Originally posted by allenidaho
I personally don't see anything wrong with a one-world government as long as we can still be free. There have to be certain ground rules that all countries would be willing to abide by.

And what if they don't want to? Europe can't form a union that makes its members happy, imagine the troubles world-wide.

There are so many differences in opinion, in religion, in ideology that it would be difficult to achieve. You can't please everyone.

Most of the die hard christians are against the idea because they think its a sign of apocalypse, as dumb as that sounds.

Does the one world government impose Sharia or not? Someone's going to be upset. (As in war.)

You also have to able to elect a solid and effective leadership that isn't going to be a bickering circus act like the United Nations turned out to be.

The UN reflects the fact that different people want different things and are willing to argue for them. In the United States, the government was designed to move slowly to make it harder to trample individual rights, and we don't even have that perfect yet.

But if you were still able to make a living, own whatever you want, think whatever you want, etc. it could work.

Could you protest, or would it be the French Revolution with blood in the streets? Own whatever you want? If you earn $100,000 could you keep it? Or would it go to feed the starving in Africa under a world wide tax plan? What makes you think you'd have anything left?

Sorry for rambling on, but I think there's a little more work to be done on this one world proposal.

I don't.

Either something happens or those organizations, agencies and corporations that operate on that level operate as one.

Global Government, brought to you by GE and Henkel. Sponsored by the United Nations of Shariah.

Ignore it, Embrace It....doesn't matter, it is gonna happen.

Now, I'd certainly oppose a global governance that takes a federated form which is collectivist. Vehemently. Enough to get off my computer as an idea warrior.

I once read a collection of books by a handful of different authors that were written over a span of many centuries. The collection of books, itself, was put together long before the United States were even establish, let alone a major player in the events of that time. Long story made short (stories actually, but they, oddly enough, flow as one story with one author) - they wrote about progression towards and eventually the realization (see: REVELATION) of a one world government. It's pretty interesting how that turned out in what I was reading... if only I could remember what it was called...

CloserSeemsFurther

I worked for my line in the sand.
I will defend my line in the sand.
End of story.

Any time you consolidate power into a smaller number of hands, freedom and happiness suffers.

Any time you move the seat authority farther away from those who the authority is over, freedom and happiness suffers.

Any time you remove sovereignty from a people, freedom and happiness suffers.

Having a one world government does all of these things. Instead of various people governing their respective lands, a smaller group of people governs everyone's lands. Instead of your government being local, it's global, and more disconnected from the people. Instead of YOU having a say in how your region operates, someone on the opposite side of the globe, who may have never even stepped foot in your area, or talked to any of its people decides how your region operates.

In a perfect world a one world government would be great. We don't live in a perfect world. A single government would only bring more hate, tyranny, and loss of liberty to the people of the world. It's like saying "Why have a government with checks and balances, when we could just have a dictator and everything would be so much better!" Well yeah, if the dictator was a perfect person who's only goal in life was to better the lives of the people, it would be a good idea. There never has been, and doubtfully never will be a human born anywhere on this planet that is of the caliber required to be a "good" dictator.

We are already going too far with centralized government as it is. Look at the USA, it was supposed to be a country where local governments had the bulk of the control of their state. The people were supposed to be in charge, with the federal government only being there to defend the country from threats and to make sure none of the states violated the constitution. It's not like that anymore, and the country is suffering because of it. There should only be ONE federal law, and that is the law of the constitution of the USA.

It's hard enough for the leaders of a state to represent the wishes of all its citizens, it's near impossible for the federal government to represent the wishes of the entire country. Which is why the federal government isn't supposed to try, they aren't there to make laws on what the people can't do. Make sure the states don't violate the constitution, and let the states govern themselves. That's how it's supposed to be.

A one world government would be an even worse continuation of a strong federal government. Less freedom, less representation, more unrest, and just a worse life for the common man all together.

Until there is a massive shift in the consciousness of the human race, a one world government will do nothing but harm.

Nature's number one job is to create and promote diversity. No two leaves are the same, no two trees are the same no two snowflakes are the same, no two ants or fish or clouds or people. Diversity works, it's a law of nature. A one world religion or government would not work out in the long run. Although, it is possible to achieve unity through diversity. This is also exactly what nature does, it lets all the earth's diversity live in a perfect balance. From a government point of view I guess it would be possible, but it might not even be much of a government as we think it. People would just have to live with honest genuine respect for other peoples rights to live how they please, without infringing upon the rights of others. The bottom line is it would take a spiritual, emotional, and mental revolution of some sort in order to get all of humanity to grow up spiritually.

This doesn't address that there is defacto global governance happening.

Saying we aren't evolved enough for it, just means that you agree to allow them their due as they are clearly evolved enough to not give a carp that you don't like it.

Broad brush must be broad.

I'm all for it. I hope it happens in my lifetime because I want to see if all the blowhards are really going to fight it with every last drop of blood in their veins.

Concentration of power in a few hands? How about placing the power in the hands of the people at a local level, in representatives at the national level and one world coordination at the world level. An expanded Swiss model should work.

Also I think that a EU model based government would work, where everyone can move freely and work wherever they want depending on the availability of jobs and such.

Originally posted by daskakik


Concentration of power in a few hands? How about placing the power in the hands of the people at a local level, in representatives at the national level and one world coordination at the world level. An expanded Swiss model should work.

I'm a bit confused here. If power still resides within local communities, then what exactly is the point of the global government? What duties and powers do you think this global government should have? Should they be able to pass laws that the whole world has to abide by? How is this done? Straight up democratic popular vote?

So if there is a muslim majority that wants global sharia law, you are OK with following that mandates simply because it's passed down from your global overlords? Everything will be peachy and nice as long as we do as we are told, right?

I guess I'm the blowhard because I want to live in a nation, and follow laws that represent the desires and interests of people around me. I don't want to follow laws that please those on the other side of the globe. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I like freedom. It's already been stripped away from us pretty thoroughly already, I don't want it to get any worse.

So please, global government supporters, tell me what powers you think this global government should have? You want to give them the right to tell you what to do? Because that's what it sounds like, that you want people that have completely different morals and ideas on how society should function to control how you live your life. That sounds awful.

Deal with global issues. Which doesn't mean looking into my bedroom.

Pollution, conservation, trade, regulatory issues which apply outside normal legislative boundaries, etc.

In other words, global issues.

If you're in my personal business, you aren't global.

Originally posted by muse7
Also I think that a EU model based government would work, where everyone can move freely and work wherever they want depending on the availability of jobs and such.

EU model works?

The one where they have recreated the Roman Senate and spanned it across most of Europe? Appointed pederasts and all? The one is concentrating power in the Golden Triangle, and where even one card looks like it might be pulled out the whole world shakes? That one?

Yeah, I'm not convinced.

I'm also not a big fan of "free immigration." That seems to work out to be that Western nations allow themselves to be overrun, and everyone else is too special and need their specialness to be protected. Still not convinced.

Six in one hand , six in the other.

We're all going to die. It doesn't matter if it's a one world government , multiple governments , communism or socialism. Our main focus as a species should be the preservation of Human life but we're reactionary beings.


I honestly don't care about politics and why should I? I'm not going to be around in what? Ninety years to see the results and whether or not I made a good choice on who I voted for.

Mortality makes seventy five percent of what humans do completely invalid and pointless.

Originally posted by muse7
Wouldn't that be better than living in countries, divided by lines in the sand and fighting like school children in playgrounds?

but wouldn't that be the ideal world to live in? Everyone being together without countries separating us and preventing us from reaching our potential as a species, instead we like to brand ourselves white, black, brown, hispanic, etc those things just keep us from reaching our true potential.

Freedom is having the option of enjoying one's heritage.
The 1rst nations people (Native 'indians') Once
enjoyed freedom until some self-serving nwo bastards
took that freedom away.
It is morally wrong to impose your ideals on others.
Polar bears have their land, elephants have their place,
whales should too. What it comes down to is respect,
not control.
btw it's the last thing we need, more taxes and a bigger
government !

"Power corrupts.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely."

I don't think there is or has ever been a system of government that would not fall into the same old traps.

I think people should govern them selves.