• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support a world government?

Do you support a World Government?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 18.2%
  • No

    Votes: 54 81.8%

  • Total voters
    66
Yes, that is 100% correct. I suggested that we only have to replace "The Nation of Iran" with "The State of Iran". No, I said we have to stop THINKING of them as outsiders and impostors that way the world wouldn't allow them to exist. This sort of applies to if you TRULY believe that we are brothers and sisters, are you more or less inclined to react violently for say kissing your girlfriend? The problem is, among a lot of other things, is most people in a political position aren't in it for the right reason. They are in it for me instead of for us.
No violently, but certainly with the yuck factor. :shock:

.
 
They're imitations and failures at trying to preserve world peace, which is surely the aim of the "world republic"

Whatever. They are still not examples of world republics.
 
Yes, that is 100% correct. I suggested that we only have to replace "The Nation of Iran" with "The State of Iran". No, I said we have to stop THINKING of them as outsiders and impostors that way the world wouldn't allow them to exist. This sort of applies to if you TRULY believe that we are brothers and sisters, are you more or less inclined to react violently for say kissing your girlfriend? The problem is, among a lot of other things, is most people in a political position aren't in it for the right reason. They are in it for me instead of for us.

You know, I just give up on you. If you think such phrases could work, then the world would have been overrun with communists by now
 
You are addressing talking points here, which I guess I don't have a problem with. Obviously I'm not going to convince you to change that political lean to liberal so we can help other countries. I think that conservatives original ideology came from very archaic principles. Their philosophy came from when, for instance, we were cave men or women and survival meant taking care of your family and if you helped another person it would put your family in jeopardy. The liberal way of thinking is a progressive way of thinking, or a more evolved way of thinking because we now can produce enough goods due to efficiency in machinery/advances in technology to feed everyone on this planet, yet there are still people on this planet who are starving. Why is this? Is it really american's own glutany that has rooted beneath our culture to not allow us to think of others? Is it these archaic thoughts that dwindle beneath us? I think it is and, unfortunately, is another thing in our path to stopping all evil and achieving world peace.
Evolved way of thinking? You seriously need to take a history course and pull your head out of your ass.

Its not Soviet, Cuba or North Korea who became rich. It is Sweden, it is US, it is Hong Kong who did what no humans had ever done before. Removed extreme poverty. Hong Kong is not even a democracy. All of these countries have in common is that they embraced the market economy. (Sweden less so in the 70s and 80s, but not even close to socialism. And due to that Sweden crashed in the 90s and returned to a market economy.) The reason they got rich was due to their market economy. Everyone in Sweden can invest a lot of money without much restrictions, earn heaps of money and keep most of it. Try doing the same in Zimbabwe or in Venezuela. There is redistribution in Sweden, but that only works when it is based on trust, and most people are productive. That is not the case around the world. Since it is based on trust it works better within a nation.

You will not solve global poverty be redistributing from rich countries to poor countries. You will only make poor countries dependant on rich countries, destroy their competing industries, which will prevent them from doing the necessary reforms. To fix their problems, they need to deal with corruption, and adopt a market economy with strong safeguards. They are not poor because other countries are rich, they are poor because of bad governance. No country has ever got rich by aid, what makes you think the 21th century is so different? Also, why do you need a world government? Is it because you want to force rich countries to share the wealth?
 
Last edited:
But still logically why does the world need one government? And what type of government would that be? Western government? Theocracy? Leftist? Fascist? Anarchy? Etc..
 
An OWG is not possible as it stands in the world now. But even if attempted in the future, there's gotta be rules. Each nation/state should be allowed a large degree of autonomy or no one will go for it, for the reasons PSK and Camlon pointed out. Even here in the US, the feds stick their nose in the state's business too much. I believe it's in AZ that they want open-carry (gun) laws, and the feds are making a stink about it. Well, it's not any of the feds damn business. And if AZ wants to get tough on immigration that's their business as well. Also, some states are richer than others, and that's largely because they've been smarter about attracting business and talented people. Competition between the American states is good and it promotes growth. A future OWG should likewise let individual nation/states run their business they way they see fit. The smarter one's will get richer and the poorer ones will have to get smart if they want to compete.

On the other hand, I would have to agree with jryan in that individual people would do better to see people of other nations fellow people. If we aren't all divided up by arbitrary borders we might have a more community mindset. I don't agree with just throwing money at the poor (it never works), but I do agree that helping people to help themselves is highly effective. If we think of ourselves as citizens of one body, we'll be more inclined to do just that. A properly designed OWG can help with organizing and focusing this.
 
An OWG is not possible as it stands in the world now. But even if attempted in the future, there's gotta be rules. Each nation/state should be allowed a large degree of autonomy or no one will go for it, for the reasons PSK and Camlon pointed out. Even here in the US, the feds stick their nose in the state's business too much. I believe it's in AZ that they want open-carry (gun) laws, and the feds are making a stink about it. Well, it's not any of the feds damn business. And if AZ wants to get tough on immigration that's their business as well. Also, some states are richer than others, and that's largely because they've been smarter about attracting business and talented people. Competition between the American states is good and it promotes growth. A future OWG should likewise let individual nation/states run their business they way they see fit. The smarter one's will get richer and the poorer ones will have to get smart if they want to compete.

On the other hand, I would have to agree with jryan in that individual people would do better to see people of other nations fellow people. If we aren't all divided up by arbitrary borders we might have a more community mindset. I don't agree with just throwing money at the poor (it never works), but I do agree that helping people to help themselves is highly effective. If we think of ourselves as citizens of one body, we'll be more inclined to do just that. A properly designed OWG can help with organizing and focusing this.

If you talk to younger generations they do not think that people in other countries are any less approachable. One can be proud of where they live and still be friends with people who do not live there. In other words the assertion that removing boarders will make us all get along is a naive assumption. That talking point is designed as an excuse for OWG, it lacks the legal reasoning for OWG. I mean the internet has removed borders socially already. Personally I have friends in countries that most likely I will never set foot in. We can be neighbors and still be friends even though we have separate governments.

So borders are not a good enough reason for OWG we simply can have community with borders intact. The question is what is more beneficial with OWG instead of a world full of nations?
 
If you talk to younger generations they do not think that people in other countries are any less approachable. One can be proud of where they live and still be friends with people who do not live there. In other words the assertion that removing boarders will make us all get along is a naive assumption. That talking point is designed as an excuse for OWG, it lacks the legal reasoning for OWG. I mean the internet has removed borders socially already. Personally I have friends in countries that most likely I will never set foot in. We can be neighbors and still be friends even though we have separate governments.

So borders are not a good enough reason for OWG we simply can have community with borders intact. The question is what is more beneficial with OWG instead of a world full of nations?

Yes, we are seeing borders blurring because of the internet. We're slowly backing into an OWG without really trying. A more organized OWG should primarily exist to govern more complex interactions across borders (they can keep their hands off common social contacts, thank you). In the US we're one nation, but we still have state borders that indicate a different set of rules. A state cop cannot chase a crook into the neighboring state, but he has good communications with the cops in the other state. An OWG can help maintain good comms across nation/states. It can help settle legal issues and ensure safe and effective market traffic (like maybe eliminate China's artificial values for the Yuan). Honestly, we almost have an OWG anyway. An official one would just be a more effective one.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we are seeing borders blurring because of the internet. We're slowly backing into an OWG without really trying. A more organized OWG should primarily exist to govern more complex interactions across borders (they can keep their hands off common social contacts, thank you). In the US we're one nation, but we still have state borders that indicate a different set of rules. A state cop cannot chase a crook into the neighboring state, but he has good communications with the cops in the other state. An OWG can help maintain good comms across nation/states. It can help settle legal issues and ensure safe and effective market traffic (like maybe eliminate China's artificial values for the Yuan). Honestly, we almost have an OWG anyway. An official one would just be a more effective one.

AN OWG would require on type of government. It is arrogant to assume it would be like our federal government. Most likely we would loose a great deal of liberty with a OWG. If the OWG was democratic in nature it would mean that policies would not be decided locally. A nation like China culturally would not accept what a OWG says about their local affairs. There would be no adhesive to keep any country in a OWG except oppression. I mean if fo example China succeeds a OWG and is isolated for doing so, that equates to majority rule. No nation can leave out of fear of the OWG. Its too absolute no room for disagreement. And disagreements will happen.
 
All OWG supporters, has that made a difference in the world?
 
Well, we all make a difference in the world anyway. I mean, has the UN achieved it's goals?
http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml
The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.
Since these appear to be an on-going processes, instead of time-defined goals, I'm not sure you can pin that down to "success" or "failure". Certainly some advances have been made in all three goals outlined here.
 
Obviously a huge hypothetical as we are not ready for a world government yet, but in the future if all nations have become democratic in nature would you support the United Nations of Earth so to speak? Could each nation work as a state and have different nations rights like we have state rights? The only problem is there would be no one to trade with so ultimately we would have to work to keep the nation alive trading among each other. Honestly I don't even know if capitalism would work for a world government since there would be no competition. There's a ton of things to considerand I personally think because of human nature a world government in even 200 years isn't possible. But as a hypothetical would you support such a idea?

I believe eventually this planet will evolve to a one world goverment one way or another. I also don't think capitalism would work to keep it stable.
 
I believe eventually this planet will evolve to a one world goverment one way or another. I also don't think capitalism would work to keep it stable.
Why is a one world government considered an inevitability? Why must humans be governed by one entity?

A lot of people parrot this prediction of our future but what basis does it have in reality? Is a one world government even possible of being good for humanity?

And what does Capitalism have to do with it? Who is your prophet?
 
Why is a one world government considered an inevitability? Why must humans be governed by one entity?

A lot of people parrot this prediction of our future but what basis does it have in reality? Is a one world government even possible of being good for humanity?

And what does Capitalism have to do with it? Who is your prophet?
It is a common socialistic thought. One of the reasons socialism doesn't work, and the most obvious one. Is that people with a potential of a much better life outside the socialist state, will leave. A solution to that is to force all countries to be socialist. Hence, there is no where to leave.

Also, many socialist think that all problems in the world would be gone if we shared our resources, which it certainly won't. It will in fact, cause many other problems. However, rich countries are not willing to subsidize poor countries. A one world government, can force rich countries who won't comply.

Some people here say that we should limit the power of a world government, but that is impossible. It can give itself more power, and threaten the countries who won't comply. A one world government is not necessary. Treaties can be used when we need to pool our resources. The only purpose of a one world government is to be able to use force, which will cause conflict. Secondly, isn't diversity good. Why can't people in a region, decide themselves what kind of government they want to have. Why does everything have to be collectivized?
 
It is a common socialistic thought. One of the reasons socialism doesn't work, and the most obvious one. Is that people with a potential of a much better life outside the socialist state, will leave. A solution to that is to force all countries to be socialist. Hence, there is no where to leave.

Also, many socialist think that all problems in the world would be gone if we shared our resources, which it certainly won't. It will in fact, cause many other problems. However, rich countries are not willing to subsidize poor countries. A one world government, can force rich countries who won't comply.

Some people here say that we should limit the power of a world government, but that is impossible. It can give itself more power, and threaten the countries who won't comply. A one world government is not necessary. Treaties can be used when we need to pool our resources. The only purpose of a one world government is to be able to use force, which will cause conflict. Secondly, isn't diversity good. Why can't people in a region, decide themselves what kind of government they want to have. Why does everything have to be collectivized?


Collectivism is Socialism. It is a group that depends on a majority telling them what to do. people who live in communes are easily manipulated. Socialism recruits members much like cults do. E.I. they trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. They play on psychological chords like morality and revenge. If one reads the founding document of all modern Socialism the Communist Manifesto one can easily spot the cult like structure of the document. Marx raves like a mad man that only a true believer would put any worth to. It is also written in such a way that makes it hard for the lower educated to understand. And is easily taken out of context as has been done ever since it was first published. But the main point of the Communist Manifesto is that Communism cannot work without a one world government and no other government being ever allowed. Communism needs total control of every aspect of human life in order it to work as designed. And things like Capitalism and property rights threaten that control, so they are villainized.

Ironically or typically actually, a one world government is the goal of every villain or group of villains since the beginning of time. It seems a bit odd that people assume that a one world government is progress when everyone knows that the goal of bad people in general.
 
Obviously a huge hypothetical as we are not ready for a world government yet, but in the future if all nations have become democratic in nature would you support the United Nations of Earth so to speak? Could each nation work as a state and have different nations rights like we have state rights? The only problem is there would be no one to trade with so ultimately we would have to work to keep the nation alive trading among each other. Honestly I don't even know if capitalism would work for a world government since there would be no competition. There's a ton of things to considerand I personally think because of human nature a world government in even 200 years isn't possible. But as a hypothetical would you support such a idea?

I would never support this under any circumstance, at any point in the future, no matter what.

In other words : NO WAY.

Our current government is too large and unrepresentative. I can't imagine how tyrannical and out-of-touch a world government would be.

It would be an interesting lesson for Liberals to learn, though, when you figure out that it sucks that all your money is being syphoned off to China and India to fund programs over there... being that they're a bigger voting block.

Never in a million years.
 
Obviously a huge hypothetical as we are not ready for a world government yet, but in the future if all nations have become democratic in nature would you support the United Nations of Earth so to speak? Could each nation work as a state and have different nations rights like we have state rights? The only problem is there would be no one to trade with so ultimately we would have to work to keep the nation alive trading among each other. Honestly I don't even know if capitalism would work for a world government since there would be no competition. There's a ton of things to considerand I personally think because of human nature a world government in even 200 years isn't possible. But as a hypothetical would you support such a idea?

It would take more than just all the countries in the world becoming democratic. It would take a profound, fundemental shift in the way that people think.

First it would require far less greedy people than there is in the entire world. I'm sorry to say that is not going to happen any time soon.

Second it would require the majority (if not all) of the people on this earth to aquire a "live and let live" attitude. Again, this is not going to happen any time soon.

Third we would need a VERY limited World Government that ONLY concerned itself with interstate disputes (if there are "states") and making sure that no one was murdered, stolen from, or physically harmed by anyone else.

Fourth, it would require that every human on this planet give up thier sense of nationalistic pride. Again, not going to happen any time soon. (note: this doesn't mean that people have to give up cultural pride...there is a difference)

And lastly it would require a cheap, unlimited energy source. You might wonder why I add this to my list. The reason is simple. With a cheap, unlimited energy source there would be far less disputes over land.

While I have entertained the idea of a one world government I know that it is not going to be feasible unless something drastic happens. There are advantages to it. But right now, or even in the forseeable future, it is just not possible.
 
I don't think the US is a good example of how a world government would be.
American government is relatively dysfunctional.
Alot would be dependent on how said world government is structured... most people seem to be working at worst case scenario examples.
cmon everyone gotta be optimistic for it to happen ;)
 
I don't think the US is a good example of how a world government would be.
American government is relatively dysfunctional.
Alot would be dependent on how said world government is structured... most people seem to be working at worst case scenario examples.
cmon everyone gotta be optimistic for it to happen ;)
How many countries do have functional governments? Actually, the American government is one of the better ones.

We are not basing it on the worst case scenario, which is a third world war. We are basing it on reality.
 
I don't think the US is a good example of how a world government would be.
American government is relatively dysfunctional.
Alot would be dependent on how said world government is structured... most people seem to be working at worst case scenario examples.
cmon everyone gotta be optimistic for it to happen ;)
Yeah, it would be much better if the world government was efficient at controlling the people. Don't want to let those pesky citizens get to thinking they are in control.

.
 
Yea but what about a one solar system government? Again I see no advantage to being able to control mankind universally when liberty would be the sacrifice. We would loose our liberties since we enjoy liberties in the US that are not the common liberties enjoyed by the majority of the planet. To Americans a one world government would be regressive.
 
Although I see a world government as an ideal government eventually, I in no way believe that we are anywhere close to a world government being rational right now. I don't believe that this would be a rational idea within my lifetime.
 
Back
Top Bottom