Why would you oppose a one world governement?

reply to post by rom12345


So don't give Global governance absolute power.

In the global government I'm proposing, no one single individual would hold absolute power. There will be no president or prime minister or king

The people will be able to choose representatives, and those representatives will have to agree on the issues that are facing the world. If people don't like the job that the representatives are doing they are free to elect other representatives to replace them.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is
A representative democracy like you describe.

reply to post by muse7


Ya know, I can't help but think you should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" and get back to us.

Originally posted by muse7
In the global government I'm proposing, no one single individual would hold absolute power. There will be no president or prime minister or king

The people will be able to choose representatives, and those representatives will have to agree on the issues that are facing the world. If people don't like the job that the representatives are doing they are free to elect other representatives to replace them.

Oh great, the promise of eliminating any chance of a single tyrant by promising that it will be instead thousands of tyrants. That's the way to sell it, bub.

reply to post by Aeons


I may be more easily frightened than you, but allowing one government to decide global issues will get into our bedrooms, and bathrooms, and kitchens.

Examples? What type of lightbulbs will we be using? How much water can our toilet or shower use? Population control leading to a Chinese birth policy? The use of herbs as dietary supplements? The Wisconsin raw milk controversy? What will be defined as "Hate Speech" and how it will be punished? What happens to internet privacy? Oh, there's more. But I'm scared enough, thank you.

reply to post by wasco2


Animal Farm was more about communism.

Orwell's book 1984 is more relevant.

I am of the opinion that few human behaviors are so deviant to be impermissible. If murderers could live among murderers, drunk drivers among drunk drivers, thieves among thieves, and so on bad to good behaviors as any community might demand then I might favor a central government that would administrate that sort of world. People may have to be restricted in their movement somewhat so as not to infringe on others that find their ways objectionable, and the greatest cities of the world may need to place the strictest code of standards on those who go there.

It is possible that is all do-able. No individual should be deprived their version of liberty if it does not infringe on those who do not agree with those behavioral patterns, but I think your idea of rehabilitation camps and eliminating religion (I am atheist so am not personally bothered about that) appears to be looking for a global conformity. Sorry, I take my own liberties whether or not the law permits them.

I should shake you and help you wake up but I suspect you're in that IDEALIST age between teens and early twenties to real adulthood.

People just aren't that way. You can wish all you want. Good people are VERY hard to find.

Globalism is simply another layer of taxes, rigged elections, and POWERCRATS

Oh, and the UN DOES already have its One World Religion picked out.

Scum rises to the top with EVERY government, no matter what form it takes.

Dreams, Utopian Dreams, are just that. Dreams.

Globalism won't work in REAL life in any way you or I or anybody else would desire to live. Powercrats would take over and eliminate people on a global scale.

Originally posted by James1982
I'm a bit confused here. If power still resides within local communities, then what exactly is the point of the global government?

Global Issues. Space Program. Disaster relief. Basic human rights. Things like that.

Should they be able to pass laws that the whole world has to abide by? How is this done? Straight up democratic popular vote?

Yes. Like I said Swiss model. Law gets passed. If the people have a problem with it they gather x amount of signatures to force the world government to hold a vote to keep it or not. If the people want to keep the law it stays if they want to throw it out then out it goes.

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.

Having DC tell you what to do is different in what way? I know you probably don't have the same morals and ideas as the politicians that control how you live your life.

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
I should shake you and help you wake up but I suspect you're in that IDEALIST age between teens and early twenties to real adulthood.

People just aren't that way. You can wish all you want. Good people are VERY hard to find.

Globalism is simply another layer of taxes, rigged elections, and POWERCRATS

Oh, and the UN DOES already have its One World Religion picked out.

Scum rises to the top with EVERY government, no matter what form it takes.

Dreams, Utopian Dreams, are just that. Dreams.

Globalism won't work in REAL life in any way you or I or anybody else would desire to live. Powercrats would take over and eliminate people on a global scale.

edit on 30/10/2011 by Trexter Ziam because: (no reason given)

I agree with you.

Except, there are already organizations working on this level and they don't stop just because it offends us.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by muse7
In the global government I'm proposing, no one single individual would hold absolute power. There will be no president or prime minister or king

The people will be able to choose representatives, and those representatives will have to agree on the issues that are facing the world. If people don't like the job that the representatives are doing they are free to elect other representatives to replace them.

Oh great, the promise of eliminating any chance of a single tyrant by promising that it will be instead thousands of tyrants. That's the way to sell it, bub.

But that is what the US has today and that is what many are saying they would fight for. It's already sold.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Aeons

 

I may be more easily frightened than you, but allowing one government to decide global issues will get into our bedrooms, and bathrooms, and kitchens.

Examples? What type of lightbulbs will we be using? How much water can our toilet or shower use? Population control leading to a Chinese birth policy? The use of herbs as dietary supplements? The Wisconsin raw milk controversy? What will be defined as "Hate Speech" and how it will be punished? What happens to internet privacy? Oh, there's more. But I'm scared enough, thank you.

Yes, that is the problem. How to limit the powers of overseers has been the problem from the start hasn't it?

Not giving them ANY guidance will assure it.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by rom12345

 

So don't give Global governance absolute power.

If I were so powerful as not to give a Global government absolute power, why would I need them at all.

If a Utopian life were in the works I would not oppose it, but I doubt that the current roster could understand, let alone deliver the rights demanded by a globally subjective society. I would hope that when it does happen we will have acquired some of our rights back, BEFORE we allow it to push through.

reply to post by daskakik

But that is what the US has today and that is what many are saying they would fight for. It's already sold.

It is all ready sold to those who genuinely believe the tyranny of Congress is a good thing. Those who recognize that tyranny for what it is, such as I, use this recognition to speak to the O.P.'s wildly naive idealism. Why globalize the tyranny of legislatures? It makes no sense at all.

Pretty heavy reading, but Plato's Republic is quite interesting, as far as this topic goes.

The major intent of the debate in the Republic is to determine an extended definition of what constitutes Justice in a given state, whether or not a concept of Justice may be determined by citizens in a given state at the time that Plato is writing, and how Justice may be accomplished in a given state (how laws might be enacted that would serve the citizens of a just state in courts of law). Thus it is that the conversation in the Republic proceeds from a question of meaning (what is Justice?), augmented by questions of fact (are there examples of justice in action or of just men?), to a question of policy (what laws may be effected to ensure the carriage of justice?). Of course if a given state could be founded on a resolution and emulation of such precepts, it would be an ideal state; Plato is generally acknowledged to be an idealistic philosopher.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But tyranny is already globalized. There is no government on the planet that respects your idea of freedoms so what would really change? If nothing else at least some of the worse would be replaced by something better.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

But tyranny is already globalized. There is no government on the planet that respects your idea of freedoms so what would really change?

There are millions of People across the world who respect the sanctity of life and the sacredness of Peoples rights. Should all of us surrender to all of you so you can have your fancy schmancy one world government? You know full well an engagement of ideas will not settle this, and the best you can do is point to the fact that historically tyranny is well armed and prepared to destroy the lives of those who oppose tyranny.

reply to post by Aeons


Dear Aeons,

Thanks for your response, it's strangely pleasant talking in the dark. Even on subjects like this.

I'm afraid I have a common and unimaginative proposal to the problem of overseer power, don't let them have any. OK, I was trying for the dramatic, but I do like the principal that every problem should be solved at the most basic level, the level closest to the individuals involved.

Outside of World War III, a massive plague outbreak world-wide, or an alien invasion, I can't think of many global problems. Global warming? Maybe. Man-made global warming? Definitely not. The rest can be done by the nations involved joining into temporary working groups to solve.

At the national level, if D.C. had less money and power, it would be less corrupting (Lord Acton), and there would be less reason to try to corrupt it.

I'm afraid we're looking too far up the government ladder to find a solution to our troubles.

With respect,
Charles1952


P.s. Space program? The US doesn't want to do it anymore, but a private company does. No global power needed. Disaster relief? Countries that can help, do. A little like it is now. Basic human rights? Like the right to draw cartoons of the Prophet? The right to smoke illicit substances? (I don't know how careful I have to be to avoid the censors) Anyway, I don't think there will be agreement, so let each small group find their own.