That is not the definition and it is scary that you think so. What do you consider the U. S. government?
Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom.
I don't claim to know what the other poster meant exactly.
I'd feel comfortable saying that an
effective world government (as contrast the UN) would inevitably be
authoritarian, in that it would have to impose itself by force on many nations and peoples of the world.
Think about it. The world is far from a monolithic culture... so VERY far from it! Could the same entity govern San Diego, Saudi Arabia, Amsterdam, Palestine, India, Australia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Russia and China... without imposing on some/most/all of those places/peoples in a forcible manner?
So perhaps you're proposing a form of federalism, with a measure of local autonomy. Perhaps you recognize that laws/gov't that works in Oregon won't work in Iran. Ok... but can these disparate regions even achieve enough commonality, enough sense of mutual interests, to agree to place themselves under a singular governing entity?
I don't see that happening, in any foreseeable future this century, without being imposed by force on at least some of those nations. And what if some nation decides to secede? If their people vote to secede? Will they have that right, or will they be prevented using force or economic coercion?
These are some of the problems involved.