Inquiring into their beliefs that their most cherished individuals do not share is a reasonable concern that will undoubtedly reveal a great deal about that individual. It makes no difference if it is a significant reality or no one else accepts it. Right now, I'm more interested in radical, counter-mainstream beliefs than in the realities held by ideological minorities.
In my opinion, the world would undoubtedly be a better place with a worldwide federal government. Humanity can only create a sustainable future with a federal government that spans the globe. Humanity cannot progress without global administration, which subjugates national governments.
Changes to the environment, the sanctuary movement, cyber-security, economic development, money laundering, and pandemics are international issues. Take cyber-security as an example; it can't exist independently of cyber-security globally. You won't be able to prevent hackers from accessing your web servers unless all of them are secure. Without a trustworthy global strategy, there can be no effective national pandemic plan. Because viruses do not respect national boundaries, international cooperation is essential.
Our shared public areas are known as the commons. Commons, fields, plazas, or other open areas were common in older communities. The unfortunate situation where the commons were used but not maintained—everyone took from them, but nobody restored them—was known as the catastrophe of the commons. Humans are in a similar position now; we seek global civil freedoms but reject global obligations. One sign of a worldwide common catastrophe is this.
Numerous international agencies, as well as numerous treaties and laws on a worldwide scale, are already in existence. Long before the rise of empires, there was the concept of a global domain. The Republic of the Whole World may begin with the League of Nations. We have established mechanisms for transferring funds, agreements about civil rights, the regional application of legislation, and war policies. Current institutions like the United Nations can make recommendations to governments, but they do not have the power to really control those governments. Put another way, it is powerless on a global scale. It is not an independent body. How can an individual today make a difference at the United Nations?
There is no democratic global governance and no global federal government whatsoever. Despite this, I hold the unconventional view that global management of the planet requires this transnational international power.
It seems that a global federal government—even a good one—would bring about great trouble. How would it undoubtedly serve its purpose? The concept of an entirely global organization with ultimate say is regarded with skepticism today when even relatively harmless firms like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and WeChat are perceived as being intolerably too large. Much of the world views global power with suspicion. If you wanted to bail, where would you go? Is there a way out if the international federal government collapses? There aren't any simple answers.
Putting aside these concerns, the desire to abandon outdated ideas of national sovereignty is the primary practical barrier.
While this will be challenging for any nation, the strongest will find it particularly so.
Regardless of these and other valid concerns, federated nations would benefit from a global government. We have the power to replace the military model with a police one, to address global warming, to promote human advancement, and to establish the fundamental human freedom to travel the world. I get that very few people believe that these days, but that's fine with me. Generations will be required.
