Do you support the idea of a one world government?

That depends on how well organised it is. If we're talking about just a central "world" government calling all the shots, then no, that would be highly ineffective and probably end up abolished by the people.

If we're talking about a federal system, whereby authority is shared by a Global, Continental and then National governments (from where you get to regional, local, etc). Then perhaps I may consider. I'd still like for the Global government to have some authority of its own, but largely, it shouldn't interfere where National/Continental levels of government can make a better informed decision on the issue.

But yeah, I'm going to say not in my lifetime, there's too many differences in cultures for the whole of humanity to ever agree on a worldwide government, nevermind reach a consensus on issues if they do manage to establish one.

As an internationalist, I wouldn't mind it at all if there were more unity amongst the various nations of the world. But I'm not sure if a one-world government is the best way to go when it comes to international unity, seeing as I don't think that the world is ready for a one-world government just yet.

-Sun_Tzu-

That's pretty much my stance. And we're certainly not ready for it yet. But I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this idea provided that the world's population eventually finds itself close enough in ideals to make it work. We work better when we work together, so the more of us that are willing to work together for common goals, the better.

I still voted no, though, because this isn't going to be realistic in my lifetime. Unifying the ENTIRE globe probably won't be realistic for centuries given that some societies are still hundreds of years behind the modern era in terms of ideology, but unlike many, I don't think it's impossible that this will happen at some point in the future, nor do I feel it would be the "end of the world," as certain others claim. One thing is certain, though - we need the technology to back the idea up if it's going to work. A planet is a big, complex entity, and governing it effectively would require a vastly better developed global technological infrastructure than we currently have.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

As an internationalist, I wouldn't mind it at all if there were more unity amongst the various nations of the world. But I'm not sure if a one-world government is the best way to go when it comes to international unity, seeing as I don't think that the world is ready for a one-world government just yet.

pianist

That's pretty much my stance. And we're certainly not ready for it yet. But I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this idea provided that the world's population eventually finds itself close enough in ideals to make it work. We work better when we work together, so the more of us that are willing to work together for common goals, the better.

I still voted no, though, because this isn't going to be realistic in my lifetime. Unifying the ENTIRE globe probably won't be realistic for centuries given that some societies are still hundreds of years behind the modern era in terms of ideology, but unlike many, I don't think it's impossible that this will happen at some point in the future, nor do I feel it would be the "end of the world," as certain others claim. One thing is certain, though - we need the technology to back the idea up if it's going to work. A planet is a big, complex entity, and governing it effectively would require a vastly better developed global technological infrastructure than we currently have.

Of course not. Freedom and peace wouldn't be possible if we had one government, one president, one main court and so on. There are only two ways it could end:

a) most of the population becomes enslaved and, therefore, we live seeing only propaganda saying everything is fine. This lasts till our generation (and few next ones) dies and people who are born believe that everything is fine since they don't know any other life (neither from their own experience, nor from other people's tales).

b) the population doesn't become enslaved which leads directly to the mass-scale catastrophe. Many wars happen, people lie, kill and are killed for the promise of freedom. At one point, the world is almost extinct.

Both scenarios are terrifying and bad. Therefore, I don't support global . Beauty lies in diversity. However, there might be a situation in which world government is unavoidable - I mean: if we discover the non-Earth civilization, we'll HAVE TO unite since the world as we know won't be able to confront anything from outside.

It would be difficult. Looking at the United Kingdom, for example, they are already extremely insecure about being in the European Union, thinking that they will lose their sovereignty and other such nonsense.

Hexagon_777

Change comes slowly to people because they're afraid of it. The city states of Italy probably had the same concerns before unification, but eventually it happened, and Italy is stronger for it. Same deal with Germany's history. We work better in collectives, and we work better when more of us are aligned with the same ideals. If the world found itself in a position where a global government would actually work it would be a very good thing, because it would mean that the vast majority of the global population was willing to cooperate towards common goals and ideals. And just like the city states of Italy, the sum would be greater than the parts.

I think a one world government is the only way to effectively stop the inequality and abuse in the southern hemisphere. We control them, when it should be equal.Atheists_Pwn

Yes. But here's the ironic part - in today's world, a one world government would not have that effect. In fact, it would more likely be a system in which the desires of a very small part of the world's population were satisfied at the expense of everyone else. Simply put, we aren't ready for it now. The only one world government we would see in this day and age would be a dictatorship. In fact, we came dangerously close to that frightening prospect just a few decades ago.

Of course not. Freedom and peace wouldn't be possible if we had one government, one president, one main court and so on. There are only two ways it could end:

a) most of the population becomes enslaved and, therefore, we live seeing only propaganda saying everything is fine. This lasts till our generation (and few next ones) dies and people who are born believe that everything is fine since they don't know any other life (neither from their own experience, nor from other people's tales).

b) the population doesn't become enslaved which leads directly to the mass-scale catastrophe. Many wars happen, people lie, kill and are killed for the promise of freedom. At one point, the world is almost extinct.

Both scenarios are terrifying and bad. Therefore, I don't support global . Beauty lies in diversity. However, there might be a situation in which world government is unavoidable - I mean: if we discover the non-Earth civilization, we'll HAVE TO unite since the world as we know won't be able to confront anything from outside.

Tigro_PL

[QUOTE="Tigro_PL"]

Of course not. Freedom and peace wouldn't be possible if we had one government, one president, one main court and so on. There are only two ways it could end:

a) most of the population becomes enslaved and, therefore, we live seeing only propaganda saying everything is fine. This lasts till our generation (and few next ones) dies and people who are born believe that everything is fine since they don't know any other life (neither from their own experience, nor from other people's tales).

b) the population doesn't become enslaved which leads directly to the mass-scale catastrophe. Many wars happen, people lie, kill and are killed for the promise of freedom. At one point, the world is almost extinct.

Both scenarios are terrifying and bad. Therefore, I don't support global . Beauty lies in diversity. However, there might be a situation in which world government is unavoidable - I mean: if we discover the non-Earth civilization, we'll HAVE TO unite since the world as we know won't be able to confront anything from outside.

Atheists_Pwn

Every step closer to France and Italyis a step closer to apocalypse. EU is enough ofworld governance. Invite Japan(technology), South Korea(technology), Turkey(manpower), Norway(oil) and Schweiz then close all trade boarders and everything would be perfect.

No. Having divided government from region to region is so embedded in culture at this point. It doesnt matter who takes the lead, someone is going to have to follow and im betting alot of people who are currently leading a country would not be willing to.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]It would be difficult. Looking at the United Kingdom, for example, they are already extremely insecure about being in the European Union, thinking that they will lose their sovereignty and other such nonsense.pianist

That was excellent. I am keeping that for the next time someone says "UK and Europe" for it drives me nuts!

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="Tigro_PL"]

Of course not. Freedom and peace wouldn't be possible if we had one government, one president, one main court and so on. There are only two ways it could end:

a) most of the population becomes enslaved and, therefore, we live seeing only propaganda saying everything is fine. This lasts till our generation (and few next ones) dies and people who are born believe that everything is fine since they don't know any other life (neither from their own experience, nor from other people's tales).

b) the population doesn't become enslaved which leads directly to the mass-scale catastrophe. Many wars happen, people lie, kill and are killed for the promise of freedom. At one point, the world is almost extinct.

Both scenarios are terrifying and bad. Therefore, I don't support global . Beauty lies in diversity. However, there might be a situation in which world government is unavoidable - I mean: if we discover the non-Earth civilization, we'll HAVE TO unite since the world as we know won't be able to confront anything from outside.

LJS9502_basic

Theres really no indication that a one world government would be that way. For all you know, it could be very loose and democraticAtheists_Pwn

If it were loose - it would be bad. If it were democratic - even worse.

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]Theres really no indication that a one world government would be that way. For all you know, it could be very loose and democraticTigro_PL

If it were loose - it would be bad. If it were democratic - even worse.

[QUOTE="Tigro_PL"]

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]Theres really no indication that a one world government would be that way. For all you know, it could be very loose and democraticAtheists_Pwn

If it were loose - it would be bad. If it were democratic - even worse.

[QUOTE="Tigro_PL"]

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]Theres really no indication that a one world government would be that way. For all you know, it could be very loose and democraticAtheists_Pwn

If it were loose - it would be bad. If it were democratic - even worse.

A form of government in which 50%+1 makes the rest of the people just a worthless mass without any significance is a good thing. You're so right.

If we could get it to work, yes. But that's one hell of a big if.

As others have said, it's not realistic, so no.

If and when it's realistic, then yes.

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]It would be difficult. Looking at the United Kingdom, for example, they are already extremely insecure about being in the European Union, thinking that they will lose their sovereignty and other such nonsense.Hexagon_777

That was excellent. I am keeping that for the next time someone says "UK and Europe" for it drives me nuts!

Good idea or not, it really doesn't matter. It won't be happening.

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Humanity and the actions therein......LJS9502_basic

no... to me that would be stupid

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then I can't help you. All you need do is study the history of humans to see how well they work together. You can also see what happened to the two biggest examples of empire building....Britain and Roman. Neither empire is in existence now.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Has nothing to do with who runs it. Has to do with logistics, divergent ideas, opposing goals......LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No...the running is not the issue. There is no person or persons that will please everyone anyway.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No...the running is not the issue. There is no person or persons that will please everyone anyway.fat_rob

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And again....everyone would not agree. Thus civil wars would ensue and independence would slowly occur.LJS9502_basic