• 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
Justice For All

Justice For All

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Messages
192
Reaction score
113
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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?
 
Washington DC, and the politicians thereof, are quite sufficiently out of touch with the lives of their citizens as it is. I would not wish to be subject to the whims of legislation that originated in Bangaladesh or Zimbabwe.
 
I would agree which is why this is not in sight right now, but with a better less corrupt democratic system that makes politicians pay for their choices it may be possible in the far future.
 
No, a world government wouldn't work without being a dictatorship.
 
maybe. It would depend on the structure. If it were like the current UN or the IMF, the big countries could jut dominate. If we came to recognize ourselves as earthlings or something like that. ATM we are just too divided.
 
The only way that a world government would work is if you first got rid of religions, Leftists, Rightists, Etc. and soccer...
 
No. Everybody has their own set of local concerns.
 
The government is already a form of cancer that is out of control and is spreading everywhere. If you have a tumor do you wish it were larger?

It's not the idea of a one-world-system which is the problem. If implemented, those who would be in control are those in control now. It would simply be the same people with even more power.
 
It's difficult to say. So many different cultures and economies would be difficult to link. Let's just say for sake of argument that a world government could work; that the People were significantly united behind it, and a strong democratic Republic could be constructed. I would be tempted to support it. Though in likelihood not, because of the immense danger corruption would mean for us all. But if we didn't have to worry about that and go on some ideal, like the Federation from your Star Trek program, then I can see real advantage to having one. Uniting the whole of humanity could bring about significant progress.
 
Not only no, but hell no. The further one gets away from the central hub of a government, the more disenfranchised one tends to be. Cultures are different, even in different regions and states of the US. Culture clash is enough of a problem in the states, much less throughout the world.
 
Justice For All said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would vehemently oppose such an idea. When it comes to democratic republics, small is beautiful. I want to know my representative personally, and I want my representative to personally know me. My representative should be more concerned with how his friends and neighbors will react to his votes than how Monsanto will react to his vote. We are too big for that already, which is a major problem. There is no way I want to be one of ten million other people represented by my legislator.
 
I think a world government is the direction we're heading in anyway. Technology has brought the world closer together, and now we see people interacting across national boundaries in mere moments. Even people belonging to nations which are vehemently ideologically opposed can enjoy conversations and even work together. National boundaries are becoming fuzzy because of this. To me, it seems a world government is the next logical step.

Several posters have produced very good reasons to oppose a world government. But I think the reasons cited are simply poorly executed government. So if a world government takes into account the concerns, and many others, addressed here, then it could be beneficial for the human species. In my mind, no government is the best government, but until people are collectively mature enough to govern themselves we're stuck with that monkey on our back.
 
EagleAye said:
I think a world government is the direction we're heading in anyway. Technology has brought the world closer together, and now we see people interacting across national boundaries in mere moments. Even people belonging to nations which are vehemently ideologically opposed can enjoy conversations and even work together. National boundaries are becoming fuzzy because of this. To me, it seems a world government is the next logical step.

Several posters have produced very good reasons to oppose a world government. But I think the reasons cited are simply poorly executed government. So if a world government takes into account the concerns, and many others, addressed here, then it could be beneficial for the human species. In my mind, no government is the best government, but until people are collectively mature enough to govern themselves we're stuck with that monkey on our back.
Click to expand...

I dont see any logical reason why there should be one world government. Its like asserting that the US should be one state or that there is no reason to have county, city or town governments.
Or that I should live in a dormitory rather than my house.
 
EagleAye said:
Several posters have produced very good reasons to oppose a world government. But I think the reasons cited are simply poorly executed government. So if a world government takes into account the concerns, and many others, addressed here, then it could be beneficial for the human species. In my mind, no government is the best government, but until people are collectively mature enough to govern themselves we're stuck with that monkey on our back.
Click to expand...

So, you think that a world government could possibly be better-executed than a national, state, or local one? Talk about a catalyst for mass chaos and unrest. That would certainly be it.
 
A world government would just cause civil war. Then we would splinter up into countries. No matter how advance technology becomes people will still be people. And if the belief is that we will evolve into better civilized society like the romantics of science fiction predict, there isnt anything indicating that we are or would ever head that direction.
 
EagleAye said:
I think a world government is the direction we're heading in anyway. Technology has brought the world closer together, and now we see people interacting across national boundaries in mere moments. Even people belonging to nations which are vehemently ideologically opposed can enjoy conversations and even work together. National boundaries are becoming fuzzy because of this. To me, it seems a world government is the next logical step.
Click to expand...
I would argue that social and economic integration are separate from and do not require political integration. I am all in favor of people from different polities engaging in social and economic interaction. However, they don't all need to be ruled by the same government.
 
we have enough problems with a federal government that is too big and intrusive and that violates state rights
 
Maybe you guys weren't getting the idea that the countries themselves would act as the states and have states rights as the United States and then the states /provinces within the countries would act as the counties etc and so on. I wasn't saying the world would be one central federal government with no state borders. You gotta think a little broader. It'd be like the US model just alot bigger.
 
Justice For All said:
Maybe you guys weren't getting the idea that the countries themselves would act as the states and have states rights as the United States and then the states /provinces within the countries would act as the counties etc and so on. I wasn't saying the world would be one central federal government with no state borders. You gotta think a little broader. It'd be like the US model just alot bigger.
Click to expand...


yeah that is why I oppose it. our federal government is 10X the size it was supposed to be
 
No, a world government would be a disaster. How will you unite communists, Islamic theocracies, third world dictatorships, democratic countries, and other types of governments under the same leadership and government?

I'm even of the persuasion that the fed in our own country is too large and cannot govern people inappropriately. There is a drastic political difference between the Northeast and the Midwest. I support more state's rights to allow people to actually have their opinions and beliefs matter instead of being silenced or diluted by another person thousands of miles away in a different culture and with a different beliefs system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom