• 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!

world federation

best political form for government

  • communist dictatorship

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • sovereign anarchy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
For that very reason- people are too bogged down in tribal mentalities rather than being unified as humanity.

But why should we be united? For what?
 
But why should we be united? For what?

Why shouldn't we? Humanity has always grown more united through history, going from tribes to city-states, city-states to nations.
 
Could you post the stuff from your blog here, please? I don't feel particularly comfortable clicking around and making people rich on my expense. BTW, you can blog here (see "blogs" section above).

Anyway, why would we need a world federation? Who are we going to conspire against?

thanks for the blog advice .. will do it
we need a world federation because it will eradicate war and poverty all at once ... and crime and prostitution!
just think about a society where the government gave you everything you needed and wanted
then gave you the choice to have employment or education or time to pursue the arts or just veg out!
 
Why shouldn't we? Humanity has always grown more united through history, going from tribes to city-states, city-states to nations.

No, no, no, it's you that has to prove, not me. I'm not interested in your fantasies and wants, it's your business. Please, don't involve me.
 
No, no, no, it's you that has to prove, not me. I'm not interested in your fantasies and wants, it's your business. Please, don't involve me.

Humanity has always grown more united through history, going from tribes to city-states, city-states to nations.

In larger states we can pool resources, with better cooperation.
 
because it will eradicate war and poverty all at once... and crime and prostitution!

Have you even tried a prostitute?

just think about a society where the government gave you everything you needed and wanted
then gave you the choice to have employment or education or time to pursue the arts or just veg out!

A world where the government can give you all is a world where the government can also take it all. History shows it usually happens the last.
 
I have a question before we move on: are you newbies (hashmann and Saykine) with less than 20 posts, related in some way? Can a mod check if they are different persons, at least, please?
 
Have you even tried a prostitute?



A world where the government can give you all is a world where the government can also take it all. History shows it usually happens the last.

I recently read something from the MIT courseware .... utilitarianism .... it means that the government will structure policy so that it benefits the greater ....
we just need to trust the government ... what is the other option?

war in all the arab countries?
economic failure in the US and EU
 
I have a question before we move on: are you newbies (hashmann and Saykine) with less than 20 posts, related in some way? Can a mod check if they are different persons, at least, please?

I have disagreed with hashmann on several points in this thread, why would we be the same person?
 
what's the English civil war?

If you are unaware of the English Civil War and its consequences, you are not qualified to suggest any kind of political system. Go and do some studying and come back when you've learned about the origins of modern liberal democracy.
 
I have a question before we move on: are you newbies (hashmann and Saykine) with less than 20 posts, related in some way? Can a mod check if they are different persons, at least, please?

sorry I don't know Saykine .. not related ....not the same person ...
but I like him/her
 
yeah great .... there was unrest ... the monarch is still the monarch?

I won't say too much as it'll risk derailing the topic (if this topic was ever 'on the rails' to begin with..) but the English Civil War created a huge change in democratic politics, turning an Absolute Monarchy into a Constitutional Monarchy among other things.
 
Last edited:
I won't say too much as it'll risk derailing the topic (if this topic was ever 'on the rails' to begin with..) but the English Civil War created a huge change in democratic politics, turning an Absolute Monarchy into a Constitutional Monarchy.

I think you're focusing too much on terminology ....
I don't think the queen takes a back seat to politics
in Australia she sacked that whitlam guy a while ago
 
I won't say too much as it'll risk derailing the topic (if this topic was ever 'on the rails' to begin with..) but the English Civil War created a huge change in democratic politics, turning an Absolute Monarchy into a Constitutional Monarchy among other things.



Aww :)

are we being moderated?
I tried to say that the queen sacked an elected australian prime minister
 
I think you're focusing too much on terminology ....
I don't think the queen takes a back seat to politics
in Australia she sacked that whitlam guy a while ago

I'm not familiar with why Gough Whitlam was dismissed, but the fact remains that the Queen's powers are mostly symbolic.
 
I'm not familiar with why Gough Whitlam was dismissed, but the fact remains that the Queen's powers are mostly symbolic.

the queen can do whatever she wants whenever she wants and she does!
 
None of those. All of those dont sound very good to me.
 
the queen can do whatever she wants whenever she wants and she does!

Source?

Her powers are symbolic. For example, the British Armed Forces are owned by the Queen, but that doesn't mean that the Queen or anyone else in the Royal family can decide on foreign policy or start wars; that is for the Prime Minister and the other houses of government to decide.
 
Last edited:
Source?

Her powers are symbolic. For example, the British Armed Forces are owned by the Queen, but that doesn't mean that the Queen or anyone else in the Royal family can decide on foreign policy or start wars; that is for the Prime Minister and the other houses of government to decide.

If she is really symbolic, what is the point of having her .... why don't we get rid of her?
 
c'mon mate ... you have to choose .... this is the state of our government choice in present day?!?!

No im not choosing because none of those sound sufficient for me.
A social-democracy, or a democratic-socialist government would be my choice if they were up there.
 
Back
Top Bottom