• 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
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?

A continually growing and more powerful government is usually the fault of the governed. The governed commonly demand "why doesn't the government do something about this," rather than solve the problem for themselves. So when the government adds an Agency to solve the problem, it grows bigger and also stronger. So with a new government, we the people should...stop giving the government more power.
 
A continually growing and more powerful government is usually the fault of the governed. The governed commonly demand "why doesn't the government do something about this," rather than solve the problem for themselves. So when the government adds an Agency to solve the problem, it grows bigger and also stronger. So with a new government, we the people should...stop giving the government more power.
it is those same people that complain about something their neighbor is doing to the police rather than just talking to them themselves.
 
it is those same people that complain about something their neighbor is doing to the police rather than just talking to them themselves.

Exactamundo. We need to handle it ourselves. If we want the government out of our business, we need to keep them out of our business.
 
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.

Maybe Newts Moon colony would be the perfect place for the ones who don't want to live under the world government.:mrgreen:
 
Maybe Newts Moon colony would be the perfect place for the ones who don't want to live under the world government.:mrgreen:
Good one.

I'm not sure whether or not you were just goofing around, but I was not talking about emigration. I was talking about secession, which means leaving the government but remaining in place. For example, the US might join the world government, but then later realize that it was not beneficial after all and might decide to leave the world government and resume governance as a sovereign nation.
 
A Constitution would be meaningless without a government to enforce and uphold it.

If you read my first post in this thread, you will see I mean something different for "government". The government must act as a judge and certainly NOT as economic policy to boost growth, GDP, bla-bla-bla.
As to enforcing international order, imagine you are at class and you have a bully that beats some of the weaker pupils, may be even you. What you do is getter the council (i.e. the class itself) and decide what to do with him. If you have to you can even give him the beating of a lifetime.

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?

Well, that depends on the type of the OWG. At the current stage, no.
 
If you read my first post in this thread, you will see I mean something different for "government". The government must act as a judge and certainly NOT as economic policy to boost growth, GDP, bla-bla-bla.
As to enforcing international order, imagine you are at class and you have a bully that beats some of the weaker pupils, may be even you. What you do is getter the council (i.e. the class itself) and decide what to do with him. If you have to you can even give him the beating of a lifetime.



Well, that depends on the type of the OWG. At the current stage, no.
Now that is funny as hell. :lamo

What actually happens is the rest of the class stands around and laughs while the bully beats your ass because they don't want him to beat their ass.

The same thing happens with natiion states. Look at WWII. Did any country get in until they feared attack was eminent or were actually attacked?

The USA now ges around the world beating on one small country after another. Has anyone dared challenge them?

.
 
What actually happens is the rest of the class stands around and laughs while the bully beats your ass because they don't want him to beat their ass.

Not if they agree to have order in the class and defend that order.

The same thing happens with natiion states. Look at WWII. Did any country get in until they feared attack was eminent or were actually attacked?

I don't recall any international agreement at the time to keep peace in the world.

The USA now ges around the world beating on one small country after another. Has anyone dared challenge them?

You're right, perhaps the first thing that the OWG must do is kick uncle Sam's ass for being the bully of the world. ;)
 
Not if they agree to have order in the class and defend that order.



I don't recall any international agreement at the time to keep peace in the world.



You're right, perhaps the first thing that the OWG must do is kick uncle Sam's ass for being the bully of the world. ;)
Have at it big boy. :roll:

.
 
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.

Right, so the League of Nations managed to prevent WWII? Has the UN, a massive failure, prevent the Cold War, the Middle East mess, the African wars, or any wars?
The fallacy with a world government is simple:
Without a strong military, the strongest in the world, it cannot hope to survive and enforce its own rules. However, if it does have such a military, imagine the consequences.
 
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.

Oh right, so you think the rest of the 6.7 billion population will all agree with US ideals of "human rights"?
This is why I hate OWG supporters
 
The UN's biggest provable role in war hasn't been stopping them but coordinating a response to them. Bosnia, Iraq/Kuwait, and (I'm sure you don't need this reminder) Korea are a few examples. Without some kind of system already in place any response to those acts of aggression would have been delayed even more.

We don't know - can't know - how many things have been avoided or mitigated by UN negotiations or the UN just being there as a watchdog.

Oh right, so you think the rest of the 6.7 billion population will all agree with US ideals of "human rights"?
This is why I hate OWG supporters
I can agree with this assessment. Countries need to decide for themselves what kind of society they want but their should be limits. Bombing whole indigenous populations out of existence and other mass killings is one of them. External aggression is another. But whether a country wants to make it illegal for women to drive or not is nobody else's business. At this point in time I do not support a OWG.
 
If you read my first post in this thread, you will see I mean something different for "government". The government must act as a judge and certainly NOT as economic policy to boost growth, GDP, bla-bla-bla.
As to enforcing international order, imagine you are at class and you have a bully that beats some of the weaker pupils, may be even you. What you do is getter the council (i.e. the class itself) and decide what to do with him. If you have to you can even give him the beating of a lifetime.



Well, that depends on the type of the OWG. At the current stage, no.
If a "one world government" thinks revenge as to the bully problem, then the world does NOT need this.....so-called government..
The "bully" needs love and forgivness.....those who stand around when others are being bullied are no better, even worse than the bully..
The UNseems to "stand around".
So, while in the future we will have a OWG, right now we do not have the people for this.
A shortage of manpower exists..
 
Oh right, so you think the rest of the 6.7 billion population will all agree with US ideals of "human rights"?

I didn't say that.

Surely, the formation a world republic will require considerable negotiation about a plethora of issues within a very diverse field of opinion. This will be no easy task. It comes as no surprise that there has never been a world republic throughout the entire course of human history.
 
Oh right, so you think the rest of the 6.7 billion population will all agree with US ideals of "human rights"?
This is why I hate OWG supporters
IMO, they should, if they were living in the 21st century; but "they" are not....Its closer to the stone age...for Russia, China, it may be the 1800s....and this, we must respect...hard as it is to do.
 
Right, so the League of Nations managed to prevent WWII? Has the UN, a massive failure, prevent the Cold War, the Middle East mess, the African wars, or any wars?

Neither the League of Nations nor the UN can possibly be considered a genuine description of a world republic.
 
IMO, they should, if they were living in the 21st century; but "they" are not....Its closer to the stone age...for Russia, China, it may be the 1800s....and this, we must respect...hard as it is to do.

Ah, so beause the US is so advanced, all the countries must bow to it in terms of human rights? Give me a break. Why should the rest of the world have the right to bear arms for example? (Not that I'm anti-gun)
 
Neither the League of Nations nor the UN can possibly be considered a genuine description of a world republic.

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

Having a United Nations probably made things better in the 20th century than not having one. It can't preserve world peace because it doesn't have the authority or power to govern or punish.

Some sort of "world government" might form if humanity ever gets serious about space travel and exploration, although a NATO type of thing is likelier to develop.
 
Last edited:
One world government would be a nightmare, both in theory and especially in practice.

1. One world government is not necessary. International treaties can deal with issues that benefits everyone, as long as everyone does it. What treaties can't do, is when some country disagree, so they have to force them. For instance Mexicans may not like the gun smuggling from America, and petition the world government to ban guns everywhere.

2. World government will not be properly democratic. In elections each country will vote for different parties, probably the same they vote for in national elections. They will do that, because people speak different languages, and still feel proud of their country. Problem is, what their party support in national elections, may not be the same as in global elections. It's the same problem as in the EU, but just worse. Remember, Obama signs resolutions in the UN that he would never dare to support nationally. People who lead the countries are quite distanced from the average person. The people who will lead the world government will be much worse.

3. World government will be oppressive. All government wants more power. Just look at the EU, look at the US federal government. Hardly ever, do governments accept limited power. They will be petitioned by countries to have some kind of global welfare program, and if it exists, to increase it. Also, companies will be interested to carve out special deals, and in return they will get donations for their election. In the US it is already bad, in the world it will be much worse.

4. It will be almost impossible to leave. You are supposed to be allowed to leave the EU, but in reality you are not. You have politicians who are afraid to lose potential jobs and who have little connection to their own people, and threats to be punished for leaving.

5. Also, I don't see why. Why is it anyone's business if America bans guns or not. Why is anyone's business what kind of health care the government provide for their citizens or what kind of immigration rules. If we have world rules, then we live in a prison. And it is going to feel like a prison, because it is going to feel like we are getting rules imposed on us, but have no influence what so ever.

In fact, if a world government was created, I would be willing to give my life to fight against it.
 
A one world government would work, if anyone read that short excerpt; I'll sum it up. Bassiccly we need to stop viewing other nations AS nations and start viewing them as other states. This way we would, as states, not allow tyrants like Kim Jung Il to exist. The reason we allow this to exist is because China is profiting off of it. This would also not be allowed in our state-to-state commerce. I think it has to be accepted as a idea or else it will be to late. Unfortunately with the way things are going in the middle east and, especially, the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, I fear we will not be able to make it to where we view everyone as a neighbor. Also, he throws in that this is all religious backed, IE the Muslims don't want us to be viewed as brothers and sisters and nor do some Christians want to view them as brothers and sisters, rather, they view them as some ultimate goal that they need to convert (Remember, this wasn't ALL Christians or ALL Muslims, just some and I won't speculate on whether it is a large sum or not).
 
A one world government would work, if anyone read that short excerpt; I'll sum it up. Bassiccly we need to stop viewing other nations AS nations and start viewing them as other states. This way we would, as states, not allow tyrants like Kim Jung Il to exist. The reason we allow this to exist is because China is profiting off of it. This would also not be allowed in our state-to-state commerce. I think it has to be accepted as a idea or else it will be to late. Unfortunately with the way things are going in the middle east and, especially, the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, I fear we will not be able to make it to where we view everyone as a neighbor. Also, he throws in that this is all religious backed, IE the Muslims don't want us to be viewed as brothers and sisters and nor do some Christians want to view them as brothers and sisters, rather, they view them as some ultimate goal that they need to convert (Remember, this wasn't ALL Christians or ALL Muslims, just some and I won't speculate on whether it is a large sum or not).

Wait, so your solution is to replace the word "nations" with "states"?
Good heaven, the solution to saving the world was as simple as this :doh
 
Wait, so your solution is to replace the word "nations" with "states"?
Good heaven, the solution to saving the world was as simple as this :doh

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.
 
Last edited:
A one world government would work, if anyone read that short excerpt; I'll sum it up. Bassiccly we need to stop viewing other nations AS nations and start viewing them as other states. This way we would, as states, not allow tyrants like Kim Jung Il to exist. The reason we allow this to exist is because China is profiting off of it. This would also not be allowed in our state-to-state commerce.
The only way China could possibly benefit from North Korea is politically, that China looks good compared to North Korea. How is that going to change? Are you planning to attack North Korea and kill millions of Koreans and in the process destroy Seoul? We can do that today as well, you know?

How would it help that people view nations as states. All the problems I have listed above, will still be there. And secondly, people are not going to view their nations as states. Why should we?

You did the trick of finding benefits that conservatives care about. Tell us your real reason for wanting a world government. Is it to force the US to implement measures, you are not able to get through democratically? Do you believe handouts to poor countries will really solve world's problems? Do you think corporations power will be limited by measures from a world government, when in fact companies will be much more interested and able to donate to a world government.
 
Last edited:
The only way China could possibly benefit from North Korea is politically, that China looks good compared to North Korea. How is that going to change? Are you planning to attack North Korea and kill millions of Koreans and in the process destroy Seoul? We can do that today as well, you know?

How would it help that people view nations as states. All the problems I have listed above, will still be there. And secondly, people are not going to view their nations as states. Why should we?

You did the trick of finding benefits that conservatives care about. Tell us your real reason for wanting a world government. Is it to force the US to implement measures, you are not able to get through democratically? Do you believe handouts to poor countries will really solve world's problems? Do you think corporations power will be limited by measures from a world government, when in fact companies will be much more interested and able to donate to a world government.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom