|
A worldwide Gov't? You mean the ones we have now aren't bad enough?
In all seriousness, a one-world setup would be a catastrophe. Besides the immense, hugely expensive, cumbersome burocracy inherent in such a venture, there are loads of cultural problems which this would -not- help, and which would probably produce low-intensity shooting wars in some parts of the world. America's Gun Culture would be legislated out of existance, which would not go over well, and I doubt seriously that anyone in Europe would like the idea of being overruled by the likes of Moroccans, Jews, and Gypsies. The immense sums of money required for something like that would result in the radical increase of taxation rates which already range from the merely larcenous to the truly murderous, and corruption in such a body would make the problem even worse.
If such a system were democratic, as would be all but gauranteed, the expenses would get even higher, since most of the world's population (the voters, in this case) come from countries suffering from one degree of Socialism or another, and would likely vote to extend and expand benefits worldwide. And, of course, you can't overlook the possibility of a single highly populous region (China and India immidiately spring to mind) uniting to elect someone legitimately monstrous. In such a system, the idea of Deng Xiaoping or someone similar becoming "World President" is not at all farfetched. An Electoral College system would get around this, of course, but only the US uses such a system and the rest of the world is quite hostile to the idea.
Put briefly, the Americans would not stand for the Chinese and British making their guns illegal, the Chinese wouldn't take too well to American and British dietary laws, and to say that the Brits would react badly to the possibility of being outvoted by PAKISTAN would be the understatement of the week.
|