• 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!

One World Government

what do you think about One World Government ?

  • Stuff of my wet dreams !

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • pretty cool !

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • who cares ?

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • thats a bad idea ...

    Votes: 11 31.4%
  • over my dead body ! ! !

    Votes: 19 54.3%

  • Total voters
    35
I realize that there is much fear of such a unification occurring. But with the millions of disagreements countries have, and with the difficulty the EU has everyday, I would say there is no real significance for these fears. I do not find such a situation disireable, and would venture to say that many do not. The diversity makes the world rich and I think it will be preserved.
 
I realize that there is much fear of such a unification occurring. But with the millions of disagreements countries have, and with the difficulty the EU has everyday, I would say there is no real significance for these fears. I do not find such a situation disireable, and would venture to say that many do not. The diversity makes the world rich and I think it will be preserved.

point 1: public opinion is shaped by the media which if the globalists don't already own they can always buy.

point 2: who says the people have any say in this ? politicians in public statements will say whatever will make people happy then will vote for whatever they have been paid to vote for.

think Iraq - when there is a will there is a way. will on the part of the globalists that is.
 
Last edited:
point 1: public opinion is shaped by the media which if the globalists don't already own they can always buy.

point 2: who says the people have any say in this ? politicians in public statements will say whatever will make people happy then will vote for whatever they have been paid to vote for.

think Iraq - when there is a will there is a way. will on the part of the globalists that is.

Have you read Marx? He says what you are saying as well. Capitalism will conquere the globe, national boundaries will be obliterated, and communism will arise from the development of the have's and the have nots.
 
Capitalism will conquere the globe, national boundaries will be obliterated, and communism will arise from the development of the have's and the have nots.

yeah and somewhere in between a couple billion people may die in concentration camps for trying to have a revolution.
 
Last edited:
yeah and somewhere in between a couple billion people may die in concentration camps for trying to have a revolution.

Billion may be too large a number. People are much more sheep than wolf.
 
as it is being pushed onto us - what do you think about it ?

If it's in the form of a pluralist liberal democratic government then yes I see it as being a huge and necessary step for humanity to make the leap from Type 0 to Type 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale.

* Type I — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet — has approximately 1016 or 1017 W available.[2] Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74 × 1017 W (174 petawatts, see Earth's energy budget). Kardashev's original definition was 4 × 1012 W — a "technological level close to the level presently attained on earth" (presently meaning 1964).[3]
* Type II — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 4 × 1026 W.[2] Again, this figure is variable; the Sun outputs approximately 3.86 × 1026 W. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 × 1026 W.[3]
* Type III — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 4 × 1037 W.[2] This figure is extremely variable, since galaxies vary widely in size; the stated figure is the approximate power output of the Milky Way. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 × 1037 W.[3]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale]Kardashev scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Too many sectional differences to make it work properly. We (humanity) haven't really thought of ourselves as citizens of a world body so much as being citizens of whatever state or nationality we reside in.
 
If it's in the form of a pluralist liberal democratic government then yes I see it as being a huge and necessary step for humanity to make the leap from Type 0 to Type 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale.

* Type I — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet — has approximately 1016 or 1017 W available.[2] Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74 × 1017 W (174 petawatts, see Earth's energy budget). Kardashev's original definition was 4 × 1012 W — a "technological level close to the level presently attained on earth" (presently meaning 1964).[3]
* Type II — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 4 × 1026 W.[2] Again, this figure is variable; the Sun outputs approximately 3.86 × 1026 W. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 × 1026 W.[3]
* Type III — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 4 × 1037 W.[2] This figure is extremely variable, since galaxies vary widely in size; the stated figure is the approximate power output of the Milky Way. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 × 1037 W.[3]

Kardashev scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again someone comes out with this stuff.:rofl

What about the federation and Star fleet, we'll need them first surely.:lol:

Anyway democratic gov't of billions is mostly meaningless and liberal gov't even more so. The individual would be virtually nothing compared to the mass, he'd have basically no oversight to make the gov't accountable. Personally I'd rather have smaller than larger governing units with only co-ordination taking place at any level above the nation, or even region. And I certainly do not share the technocratic, gigantist wet dream of that scale. I prefer the human scale.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for just jutting in, but maybe independent systems, with just one overarching system? Like the USA inside the U.N.?
 
Again someone comes out with this stuff.:rofl

What about the federation and Star fleet, we'll need them first surely.:lol:

I'm not sure why you mock and dismiss the next step in human evolution as a joke.
 
I'm not sure why you mock and dismiss the next step in human evolution as a joke.

Because it is speculative and I reject it as "the next step". Don't try and foist your technocratic dreams onto me and call it "evolution". My idea of a progressive step for humanity is very different to an ever increasing reliance of mass society, mass technology and giant organisation. It seems to sum up Orwell's idea of the future of as a boot stamping on a human, or perhaps the better word is individuals, face forever.

I believe in the human scale, smaller gov't in its scope, its size and area, less centralised organisations, more regional and local power and self-sufficiency, more huma-scale, appropriate technology, a better integration of rural and urban with an increased importance for agriculture and an economy and society that supports society better and supports individuals better so they can better find stability, liberty and individuality, not this run away fantasy that to me looks more like a nightmare. Tell me where is the human scale in this nightmare? When you talk of harnessing the power of planets, stars and galaxies how are you ever to remember the individual, the family, the local community those things that really matter.

My hero's in this regard are the likes of Peter Kropotkin, William Morris, Lewis Mumford, Kirkpatrick Sale, Chesterbelloc and E.F Schumacher not Gene Rodenberry and Albert Speer.
 
Last edited:
Again someone comes out with this stuff.:rofl

What about the federation and Star fleet, we'll need them first surely.:lol:

Anyway democratic gov't of billions is mostly meaningless and liberal gov't even more so. The individual would be virtually nothing compared to the mass, he'd have basically no oversight to make the gov't accountable. Personally I'd rather have smaller than larger governing units with only co-ordination taking place at any level above the nation, or even region. And I certainly do not share the technocratic, gigantist wet dream of that scale. I prefer the human scale.

Meh the American Republic proved that wrong, as long as you have states within unions population size doesn't matter.
 
Rather childish selections, so - no vote.
A "one-world" government is many years, probably centuries ahead.
Right now, we do not begin to the the quality of people for this.... and we may never have these people...

Wow... ok... At the stage we're at now, the 'right major world crisis' would be enough to bring the world into the 'new world order' according to Rockefeller in his book 'memoirs'.

How does the quality of people have anything to do with anything?? This is also aligned with 'elites' viewpoints that between 70-95% of humanity has got to go... I could point you to a few different sources (UN biodiversity study calls for 80% reduction in 1996)

Are you aware that through treaty, US, Canada and Mexico are already united in the same way sense that there is a 'european union'... It's been about 5-6 years already.


after WW3 or a super pandemic and the deaths of 4 to 5 billions in the "developing" countries to the extent that only "civil" and educated peoples are left, maybe such a government could be formed....

Until then, why even try? It is an impossible task.:2wave:

Exept that about 3/4 of the countries in the world are either in-line with these objectives, or decidedly 'enemies' of this system.... those are the countries that we would call 'rogue states'.

Billion may be too large a number. People are much more sheep than wolf.

Look at the 'georgia guidestones', that monument calls for a world population of 500million people in perpetuity.

Sorry for just jutting in, but maybe independent systems, with just one overarching system? Like the USA inside the U.N.?

The problem is that the reality of the situation is alot close to the UN dictating laws to the various countries of the world.
 
Meh the American Republic proved that wrong, as long as you have states within unions population size doesn't matter.

I disagree completely, the American republic has tried its hardest to fight against this, and partially succeeded, but it has still succumbed. The federal gov't has grown massively in power at the expense of locales and states and accountability and restraints have decreased. The American republic is an admirable example that safeguards can have some effects but can't hold the inevitable tide for ever.
 
The World Government you are talking about is real. It is almost inevitable. The process began in earnest after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. The equally bipolar nature of the world at that time was a big decelerator. So what’s pertinent is not whether but when. There are two broad ways in which this can go:
1. Hegemony of the already powerful and prosperous nations
2. An all-inclusive, though a comparatively much slower process
This will largely depend on which pattern of development is adopted. I’d fathom that there will be a hegemony of the powerful nations first. Therefore what is critical is the pattern of development adopted. The dominant paradigm of development based on intensive modernisation is conducive to scenario 1 and would accelerate it. Equitable distribution of profits and liberation perspectives would favour scenario 2. So the debate on the nature and currency of the world government is largely dependant on what are the policies adopted towards that end. I’d say that as of now, the world is steadfastly moving towards scenario 1 as the modernisation perspective is in favour.
To see the composition of the world government primarily as a hegemony of the most powerful nations and opposing them blindly is being highly unrealistic. It is a mistake made by most members of the anti-globalisation movement. This mirrors an inability to realise the fact that the various power centres of the world are interlocking, interdependent and well networked. The hegemony itself is inevitable. The concern should be the composition of the world government in terms of policies, ideology, etc. Failure to recognise this, particularly in less educated developing nations might lead to a lot of bloodshed in the near future.
It is best if the world government, instead of endorsing the dominant forces of today, introduced itself as being an all-inclusive medium wherein the world as it is today changes to the least possible degree.
 
I disagree completely, the American republic has tried its hardest to fight against this, and partially succeeded, but it has still succumbed. The federal gov't has grown massively in power at the expense of locales and states and accountability and restraints have decreased. The American republic is an admirable example that safeguards can have some effects but can't hold the inevitable tide for ever.

The power of the government has increased, however, we have still maintained a liberal democracy. You asserted that with such a high population under a world government democracy and liberalism would essentially be meaningless, however, if anything as population size in the American Republic increased so too have the rights of the individual IE total incorporation plus of the Federal Bill of Rights into the states through the SCOTUS's interpretations of the due process clause of the 14 amendment.
 
Last edited:
One human civilization.

Unlimited free trade.

No government.
 
The power of the government has increased, however, we have still maintained a liberal democracy. You asserted that with such a high population under a world government democracy and liberalism would essentially be meaningless, however, if anything as population size in the American Republic increased so too have the rights of the individual IE total incorporation plus of the Federal Bill of Rights into the states through the SCOTUS's interpretations of the due process clause of the 14 amendment.
Well okay I agree I did go a little too far; democracy would be meaningless, whether the society would be liberal and in what sense and for how long is not certain but I would think its liberality would be no better than ours at the best and be very precarious at the best. As a decentralist I do think therefore it would be in a worse position than a more decentralised society in this sense and in several others like the economy, society, culture and such.
 
Last edited:
Well okay I agree I did go a little too far; democracy would be meaningless, whether the society would be liberal and in what sense and for how long is not certain but I would think its liberality would be no better than ours at the best and be very precarious at the best.

Our liberality is greater than it's ever been. On what basis do you make the claim that increased population size has a causal relationship on diminished liberalness? Within the structures of existing liberal societies it appears to me that the exact inverse is true. That's not to say that there is a causal relationship between increased population size and increased liberalism, however, there does appear to be a correlation.
 
Our liberality is greater than it's ever been.
I disagree, the state is larger and more intrusive than ever and it hardly looks likely to become less so in the near-future.

On what basis do you make the claim that increased population size has a causal relationship on diminished liberalness?
A knowledge of hunanity and history. Germany went to war 14 times, if memory serves, in about 800 years before it unified, it produced a flourishing culture and civilisation. After unification it embarked on three massive wars in a less than a century.

When gov't is small it is easier for the individual to check, he has a voice, he can maintain some oversight of it and have a hope of keeping it accountable.

Within the structures of existing liberal societies it appears to me that the exact inverse is true. That's not to say that there is a causal relationship between increased population size and increased liberalism, however, there does appear to be a correlation.
I don't see that at all. Ever since the EU keeps getting involved more and more in British affairs our liberties are becoming more and more restricted. You can't even smoke in a private bar any more.
 
Sorry for just jutting in, but maybe independent systems, with just one overarching system? Like the USA inside the U.N.?

What about it?
 
I disagree, the state is larger and more intrusive than ever and it hardly looks likely to become less so in the near-future.

Not in the U.S. due to total and partial incorporation of the bill of rights into the states.

A knowledge of hunanity and history. Germany went to war 14 times, if memory serves, in about 800 years before it unified, it produced a flourishing culture and civilisation. After unification it embarked on three massive wars in a less than a century.

When gov't is small it is easier for the individual to check, he has a voice, he can maintain some oversight of it and have a hope of keeping it accountable.

Today Germany has a larger population than it did when those wars were fought and they certainly are far more liberal than they have ever been.

I don't see that at all. Ever since the EU keeps getting involved more and more in British affairs our liberties are becoming more and more restricted. You can't even smoke in a private bar any more.

You may not be able to smoke in a bar but you can vote for your leadership, there is universal suffrage, slavery is outlawed, being gay is not a criminal offense, discrimination based on race, creed, or religion is not permitted, you can't be hung for pickpocketing, child labour is not allowed, etc etc..
 
Back
Top Bottom