really depends on time and society. The best democrat may be the worst thing for the world tomorrow or would have been a few hundred years ago, maybe would even have prevented democracy from coming to existence.
Maybe I shouldn't have called it "government". I'll call it "way the world will start to work" instead.
The idea of a politician is the idea that someone should be above someone else. We should be 7 billion equals and organize things based on what the most people agree on. That is not any existing kind of democracy. Its not a republic or direct democracy. Its the reason Wikipedia works.
Its also a bad option in an evolutionary sense. More small, individual, independent countries mean more experiments on government technology or in a biological sense a bigger gene pool.
Also it is the extreme form of centralization and I think most of us can agree that that's bad.
Agreed, variety is good for evolution. That is a problem of monopolies and cartels (the weaker form of monopoly). We'll get rid of those ways of organizing things because its not useful to the Human species overall. Governments as we understand them today are the most extreme form of monopoly so far, and we can't allow them to monopolize all the power on Earth into a dictatorship. Instead, we should spread power between we-the-7-billion-people.
Also, if you have to care about the whole world you will act way too abstract which of course is really bad in a lot of ways.
I have some plans on a practical level too, which I saw the need for from my years of abstract thinking. They involve networking our thoughts together with the help of artificial intelligence.
Also, you need people who think very abstractly toward a better world for everyone instead of their own (or their country's, or their global dictatorship's) pockets and try to convince others its a good idea instead of motivating them with threats as governments do.
A better alternative would be the emancipation of people weakening the need for a government, so it at least has less to do.
Thats what this thread is about, but if I didn't call it "government" then most people wouldn't understand that its a replacement for how the world is organized now.
People work better on making the world better, when they are not bound to anything, be it the world of politic, time, money or whatever.
Yes. Its 1 of the reasons open source works, and things like the "Global Decentralization Process" which I wrote about here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=59897.0
The great think about the way bitcoin works is that people have to participate in the process to be rewarded. But those that are rewarded are not guaranteed a reward. They more mining someone does then the higher the probability of that person being compensated with bitcoins. The political process should be the same way. The more work a person puts into the process the more likely they should be chosen to make the decisions for the process.
Lets think about applying that to some processes to see how it would work:
Governments have been taxing everyone for all of recorded history, so they should continue to get to choose how we are taxed instead of, what was that thing... oh yeah, democracy, government by the people.
A stalker is involved very much in the process of someone else's life. That stalker should get to make some of their choices for them.
The central bank system was involved very much in the recent near global economy crashes, so they should continue to get to make choices for the global economy.
Clearly putting in time and work isn't the way it should be measured. Instead, measure it by who improved things the most.
Within the context of the biosphere which supports us, there are plenty of participants who do not understand the complexities of the processes within the biosphere which produce our natural capital. Unfortunately then there are plenty of participants who don't know when to stop, or what all the ramifications are.
Conclusion: Bitcoins do not serve as an applicable model of free markets.
This gets to the root of the problem with money. It amplifies the motivations in people toward locally and short-term improvements at the cost of long-term and large scale improvements which would be more efficient overall for the Human species if people didn't keep defecting in variations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
in the many ways the world works. This doesn't mean we should or should not get rid of money, just that we should be aware of what it causes so we can better design new ways for the world to work.