One World Government?

[AthianGuildmaster]

For a government on such a large scale to exist we must first lose the rights to freedom, happiness and all our rights to power and wealth. Human beings will cease to be anymore than property.

Really? I love these off-the-cuff bombasts. Could you quantify the scale of government at which "rights to freedom, happiness and all our rights to power and wealth" becomes lost? Could you also identify the how this scale might change with various factors that might effect your power, wealth and happiness?

Do you have money? Do you ever shop for shit you want? Are you allowed to go and do things that are pleasurable or relaxing to you? well lets say there is no money, you cant get stuff you want, and you most definenatly cannot do things that somebody told you isnt allowed. Little things makes you happy even if you dont notice it, imagine a world with no movies, tv, or any theme parks, video games. It's all gone, now you can only watch bill oriely, you live in an internment camp with your family, you cannot leave it, you cannot relax, you always work, and your never allowed to do anything to oppose your captors. You are property, no longer to be considerd human, because humans beings naturally want to gain wealth, they want to have the power to say no, and do what they want, they naturally try and do things to make them feel better or just better their situation. Well you cant in a one world government.

Im talking about the stuff your born with, not what somebody wrote on a peice of paper and said you can have.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold yer' horses there, mister. I'm talking about setting up a worldwide democratic system. What you're suggesting, that FEMA camp crap, is purely conspiracy. If I find that this is a conspiratorial group of atheists and freethinkers I will most surely delete my thread and leave you. That is not rational, that is not scientific. End of story.

[JohnDG]

A worldwide democratic system would be very easy to abuse, so it's not rational or scientific. You just can't give a few people that much power, it's insane to even consider what you can do as a worldwide government.

[AthianGuildmaster]

A worldwide democratic system would be very easy to abuse, so it's not rational or scientific. You just can't give a few people that much power, it's insane to even consider what you can do as a worldwide government.

This kind of crazy totalitarian world you seem to envision-which by the way makes me wonder if you're one of those Illuminati conspiracy theorists-would be no where near sustainable. A revolution would be warranted long before it even came to fruition.

It comes back to the question of what is the "right execution"? We don't want totalitarianism, we don't want an oligarchy. What we want is a true democracy with checks and balances sufficient enough to keep those in power from completely taking over. But how we execute the construction of said democracy is probably the most important question I would submit to you. The poll itself is meant to show me those who believe good world governance is essentially impossible.

Personally, I don't know if it's possible, but I sure hope it is and I'm not willing to entirely rule out the possibility that there exists a right way to achieve our ends.

[Autumnlicious]

For a government on such a large scale to exist we must first lose the rights to freedom, happiness and all our rights to power and wealth. Human beings will cease to be anymore than property.

Really? I love these off-the-cuff bombasts. Could you quantify the scale of government at which "rights to freedom, happiness and all our rights to power and wealth" becomes lost? Could you also identify the how this scale might change with various factors that might effect your power, wealth and happiness?

DOGPILE ON JOHN!

But really, John, what is this? I see a series of words, they have a syntax to them, but I just can't seem to understand exactly what it says. Is crazy a dialect of english?

[JohnDG]

I don't happen to believe in the illuminati conspiracy.... But from what I know and seen of people in our American government, it's all corrupt because humans naturally are. One worldwide government just could not work, although it could get allot done if your hoping every single person in the world is a good one. Only something like the U.N. or just the U.N. itself will ever be successful because it prevent's a complete worldwide power grab.

---

For a government on such a large scale to exist we must first lose the rights to freedom, happiness and all our rights to power and wealth. Human beings will cease to be anymore than property.

Really? I love these off-the-cuff bombasts. Could you quantify the scale of government at which "rights to freedom, happiness and all our rights to power and wealth" becomes lost? Could you also identify the how this scale might change with various factors that might effect your power, wealth and happiness?

DOGPILE ON JOHN!

But really, John, what is this? I see a series of words, they have a syntax to them, but I just can't seem to understand exactly what it says. Is crazy a dialect of english?

funny, I thought everyone else was talking crazy..

[Autumnlicious]

The same kind of argument you made would've been made from an 16th century philosopher, who knows only of the small states of Europe, when asked if it was possible to rule the large tract of land that is the United States with one government.

[AthianGuildmaster]

I think more so governing a large number of people, such as in China, is a better example, but your point is well taken. The kinds of governments that exist today are far larger than they would been say before the existence of the Spanish Empire. The same reasoning would have been used back then to argue that such large governments could not possibly exist. It is simply a claim with no basis in reality. We don't know what the limit is to how large a government can be let alone how powerful a state can become.

It could very well be that governing seven or eight billion people is nothing for the next level of governance. That's what we're here to talk about: what might be the "right execution" of a direct democratic world system? What could it look like? Frankly, I'm yet to see a valid argument demonstrating that it's impossible to have a good one world government. I think therein lies the burden of proof, on whosoever doubts the ingenuity of mankind when it's been shown time and again to be triumphant in almost all we set our sights on.

[Ashendant]

I always though it would be a counciliar with each member from each continent representing supranational unions

There are a lot of countries following the steps of the EU due to it's success

[Shell B]

My problem with a one world government, well, my main problem, is that it seems you would lose the cultural diversity that we enjoy -- for lack of a better word -- today. I can't imagine a single government being able to rule all of the varied peoples on this planet. The thought is actually frightening to me. Let's say we do have a one world government, what are the chances that indigenous rainforest people will be represented in said government? They will become subject to laws that simply should not apply to them. They would be ruled by people who simply don't understand their culture. This would be true on varying scales throughout the world.

[AthianGuildmaster]

I always though it would be a counciliar with each member from each continent representing supranational unions

There are a lot of countries following the steps of the EU due to it's success

That's the same thing I was thinking. I think that would be best. But perhaps there would be a manager or single representative of the Council, a person who is indirectly elected by the people. Maybe there would be some sort of assembly with officials delegated by local governments to elect a leader of some kind.

My problem with a one world government, well, my main problem, is that it seems you would lose the cultural diversity that we enjoy -- for lack of a better word -- today. I can't imagine a single government being able to rule all of the varied peoples on this planet. The thought is actually frightening to me. Let's say we do have a one world government, what are the chances that indigenous rainforest people will be represented in said government? They will become subject to laws that simply should not apply to them. They would be ruled by people who simply don't understand their culture. This would be true on varying scales throughout the world.

I would imagine that special zones would be set aside for these indigenous populations. But on the larger note, cultures will inevitably intermix even without a one world government. The diversity I think would live on in the form of subcultures, but all contributing periodically to a new worldwide culture.