3 ms·
Take it to an absurd extreme: should a bureaucrat in Potsdam make decisions about a farmer’s water dispute with their neighbor in rural Utah? That’s what “world
by briandear 7y ago
Take it to an absurd extreme: should a bureaucrat in Potsdam make decisions about a farmer’s water dispute with their neighbor in rural Utah? That’s what “world government” ends up looking like. Despite a bunch of wires crisscrossing the global, all politics, as Tip O’Neil famously said, is local.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> Take it to an absurd extreme: should a bureaucrat in Potsdam make decisions about a farmer’s water dispute with their neighbor in rural Utah? Of course they shouldn't. Hierarchical structures are good and you want issues to be resolved as low in hierarchy as possible. The point of a global government is to tackle the problems that cannot be currently solved, because we're missing a hierarchy level. Because, like 'Someone pointed out in another comment, global governance is a forest, and not a tree. The role of a global government isn't to mediate hyperlocal disputes. It's to force countries to stop letting corporations play them against each other on corporate taxes. It's to coordinate a common, simultaneous response to the challenges of climate change. It's to help everyone cooperate in solving other global challenges, where actions on one side of the world have an effect on the other side.