World Government

[S O F I]

Let me guess, Killuminati, you're enrolled in an introductory american politics class?

 

[Killuminatii 71]

Let me guess, Killuminati, you're enrolled in an introductory american politics class?

Wrong.

I've considered enrolling in a political science course, but i'm probably not going to until they bitch about it being a GE requirement lol.



Other then that... reading is the key.

 

[S O F I]

Duke pointed this out but I want to elaborate.

You're arguing big government vs. small government in regards to the United States.

When someone mentions world government, you're applying the US federal system world-wide.

But, surely, you know other systems of government.

 

[Killuminatii 71]

Duke pointed this out but I want to elaborate.

You're arguing big government vs. small government in regards to the United States.

When someone mentions world government, you're applying the US federal system world-wide.

But, surely, you know other systems of government.

Well i'm using the early U.S. system as an example of why big government would be such a bad idea. Duke said i was assuming that big government would be bad, and that there was no fact in what i was saying. I used the founding principles of the US, and past historical events that shaped this country into what it is now to support my claims so they aren't seen as 'assumptions.' I think we need to go back and live off the ideas of the founding fathers, and live up to the constitution instead of neglecting it like what's being done now.

Now government is going big again with the addition of so much government into the daily lives of people. The Patriot Act was just the beginning of that, and there's more to come, including the 'homegrown terrorism prevention act', which will limit our freedom of speech, and censor the internet. Yet, there's people who are willing to give up their liberties and rights for a 1 world government?


Peace

 

[S O F I]

^No.


Duke said you're assuming that a world government would be highly centralized.

You have not allowed for the possibility of a weakly centralized world government.

So, since you're a fan of small government, I'm curious as to what you dislike about a weakly centralized world government.

 

[Killuminatii 71]

^No.


Duke said you're assuming that a world government would be highly centralized.

You have not allowed for the possibility of a weakly centralized world government.

So, since you're a fan of small government, I'm curious as to what you dislike about a weakly centralized world government.

A weakly centralized government would be some kind of economic, religious, and political utopia where most of the power would be in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of the big elite corporatists, but lets be real, Do you think that's going to happen?

I think someone else on here mentioned the fact that a One world Government would fail due to the fact that there are too many cultures and religions in the world. Getting all of those religions and cultures together into one is like searching for gold at the end of the rainbow. We can't even co-exist as humans with different religions and cultures under our own forms of government. Lets be real here.

 

[arthurrrr]

Lenin was a fool. He forced a revolution when there was none to be had

he did not force revolution
People wanted a revolution. In fact, before revolution majority of people did not like his views. He wasent a fool either.
What happened to USSR after lenin's death -u cant blame him for it. Lenin did not liked stalin.

I belive the reason why communist failed is because there were many bad leaders after lenin's death and nobody new exactly how socialist should work. Also, in order for socialist to work people have to be literate and at that time only 32% people were literate in russia.

o and kid
I belive in ur last comment u killed ur whole thread and ur whole argumment.
There can never be 1 world gov.
The only way it happened is if people like hitler take over the whole world and kill everyone elese who is not like them.

 

[Killuminatii 71]

o and kid
I belive in ur last comment u killed ur whole thread and ur whole argumment.
There can never be 1 world gov.

I offered a rebuttal in my argument. Just as any argument would have a rebuttal. LOL! I learned that in my critical thinking class when i had to write nothing but argumentative essays.

 

[Duke]

A weakly centralized government would be some kind of economic, religious, and political utopia where most of the power would be in the hands of the people instead of in the hands of the big elite corporatists, but lets be real, Do you think that's going to happen?

I think someone else on here mentioned the fact that a One world Government would fail due to the fact that there are too many cultures and religions in the world. Getting all of those religions and cultures together into one is like searching for gold at the end of the rainbow. We can't even co-exist as humans with different religions and cultures under our own forms of government. Lets be real here.

I never said it needs to happen tomorrow. Give it a 100 years. Maybe two. But if we, as a human race, really want to move forward, we will need to shake the cubicle thinking that enthralled us for millennia. The world is now small enough.

Also, you cannot compare the political principles of 200/300 years ago with how we would implement a One World Government today. It won't be some on Louis the Fourteenth shit.


Time is the keyword. For all I care we make it a federal NWO, where every nation (I'd call them provinces, just to rile folks up) retains a large part of self-government. But all under one big umbrella.

he did not force revolution
People wanted a revolution. In fact, before revolution majority of people did not like his views. He wasent a fool either.
What happened to USSR after lenin's death -u cant blame him for it. Lenin did not liked stalin.

Russia/USSR never had a proletariat revolution because Russia never really had a working class by that time. The country wasn't that industrialized and still mostly agricultural. The socialist principles of proletariat revolution says the revolution would take place out of it's own accord, by masses (and we're talking MASSES) of industry labourers rising up.

The proletariat revolution was aimed to take place in a highly industrialized country. Russia wasn't. THAT's why Lenin forced the revolution with every trick in the book.


And yes, Lenin didn't like Stalin, you *are* right about that. He even warned the party about him. Didn't really work out, huh.

 

[Preach]

What do you mean by "the world is smaller now"?

Let me ask you differently, in 50 years when we're out of petroleum, how will our planes fly? We're imagining they will "invent" some "new energy source" because that's what people think has happened for decades now. It's a skewed point of view imo. It implies that another new source of energy is just around the corner, about to be discovered. Maybe. There's alcohol based petroleum which has become more widespread over the past five to ten years. The problem is that it's a lot more flammable than regular gasoline, and thus more risky. I know they are using it for car fuel, but I'm not sure if it could be used for jet fuel. The point I'm making is, I think humans are in for a big surprise, and I think it's gonna be when we realize our technology got developed too far, and that for the current level of sophistication we have no natural resources to fuel us. We would have to backtrack in our path of technological advances to be able to harness and use energy.

This general idea that the world is becoming smaller is, in my opinion, gonna hold valid until we eventually hit a threshold where that curve will decelerate. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my premonition for the future. Another thing to consider is the micromanagement. You're saying give it a 100 years. I'll entertain that for the sake of the argument. You're saying that if I imagine that over the coming 100 years, "a series of events that somehow make the people of the world unite with the common desire for a united world government," wouldn't it be a great idea? I hear you, but what about that little village of 20,000 people in southern Ghana? What about all those tiny little places spread around the world. It's feasible that 90% of the world's population would be living in communities that would never even get a mention in the high senate because it was irrelevant in the big order of things. This is why the world is spread into countries, countries into states or counties, and counties and states into communes. We could call the UN "the world government", we could call the countries of the world "counties" or "states", we could call the states and counties of those countries "communes", and we could make up a new name for our communes and cities. Effectively, we would be running the world from a very similar template to the way it's being run today. It doesn't make things more convenient for anyone, in fact, a world government (regardless of the advances we make and the changes of world opinion over the next 100 years) would only cause more hassle for every single person out there. As a citizen, when you need help (calling the police or fire office, calling the city hall or the tax office etc) you would have a way harder time getting it, because there would be more chaos. This thing you guys were talking about earlier, forgot the word you used, basically that governmental facilities are spread out evenly throughout the world. It's not realistic. You can discuss it as a thought concept but it's not realistic at all. Would we have one leader that would have to travel around the entire planet? Or would he have delegates?

To ask you differently, how would it change the world exactly? Shit would be the same in new threads, with a bunch of added hassles and no benefits other than having no customs taxes. Which, if you aren't 16 years old, you know is not exactly a benefit for a government trying to run things in balance.

Edit: Btw in an ideal world I agree with your ideas, I just don't think the fact that the world is getting smaller is a reason or even argument for why there should be only one government. So like I said, from an ideal point of view I agree with the notion of a world government.

 

[Duke]

Let me ask you differently, in 50 years when we're out of petroleum, how will our planes fly? We're imagining they will "invent" some "new energy source" because that's what people think has happened for decades now. It's a skewed point of view imo. It implies that another new source of energy is just around the corner, about to be discovered. Maybe. There's alcohol based petroleum which has become more widespread over the past five to ten years. The problem is that it's a lot more flammable than regular gasoline, and thus more risky. I know they are using it for car fuel, but I'm not sure if it could be used for jet fuel. The point I'm making is, I think humans are in for a big surprise, and I think it's gonna be when we realize our technology got developed too far, and that for the current level of sophistication we have no natural resources to fuel us. We would have to backtrack in our path of technological advances to be able to harness and use energy.

This is a seperate problem that we have to deal with world government or not.

This general idea that the world is becoming smaller is, in my opinion, gonna hold valid until we eventually hit a threshold where that curve will decelerate. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my premonition for the future. Another thing to consider is the micromanagement. You're saying give it a 100 years. I'll entertain that for the sake of the argument. You're saying that if I imagine that over the coming 100 years, "a series of events that somehow make the people of the world unite with the common desire for a united world government," wouldn't it be a great idea?

There won't be "one single thing" to come along and change people's minds. I'm not suggesting that. Look where the world was, cooperatively speaking, 200 years ago. Look now. Compare. I am assuming (yes, assuming) that the trend continues.

I hear you, but what about that little village of 20,000 people in southern Ghana? What about all those tiny little places spread around the world. It's feasible that 90% of the world's population would be living in communities that would never even get a mention in the high senate because it was irrelevant in the big order of things. This is why the world is spread into countries, countries into states or counties, and counties and states into communes. We could call the UN "the world government", we could call the countries of the world "counties" or "states", we could call the states and counties of those countries "communes", and we could make up a new name for our communes and cities. Effectively, we would be running the world from a very similar template to the way it's being run today.

Exactly . That's why it's not such a big step. It's only a next logical branch up.

It doesn't make things more convenient for anyone, in fact, a world government (regardless of the advances we make and the changes of world opinion over the next 100 years) would only cause more hassle for every single person out there. As a citizen, when you need help (calling the police or fire office, calling the city hall or the tax office etc) you would have a way harder time getting it, because there would be more chaos.

You think a 911 call in Dortmund would be patched through to the ISS 911 station orbiting 7000 miles above earth?

No. There's a false assumption that a OWG would have to meddle in everything. Nonsense. Today's parliament doesn't meddle with a Jerkwatertown's police dept, does it?

It's all just a matter of delegating tasks. That's what we do now, that's what will happen then.

This thing you guys were talking about earlier, forgot the word you used, basically that governmental facilities are spread out evenly throughout the world. It's not realistic.

Why not?

You can discuss it as a thought concept but it's not realistic at all. Would we have one leader that would have to travel around the entire planet? Or would he have delegates?

Technicalities?

To ask you differently, how would it change the world exactly? Shit would be the same in new threads, with a bunch of added hassles and no benefits other than having no customs taxes. Which, if you aren't 16 years old, you know is not exactly a benefit for a government trying to run things in balance.

It'd help when the aliens come.

Edit: Btw in an ideal world I agree with your ideas, I just don't think the fact that the world is getting smaller is a reason or even argument for why there should be only one government. So like I said, from an ideal point of view I agree with the notion of a world government.

K.



Let me state clearly what I mean, since you didn't read my other posts clearly:


My idea of a OWG isn't fixed to a certain system or timespan. You can arrange the system any way you want, so to speak. It's not an overnight process, there won't be one day where the Illuminati wake up, get together and say "Pinky, this is the night we're gonna take over the WORLD!"

Also, and perhaps most importantly, you cannot apply all of today's principles to a OWG idea. I immediately concede that there are issues that need to be resolved before an effective realisation of a OWG can take place. But like I said, there's no time span. Who knows where we are in 300 years. Maybe we killed ourself, maybe we flourish.


Last, a small bit on the concept of idealism.
Imo, idealism can still be realistic. Obviously, Utopia is never gonna happen, but striving for the best we can possibly achieve isn't blinded idealism. The hope of uniting all of mankind, no matter how far away that goal may seem, shouldn't be brushed under the carpet with a quick "Damn liberal hippie idealists" muttered in between.
So much was born from idealism. The United States is perhaps the best example. It's founding is dripping with idealism.


So, in conclusion, I'm only putting the hypothetical notion of a One World Government out there. No strings attached. No current day parallels can really be drawn since we won't know where we stand when the idea becomes really feasible.

 

[S O F I]

We won't run out of petroleum in 50 years.

Also, by small world, people usually mean the idea of globalization and interconnectedness or interdependence where countries, states, companies, and people depend on each other to function.