Is there any human institution that shouldn't be universalized?

[The2ndWheel]

Health care, obviously, we know. It brings down costs, more efficient, covers everybody, etc. Education. Transportation. Communication. What aspect of life does that not work for? E pluribus unum, and all that.

There are a few hundred regional governments around the world. Wouldn't it bring down costs, be more efficient, and cover everyone if there were just a single government?

There are who knows how many corporations, big and small. Wouldn't it bring down costs, be more efficient, and cover everyone if there were just a single corporation?

You've got corporations wasting time, money, and energy having to compete with other corporations. You've got governments wasting time, money, and energy having to compete with other governments. You've got corporations wasting time, money, and energy getting through loopholes in government regulation. You've got governments wasting time, money, and energy writing regulations that are eventually broken. Wouldn't it bring down costs, be more efficient, and cover everyone if there were just a single government/corporation hybrid system?

You've got governments using divide and conquer to chop up corporations, giving them less power. You've got corporations using the few hundred regional governments against each other. Both sides like monopolistic power.

Would outsourcing exist? There would be no "outside".

Would developed and developing worlds exist? There wouldn't be a difference.

Environmental policy. Worker protection. Wages. Tax rates. Trade rules. All the same, everywhere.

Is there anything that shouldn't cover, treat, represent, etc, all people, anywhere, equally?

[valerief]

1. How did fire and the wheel get invented without corporations? nt

[Hannah Bell]

2. Profits come from arbitrage. Thus equality is not desired.

[Echo In Light]

6. Profit$ Over People - one of the true 'religions'

[endarkenment]

3. corn flakes and toothpaste

I'm fine with private enterprise for consumer products.

[SteppingRazor]

4. There'd also only be one mechanism for control, meaning the power-hungry need only gain one hold.

Imagine Bush/Cheney in control of a world government. Hell, imagine a Pinochet or a Hitler.

having multiple governments -- and multiple corporations -- allows them to serve as a check on each other as everyone jockies for power and money. Competition is not a bad thing.

[sui generis]

5. In a perfect world of course

but then you also have to accept that transportation, healthcare and education cost vastly different in different countries.

How would you like your personal physician to be working out of a call center in Bangalore? It could happen.

World governance and world government are not the same thing. Governance implies that shared resources, such as clean drinking water, won't be monopolized to gain an economic or social return. Ergo the Colorado river cannot be damned up for use by Coloradans only ;).

If you want a real, solid basis for world governance, it has to start with a global standard for human rights, agreed to and enforced equally and with equal harshness, among every country on the planet, whether they agree to participate or not.

So now (in that future) that we're not torturing people or beating them for showing an ankle, let's talk about keeping them from starving. Etcetera. Let's talk about education, non-predatory global economics, preserving natural resources and living in a cleaner environment across the planet.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Health care, utilities, and education are my main interests.

Most things are fine or possibly better in the private sector but there are key areas that are foundation, vital to national security, and that ARE UNAFFECTED BY THE MARKET. Why the hell anyone would argue in favor of for profit monopolies to run our power, water, sewers, and communication is beyond me (unless you are a shareholder).

[stuball111]

8. Two things at least should be universal

Health care and education. As a society, if you invest in educated, healthy people, you can't loose! Everybody benefits. But if you have a society that preys on the weak and uneducated, then you get a class division,one half is a burden and costs the society more money. The ill and uneducated do not produce to their potential, and the rest of of society has to subsidize them while a small percentage sits back and profits from everybody. A country with a sense of caring and community that seriously wants everyone to have the "American Dream" would want the best for all don't you think? But oh no! We have been programed to claw over the backs of others to achieve wealth at any cost. The ones who instigate these ideas know that this system works only for the sociopathic,greedy power hungry few, while those of us with a conscience can't be that focused on screwing everyone and anybody to get our way. A true society, and for that matter, a GLOBAL society, is interested in the well being of others and wants to see them productive and healthy, otherwise they are a burden, and it affects the whole community. This has been the way since cave man days, they took care of their own, and survival of the tribe depended on smart, healthy members so that food could be gathered, and defense against threats such as animals and other tribes had to be a constant, and for that, people had to be fit and smarter than other tribes. You can see that in the arguments against health care and education. The RW wants these to be in the hands of a few profit minded individuals, and they want to decide who gets what and at what price. The richer you are, the better care and education you get. That is not healthy for a whole society.