One World Government

[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.

 

 

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.

Why?

 

I don't get any of this logic.

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

[HeyYou]

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.

Why?

 

I don't get any of this logic.

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

Currently, due to the WIDE diversity in political systems, religions, and societal mores..... a one world government could NOT work. Too many people with different ideas of how things are done. If every other country in the world disappeared, then the USA would indeed be a world government, BUT, we also have close to the same ideas on how things should work, at least, to the point that we are not killing each other to get our way.

[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.

 

 

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.

Why?

 

I don't get any of this logic.

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

Currently, due to the WIDE diversity in political systems, religions, and societal mores..... a one world government could NOT work. Too many people with different ideas of how things are done. If every other country in the world disappeared, then the USA would indeed be a world government, BUT, we also have close to the same ideas on how things should work, at least, to the point that we are not killing each other to get our way.

I have said multiple times this is not about HOW to get it to work, it is about if the system that could be put in place in the future for it to work.

 

Obviously it can't happen anytime soon, that's not what the topic is about.

[HeyYou]

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.

Why?

 

I don't get any of this logic.

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

Currently, due to the WIDE diversity in political systems, religions, and societal mores..... a one world government could NOT work. Too many people with different ideas of how things are done. If every other country in the world disappeared, then the USA would indeed be a world government, BUT, we also have close to the same ideas on how things should work, at least, to the point that we are not killing each other to get our way.

I have said multiple times this is not about HOW to get it to work, it is about if the system that could be put in place in the future for it to work.

 

Obviously it can't happen anytime soon, that's not what the topic is about.

 

How far into the future? Go far enough, and yeah, maybe it could work. A LOT of things would have to change before it even had a forlorn chance of success. Won't be in my lifetime, nor my grandchildrens, nor THEIR grandchildrens.... barring something interesting that reduces world population by a significant percentage.

[kvnchrist]

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

 

. That would depend on where you are from. There are governments that are far more liberal in many ways than America is. Nudity and vice are looked at differently and if they were suddenly forced to be as repressed as most of America is,

 

Freedoms to me are like water. The more spickets they flow from, the more diverse they are. If such things only flowed through one spickets, then that spicket would be able to divert the flow, decide the temperature and the force of the flow to everyone on the planet.

 

Would you be of the same mind if Iran were to become dominant?

[marharth]

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

 

. That would depend on where you are from. There are governments that are far more liberal in many ways than America is. Nudity and vice are looked at differently and if they were suddenly forced to be as repressed as most of America is,

 

Freedoms to me are like water. The more spickets they flow from, the more diverse they are. If such things only flowed through one spickets, then that spicket would be able to divert the flow, decide the temperature and the force of the flow to everyone on the planet.

 

Would you be of the same mind if Iran were to become dominant?

It doesn't matter if Iran would.

 

It matters what system the one world government would have.

 

My point is that certain systems would not turn into evil governments, and that means other systems could work at least temporarily.

 

Once again, this topic is about if a one world government would be good sometime in the future, and what system could be used.

[kvnchrist]

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

 

. That would depend on where you are from. There are governments that are far more liberal in many ways than America is. Nudity and vice are looked at differently and if they were suddenly forced to be as repressed as most of America is,

 

Freedoms to me are like water. The more spickets they flow from, the more diverse they are. If such things only flowed through one spickets, then that spicket would be able to divert the flow, decide the temperature and the force of the flow to everyone on the planet.

 

Would you be of the same mind if Iran were to become dominant?

It doesn't matter if Iran would.

 

It matters what system the one world government would have.

 

My point is that certain systems would not turn into evil governments, and that means other systems could work at least temporarily.

 

Once again, this topic is about if a one world government would be good sometime in the future, and what system could be used.

 

 

I think I answered that. No, it would not work. It would be a bickering band of self interested prima donna's, Just look at the U.N. now and expand their power to that of the global governing body. It would be great for first and maybe second world countries, but the third world, those without any influence will still be set on the back burner. People who don't own the natural resources in their own countries should not be able to tell the countries that do, what to do with those,

 

Just look at The EU and how some of their members have to prop up those countries that are failing. Look at what's going on in Greece right now. Look at what the IMF has been doing and ask yourself how a one world government would deal with that. They most likely would transfer monies over there, so that Greece could live on, doing the same thing that got them in the trouble they are in.

 

If you give up your sovereignty, then you are nothing. You are not a country. You are not a culture and you are not a people. You are just another number.

[marharth]

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

 

. That would depend on where you are from. There are governments that are far more liberal in many ways than America is. Nudity and vice are looked at differently and if they were suddenly forced to be as repressed as most of America is,

 

Freedoms to me are like water. The more spickets they flow from, the more diverse they are. If such things only flowed through one spickets, then that spicket would be able to divert the flow, decide the temperature and the force of the flow to everyone on the planet.

 

Would you be of the same mind if Iran were to become dominant?

It doesn't matter if Iran would.

 

It matters what system the one world government would have.

 

My point is that certain systems would not turn into evil governments, and that means other systems could work at least temporarily.

 

Once again, this topic is about if a one world government would be good sometime in the future, and what system could be used.

 

 

I think I answered that. No, it would not work. It would be a bickering band of self interested prima donna's, Just look at the U.N. now and expand their power to that of the global governing body. It would be great for first and maybe second world countries, but the third world, those without any influence will still be set on the back burner. People who don't own the natural resources in their own countries should not be able to tell the countries that do, what to do with those,

 

Just look at The EU and how some of their members have to prop up those countries that are failing. Look at what's going on in Greece right now. Look at what the IMF has been doing and ask yourself how a one world government would deal with that. They most likely would transfer monies over there, so that Greece could live on, doing the same thing that got them in the trouble they are in.

 

If you give up your sovereignty, then you are nothing. You are not a country. You are not a culture and you are not a people. You are just another number.

Once again, it won't work now. It can work in the future, and it will be required in the future.

 

The U.N is the worst example to try to disprove a one world government.

 

That is separate systems within a economic union, it has nothing to do with a single world united government.

[kvnchrist]

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

 

. That would depend on where you are from. There are governments that are far more liberal in many ways than America is. Nudity and vice are looked at differently and if they were suddenly forced to be as repressed as most of America is,

 

Freedoms to me are like water. The more spickets they flow from, the more diverse they are. If such things only flowed through one spickets, then that spicket would be able to divert the flow, decide the temperature and the force of the flow to everyone on the planet.

 

Would you be of the same mind if Iran were to become dominant?

It doesn't matter if Iran would.

 

It matters what system the one world government would have.

 

My point is that certain systems would not turn into evil governments, and that means other systems could work at least temporarily.

 

Once again, this topic is about if a one world government would be good sometime in the future, and what system could be used.

 

 

I think I answered that. No, it would not work. It would be a bickering band of self interested prima donna's, Just look at the U.N. now and expand their power to that of the global governing body. It would be great for first and maybe second world countries, but the third world, those without any influence will still be set on the back burner. People who don't own the natural resources in their own countries should not be able to tell the countries that do, what to do with those,

 

Just look at The EU and how some of their members have to prop up those countries that are failing. Look at what's going on in Greece right now. Look at what the IMF has been doing and ask yourself how a one world government would deal with that. They most likely would transfer monies over there, so that Greece could live on, doing the same thing that got them in the trouble they are in.

 

If you give up your sovereignty, then you are nothing. You are not a country. You are not a culture and you are not a people. You are just another number.

Once again, it won't work now. It can work in the future, and it will be required in the future.

 

The U.N is the worst example to try to disprove a one world government.

 

That is separate systems within a economic union, it has nothing to do with a single world united government.

 

 

The U.N. is about the only thing that we have that even comes close to a world government. If there isn't a blueprint for one, what makes you think they won't copy it from the U.N. and The EU is very close to what you have in mind. What do you think a one world government would govern as, except a socialized structure that would try to equalize all the countries to level the playing field by shifting resources from one country to the next.

[marharth]

 

If every other country in the world were to disappear, and the USA was alone, we would instantly become a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

 

. That would depend on where you are from. There are governments that are far more liberal in many ways than America is. Nudity and vice are looked at differently and if they were suddenly forced to be as repressed as most of America is,

 

Freedoms to me are like water. The more spickets they flow from, the more diverse they are. If such things only flowed through one spickets, then that spicket would be able to divert the flow, decide the temperature and the force of the flow to everyone on the planet.

 

Would you be of the same mind if Iran were to become dominant?

It doesn't matter if Iran would.

 

It matters what system the one world government would have.

 

My point is that certain systems would not turn into evil governments, and that means other systems could work at least temporarily.

 

Once again, this topic is about if a one world government would be good sometime in the future, and what system could be used.

 

 

I think I answered that. No, it would not work. It would be a bickering band of self interested prima donna's, Just look at the U.N. now and expand their power to that of the global governing body. It would be great for first and maybe second world countries, but the third world, those without any influence will still be set on the back burner. People who don't own the natural resources in their own countries should not be able to tell the countries that do, what to do with those,

 

Just look at The EU and how some of their members have to prop up those countries that are failing. Look at what's going on in Greece right now. Look at what the IMF has been doing and ask yourself how a one world government would deal with that. They most likely would transfer monies over there, so that Greece could live on, doing the same thing that got them in the trouble they are in.

 

If you give up your sovereignty, then you are nothing. You are not a country. You are not a culture and you are not a people. You are just another number.

Once again, it won't work now. It can work in the future, and it will be required in the future.

 

The U.N is the worst example to try to disprove a one world government.

 

That is separate systems within a economic union, it has nothing to do with a single world united government.

 

 

The U.N. is about the only thing that we have that even comes close to a world government. If there isn't a blueprint for one, what makes you think they won't copy it from the U.N. and The EU is very close to what you have in mind. What do you think a one world government would govern as, except a socialized structure that would try to equalize all the countries to level the playing field by shifting resources from one country to the next.

A one world government in the future may not even have the same countries as they are now.

 

I am talking theoretically in the future, not with the current state of the governments of the world.