Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2019, 06:45:20 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Both Sides)
  World Government?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Poll
Question: Do you support the idea of some kind of World Government?
#1Yes  
#2Yes, but  
#3Yes, with write in  
#4No  
#5No, but  
#6No, with write in  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 26

Author Topic: World Government?  (Read 4449 times)
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2006, 11:56:45 am »
« edited: October 29, 2006, 12:00:10 pm by Andromeda Islands »

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.

In theory, it need not be, although the term 'government' tends to be tied to such a connotation.

In theory, it could be democratic, with the explicit right for a nation to resign if such a nation were unhappy with the union.

It would, perhaps, be naive to think such an organization would be likely any time soon, but the concept is tenable, I would think.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,707
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2006, 12:06:45 pm »

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.



Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2006, 12:24:37 pm »

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.



Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,707
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2006, 12:28:08 pm »

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.



In a few years, those protections would mean as much as the tenth amendment means now:0.
Anyways, this still fails to account for subsidiarity. As I said, and you have no answered that, I thought decentralization, that is, each community deciding at the lowest level possible what is best for her, was a liberal value. Apparently I'm wrong.


Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2006, 12:32:27 pm »

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.



In a few years, those protections would mean as much as the tenth amendment means now:0.
Anyways, this still fails to account for subsidiarity. As I said, and you have no answered that, I thought decentralization, that is, each community deciding at the lowest level possible what is best for her, was a liberal value. Apparently I'm wrong.


Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.

I think in some ways decentralization is a good idea. In some liberal churches, you have congregational polity whereas in the Catholic Church you do not... And the Catholic Church is hardly liberal.
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2006, 12:34:02 pm »

I think that it all depends on how you define 'liberal'.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,707
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2006, 12:34:26 pm »

Although it was something I entirely expected, I would point out that the underlying assumption in all the opposition to this concept is that a world government would be totalitarian or authoritarian and socialistic if not outrightly communistic and most of all very militaristic.



In a few years, those protections would mean as much as the tenth amendment means now:0.
Anyways, this still fails to account for subsidiarity. As I said, and you have no answered that, I thought decentralization, that is, each community deciding at the lowest level possible what is best for her, was a liberal value. Apparently I'm wrong.


Not at all. I perfectly presented a democratic scenario where the delegates of India and China would colaborate together. So take your strawmen elsewhere.

It would not be possible for one nation to force its will on another, if there is an explicit right for a nation to withdraw. I am not saying that your scenario is not likely, only that it would not be inevitable, especially if the Constitution of such a federation were to restrict such powers.

I think in some ways decentralization is a good idea. In some liberal churches, you have congregational polity whereas in the Catholic Church you do not... And the Catholic Church is hardly liberal.
The southern baptist convention is completely decentralized.
Anyways, that's totally irrelevant, because private organizations like churches have the right to organize in any way they want.
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2006, 12:36:10 pm »

Well, don't governments also have the right to organize in any way they want?
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,707
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2006, 12:38:56 pm »

I never knew governments to have any rights.
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2006, 12:41:21 pm »

I never knew governments to have any rights.

Don't governments have the ability to organize in any way which they want?
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,707
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2006, 12:43:47 pm »

I never knew governments to have any rights.

Don't governments have the ability to organize in any way which they want?
Obviously no. FOr instance, states in the united states can't be a monarchy.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,707
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2006, 12:46:02 pm »

This is a red herring anyways.
What we were talkig about was if it was desirable for governments to be centralized or decentralized. What private organizations do is irrelevant because membership in them is voluntary--completely unlike governments.
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2006, 12:48:32 pm »

But under my model nations would have the ability to withdraw.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,707
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2006, 12:50:39 pm »

But under my model nations would have the ability to withdraw.

Then it wouldn't be a one world government.
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2006, 12:55:50 pm »

I don't think that the US would be likely to join an organization unless there were the ability to drop out.
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2006, 12:58:10 pm »

Also, technically, membership in free nations is voluntary in the sense that a person has the freedom to leave and become a citizen of some other nation.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,707
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2006, 01:00:07 pm »

Also, technically, membership in free nations is voluntary in the sense that a person has the freedom to leave and become a citizen of some other nation.
That's not free. Free would be if the person could leave the jurisdiction of the state thereof and mantain her place of residence.
Logged
Max Power
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,187
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2006, 01:01:15 pm »

But under my model nations would have the ability to withdraw.
Then what the hells the point then?
Logged
Speaking Truth 2 Power 24/7
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,133
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2006, 01:04:33 pm »

I am signing off for.. now.. perhaps I can return to this discussion at a later date.
Logged
NewFederalist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,143
United States
Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2006, 04:55:16 pm »

Whew! But to answer the original question... I oppose world government at any scale for any purpose for any reason period. I took an oath the the Constitution of the United States of America in 1970 and although retired from the service for which I took that oath I consider it binding in perpetuity. For me it is case closed.
Logged
jerusalemcar5
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,738
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 29, 2006, 07:02:13 pm »

Shame on you!
This is size-fits-all taken to its extreme form.

Let me tell you, outside of liberal la-la land, what would happen if we implemented a world government tomorow:
A coalition of indian and chinese would come into power, who would "find" that the weestern world has too much money and they themselves too little. They would start a massive redistribution campaign to destroy wealth in the developed world and prop themselves up.
Is this what you want? Seriously, there once was a time when decentralization was a liberal ideal. Where has that gone to?

First of all no specific plan such as that has been laid out.  Even if a unicameral population based legislature was given complete control, I seriously doubt China and India would form a coalition to get money.  They'd each claim the right to more money and all hell would break lose.  They hate each other anyway.  Anyways I would see a bicameral legislature with something like the General Assmebly involved diminsishing big countries' power.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 29, 2006, 07:19:27 pm »

There's never going to be world government. Well maybe if the world lasts for another few thousand years. There's just no benefit to it.

Actually, the number of governments in the world has greatly increased in recent history. There's a good chance that trend continues, quite opposite of any unifying trend. Unfortunately for the left, the dream of world communism in the near future is dead, even if they've had some successes.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,829
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 29, 2006, 08:27:21 pm »

Oppose
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 29, 2006, 11:22:36 pm »

In theory it would be a good idea, if it could be structured somewhat like the US system, albeit with more power to the individual states and less to the federal government then in our system currently due to differences of culture. If it could prevent war and get people to settle their disagreements at the ballot box instead, that would obviously be tremendously advantageous. I think that the US is far better off as one country rather than 50 seperate ones, so it would make sense to think that concept could be extended further, although obviously as the scale gets larger it gets much more difficult to make it workable.

However, it would be extremely difficult to get a to a system everyone could agree on. I can't see it possibly being feasible in our lifetimes.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,977
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 29, 2006, 11:24:29 pm »

Nay to world government.  Nay to taking away the freedom of the people.  I want to keep American ideals such as freedom to bear arms and freedom of speech and religion.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 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