| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 11:31:07 PM |
Sure, you can have more than one leader, but when the polarisation and infighting start...
Any odd number in the committee would put paid to that.
Oh, it'd be nice to believe... Sorry, I don't see human nature letting stuff go that easy. Not to mention that there's usually more than two sides to an issue. Then, you add in more issues... Hey, government! Or, at the very least politics. The potential for breakdown would be HUGE.
I guess both national govn and WG both contributing according to their means, as populations become more educated they will have more means.
How would that work? You mean more educated people means more teachers? Or, somehow means more money for schools? Not following.
I imagine there would be a mix of public and private schools just like now only more of them.
Then, you've got the problem of differences in standards. How would a WG deal with that?
The WG could easily define it. I don't think the larger it is necessarily means more corrupt. It means to me more checks and balances. The whole world would have a vested interest to keep watch.
Problem you get into there is partisanship. The whole world watching whom? Even in individual democratic countries, few citizens can manage to keep track of their own political parties, much less "watch the government" for signs of corruption. Besides, as has been shown in U.S. government, even the most outlandish and technically illegal objectives can be accomplished by the people who have the power to make them legal. Give a single governing body the responsibility for the world, and I don't see the potential for abuse of that kind of power position going unused.
You can lose your voting rights by being in prison, a mental institute and probably a whole host of other well defined things.
Point being, policies on that sort of thing vary by government. Not so much aimed at that specifically, but how would the WG reconcile different policy philosophies and standards while trying to integrate all the different countries. You'd wind up having to come up with an overarching system of standards for world government policies, but how would they relate to individual national government? You see a lot of this in the States, where Federal and State laws conflict, then you get massive court battles over States' Rights and public policies. Some of the debates have been going on for decades. That would wind up being a serious hindrance to any multinational government.
The constitution should eliminate concern for any religious movements trying to take control and jumping all over the rights of minority's. Freedom of Religion.
That's good for rhetoric, but you should see the mockery the Religious Right is making of the Constitution in its attempts to change national policy.
I think if the 'International party' was open and honest with their agenda it would be a great attraction to voters who are used to the opposite.
Since when has politics been about openness and honesty?
I still don't agree. The govn is for the good of the people as a whole, it should take human nature into account and overcome the more selfish/evil/detrimental impulses by passing and upholding laws such as no murder, thievery etc..and taxing people to provide reasonable standards of education and health.
And _my_ faith in humanity is unfounded...
Not for or against, but aren't some African-American citizens still demanding restitution? What would happen if all of the countries with outstanding international debts suddenly had all the markers come due, and the nations they didn't directly owe money to simultaneously demanded restitution for economic hardships? Oooh, that'd get uuglyy..
What the? I don't see why they would do that then more so than now?
I'm just saying that people don't forget what's owed them (or what they think is). I mean, two plus thousand years of fighting over a tiny strip of land in the Middle East? A lot of that is still because of what one guys great-grandfather did to the other guy's distant cousin. Say you get this world government, do all debts between nations wind up getting arbitrated by the WG? Or, does it appropriate all the funds that are owed and use them for overall benefit? You're going to wind up with suits between national governments, clamoring for what's owed them (whether it's on the books or not), and that'd tie up litigation, government resources, etc. Like I said, ugly. Fast.
The US has done rather well for itself exploiting other nations. Giving aid, which is really just oversupply they would otherwise dump if the world didn't condemn that so much. Yep, not allowing third world countries onto the world market on a level playing field. Yes the US will continue to do well for ITSELF as it continues on this path, but sooner or later the rest of the world will have enough of it and the US is spreading itself rather thinly on the ground.....reminds me of the romans, french, british....the slow spiral....
You got no argument here. All I'm saying is, like Longte was saying, there are a lot of potentially virtually insurmountable issues that would have to be taken into account, not the least of which is human nature, which, in my view being a lot less altruistic than folks would like others to believe, would severely hamstring any effort to get a cohesive, unbiased, working world government in place. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 11:37:04 PM |
I'm not talking about removing all national govn. like I said when nat.govn were formed, they still kept the local govn. So you'd still have the govn to take care of the local issues/concerns. There would just be a (real) higher power to keep those govns in check!
Actually, most modern national governments are the ones that established the local governments as lower steps in the bureaucracy. Unless you're talking about something like colonial provisional governments, and that tends to piss people off. The whole "taxation (legislation) without (adequate) representation" thing. Parentheticals provided for possible future battle-cries. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 11:39:21 PM |
The US has had it's fill in Iraq. We can't continue to leave the fate of the world in the hands of the 'merican voting public.
Trust me, very little that happens like that is because of the "voting public." | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 11:45:40 PM |
Sovereign nations pretty much care only about themselves, and for other nations only insofar as it suits themselves.
Nail on the head, brother. And, that's why WG will never happen. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 12:22:03 AM |
By the way, who is going to pay for that stuff?
tax - and it'll be a lot cheaper for one world army (with national divisions) than lots of different competing armies.
You're right at the moment the UN is a joke. They have no power. They are essentially paid to sit on their asses and pretend they care, and declare it's impossible to do anything about anything.
THe UN definitely needs changing by restructuring to make it more efficient at passing international legislation and upholding it (which means the standing army ready to move immediately anywhere in the world - I think most of the time the threat would probably work - once it's proven to be effective) | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 1:03:19 AM |
Nail on the head, brother. And, that's why WG will never happen.
that's why it will happen coz it needs to, the alternative is to swing from one super power to another.
Sooner or later the smaller nations will gang up for their own good if the bigger ones don't know what's good for them.
I'm not going to go point for point it seems like each message is expanding in size and time to complete.
Of course there will be problems, disputes etc...probably ongoing....just as in any democracy, there are no show stoppers in my opinion. If it were impossible we wouldn't even have national governments today.
I don't have all the answers though I'm sure if I think about it enough I can come up with any number of them.
It makes a helluva lot of political, practical, economic, military and logical sense to me. I never said it was going to be easy, but I can see the tide is turning in favour of it, despite what you guys say. We could argue over minutae till the end of time....of how impossible it is, what a bad idea it is because such and such IS or ISN't or whatever....... there are solutions we only have to look for them. The national govn's solutions and problems are good places to start.
Lastly, I said there should be a standard education/health care systems. I didn't mean everyone had to go to the lowest possible standard. You don't have to force people to only read rite and rithmetise exactly the same. Variety is the spice of life. Set a minimum standard (just like any govn)
and go with it, change it as necessary allow people to extrapolate, expand grow, learn and be better and better.
Ok this time Lastly, what I meant about - the more education the more means people would have -, is that with a good education you can have a better standard of living, you know more stuff, you can make more money, do more productive things for the community etc....wealth/health/peace flows from that so people can afford to better equip schools, hospitals etc... I'm not talking of creating a huge permanent welfare state out of Africa etc... I'm talking about a govn with the power and the will to help people onto their feet so they can start walking again after being beaten down for so long by their own people for their own selfish benefits.
Peace to those who deserve it! 
HAPPY WORLD PEACE DAY 
| |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 32 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 3:29:52 AM | """ totally disagree, it is very just and easy to enforce, most people with an education have it recorded in govn. records. Very easy to enforce. You don't get registered to vote unless you have reasonable *basic* education. RRR.
Why is age discrimination fair and education not?
Some people are very grown up at 10 and there are others who are immature for their whole lives.
So age discrimination isn't implemented completely fairly either.
I believe you have to draw the line somewhere and if someone falls a little short of the standard, that is sad but they have an opportunity and the motivation to cross it, just by learning basics. Seems fair to me""
Well who would set the educational standard??
Once again it would have to be by some type of vote
Why would the rest of the world only allow 'Big Brother" to set the standard??
What we call a basic education is different to what is required say in Indonesia
..
. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 33 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 3:36:24 AM | "Of course there will be problems, disputes etc...probably ongoing....just as in any democracy, there are no show stoppers in my opinion. If it were impossible we wouldn't even have national governments today"
The only real problem is the Democracy you are talking about is not a true democracy
The Greeks invented democracy.
Every freeman of adult age had a vote
Your democracy means that only educated men have a vote
Yes there is enough power in the western countries to impose this
But sooner or later the third world countries would bite back very hard
..
. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 4:59:44 AM | | Although I realize that I often view the world with rose-colored glasses, I'd like to see a world where soverign nations exist, but where the individuals that infest this planet would view themselves as Terrans, all very much related and alike to the 15th decimal point. From a biological perspective, all humans are much more alike than different and we only have each other to rely upon way out here in this lonely arm of the Milky Way. The little things that differentiate us such as religon and race, are minute when compared to the mass of qualtites we share in common. When the world's population starts viewing themselves as first a Terran, citizen of Earth and secondly a citizen of a country on that world, humans will be ready to begin the kind of worldwide cooperation that will allow our descendants to travel to the stars, a necessity in the grander scheme of things as our sun will only last so long. Until we as a species can forego our childish behaviour en masse, we are destined to remain a species that behaves en masse like children. It is time we look to the common thread that binds us all together, our location(galactically speaking), and start working together as a planet. If the time and energy devoted to warfare were instead directed toward a common planet-wide goal(establishing a moon colony, for instance), we could be there within the span of most of the people on this website's lifetime and in the process solve many of the problems that confront us. The next time someone asks you where you're from, do what I do. Say "earth" and laugh at the look on their face. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 7:46:28 AM | I think the only way we'll ever get a world government is when some great catastrophe strikes the human species or the planet so it brings the resource holding potential of the upper classes down close to the same level as everyone else.
Money rules the governments of the world. It's a small percentage of the people but not a small number. 95% of the planet's wealth is held by only 5% of it's inhabitants. No government could be formed that would be nearly strong enough to overrule those interests at this time. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 1:25:33 PM | I find it interesting that people who are generally right wing like me, and those who are usually left wing like beachcomberbenn seem uncomfortable with this supergovernment.
I think we are a very broadly based coalition of the uncomfortable. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 37 | |
| |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 9:14:54 PM | | Just listen to yourselvs. You yanks are constantly telling us that USA stands for freedom and democracy, as though you invented it. You proudly tell us how you rebeled againsed the Brittish. Yet you would hapily condem us all to something far worse. The concept of a One World Govt. is a totalitarian regime. You arrogant yanks already think you run the world. You already refer to sovereign nations as States. Texas is a State. By the way America is a continent. Not a country. Sadam was trained and put in power by the CIA. He was then tooled up with all those diabolical wepons by your lot back in the 1980's. Bush now tells us that anyone even acused of being a terrorist, no longer has civil rights and must prove his innocence. Perhaps you will acuse me of being a dissident for this post.Do you really think the attitudes and actions of your govt. are benevolant? Are you ignorant enough to belive in benevolant dictators?? Who do you think you are to wish to deprive me of my freedom and democracy ?? | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 10:41:28 PM |
The concept of a One World Govt. is a totalitarian regime.
I don't think this is necessarily true. It doesn't have to be totalitarian at all. It should be democratic.
It could guarantee freedom and democracy around the world and make sure no government is detrimental to it's peoples. The government is supposed to be for the good of the whole. What could be better than a world body made up of people from all over the world who worked for the good of all?
You could even vote, raise issues and pass legislation, on the internet! This way, you wouldn't be voting for people to represent your views anymore, you could actually vote on the issues that concerned you. Obviously there would have to be some government employees etc... to actually do things, but the legislation could be passed by direct voting of the people. Actually I think all governments should have direct voting on all issues. The technology is here.
If we don't have a world government the most powerful country in the world has no real checks and balances. All the governments of the world would act as the balance to the one world government.
Right now there is war continuously around the world along with some real totalitarian regimes. We need to start dealing with the issues instead of just passing empty resolutions. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 40 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 10:42:25 PM | ^^^^^
Get a grip on reality
There are more people talking against this than for it
But still most of the dissidents, including me, agree that if worked equally, it could help solve some problems
It has not been suggested that the World Government would be based in the USA
...
..
. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 10:58:20 PM |
Your democracy means that only educated men have a vote
nope that was the greeks
I'm talking about direct voting by ANYONE with a very basic minimum standard of education. Hey you could even have a little test to qualify for the vote, something along the lines of:
What does three plus seventy-nine equal?
3+79=
Or if a picker picks seventy-nine apples then picks three more how many apples has the picker picked?
The have to read the question, do a bit of arithmetic and write the answer. Simple test, now is that so hard, does it really discriminate against anyone who should be able to vote?
 | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 11:02:49 PM |
The idea behind it would be workable if everyone had the same standard of living etc'
I don't think that everyone has to have the same standard of living before we could have a world govn. It could help to raise the standard of living everywhere. As said before it isn't a zero sum game. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 43 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/21/2005 11:05:15 PM | In that case we come back to the same scenario as before
Every person above say 18 years should be able to do that easily
Therefore the Third world countries will rule the World Government
Therefore they will impose whatever they want to
Therefore 200,000,000 Indians may arrive in the USA with their blessing
If the USA disagrees the World Government will say 'TAKE THEM"
The USA can argue all it wants
But the World Government will have the votes to impose this
..
. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/5/2005 11:38:01 AM | | Would this one world "committee" ban the private ownership of firearms (weapons in general)? With over 10 percent of the world population wanting what the other 90 percent have, without having to work for it (read liberals, leftists)I smell POLICE STATE.... | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/5/2005 12:44:42 PM | We already have a de-facto world government in the form of an ideology; economic globalization and free trade led by The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and The World Trade Organization.
These organizations are not elected and are plutocratic in nature, serving only their own interests and have done nothing but create an international system of forced economic rules that erode change, experimentation and democracy in order to generate wealth for an invisible minority.
For example, the "big three" members of the WTO, the United States, the European Union, and Japan use these organizations to exert an undemocratic cartel like influence over less powerful member states to the detriment of their citizens or ecologies.
Also, liberals that denounce any regulation of the marketplace and scream for unfettered personal and economic freedom, no matter what the cost to society, legitimize each and every increase in the wealth and power of those who are already powerful, regardless of the misery that will be suffered by others as a result. The function of the sovereign state is being reduced to that of a steward for the interests of the moneyed elite. Laissez-faire businessmen call for the state to do their bidding even as they insist that the state should stay out of the marketplace, yet they advocate the use of the state’s military force for the sake of private gain. Look at Iraq.
End of diatribe. Wow, good coffee.
Freely | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/5/2005 4:54:13 PM | Unless, of course, you get a Saddam LEADING this world government you seek.
um..no?
(I am sure that I will have much to say as I read down the responses here)
Great topic.
If the world stood together no one nation could get the better of it
Isn't this how things are now?
There would just be a (real) higher power to keep those govns in check!
Now this I KNOW is already in place. ;)
sanku.
| |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/5/2005 5:28:05 PM | @longte
Just a little FYI for you here..
Technically, Caucasians are the most numerous people on the planet. India is Caucasian. However, even if you are still only referring to "white" Caucasians (about a billion and a half depending on how you want to define the terms) , you've got to remember that those who have power will retain it for no other reason than the fact that they know how to manipulate it. That's why puppet dictators don't usually hold out too long on their own.
As for the idea of one world government...
I'd like to see the day. Unfortunately it's not too likely. Even under one omnipotent government, regional rivalries would take the place of nationalism today. The bureaucracy would be mind-numbingly huge and more expensive per capita than anything we've ever seen to date. About the only way it would happen is through force. Then we could all be forced to share some common ideas and traits. We'd need a lingua franca and nobody would ever agree to that without force being applied. That alone would take decades if not centuries to apply. There's hope for sure but then again....it may not be such a golden era as we would hope to believe. Should the one world government be corrupt then what ? Who's going to throw them out of power ? We couldn't do it democratically ; let's face it, we'd have regional candidates and that's it. Too many parties and candidates. Look at what happened in Germany during the pre-WW2 era and you'll know right there why this is a bad thing.
The world will have to evolve to this point or be concquered into it IMO. Pretty sure that either way it won't happen in my lifetime or even in the generations following it for centuries to come. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/5/2005 7:32:01 PM | About the only way it would happen is through force
That would not work either.
Force usually meets counterforce. ;)
The world will have to evolve to this point or be concquered into it
Boy; there's a new thought for ya folks. lmfao.
(sorry; couldn't resist)
| |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/6/2005 3:53:45 AM | Meaning ? ^
I never claimed it was a unique idea. Look at how the Roman Empire developed to serve as your template (or is that too much to ask of you ?)
As to your first comment, well no, to be conquered precludes counter-force. That's already been settled or there's no conquest now is there ? | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/6/2005 12:04:26 PM | ;) Bingo.
A conquest is never absolute. Many conquests are destroyed AFTER counter-force, as it is generally interpretted, is crumbled. (internal war then wages)
Look at how the Roman Empire developed to serve as your template (or is that too much to ask of you ?)
Nope; that was where I was looking in fact.
 | |
|
Home
login 
