One World Government

[marharth]

I don't think a world government would be a good idea.

Actually,the more power a government has,the worse for local people.

In each city or town people might have a different point of view from the majority of a country, because of different factors effecting them.This goes on in a larger scale,and a country might have different views and needs than the majority of a larger organization like the E.U.

 

Consider of Switzerland's political model.

They use a system known as direct democracy,and basically they have many different kind of elections,others regarding local matters,and others national.

Their system is based on referendums,and people decide themselves what is going to apply to them.

I think it's a nice model,but I referred to it as a point to support my opinion that it's better when the political decisions are taken by more in numbers groups,because of the individuality of different local communities.

 

So my suggestion is that it would be better if citizens started to take political decisions themselves,using referendums,on local and then national degree.

A global government wouldn't come up peacefully and democratically,at least in this century,since most nations around the world want to keep their national sovereignty.

Having a single world government does not mean that the government has a lot of power.

 

The amount of land the government covers does not mean the government needs a stronger system.

 

North Korea is small, but has the strongest government in the world. Russia and the USA are quite big, and control a lot of people. Russia and USA have less powerful governments then other places around the world that are a lot smaller in land size.

 

I don't quite understand why so many people seem to think that the amount of land covered determines the power of the government.

[kvnchrist]

I think it's more the size of the military that gives power to the government. Not constitutional so, but in the realm of raw power. Those with the most guns rule. It only depends on how savage those in power want to be. I don't think North Korea has a strong Government. They just have a death grip on their people. If they had a strong government, they would not need to have such a grip. If their NK military were to turn on the government, it would cease without a wimpier.

 

If the Military were to try a coup in America, do you think the government would go down just as fast. I don't think so, and I think the public would be up in arms. As far as the public of North Korea, I don't think they would care, except for those who are the leaders favorites.

[marharth]

I think it's more the size of the military that gives power to the government. Not constitutional so, but in the realm of raw power. Those with the most guns rule. It only depends on how savage those in power want to be. I don't think North Korea has a strong Government. They just have a death grip on their people. If they had a strong government, they would not need to have such a grip. If their NK military were to turn on the government, it would cease without a wimpier.

 

If the Military were to try a coup in America, do you think the government would go down just as fast. I don't think so, and I think the public would be up in arms. As far as the public of North Korea, I don't think they would care, except for those who are the leaders favorites.

By strong I didn't really mean stable, poor choice of words.

 

I suppose I should of said oppressive.

Edited July 16, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

I think it's more the size of the military that gives power to the government. Not constitutional so, but in the realm of raw power. Those with the most guns rule. It only depends on how savage those in power want to be. I don't think North Korea has a strong Government. They just have a death grip on their people. If they had a strong government, they would not need to have such a grip. If their NK military were to turn on the government, it would cease without a wimpier.

 

If the Military were to try a coup in America, do you think the government would go down just as fast. I don't think so, and I think the public would be up in arms. As far as the public of North Korea, I don't think they would care, except for those who are the leaders favorites.

By strong I didn't really mean stable, poor choice of words.

 

I suppose I should of said oppressive.

 

So are you advocating an oppressive world government??

 

At this point in human history, there is no way on god's little green acre it could possibly work. There is just FAR too many differences between nations to let it happen.

[marharth]

I think it's more the size of the military that gives power to the government. Not constitutional so, but in the realm of raw power. Those with the most guns rule. It only depends on how savage those in power want to be. I don't think North Korea has a strong Government. They just have a death grip on their people. If they had a strong government, they would not need to have such a grip. If their NK military were to turn on the government, it would cease without a wimpier.

 

If the Military were to try a coup in America, do you think the government would go down just as fast. I don't think so, and I think the public would be up in arms. As far as the public of North Korea, I don't think they would care, except for those who are the leaders favorites.

By strong I didn't really mean stable, poor choice of words.

 

I suppose I should of said oppressive.

 

So are you advocating an oppressive world government??

 

At this point in human history, there is no way on god's little green acre it could possibly work. There is just FAR too many differences between nations to let it happen.

No, I am saying the size of the land and people a government controls does not have any relation to how oppressive it is.

[kvnchrist]

As always, the fewer options of anything, the more constricted the people feel. Wither it is health care, food products, faith or government. Those that can work within the framework will think its acceptable. Those that can not will feel it isn't. The one thing about a one world government is there will be no options to it's authority. If it has an agenda, those who oppose it have nowhere to go, They can speak out, but as we've seen before, the only ones that will listen are those that can benefit by doing so and if none within government see any benefit, then your free speech will fall on deaf ears.

[marharth]

As always, the fewer options of anything, the more constricted the people feel. Wither it is health care, food products, faith or government. Those that can work within the framework will think its acceptable. Those that can not will feel it isn't. The one thing about a one world government is there will be no options to it's authority. If it has an agenda, those who oppose it have nowhere to go, They can speak out, but as we've seen before, the only ones that will listen are those that can benefit by doing so and if none within government see any benefit, then your free speech will fall on deaf ears.

Having a single government does not mean people can't come together to oppose it if it becomes oppressive.

[kvnchrist]

As always, the fewer options of anything, the more constricted the people feel. Wither it is health care, food products, faith or government. Those that can work within the framework will think its acceptable. Those that can not will feel it isn't. The one thing about a one world government is there will be no options to it's authority. If it has an agenda, those who oppose it have nowhere to go, They can speak out, but as we've seen before, the only ones that will listen are those that can benefit by doing so and if none within government see any benefit, then your free speech will fall on deaf ears.

Having a single government does not mean people can't come together to oppose it if it becomes oppressive.

 

 

These were not one world governments, but one party Governments.Which are just a few that stand out in my mind as examples of not having any options for your leaders. North Korea, The USSR, Nazi Germany, Italy, under Mussolini, and Iraq under Saddam.

[marharth]

As always, the fewer options of anything, the more constricted the people feel. Wither it is health care, food products, faith or government. Those that can work within the framework will think its acceptable. Those that can not will feel it isn't. The one thing about a one world government is there will be no options to it's authority. If it has an agenda, those who oppose it have nowhere to go, They can speak out, but as we've seen before, the only ones that will listen are those that can benefit by doing so and if none within government see any benefit, then your free speech will fall on deaf ears.

Having a single government does not mean people can't come together to oppose it if it becomes oppressive.

 

 

These were not one world governments, but one party Governments.Which are just a few that stand out in my mind as examples of not having any options for your leaders. North Korea, The USSR, Nazi Germany, Italy, under Mussolini, and Iraq under Saddam.

And? People in certain government systems were completely separated from the rest of the world and still were able to oppose their government.

[kvnchrist]

As always, the fewer options of anything, the more constricted the people feel. Wither it is health care, food products, faith or government. Those that can work within the framework will think its acceptable. Those that can not will feel it isn't. The one thing about a one world government is there will be no options to it's authority. If it has an agenda, those who oppose it have nowhere to go, They can speak out, but as we've seen before, the only ones that will listen are those that can benefit by doing so and if none within government see any benefit, then your free speech will fall on deaf ears.

Having a single government does not mean people can't come together to oppose it if it becomes oppressive.

 

 

These were not one world governments, but one party Governments.Which are just a few that stand out in my mind as examples of not having any options for your leaders. North Korea, The USSR, Nazi Germany, Italy, under Mussolini, and Iraq under Saddam.

And? People in certain government systems were completely separated from the rest of the world and still were able to oppose their government.

 

 

That depends on the governments tolerance. Some praise what you say and for all the rest there are concentration camp and gulags. A one world government would be devastating to the human condition.