One World Government

[marharth]

THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY TOPIC, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR THAT.

 

This is a topic to discuss the idea of merging all governments into a single government.

 

I will make my first post short and expand on it later.

 

I think if the government system was a really good one (Regulated Capitalism or Socialist Capitalistic or Semi Anarchy) I think a one world government would be much better then multiple ones.

 

 

 

Let me give my reasons

 

1. It will merge culture and other things, bad cultural practices would be wiped out over time (Like sacrifices EXT).

 

2. It will make it so countries will not have trade problems.

 

3. It will wipe out war, unless started by civilians.

 

4. It will make the government have a obligation over ever place in the world, which would lead to bad areas of the world being modernized/fixed.

 

 

 

I have more reasons, ill also post the things that could go bad.

 

1. If the government becomes corrupt, it will be easier to control the masses.

 

2. Possibility of destroying old culture, that could be a bad thing or a good thing. Most people would look at it as a bad thing.

 

Not to sure, would like to see what everyone else thinks.

 

 

EDIT: Typo in title, can a mod change "Word" To "World" for me?

Edited January 27, 2011 by marharth

[Aurielius]

One Word Government? ..ok.....improbable

[RZ1029]

THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY TOPIC, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR THAT.

Already I am liking where this is going.

 

This is a topic to discuss the idea of merging all governments into a single government.

 

I will make my first post short and expand on it later.

 

I think if the government system was a really good one (Regulated Capitalism or Socialist Capitalistic or Semi Anarchy) I think a one world government would be much better then multiple ones.

In theory, I'll agree. In practice, I think it would fail miserably.

 

 

Let me give my reasons

 

1. It will merge culture and other things, bad cultural practices would be wiped out over time (Like sacrifices EXT).

Uhm... that's part of their culture, things like that usually don't just disappear without a fight. And then it's usually in the form of eradication, which looks bad for your new world government. I could see it creating two extremes. Those in support of the new government, and those who are very stubborn (proud) of their ways and not willing to give them up. If they didn't believe those practices were important, they would have been gone long ago.

 

2. It will make it so countries will not have trade problems.

Hmm... I like the sound of this, but I'm no economist, so I'll refrain from commenting on it. In its simplest, it makes sense.

 

3. It will wipe out war, unless started by civilians.

Then it's called rebellions or riots. And they'll still exist, though not en masse and far easier to resolve, as most citizens won't be as well armed as the military.

 

4. It will make the government have a obligation over ever place in the world, which would lead to bad areas of the world being modernized/fixed.

At the expense to those that are well-off? Ehhh... I'm not sure I'm liking your Socialist government. I've got nothing against helping those that we can, but I'm also not about to screw over myself to do it.

 

 

I have more reasons, ill also post the things that could go bad.

 

1. If the government becomes corrupt, it will be easier to control the masses.

Mhmm.

 

2. Possibility of destroying old culture, that could be a bad thing or a good thing. Most people would look at it as a bad thing.

Most anyone who's proud of their culture will find it as a bad thing, or will retain their own. Now I have no problem with them retaining their own, I'm not a fan of the idea of a mixed culture. I like my culture, they can have theirs, and we can all render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

Not to sure, would like to see what everyone else thinks.

Well... my big question is how do you handle laws? Some countries issue assault rifles to every male citizen who's required to serve in the military for a few years, and then they keep the assault rifles after their service time is up, for home defense/country defense if called upon. Or, say, in some countries, certain drugs are quasi-legal, or even a major source of income. Do we use the US policy, and ban their way of life, or do we let them do what they been doing? And how about Social Security type programs? Some countries have much more involved governments, others have governments who are almost entirely uninvolved with their well-being and such. Also, what about official religions, official languages? Force everyone to learn English? Require learning about every religion in the world? (I wouldn't really have a problem with that, actually. I think everyone should try and educate themselves, both in cultures and religions all over.) There's lots of incongruities between governments and I could forsee some major issues, assuming they're all even willing to cooperate. And that brings up an even bigger issue. If they don't agree to join, invade them or let them be?

[NinjaGoddessAyra]

THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY TOPIC, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR THAT.

 

This is a topic to discuss the idea of merging all governments into a single government.

 

I will make my first post short and expand on it later.

 

I think if the government system was a really good one (Regulated Capitalism or Socialist Capitalistic or Semi Anarchy) I think a one world government would be much better then multiple ones.

 

 

 

Let me give my reasons

 

1. It will merge culture and other things, bad cultural practices would be wiped out over time (Like sacrifices EXT).

 

2. It will make it so countries will not have trade problems.

 

3. It will wipe out war, unless started by civilians.

 

4. It will make the government have a obligation over ever place in the world, which would lead to bad areas of the world being modernized/fixed.

 

 

 

I have more reasons, ill also post the things that could go bad.

 

1. If the government becomes corrupt, it will be easier to control the masses.

 

2. Possibility of destroying old culture, that could be a bad thing or a good thing. Most people would look at it as a bad thing.

 

Not to sure, would like to see what everyone else thinks.

 

 

EDIT: Typo in title, can a mod change "Word" To "World" for me?

A one world government sounds great in theory, but its something that should NEVER happen.

 

Because of all the different currencies of the world, having a one world government would not solve trade problems, but make them worse. If you made it to where there was only one world currency as well, then that would only make corruption sky rocket like you would not believe.

 

Having one world government would be like having the UN in charge of everything, which was a huge failure to begin with.

[Nadimos]

What would be better is if poeple would simply stop cheating and looting and shooting. They should stop lying the whole freaking time like some poor freaks ruining it all. If we have a world goverment with one of those types in power now it will be probably highly corrupt. You would be insane to propagate something like that at this time, where nothing is clear and everything uncertain. Democracy is like poeple doing something together. So first wake up to that in your place and then from that point on go further realising what is, but a world goverment now? That never gonna work.

 

Look at the UN for example. They got a article about how we rob the poor countries. Guess what? NOBODY wants to be transparent about it or the oil spill in the us, GUESS WHO PAID THAT? Are you funny or something to propagate a world goverment under that condition, when there is so much filth?

 

So again practicly speaking, no, never gonna work. Not anytime soon with types like these, who disrespect and rob their own poeple.

 

Not to speak of the damage done to nature

and their food, that is like poison.

 

COCA COLA CAN YOU READ? IT IS COCA FROM COCAIN and today you have something instead in there, if it breakes down in your body, it is like a light dose of amphetamine+that overdose of sugar. Mc Donalds?

Dont let me start.

 

Food and drink really should be medicine as it is intended by nature, not the other way around, because that is extremly wastefull and DUMB.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Nadimos

[Balagor]

It sounds okay in theory, but such a gouvernment will need much more than a 2 party system. In Denmark we have difficulties agreeing on certain aspects, even with a 6-8 party gouvernment.

With a world gouvernment we would need to have at least 3-10 politically different representatives from each country/region of the world. They would have to create staffs of all from secretaries to kind of ministers. Perhaps 100´s from each country.

That sounds way bigger than our EU department, and they can not even agree on when to make the lunch hour.

I think the whole idea will die before it is even born due to bureaucracy,

[Nadimos]

On that note i have something:

 

Edited January 27, 2011 by Nadimos

[Nadimos]

On that note i have something:

 

[WizardOfAtlantis]

4. It will make the government have a obligation over ever place in the world, which would lead to bad areas of the world being modernized/fixed.

At the expense to those that are well-off? Ehhh... I'm not sure I'm liking your Socialist government. I've got nothing against helping those that we can, but I'm also not about to screw over myself to do it.

It doesn't have to be that way (screwing yourself over). Aspects of socialism can be integrated perfectly into a capitalist system. Example: I live in Italy, having spent my first 30 in the US. Whenever I have had to go to the emergency room for something, I have gone in, had done what needed to be done, and then left. No bills (unless I had to then go get a prescription for something), no insurance cards, no hassle.

It is an illusion that everybody would pay so much more. It isn't that way here, which is proof that it can work. However, in the US, medical services are kept to ridiculously, stupidly expensive that it is in fact that inflation that they use to justify that Socialist systems would ruin the capitalism of the US, which is baloney. They are insuring (pun intended) their own existence by creating the problem to begin with.

 

Don't get me wrong. I am something of a Social Darwinist, and capitalism fits that pretty well...however, I am enlightened enough to realize that if everybody helps each other out a bit, my life is made better by the fact that other people's lives are made better. Synergy is a greater power in its own way. The actual increase in how much you would have to pay would not need to be so high IF the services weren't already so falsely bloated to begin with. That's why/how it works in other countries, like Italy, New Zealand, Canada, which all have economies based on capitalism, of course, but have a truer understanding of how aspects of socialism can work, and where their pills cost X, and the same pills can cost X+Y in the US.

 

I invite anyone interested to read the Eight Myths About Welfare which is filled with interesting, referenced facts.

Edited January 27, 2011 by WizardOfAtlantis

[RZ1029]

Hmmm... perhaps you're right on that front, and it might be more feasible than I thought. However, my major argument against it has never been 'it's at my expense', it's been more of a... fundamental question, I guess you could say. I believe the government has no obligation or business assisting the populace in any other capacity than protection and governance. I do believe, however, that I have an obligation to assist my fellow man, if I can. But that gets into a realm that is banned for discussion, so I'll stop there.

 

And I would also like to say thank you for that interesting link, I learned a bit today.

 

EDIT: Also, still don't think it would work out overall, though the more Socialist aspects seem to be doable, and perhaps not such a bad idea. I'm more worried about the execution of the plans, emphasis on the word execution.

Edited January 27, 2011 by RZ1029