Arguments for:
1) End of all the wars.
2) if the same instance is in charge everywhere, presumably no place would be left behind, thus reducing inequalities and poverty worldwide, and all the issues that derive from it.
3) the possibility to tackle global problems rather than having the situation where every government acts as if it's someone else's problem (for instance global warming).
4) as everyone becomes citizen of a same state, there would be less drive for nationalism, isolationism, indifference, and seeing foreigners as threats rather than our equals.
5) as the law would be the same everywhere, no space for dictatorships, which would mean more freedom for a lot of current countries.
Arguments against :
1) if the central government is messed up, the whole world is messed up.
2) the more central governments are, the more remote from citizens they tend to be, and as such leaning more towards authoritarianism.
3) complicated to implement in practice.
1) End of all the wars.
2) if the same instance is in charge everywhere, presumably no place would be left behind, thus reducing inequalities and poverty worldwide, and all the issues that derive from it.
3) the possibility to tackle global problems rather than having the situation where every government acts as if it's someone else's problem (for instance global warming).
4) as everyone becomes citizen of a same state, there would be less drive for nationalism, isolationism, indifference, and seeing foreigners as threats rather than our equals.
5) as the law would be the same everywhere, no space for dictatorships, which would mean more freedom for a lot of current countries.
Arguments against :
1) if the central government is messed up, the whole world is messed up.
2) the more central governments are, the more remote from citizens they tend to be, and as such leaning more towards authoritarianism.
3) complicated to implement in practice.