World Government (1 Viewer)

[Jake Wilkinson]

You may have noticed in your lives that we have many conlicts between our nations in this world. Some of you may actually not be ignorant of these but still have done nothing to help. I confess that I cannot blame you for giving up because there is no way to solve most of these problems. That is exept one. World government. Sounds like a scary tyranny.

Too long have we been hated and given way to hatred. The only thing that can bring us together as a world is this chance at world peace. Nationalism has been one of greatest enemies in all our history. Pride for France or the United States or Mongolia or any other country has united people against eachother. Let us not unite against one another, but for eachother. Imagine what we could accomplish as humans and not individual countries. What technological age could we be in if we used our war funds for research?

If you support a democratic world government don't keep quiet. Yell it in the streets. It is time we start this before the world is too great in divide.

 

[Rich]

There's already one, it's called the UN, 'course it sticks in the US's gob 'cause it can't control it

 

[Jake Wilkinson]

Ha. The United Nations is a joke.

 

[Banana]

Ehhh...

No, thanks.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and especially so when we provide a gigantic organization. I'd think *less* government would be better for everybody. It shouldn't be POTUS's job to fix whatever ails USA. It should be a city mayor's job to fix whatever ails the city.

 

[Jake Wilkinson]

Ehhh...

No, thanks.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and especially so when we provide a gigantic organization. I'd think *less* government would be better for everybody. It shouldn't be POTUS's job to fix whatever ails USA. It should be a city mayor's job to fix whatever ails the city.

So you are "ok" with what is going on right now and the way we deal with our problems? Interesting.

Even if this government was the dictatorship, we would all be better off with it than our current situation. But I for one would prefer it to be a little more democratic than that.

 

[pbaldy]

I'm with Banana. We need less government, not more. Smaller units, not larger. Power at the lowest level possible.

Saying we don't agree with your proposal doesn't mean we think things are ok now, just that we don't think that solution is the way to go. Worldwide democracy? You can't even get one country to agree on anything within itself. You are correct that the UN is a joke, but I think a worldwide government would be worse.

 

[Banana]

Also to expand on this:

We, as human beings, aren't very good at grasping the grand scheme. If we read news reporting 100,000 deaths in another country on another side of the world, we just turn the page to funnies. OTOH, when a prominent person of a town dies, the townsfolk may be more affected and inclined to send sympathies to the bereaved family.

It's hard to get passionate over say, REAL ID compared to a local town's planning that threatens to bulldoze a scenic park.

Having a world government would work against this human nature and tendencies by removing any significance from local government and insisting that "experts" take care of the problem. IMHO, this is partially what drives voter apathy, and mark my word, they'll be even more apathetic with a world government.

Someone once said: "A government that is big enough to provide everything is also big enough to take it away."

 

[Rich]

Ehhh...

No, thanks.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely,

and not just governments

 

[Rabbie]

The problem is really that people have inconsistent requirements from their governments. So often you hear people expecting both lower taxes and increased government services.

In Britain we have had requests from people to have the National Health Service controlled at a local level and then complaining because different decisons are made about the availability of treatments in different areas.

A democratic world goverment would be dominated by Asia just because they have more voters so it might not be very comfortable for Western countries.

 

[Sum Guy]

You seem to overlook a very obvious problem with a world democratic government.

That is the vast areas of this planet that when you tell people they will get to vote for their leaders, they will look at you with a blank expression and reply,
"Vote? Whats a vote"?

 

[Jake Wilkinson]

You seem to overlook a very obvious problem with a world democratic government.

That is the vast areas of this planet that when you tell people they will get to vote for their leaders, they will look at you with a blank expression and reply,
"Vote? Whats a vote"?

Maybe since people have never voted before they will like it.

Oh, and why would it be bad if representitives outnumbered the ones in the western world? Oh no, America can't control the organization.........

Could be solved by a senate anyway if they wanted to be selfish and have thee same power as the larger countries.

 

[Sum Guy]

Could be solved by a senate anyway if they wanted to be selfish and have thee same power as the larger countries.

I have often wondered why, if you are going to have a upper chamber where the true power is concentrated, why have a lower chamber at all?

Your comment on "selfish" is the main problem. Why would Bermuda (for example) vote "aye" if there is nothing for Bermuda in the motion?

 

[David Eagar]

Why do we need a world government? We already have Microsoft and a few other multinationals already running the world

 

[Jake Wilkinson]

I'm not a professional government planner, but the senate and representive "congress" (for lack of a better, less ridiculed word), would have equal power.

If a bill doesn't affect other countries, why would it be in supreme legislative contemplation? That kind of stuff is for countries to decide themselves.

Small countries are proteccted from being overridden by way of the senate, if that has anything to do with your question. After all, it is rather vague.

 

[Rabbie]

After some more thought I think a world government is a non starter. I cannot see any of the great powers agreeing to hand over their authority to another organisation. Recent events in Georgia have highlighted the fundamental lack of trust between them which will prove an insurpassable obstacle.

 

[GaryPanic]

also - who would run this goverement .....
in the end one country (on the assumption of a voting system) would end up dicating toth e other smaller countries, and would be looking after their own self interest and not for the colective good of all * which is only human nature..

 

[Sum Guy]

I'm not a professional government planner, but the senate and representive "congress" (for lack of a better, less ridiculed word), would have equal power.

If a bill doesn't affect other countries, why would it be in supreme legislative contemplation? That kind of stuff is for countries to decide themselves.

Small countries are proteccted from being overridden by way of the senate, if that has anything to do with your question. After all, it is rather vague.

Please explain again how this is different from the UN?

 

[Banana]

also - who would run this goverement .....
in the end one country (on the assumption of a voting system) would end up dicating toth e other smaller countries, and would be looking after their own self interest and not for the colective good of all * which is only human nature..

I think this is quite a good highlight of why government should work *with* human nature, not *against* it, and world government would be just that; against the human nature.

 

[GaryPanic]

exactly- if you make a process where a man can make a buck then it is in his (her) interest to do so , make the process good for mankind , then it will have a double benefit .

an example of this is (here in the UK) is that you can recycle paper (from offices ) and this papers is sold then recycled - by putting a financial reward in you have then a benefit of less trees being cut - (I have simplified this)-
a gobal govermeent would be too removed from a relatively small issue that could have global consquence - , you could also have an issue where the global goverment ditates that all nuclear spent fuel be stored in one place - let say Norway - i bet the norwiegian are going to love that idea..

mind you that does n't mean that some guidelines or ethos should not be global adopted - no slavery, a more greener work ethos (greener- may not be green in itself)- respect for other people to name a few --

 

[Fifty2One]

The world is already governed by a single force - GREED - without the basic need to have it all there would be a lot more peace.

This is going to foul your post, but I think that lumberjacks would not agree with the paper recycling plot. However, I think Iran or North Korea would volunteer to stockpile all the nuke spent waste, or you could ask your local terrorist cell for disposal suggestions.

exactly- if you make a process where a man can make a buck then it is in his (her) interest to do so , make the process good for mankind , then it will have a double benefit .

an example of this is (here in the UK) is that you can recycle paper (from offices ) and this papers is sold then recycled - by putting a financial reward in you have then a benefit of less trees being cut - (I have simplified this)-
a gobal govermeent would be too removed from a relatively small issue that could have global consquence - , you could also have an issue where the global goverment ditates that all nuclear spent fuel be stored in one place - let say Norway - i bet the norwiegian are going to love that idea..

mind you that does n't mean that some guidelines or ethos should not be global adopted - no slavery, a more greener work ethos (greener- may not be green in itself)- respect for other people to name a few --