Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2019, 02:53:01 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Admiral Lord Horatio D'Ascoyne)
  World government?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: would you support this?
#1Yes  
#2No  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 34

Author Topic: World government?  (Read 4806 times)
Make Politics Boring Again
exnaderite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,942


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 11, 2005, 12:58:27 am »

So basically the world gets taken over by one single government operating a federalist democratic society. All rights and freedoms that exist in the US Constitution exist in this Earth Constitution.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,836
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2005, 01:09:16 am »

Generally in favour, as I am strongly in favour of a world government. Although, it would be unfortunate to have the U.S. constition as it's doctrine. It's alright, but it has its flaws (2nd amendment Wink )
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,159
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2005, 01:28:24 am »

No, ethnicity would tear any such government up in under 150 years.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,371


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2005, 01:54:57 am »

So basically the world gets taken over by one single government operating a federalist democratic society. All rights and freedoms that exist in the US Constitution exist in this Earth Constitution.
Provided you add a few amendments such as the ability for states to override federal laws, perhaps....
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,076
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2005, 02:32:18 am »

Against

Our different tribes, demographics, societies, etc. are too important to abandon just for some monolithic government. Look how remote the EU is from Europeans, and thats just 450 Million people, not 6 Billion. The bureaucracy would be mind boggling.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,703
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2005, 03:08:08 am »

Of course not.
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,276


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2005, 03:15:05 am »

Against

Our different tribes, demographics, societies, etc. are too important to abandon just for some monolithic government. Look how remote the EU is from Europeans, and thats just 450 Million people, not 6 Billion. The bureaucracy would be mind boggling.


^^^^^^
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2005, 03:20:33 am »

World government would have immense advantages and equally immense disadvantages.

Contrary to the popular knee-jerk reaction against world government inevitable among most people, I strongly believe the immediate benefits of world government would, on the whole, be immense. The extension of political rights and freedom, to those regions and peoples who have been denied it, notably in China, the Middle East and Africa for the first time in history is to be considered. Large scale civil wars and genocides such as that in Sudan and Rwanda would be halted and no longer problematic. Further, many poor people would gain economic rights coincident with their political representation; redistributive policies would rapidly deciment world poverty much more quickly than we would see otherwise. Hundreds of millions of people would be pulled out of the most devastating poverty perhaps decades earlier than they would be otherwise. The revenue base and scale achievements possible in such a world society, and the gains from reduced military needs, and from tariff reductions, would make many large-scale economic projects much more feasible. One historical example would be the construction of the Great Wall of China after the unification of that country for the first time in the 3rd century B.C.; a parallel dynamic would exist in a federal world government (although there are international projects such as ISS, these are inevitably plagued by the collective action problem, through which the benefits are dispersed but the costs are not).

The only reason why I oppose world government is because I do not believe that mankind can come up with a single form of government or culture that will be perfect enough so as it would be worth it to entrust humanity's future in this government (or culture). One would not have known, in the 1930s for example, what would happen to the Communist experiment; if it would succeed or fail, and in each case, the particular reasons for either success of failure. Nor would one have known in the 1970s what would become of the German and Japanese models of capitalism compared to the American. Only the passage of time can tell, when varying cultural, economic and political institutions are entrenched across multiple diverse political entities, which is superior in most respects, and what lessons can be learned from each. Hence, it is essential that political, economic and cultural diversity be preserved on a global scale, in order to spur each system and in order that experimentation will continue.
Logged
AkSaber
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.35, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2005, 04:23:04 am »

Yuck!! No way.
Logged
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,255


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2005, 11:01:54 am »

No! No! No! 1000 times No!

The U.S. is one of the few remaining capitalist countries in the world. Through capitalism we have become the wealthiest and freeist nation in the world. Socialism has produced disasters like the former USSR, East Germany, North Korea, and China (prior to their discovery of doing business with capitalists).  None of those countries enjoyed anywhere near the freedom or prosperty that we do.

If we had a world government the rest of the world would vote for socialist candidates and before long we would be a socialist world. Devoid of the profit motive, innovation would be stifled. Entrepreneurs who worked hard to build successful businesses would have no incentive to do so. The economy would stagnate and eventually collapse. Also, since  socialist philiosophy holds that individual rights may be sacrificed in the name of the common good, individual rights would gradually disappear. ( As someone noted earlier the UN's version of a Bill of Rights does not contain a 2nd amendment.) Eventually you end up with  poverty and oppression, just like all of the communist countries have.  No Thanks!!
Logged
MasterJedi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,350
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2005, 11:39:08 am »

No! No! No! 1000 times No!

The U.S. is one of the few remaining capitalist countries in the world. Through capitalism we have become the wealthiest and freeist nation in the world. Socialism has produced disasters like the former USSR, East Germany, North Korea, and China (prior to their discovery of doing business with capitalists).  None of those countries enjoyed anywhere near the freedom or prosperty that we do.

If we had a world government the rest of the world would vote for socialist candidates and before long we would be a socialist world. Devoid of the profit motive, innovation would be stifled. Entrepreneurs who worked hard to build successful businesses would have no incentive to do so. The economy would stagnate and eventually collapse. Also, since  socialist philiosophy holds that individual rights may be sacrificed in the name of the common good, individual rights would gradually disappear. ( As someone noted earlier the UN's version of a Bill of Rights does not contain a 2nd amendment.) Eventually you end up with  poverty and oppression, just like all of the communist countries have.  No Thanks!!
^^^^^

This is true.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,265
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2005, 11:43:53 am »

It would obviously have to be extremely devolved (and certainly not based on the US system, which is fairly unique, and for a reason), but in principle it's what I support.
Logged
Ye Olde Europe
Old Europe
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,982


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2005, 11:45:35 am »

It would obviously have to be extremely devolved (and certainly not based on the US system, which is fairly unique, and for a reason), but in principle it's what I support.

It would depend how exactly the new Constitution and the political system would be structured... but in general I would support the idea.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 87,486
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2005, 11:46:14 am »

It would obviously have to be extremely devolved (and certainly not based on the US system, which is fairly unique, and for a reason), but in principle it's what I support.

Didn't you make a thread on this once where you broke the world up into election districts?
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,265
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2005, 11:50:41 am »

It would obviously have to be extremely devolved (and certainly not based on the US system, which is fairly unique, and for a reason), but in principle it's what I support.

Didn't you make a thread on this once where you broke the world up into election districts?
I did.

Holy fucking floodgates. Can't we get rid of this shit soon?
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,398
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2005, 12:23:00 pm »

I do like the name Lapinot so much better than Scooter.  The only person I every knew named scooter was also the first chick I ever did in a moving car, though not the first in any car.  Her brother was driving, actually.  (You might be a redneck if...)  Everytime I head the name scooter I thought about that sordid experience.  Now I only have to hear it on the nightly news, but not on this forum.

Oh, and I vote no.  I don't want US imperialism to create One World Government, nor do I want some other empire making us part of theirs, and frankly I think that having nation states who live side-by-side, in peace, suits me just fine.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,265
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2005, 12:35:32 pm »

I do like the name Lapinot so much better than Scooter.  The only person I every knew named scooter was also the first chick I ever did in a moving car, though not the first in any car.  Her brother was driving, actually.  (You might be a redneck if...)  Everytime I head the name scooter I thought about that sordid experience.  Now I only have to hear it on the nightly news, but not on this forum.
Who would name their daughter "scooter"? Huh
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,703
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2005, 01:34:13 pm »

World government would have immense advantages and equally immense disadvantages.

Contrary to the popular knee-jerk reaction against world government inevitable among most people, I strongly believe the immediate benefits of world government would, on the whole, be immense. The extension of political rights and freedom, to those regions and peoples who have been denied it, notably in China, the Middle East and Africa for the first time in history is to be considered. Large scale civil wars and genocides such as that in Sudan and Rwanda would be halted and no longer problematic. Further, many poor people would gain economic rights coincident with their political representation; redistributive policies would rapidly deciment world poverty much more quickly than we would see otherwise. Hundreds of millions of people would be pulled out of the most devastating poverty perhaps decades earlier than they would be otherwise. The revenue base and scale achievements possible in such a world society, and the gains from reduced military needs, and from tariff reductions, would make many large-scale economic projects much more feasible. One historical example would be the construction of the Great Wall of China after the unification of that country for the first time in the 3rd century B.C.; a parallel dynamic would exist in a federal world government (although there are international projects such as ISS, these are inevitably plagued by the collective action problem, through which the benefits are dispersed but the costs are not).

The only reason why I oppose world government is because I do not believe that mankind can come up with a single form of government or culture that will be perfect enough so as it would be worth it to entrust humanity's future in this government (or culture). One would not have known, in the 1930s for example, what would happen to the Communist experiment; if it would succeed or fail, and in each case, the particular reasons for either success of failure. Nor would one have known in the 1970s what would become of the German and Japanese models of capitalism compared to the American. Only the passage of time can tell, when varying cultural, economic and political institutions are entrenched across multiple diverse political entities, which is superior in most respects, and what lessons can be learned from each. Hence, it is essential that political, economic and cultural diversity be preserved on a global scale, in order to spur each system and in order that experimentation will continue.

redestributive policies would increase poverty and the chinese and arabs would vote for ditatorial parties.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2005, 01:36:30 pm »

**** no
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,671
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2005, 01:39:12 pm »

No, who's to say it wouldn't be more feckless and inept than the United Nations and that's saying something

Besides I'm first and foremost a Brit not an Earthling

Dave
Logged
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,760
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2005, 01:51:04 pm »

Hell no, for reasons stated.
Logged
KillerPollo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,984
Mexico


Political Matrix
E: -3.15, S: -0.82

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2005, 04:24:08 pm »

No! No! No! 1000 times No!

The U.S. is one of the few remaining capitalist countries in the world. Through capitalism we have become the wealthiest and freeest nation in the world. Socialism has produced disasters like the former USSR, East Germany, North Korea, and China (prior to their discovery of doing business with capitalists).  None of those countries enjoyed anywhere near the freedom or prosperty that we do.

If we had a world government the rest of the world would vote for socialist candidates and before long we would be a socialist world. Devoid of the profit motive, innovation would be stifled. Entrepreneurs who worked hard to build successful businesses would have no incentive to do so. The economy would stagnate and eventually collapse. Also, since  socialist philiosophy holds that individual rights may be sacrificed in the name of the common good, individual rights would gradually disappear. ( As someone noted earlier the UN's version of a Bill of Rights does not contain a 2nd amendment.) Eventually you end up with  poverty and oppression, just like all of the communist countries have.  No Thanks!!

The most free nation? You have got to be kidding me.
And what DO YOU mean it's one of the FEW remaining capitalist countries in the world? huh? There are A LOT as far as it concerns me.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,371


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2005, 12:09:33 am »

Look Mexican, I doubt Americans need to learn from you and your country anything.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,464
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2005, 07:42:57 am »

following the US system? No way. Following any system? No, thanks.

3 years ago, i'd've been a massive yes. Not anymore.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,787
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2005, 03:25:31 pm »

I do like the name Lapinot so much better than Scooter.  The only person I every knew named scooter was also the first chick I ever did in a moving car, though not the first in any car.  Her brother was driving, actually.  (You might be a redneck if...)  Everytime I head the name scooter I thought about that sordid experience.  Now I only have to hear it on the nightly news, but not on this forum.

Oh, and I vote no.  I don't want US imperialism to create One World Government, nor do I want some other empire making us part of theirs, and frankly I think that having nation states who live side-by-side, in peace, suits me just fine.

You did a chick in a moving car while her brother was driving?!  You're my idol, man. Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC