One World Government

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

  • Total voters
    15
Actually, I support the sort of "globalization" of the world populating itself into a continuous world of seemingly fading national boundaries. But then, in any "globalism" discussion, that human-beneficial form is almost never the form being discussed. It's always about concentrating power in the hands of the few rich unaccountable elites, who always seem to abuse the power.

But I oppose just about every suggested means of "one world government," because they are all corrupt and lacking any sufficient accountability measures against tyranny. Where will the refugees go, when it is found to be corrupt?

Because people are naturally wicked, the powers must be divided as widely as reasonably possible. As the old saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The ideal form, is a global kingdom under a benevolent king. But where can we find a good king, capable of handling so much power wisely and for human benefit? Aha! The return of Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. No manmade counterfeit can handle it, without making a huge mess of things. Right now, the division into various nations, is a very important "checks and balances" to restrain the corruption. Whenever a government gains a horrible human rights abuses record, there's always people smuggling out the evidence, to pubically embarass them on the world stage, and that does help push for some accountability.
 
Maybe I could accept this one world government thing, if they let me be the king?​

Then we can get rid of the awful abortion mills, ban the shoddy contraceptives, eliminate the unjust income and property taxes, ban Rap-is-crap, get rid of the UN, etc.

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...

Actually I voted "I oppose the UN, ICC and IMF."

All the suggested instruments towards one world government have quickly proved to be corrupt, a huge waste of money, and have not furthered people's freedom.

I do think government should be more universal and global, but humans so far, have been unable to propose anything that worlds for the common people very well, rather than exploiting the common masses at the hands of a few rich elites.

And I have little hope that anybody will be able to "improve" much upon the already flawed models. So at least for now, national sovereignity appears to be a very good thing to go on with, as a check against excessive concentration of power.
 
Pronatalist, you have a way of killing a thread that no other member can quite recreate.
 
I certainly cannot see it as a possibility any time soon, but who knows what the future holds? Who could have envisioned the E.U. in the 1880's? As the western countries have grown closer, hasn't our increased cooperation been to the benefit of us all? I can only view a decrease in nationalism as a good thing. If it happens in a de facto manner which has the same end result (more cooperation, less international conflict), that's fine.
 
A decrease in nationalism is not a good thing. Without nationalism we wouldn't have patriotism.
 
I am neither for nor against one world government. It would be completely unworkable at present since there is no one form of government that would be acceptable broadly. Ultimately, assuming the locals wanted it too, I would not care if,in essence,other regions across the globe became "States" in a U.S.-style federal government, so long as there was substantial local control.

I think some people picture one world government as a de facto tyranny, and *then* I think it would be bad. I also think it's silly to worry about a single world government that somehow oppresses the U.S., since the U.S. would simply never join that. Yet, you know what else seems like it's the inkling of one world government? Broadly accepted multilateral treaties like the Geneva Conventions, the Test Ban Treaty, the Convention of the Law of the Sea, etc. We seem to like those.

I think being opposed to "one world government" is a bit too broad a category. No one has seriously suggested a single world government, so you are opposing a formless and ill-defined enemy. It's like being opposed to "war" without asking "which war" and "what are we fighting for."

Actually, I suppose the big questions that arise for me are: what's so great about the current multi-state model that would necessarily be lost in a single world government (bearing in mind that a government can be a loose a loose confederation of states, and could even preserve the right to withdraw or adopt local laws that are different from the overall federal laws)? What features of the present system *could not* survive and what so good about them?
 
vslayer said:
patriotism leads to nationalism, not the other way around. we must therefore fight patriotism if we are to end xenophobia.
Click to expand...

No, we shouldn't fight patriotism. One can be proud of his country and love his country without hating others.
 
no they cant. the whole premise of patriotism is exclusivity, keeping others out. no-one chooses where they are born.
 
I love Syria yet I don't hate anyone else.

Besides do you think that eliminating nations will eliminate patriotism? No, even if we had one world government, the people would be patriotic....to that one nation.
 
I oppose one world government because it would in the end become biased towards a specific power which would lean the actions of such world government for its own benefits but under other more acceptible alibies.
 
Who says that "patriotism" and "nationalism" are outdated concepts? Why?​

vslayer said:
patriotism leads to nationalism, not the other way around. we must therefore fight patriotism if we are to end xenophobia.
Click to expand...

Patriotism doesn't at all mean that we can't be friendly towards other neighboring friendly countries.

Patriotism and nations, I think, probably help more efficiently populate the planet more densely with people. As long as there are national boundary "lines," people can conceivably take pride in how large their nation's populations are, and "compare" with other countries. If all the world is one country, where is the comparison of population size? Might population then be more readily accepted, as a "universal" "problem," since there are no rival or competitor countries to compare to anymore? That anti-people attitude is not beneficial to man. Patriotism doesn't at all necessarily eliminate friendliness and cooperation. Some people would not want to see a too much "unified" world, in which any place you go in the world, looks exactly the same as any other place. Same businesses, same architechual styles of homes, same look of streets, etc. I'm not so sure I would care so much, as long as it's the right sort of "unified" look.

The "one world government" outlook really doesn't make much sense, at least at the present corrupt time. Consider the analogy of your own property lines. Do you just barge onto your neighbor's lawn, as if you live there, and then just march right in their home, like it was your own? Maybe help yourself to stuff in their refrigerator? Probably not. You had better have their "invitation." Does respecting thy neighbor's property lines, mean that you don't respect your neighbors? You don't like to be around them? You question their right to exist? Not at all. Because we do respect them, and their rights, we should remember, if we cross that property line, that we are then their guests. They can ask us to leave, for any reason they like. Of course when I had roommates, in the past, in the military, when a student in college, did I knock to enter my own room? Not at all, for it's just as much my room as my roommates. I just get out my key and enter, just as if it was entirely my own room. There, the property boundaries are "my stuff," and "his stuff." I keep to my side of the room, and sit on my own bed, not his. At this present time, there are some valid reasons for drawing national lines, although I would entertain some ideas as to whether those lines should be in effect "fading" somewhat, perhaps to better accomodate the natural flow of human life, the freedom of "civilized" people to come and go as they please, etc.
 
Mod Hat - Note on the poll

Mod Hat - Note on the poll

I have wiped clean the original poll associated with this topic. At the user's request, I have revised the poll to allow for multiple responses by users; this process required the destruction of the prior poll result.

Please note that the poll is still a public result.

Thank you.
 
I would support the creation of one world government, but it would have to be like nothing that was ever created in the past. The government would have to consist of a new ruling class. I wrote about some of the things that I have on my mind in previous posts. They included things like the creation of high I.Q societies, artificial intelligence, ethical eugenics, genetic engineering, and a society that is guided by logic and rational thought instead of primitive emotions.
 
woops, I voted for "support" one world government and oppose. Disregard the vote on "I support one world government" by me, a mistake on my part:eek:
 
ashura said:
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.
Click to expand...

thats where democracies three year cutoff switch comes in.
A one world government would require a plebiscite or a world vote, which it is compulsory too.
 
Pandaemoni said:
Actually, I suppose the big questions that arise for me are: what's so great about the current multi-state model that would necessarily be lost in a single world government (bearing in mind that a government can be a loose a loose confederation of states, and could even preserve the right to withdraw or adopt local laws that are different from the overall federal laws)? What features of the present system *could not* survive and what so good about them?
Click to expand...

Loose confederations of states under one government simply don't work; just take a look back through history. The khanates of the Mongol Empire. The states of the German Confederation. The Articles of Confederation in the US. Even the US under the current constitution, up until the Civil War. Sectionalism ruins it sooner or later. Besides, think of all the heritage, culture, language, and tradition if all the territory in the world became united under one supreme government. Conformity would sweep the continents, and there would be nothing left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top