Good? Bad? The format doesn't matter. Good is subjective based on what they do, and more importantly, for who.

one global governing body to ensure equity among peers would be a natural progression of democracy. however, democracy has failed in the modern era due to capitalist greed and thirst for power.

the only way to guarantee equity would be to set worldwide wealth caps on individuals, corporations, and governments. along with setting a world currency that's traceable to ensure wealth is fairly distributed.

problem is, wealth changes shape or form. today wealth is gold, tomorrow it's wine, day after that it's people.

if we manage to find a way to stabilize wealth equitably, we have a chance at building a Utopian society.

Yes if it was functioning well. It would definately need individual and environmental rights and likely would need to have powerful checks.

With global trade and most of all the internet, we already have and need it. We have the WTO and the ICC, plus many _very_comprehensive trade agreements. I would honestly rather have that governed by a democratically elected governing body than whatever it is now.

I think the right to be forgotten in the EU is a very interesting case in this regard. To recap: the right to be forgotten is the concept that if someone is associated with something they don't like in the news, they can make a request to be "forgotten" by search engines (yet not by the news sites themselves which I find a tad odd, but anyway). There was a later court case where someone had used a VPN to look up something and as such appearing to be outside of the EU, and the court ruled that even in that case Google wansn't allowed to serve up those results. So, essentially, it is applied to people around the world. What happens when a country implements, let's say, for instance, an anti-censorship law that forbids artificially removing or housing search results? Oops. This is the kind of thing we could use a global government for. But again, very great care has to be taken to ensure that it is a well functioning democratic system.

Anybody who answers yes to this question, would your answer change if the one in charge was Trump (or a group of people like Trump)?

A benevolent dictator is a very efficient system. Hard part is finding the benevolent dictator

Possibly in the short term with the understanding that this isn't the end all be all solution.

Sure as long as it agrees with me 100%

Depends. One central authority responsible for everything seems like a really bad idea. On the other hand, one central authority responsible for things like human rights and ecological risks seems like a really good idea. In general I like recursive federated government, with the highest levels having the narrowest scope and deferring most things to lower levels.

No, it reduces the effort needed for corruption.
The smaller the circle of power is, the less effort is needed to corrupt the entire system.

Also, it would prevent experimentation. Trial and error is an important method of finding out what works. One governing body would have one set of rules, we would never discover if a better set of rules exist.

No. Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts completely.

Oh lol yes I'm definitely on the anarchist side. There has never been any genocides, wars, etc that weren't committed by people in power.

One global governing body trying to balance a shit load of different cultures? Oof I dont want that job

I feel like it would be one of two things... It would go spectacularly well or it would be absolute garbage. Based on what I've seen from humanity... I lean towards the later lol

It would be bad. Governments like one solution that fits all. That is impossible over geographic regions. Take the EU, rules that apply to Denmark about housing insulation would be horrific if implemented in Spain.

Yes. It’s insane that you have different laws, rights, taxes, etc. based on your location.

Cultural differences are much too much.

Depends on how it's structured. "Global governing body" could be fantastic or absolute ass.

Are we talking like a New World Order that acts as one set of rules for the whole world?

Or an alliance of all nations (like the UN) that makes sure nobody gets too out of line?

The first, has WAY too much potential for absolute corruption, the second would be much better if there were set human rights that COULD NEVER be revoked and 100% cooperation among ALL nations.

We kind of have a global legislature already. We would just need a global executive.

No, everyone is too different. We should go back to tribes

No. We are not at a point where we could agree to anything like that at the moment.