• 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!

Only a centralized, world government can solve all of the world's problems

Kelfuma said:
... UNITED EARTH FOREVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Look, I already came up with a cool official name: the Union of the Federate States of New Earth.
Click to expand...

Old Earth? ;)
 
global government is inevitable, because preventing nuclear terrorism and managing the effects of global warming cant be done without it.
 
joG said:
From what I have read and discussed about the history of great powers, the US has been rather on the nice guy side. It has been a hegemony and not so much an empire. That does make a difference.

But You digress. That is probably because you dislike the monster to have a beneficial side like that of bringing all those wretchedly poor into bread, cloths and hygienic bathrooms. And as you cannot disprove the economic mechanisms you try to point fingers. Rather pathetic, if you would ask.
Click to expand...

The U.S has its peculiarities compared to other historical and even contemporary great powers, but such exceptionalism doesn't automatically translate into benignity, not to mention philanthropy. Let history be our guide. The peoples of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Columbia, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Philippine, and Chile will rebuke your benevolent conception of American benevolent hegemony and will narrate a radically different version of reality. Furthermore, the perceived benignity of American hegemony is largely related to modern forms of warfare, be it conventional or socioeconomic. For instance, the U.S's drones program is responsible for ravaging numerous communities across the world, yet the U.S is hardly held accountable for it and the populace at home or abroad rarely pays attention to it, as it's a discrete and anonymous form of aggression usually occurring at fringe parts of the world.

As for the economic mechanisms of which you accredit the U.S, I already alluded to economies of agglomeration and how they seem to have enriched countries worldwide, while in reality, they crushed workers everywhere. Even within the western bubble, the current American elections and the recent Brexit vote attest to the failure of global capitalism that the U.S championed. It's your prerogative to defy reality in order to confirm your worldview; just don't pin your obstinacy on others.
 
No wait!!! I got it!

The Grand Union of the Newly Federated States of United Earth

The wordier, the better so people just call it United Earth.
 
Kelfuma said:
No wait!!! I got it!

The Grand Union of the Newly Federated States of United Earth

The wordier, the better so people just call it United Earth.
Click to expand...



The Federation.
 
Gaztopian said:
The U.S has its peculiarities compared to other historical and even contemporary great powers, but such exceptionalism doesn't automatically translate into benignity, not to mention philanthropy. Let history be our guide. The peoples of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Columbia, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Philippine, and Chile will rebuke your benevolent conception of American benevolent hegemony and will narrate a radically different version of reality. Furthermore, the perceived benignity of American hegemony is largely related to modern forms of warfare, be it conventional or socioeconomic. For instance, the U.S's drones program is responsible for ravaging numerous communities across the world, yet the U.S is hardly held accountable for it and the populace at home or abroad rarely pays attention to it, as it's a discrete and anonymous form of aggression usually occurring at fringe parts of the world.

As for the economic mechanisms of which you accredit the U.S, I already alluded to economies of agglomeration and how they seem to have enriched countries worldwide, while in reality, they crushed workers everywhere. Even within the western bubble, the current American elections and the recent Brexit vote attest to the failure of global capitalism that the U.S championed. It's your prerogative to defy reality in order to confirm your worldview; just don't pin your obstinacy on others.
Click to expand...

Take your examples. You really throw totally different things into a potpourri that would take a small book to answer to. I do not want to do such a long essay, but will say that almost every one of the cases you mention was really very much justified. And most cases demonstrate that the US was less the beneficiary than its allies, if one considers the fact, that the allies spent much less treasure and lives on them. Also, you take a technology like the drones and act as though they were being sent out to do evil. Sure, you might not mind the fact that we are at low key war that was not of our doing. But that is the way it is.

Nope, your arguments are flat and unconvincing to anyone that has looked at the details and not stopped in the confusion of the propaganda stories.

As to the "crushed workers everywhere" you mention, I cannot believe you actually know much about development economics and where third world populations were, before being crushed. You never saw their daughters starving, if they couldn't be married off or sold. Now these crushed workers have bicycles or VWs and meat on the table.
And muddling the discontent of populations that are better off in economic terms than any comparable one in history just goes on to show that you have not thought about it or want to misrepresent the reasons for the problems you mention. Those problems are very real. They have nothing to do with dark and malevolent intent in Washington.
 
joG said:
Government can mean a lot of different things, but yes. You are right on track. There are a number of public goods that not only are more expensive to produce by individual nations. They cannot be produced by even the powerful nations like the US alone.

But it will be a hard sell, if you call it "Global Government".
Click to expand...

The Old Order that George H. W. Bush described as the "New World Order" in 1991 is on the verge of collapse my friend!!! It was the drive to unite the world under one economy - Wallstreet, the dollar, the European Union, free trade agreements, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. We are seeing its demise firsthand!!!
 
Kelfuma said:
The Old Order that George H. W. Bush described as the "New World Order" in 1991 is on the verge of collapse my friend!!! It was the drive to unite the world under one economy - Wallstreet, the dollar, the European Union, free trade agreements, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. We are seeing its demise firsthand!!!
Click to expand...

If you are right, we will all live much more frugal lives. But I believe you err therein that the New World Order referred to something else. You see, many of his people had been part of a rather extended debate of where the world was moving and knew quite well that we were in a very transitory situation at that time. If you post the speech you refer to, we can discuss it.

But I will just mention one point that seems to interest you. "Wallstreet" is not a homogeneous entity. The activities it undertakes are extremely diverse and important to the functioning of our lives at many levels. Just try to grok the unbelievable challenge of moving the amounts of capital around the world so that capital goods could be attached to labor in dirt poor countries and bring their starving populations into the global middle class.
Besides that, the sector is much more highly regulated than most can imagine and the probability of losing your job or going to jail for breaking the laws governing the sector is very high in international comparison.
 
ocean515 said:
It is not the nature of mankind to act as one. Any attempt to force this upon people is an affront to human nature and violates the natural code.

From the beginning of modern man, people of similar thought and idea came together for mutual benefit and protection. That is how it works.

It is a pipe dream fantasy to believe it possible for all people to accept each other and live in harmony. That is not how nature works.

Globalists are delusional to think some kind of Star Trek "federation" would ever work.
Click to expand...

I don't see how a world government could not work. No one needs to accept one another; they just have to follow both global and national laws and then they have access to practically the entire world.
 
Sparky2 said:
I disagree with every syllable, word, vowel, consonant, and dangling participle of the original post.

Humans leaders have, by and large, proven to be too inherently greedy, corrupt, and self-serving for an all-powerful 'world government' to ever work.

a. The voters of each nation should be free to decide the course of their own sovereign nations. And so on down to the States, parishes, and provinces.
There is not, and never will be, a one-size-fits-all solution to the world's problems.

b. The further away any government's leaders are away from the voters and tax-paying citizens, the more those 'leaders' become detached from reality and the will of the people.

No, good and dear original poster, you are wrong on this one.

Very much wrong.
:)
Click to expand...

Well, I can't really argue you can't I?
 
Gaztopian said:
Oh you :lol:

Regardless of the practicability of a world government, I don't see how it's the panacea of the world's ailments and injustices, as they'll simply carry over, albeit on a larger scale. Ironically enough, your suggestion of the U.S as a model of a world government is self-defeating. As in the U.S, a privileged elite will tilt the system in their favor, a race or any other demographic will have endue advantage at the expense of other peoples, and corruption and special interest will reign supreme. If anything, a world government is going to accentuate the sins of bad governance by realizing them on an unprecedented scale.
Click to expand...

Well, the world is not as self sufficient as you think it is. If that were true, what you said would be correct. However, the world is not self sufficient on its own; it really does rely on otherworldly influences (take the sun and moon as some examples).
 
Kelfuma said:
Well, I can't really argue you can't I?
Click to expand...

You are certainly free to argue, but it would be a futile exercise.

A noble, incorruptible, good-intentioned 'world government' may exist in the fiction of Star Trek, but it cannot and will not work here in the real world.

Take the entity known as The United Nations, for example.
It was started after World War II with all good intentions, but has since devolved into a corrupt, wasteful, and morally-bankrupt collection of sponges and fools.
I would no more cede my freedoms and liberties to the UN than I would to Benito Mussolini.
:(
 
No government can solve all of our problems, especially the problems caused by government.
 
Kelfuma said:
I don't see how a world government could not work. No one needs to accept one another; they just have to follow both global and national laws and then they have access to practically the entire world.
Click to expand...

At no time in human history has any such "arrangement" worked. Not ever. Cultures are different. Regions and lifestyles are different.

Why do globalists think they can avoid this historical and human nature fact?

Forcing people to live under one governmental roof is a pipe dream, and people should look at what those pushing this idea are putting in the pipe.
 
ocean515 said:
At no time in human history has any such "arrangement" worked. Not ever. Cultures are different. Regions and lifestyles are different.

Why do globalists think they can avoid this historical and human nature fact?

Forcing people to live under one governmental roof is a pipe dream, and people should look at what those pushing this idea are putting in the pipe.
Click to expand...

The alternative to a world government is world war III. Would you like to risk the lives of 7 billion people? The rivalries between China-Russia vs the United States will only escalate. Stop acting like a kid.
 
Kelfuma said:
The alternative to a world government is world war III. Would you like to risk the lives of 7 billion people? The rivalries between China-Russia vs the United States will only escalate. Stop acting like a kid.
Click to expand...

This is your counter argument? Claim I want to risk the lives of 7 billion people? That's beyond weak.

What magic fairy dust do globalists plan to spread across the globe to get 7 billion people to cooperate and surrender to the rule of one central power?

Perhaps you should stop thinking like a kid.
 
Kelfuma said:
I don't see how a world government could not work. No one needs to accept one another; they just have to follow both global and national laws and then they have access to practically the entire world.
Click to expand...

When I got to this post I realize Kelfuma isn't serious.
 
ocean515 said:
This is your counter argument? Claim I want to risk the lives of 7 billion people? That's beyond weak.

What magic fairy dust do globalists plan to spread across the globe to get 7 billion people to cooperate and surrender to the rule of one central power?

Perhaps you should stop thinking like a kid.
Click to expand...

Well, I invite you to try and stop me from making it happen. It will happen and I promise that on God.
 
Kelfuma said:
Well, I invite you to try and stop me from making it happen. It will happen and I promise that on God.
Click to expand...

You are personblly going to cause a global govt to come into being?
 
Sparky2 said:
You are certainly free to argue, but it would be a futile exercise.

A noble, incorruptible, good-intentioned 'world government' may exist in the fiction of Star Trek, but it cannot and will not work here in the real world.

Take the entity known as The United Nations, for example.
It was started after World War II with all good intentions, but has since devolved into a corrupt, wasteful, and morally-bankrupt collection of sponges and fools.
I would no more cede my freedoms and liberties to the UN than I would to Benito Mussolini.
:(
Click to expand...

Good Morning, Sparky2. :2wave:

I cannot begin to envision a "world government" where a small group of elites somewhere will be making the rules for seven billion people on Earth! How on earth could this be sold to America, or will we just be told how it's going to be, without even getting to vote on it? Our Constitution and Bill of Rights will become worthless scraps of paper- even though they predate the UN by several hundred years - unless those rights are going to be the same for everyone around the world, which is very highly unlikely, IMO.

Using the Star Wars example, will we be told that an Emperor Palpatine and a select group of other greedy humans with total power will be running things from now on, with things like Freedom of Speech and owning a gun totally banned, even though we are a sovereign Country with laws? Interesting and very scary things to think about! :shock:
 
polgara said:
Good Morning, Sparky2. :2wave:

I cannot begin to envision a "world government" where a small group of elites somewhere will be making the rules for seven billion people on Earth! How on earth could this be sold to America, or will we just be told how it's going to be, without even getting to vote on it? Our Constitution and Bill of Rights will become worthless scraps of paper- even though they predate the UN by several hundred years - unless those rights are going to be the same for everyone around the world, which is very highly unlikely, IMO.

Using the Star Wars example, will we be told that an Emperor Palpatine and a select group of other greedy humans with total power will be running things from now on, with things like Freedom of Speech and owning a gun totally banned, even though we are a sovereign Country with laws? Interesting and very scary things to think about! :shock:
Click to expand...

This particular type of world government will be a federal system. Each "nation-state" will still have its own laws and rights, but when they clash with the laws and rights of other nation-states, this dispute can be resolved on a higher and more supernational level without resorting to war.

If you think about it, in the USA, a state like Maine could have whatever type of government it wanted (from an autocracy to an anarchy) as long as it follows federal law and pays its taxes.
 
Kelfuma said:
I don't see why not. Not like I have anything better to do.
Click to expand...

Ok then I guess I will stop you, as I have nothing better to do either.

Wanna make a wager on this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom