• 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
Proud South Korean said:
WWII would be peanuts compared to the resulting conflicts if we have a firm world government
Click to expand...

Have you carefully considered the logic of your post?

Seems to me that a one world government would prevent the likelihood of a third world war, not precipitate it.
 
Canell said:
Because we stick our noses in other people's business. A world government as most imagine it will make things ultimately worse, teaching everybody how to live. The worst case scenario is if the OWG starts redistributing wealth among nations. :doh

A world government must deal only with enforcing contracts and to make sure countries don't bully each other, and otherwise leave people alone to develop freely according to their culture, abilities, landscape and natural resources.
Click to expand...

If a world republic is to be at all possible, it would need to be keenly sensitive to varying cultural mores, as well as keenly respectful of individual liberty, most especially the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and press, the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, and the right to due process of law.

This is possible.
 
Sig said:
Seems to me that a one world government would prevent the likelihood of a third world war, not precipitate it.
Click to expand...

Actually no, they will start WW3 to scare people into the OWG scam, not the other way round.
 
Sig said:
If a world republic is to be at all possible, it would need to be keenly sensitive to varying cultural mores, as well as keenly respectful of individual liberty, most especially the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and press, the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, and the right to due process of law.

This is possible.
Click to expand...

Then we need World Constitution, not OWG.
 
Sig said:
I'd would much rather have a one world government than have the whole of human civilization regress into a global Dark Ages in the wake of WWIII.
Click to expand...
I would support a world government only so long as membership was completely voluntary. As long as it had a built-in right to unilateral secession, I'd be fine with it.

I believe that people should always be free to withdraw from their current government and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

People living under a government that forbids secession are little more than slaves.
 
Last edited:
Sig said:
If a world republic is to be at all possible, it would need to be keenly sensitive to varying cultural mores, as well as keenly respectful of individual liberty, most especially the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and press, the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, and the right to due process of law.

This is possible.
Click to expand...

Until the government STOPS being sensitive to such things. And then what do you do?
 
Canell said:
Then we need World Constitution, not OWG.
Click to expand...

Obviously, an elected constitution would be absolutely required if we are considering a world republic.
 
Sig said:
Obviously, an elected constitution would be absolutely required if we are considering a world republic.
Click to expand...

And then we are stuck! ;)
Guess why.
 
Centinel said:
Until the government STOPS being sensitive to such things. And then what do you do?
Click to expand...

You employ your rights to freedom of speech, assembly, the press, as well as the right to bear arms, obviously. This is why such individual rights would have to be a non-negotiable condition of such a world republic constitution.
 
Sig said:
You employ your rights to freedom of speech, assembly, the press, as well as the right to bear arms, obviously. This is why such individual rights would have to be a non-negotiable condition of such a world republic constitution.
Click to expand...
Right to bear arms? You mean insurrection? Rebellion? Then your cities would be burned to the ground, and you would be conquered and reassimilated.
 
Centinel said:
Right to bear arms? You mean insurrection? Rebellion? Then your cities would be burned to the ground, and you would be conquered and reassimilated.
Click to expand...


I enjoy the right to bear arms in America. In spite of this, or perhaps, because of this, my cities have thus far not been burned to the ground nor have I been conquered. Assimilation was never an issue since I was born here.
 
Canell said:
Actually no, they will start WW3 to scare people into the OWG scam, not the other way round.
Click to expand...

Then I say we turn the tables on T.H.E.Y. and form a one world republic before T.H.E.Y. try to "scam us" in such a terribly destructive manner.

How about that?
 
Sig said:
I enjoy the right to bear arms in America. In spite of this, or perhaps, because of this, my cities have thus far not been burned to the ground nor have I been conquered. Assimilation was never an issue since I was born here.
Click to expand...

Wait a second. Let's back up.

I asked what happens if the world government stops being sensetive to your rights. In your reply, you indicated that you would then use your right to keep and bear arms.

Were you talking about taking up arms against the oppresive world government or not? Maybe I misunderstood you.
 
Sig said:
Then I say we turn the tables on T.H.E.Y. and form a one world republic before T.H.E.Y. try to "scam us" in such a terribly destructive manner.

How about that?
Click to expand...

OK, here's my project for The Constitution. ;)

1. Thou shall not stick your nose in others people's business. (a.k.a. m.y.o.b.).
2. One shall not do to others what one doesn't want done to him/her (steal, lie, cheat, kill, etc.)

Is it OK? :)
 
Centinel said:
Wait a second. Let's back up.

I asked what happens if the world government stops being sensetive to your rights. In your reply, you indicated that you would then use your right to keep and bear arms.

Were you talking about taking up arms against the oppresive world government or not? Maybe I misunderstood you.
Click to expand...

If it comes to that, yes.

Of course, having an armed populace that is also guaranteed the freedom of speech, press, and assembly, has worked wonders in America towards keeping the nation generally free of oppressive government.

This is no accident. A well-armed militia, in the form of a majority of the citizenry, greatly discourages the possibility of an oppressive regime being installed by any cabal of would-be schemers.
 
Canell said:
OK, here's my project for The Constitution. ;)

1. Thou shall not stick your nose in others people's business. (a.k.a. m.y.o.b.).
2. One shall not do to others what one doesn't want done to him/her (steal, lie, cheat, kill, etc.)

Is it OK? :)
Click to expand...

Not OK. You left out a whole bunch of stuff.
 
Sig said:
Not OK. You left out a whole bunch of stuff.
Click to expand...

You see, that's the problem. The more common the political structure, the more abstract it should be, imho. If we start forging detailed laws and regulations, like "thou shall have your face visible" (that may upset the Islamists) or "thou shall have a bath at least once a week", well... Finally, we will end up with a dictatorship of the most terrible kind.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
Wait a second. Let's back up.

I asked what happens if the world government stops being sensetive to your rights. In your reply, you indicated that you would then use your right to keep and bear arms.

Were you talking about taking up arms against the oppresive world government or not? Maybe I misunderstood you.
Click to expand...

Sig said:
If it comes to that, yes.

Of course, having an armed populace that is also guaranteed the freedom of speech, press, and assembly, has worked wonders in America towards keeping the nation generally free of oppressive government.

This is no accident. A well-armed militia, in the form of a majority of the citizenry, greatly discourages the possibility of an oppressive regime being installed by any cabal of would-be schemers.
Click to expand...

So you and your friends with hunting rifles are going to mount an insurrection against the world government, that has tanks, cluster munitions, daisy cutters, and atomic weapons?

They will call you traitorous terrorists, and they bring down a storm of lead on you, your families, and your town. You will be wiped out, and the global news may not even note it in their nightly report.
 
Sig said:
.....A well-armed militia, in the form of a majority of the citizenry, greatly discourages the possibility of an oppressive regime being installed by any cabal of would-be schemers.
Click to expand...

that's not what a militia means. a militia needs frequent training, officers, regulations, etc etc.

its all spelled out in the Militia Act of 1792. Read it sometime.
 
Thunder said:
that's not what a militia means. a militia needs frequent training, officers, regulations, etc etc.

its all spelled out in the Militia Act of 1792. Read it sometime.
Click to expand...
To be fair, sig may have been using the term militia in the general sense of "a military force composed of ordinary citizens".
 
I think this is a short excerpt from The End of Faith on the subject (by Sam Harris):

We should, I think, look upon modern despotisms as hostage crises. Kim Jong Il has 30 million hostages. Saddam Hussein has twenty-five million. The clerics in Iran have seventy million or more. It does not matter that many hostages have been so brainwashed that they will fight their would-be liberators to the death. They are held prisoner twice over – by tyranny and by their own ignorance. The developed world must, somehow, come to their rescue. Jonathon Glover seems right to suggest that we need “something along the lines of a strong and properly funded permanent UN force, together with clear criteria for intervention and an international court to authorize it.” We can say it even more simply: we need a world government. How else will a war between the United States and China ever become as unlikely as a war between Texas and Vermont? We are a very long way from even thinking about the possibility of a world government, to say nothing of creating one. It would require a degree of economic, cultural, and moral integration that we may never achieve. The diversity of our religious beliefs constitutes a primary obstacle here. Given what most of us believe about God, it is at present unthinkable that human beings will ever identify themselves merely as human beings, disavowing all lesser affiliations, World government does seem a long way off – so long that we may not survive the trip.
Click to expand...

I also would like to add that, at our current time with our politicians being so moralless, they would only achieve a one-world government for the wrong reasons. IE, not for the people but for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Canell said:
Then we need World Constitution, not OWG.
Click to expand...

A Constitution would be meaningless without a government to enforce and uphold it.

And large governments have a strong tendency to seize more and more power, in spite of any Constitutional protections written to deter this. Just look at what has happened with the federal government in the United States. In spite of very strict Constitutional provisions to severely limit its scope and power, it has grown very, very far outside the limits that were intended to be imposed upon it.

Do you really believe that we could have any better success keeping a worldwide government under control, than we have had with our own national government?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom