One World Government

Do you support one world government and/or international organizations? (multi)

  • Total voters
    15
madanthonywayne

madanthonywayne

Morning in America
Registered Senior Member
Many here support supranational oranizations like the International Criminal Court, United Nations and International Monetary Fund. Others, see such groups as dangerous steps towards a one world government.

Clearly, if the UN is ever to be more than a debating society, it would require the ability to enforce it's resolutions. A military? A sure way to cover its expenses (the power to tax). Some kind of court system (the ICC?). It's starting to sound an awful lot like a one world government.

So, the question is, would a one world government be a good thing or a bad thing? Should we support these supra-national organizations, or oppose them?

• • •​

D'oh! Will the mod of this forum please edit the poll to allow multiple choices?

Mod Note: Poll is revised; edit request merged with topic post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We should oppose the idea of a One World Government with our very lives. Its establishment would spell the destruction of life as we know it. One World Government is an idea espoused by secret societies and conspirators; with it will ensue the unconditional loss of personal liberties. One World Government is the most diabolical scheme ever thought of, and it is the only true evil mankind knows.

Kadark the Radical
 
mad, i would surport these organisations if they abolished the SC because until then its a world dictatorship.

Now if the general assebly controled UN funtions and the ICC acted independently and could excercise universal juristiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide then yes i would surport it.

After all if you think about it it really is no different from a democrasy (minus the SC), and there really isnt going to be enough surport to over a wide enough range of countries to enforce much anyway which is how it should be. i have no problem with things like the universal decloration on the rights of the child and the universal decloration on civil and political rights being enforced universally

i dont actually think that the UN would need its own army as long as it could draw on the armies of its members though in the future if we abolished invidual armies then the UN might need its own

is this a worrying thought?
why would it be?
 
divide and conquer, the smaller the governments the better, it means the people have more power to depose them when they become corrupt.

i would have voted 'oppose' but i do support the idea of the UN. note i said the idea, not the way it is at the moment, member nations are free to wage any wars they want without consequence and several nations have the power of veto to prevent any help going to the enemies of their puppet states.
 
Asguard said:
mad, i would surport these organisations if they abolished the SC because until then its a world dictatorship.
Click to expand...
The fact that the US has a veto on the security council is its only saving grace. For that reason, and only that reason, I think the US should stay in the UN so it can veto what needs to be vetoed.
Now if the general assebly controled UN funtions and the ICC acted independently and could excercise universal juristiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide then yes i would surport it.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, I would suggest that the US completely withdraw from the UN, defund it, and kick it out of New York.
After all if you think about it it really is no different from a democrasy (minus the SC), and there really isnt going to be enough surport to over a wide enough range of countries to enforce much anyway which is how it should be. i have no problem with things like the universal decloration on the rights of the child and the universal decloration on civil and political rights being enforced universally
Click to expand...
The farther government gets from the common people, the less I trust it. Also, if some tyrant should manage to get control of a one world government, we're fucked. Hitler got control of Germany and it took the combined might of the rest of the world to remove him. Who will stand against the dictator in control of a one world government?
i dont actually think that the UN would need its own army as long as it could draw on the armies of its members though in the future if we abolished invidual armies then the UN might need its own

is this a worrying thought?
why would it be?
Click to expand...
See above. Imagine Hitler in charge of a one world government, and no one in the world strong enough to stand against him.
 
madanthonywayne said:
Many here support supranational oranizations like the International Criminal Court, United Nations and International Monetary Fund. Others, see such groups as dangerous steps towards a one world government.

Clearly, if the UN is ever to be more than a debating society, it would require the ability to enforce it's resolutions. A military? A sure way to cover its expenses (the power to tax). Some kind of court system (the ICC?). It's starting to sound an awful lot like a one world government.

So, the question is, would a one world government be a good thing or a bad thing? Should we support these supra-national organizations, or oppose them?
Click to expand...


It would be a good thing, provided that the military of all nations are combined, and troops reassigned around the world.
Several examples have been provided in various sci fi books, and some of them are worth considering.
I would not support the IMF unless it stops it's policies of benefitting certain groups at the cost of others.
 
madanthonywayne said:
The fact that the US has a veto on the security council is its only saving grace. For that reason, and only that reason, I think the US should stay in the UN so it can veto what needs to be vetoed.
If that were the case, I would suggest that the US completely withdraw from the UN, defund it, and kick it out of New York.
The farther government gets from the common people, the less I trust it. Also, if some tyrant should manage to get control of a one world government, we're fucked. Hitler got control of Germany and it took the combined might of the rest of the world to remove him. Who will stand against the dictator in control of a one world government?
See above. Imagine Hitler in charge of a one world government, and no one in the world strong enough to stand against him.
Click to expand...

Granted, a lot of people can make larger mistakes. But, I'd like to think we've learnt from Hitler's mistakes. We haven't had a dictator control a modern country in a while now.
 
madanthonywayne said:
I would suggest that the US completely withdraw from the UN, defund it, and kick it out of New York.
Click to expand...

I would suggest we do this in any event. At least make them pay the f**king rent they owe! I mean, for real! WTF?



On topic, a one world government is great in theory, but I can't see it happening practically speaking. At least not in any form other than tyranny...
 
The UN

*wipes tear from his eyes* don't make me laugh again


In theory I support one world government, not as organizational power, but in actually ONE country, of course as long as it's ruled by the Semites

But I also oppose one world government by organizations in that they limit each country's right to power

Edit: Madanthony, I didn't vote because none of those polls display my opinion, you should've had an "other" option
 
Last edited:
of course as long as it's ruled by the Semites
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at most of the Western World - it already is. Little wonder it's so corrupt.

Imagine if I said - "as long as it was ruled by whites". There would be uproar.
 
I thought this was a multiple choice poll, I was going to choose both 'I oppose one world government' and 'I oppose the UN, ICC and UMF.' :(
 
Challenger78 said:
It would be a good thing, provided that the military of all nations are combined, and troops reassigned around the world.
Several examples have been provided in various sci fi books, and some of them are worth considering.
I would not support the IMF unless it stops it's policies of benefitting certain groups at the cost of others.
Click to expand...

With one world government, your last sentence is impossible to avoid. Hell, it's impossible to avoid in practically anything, so I don't see why you think a OWG could avoid it.
 
I believe that what is in place now already should work and sometimes it already does. There's a World Bank, World Court as well as other types of Worldly United Nation things . The real problem is that they don't seem to be working as well as they should. :(
 
Challenger78 said:
Granted, a lot of people can make larger mistakes. But, I'd like to think we've learnt from Hitler's mistakes. We haven't had a dictator control a modern country in a while now.
Click to expand...

how do you define modern and how long is a while?
 
kenworth said:
how do you define modern and how long is a while?
Click to expand...

I think you can just google that stuff to get your answers? I voted yes but it better have a weak central government, I don't want some huge superpower that doesn't let me do anything.
 
Betrayer0fHope said:
I think you can just google that stuff to get your answers? I voted yes but it better have a weak central government, I don't want some huge superpower that doesn't let me do anything.
Click to expand...

no, i cant google what challenger's definition of these terms are.
 
I'm pleased to see that, so far anyway, a majority of people are opposed to one world government.
ashura said:
I thought this was a multiple choice poll, I was going to choose both 'I oppose one world government' and 'I oppose the UN, ICC and UMF.' :(
Click to expand...
It was supposed to be. I screwed it up when I made the poll. I've PM'd Tiassa to edit it for me, but I think he may be on vacation. Perhaps a supermod could fix the poll to allow multiple answers?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top