Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by admiralxgmx, Apr 10, 2009.
In case anywhos missed it, I was quoten ''SQUIDBILLIES'' thar!
The Borg is no longer a threat.
"World Government" is one of those ideas that may possibly sound appealing to some people, but it's like many abstractions in that it sounds like a good thing that nobody could have a problem with. Like the word 'unity"...it's a word that doesn't mean much if it's not in context, and dangerous because of that. The word "balance" also...people see it as positive but it actually is rather meaningless without context.
So, no, I don't see the need to have a world government. It may just sound good but we never really need it.
I'm curious. Do any of the same people who think we don't need a world government think that the United States (or, depending on your own location, your own 'federated' government) doesn't need *its* government and that all of the states should be individual countries?
In some countries there is such a thing as devolution. People feel more confident with local administration. They know that with that, their needs won't be ignored as readily, even though it costs them more in overheads.
One of the fears of broader governments is that revenue which your locality generates, gets diverted away from your locality towards the 'wealthier' and 'popular' areas.
Such happens all the time: The roads in your town get maintained, but the ones in the town centre get the most attention because they're on public view, and the towns "image" is judged on those. If you live on the fringes of the town, your road might be in poor condition, and it rarely get maintained because it's out of public view, so it's a low priority and it gets routinely ignored.
I think all nations previously a part of the British Empire should re-submit to British rule and we can go on from there.
They'd only beat us at cricket again. Especially the Americans.
Why do you believe in a United States government, but not a United World one?
I believe in both. Clearly the interests of the states are not ignored, given that the USA exists, so I don't see why taking this up a level wouldn't also work.
It's different for countries because there's something outside to unite against. (One view of Canadian Confederation is that the different provinces united to stop from being annexed into the US.)
Or, the other way around, it gets sent to poorer areas through equalization.
I don't think there should be a world government ... at least for now. I do however, think there should be a unified global effort to promote prosperity (and equal rights) and security to developing nations.
Like the Revolutionary War, for instance?
I've never seen any evidence of *that*. The US has never forcibly attempted to annex Canada or any part of it, that I'm aware of.
Some aspects of the war of 1812 involved an attempted American Annexation of Canada.
To answer your question I would say that I believe in the United States and not in a world government for several reasons.
If you live in the United States you have the US Constitution that establishes the law and the limits of government, and it works. History has shown that many countries and organizations do not do a good job at this (the EU and China being some examples). Also, by creating a one world government, we would have to have a government responsible for the wishes and security of 6 billion people. Not 300 million. 6 Billion. As it is, its hard enough pleasing every America, just sit back and imagine what it would be like trying to please 6 billion people. Next take into account the philosophical, social, and religious difference and you are asking for a mess.
The problem is fairly simple, really. If we had a one-world government, where could you flee to if the government became too oppressive?
I think a world government could work in some extremely limited form. Basically, something that would work to encourage trade and travel and protect individuals and their rights. Of course, something like that working perfectly would be very unlikely, but, ideally, it would be a government so limited that, if it failed, things would simply return to where they are now, not something worse.
I don't expect anything remotely close to my lifetime, so I'm not too worried about it.
There seems to be some debate on that point. Linky
And in any case, I believe Canadian confederation didn't occur until *decades* afterward? So it can hardly be considered a direct response.
It didn't have to occur directly after. It took a decade after independence for the United States to form into its current state for example. All thats necessarry is for people to remember the threat, and they will react in kind.
Also, I dont see where the debate is. Whether the US wanted to annex Canada or was only moving in to the territory for other reasons, the perceived threat was that the United States was going to expand into Canada
Governments are careful about how they appear in the international radar.
If there are no other governments to keep this world government in check, then it goes unregulated.
No government should be so strong that it can't be kept in check by the others. I think that's very important.
And if the government doesn't serve it's people well, for whatever reason, then there's nowhere for people to migrate to, or escape to. The people lose that choice, and have no refuge.
Under a world government, we would all be prisoners.
I voted for option 1 which is probably the only realistic way we'll get World Government. I don't believe that if it happens, it'll happen overnight, there are so many problems that must be surmounted first. Ideally it would be a secular, egalitarian, meritocratic, democratic, fairly liberal and tolerant (though not to some PC extreme), English speaking institution. How you'd achieve that, for instance down playing religion, or class/caste systems, getting non-English speakers to accept/learn English is beyond me, but I believe that moving towards a world of more countries and almost as many languages as there are people to speak them is a recipe for disaster. Look at the difficulties we're facing in confronting environmental problems or the 'credit crunch' Hopefully a world government would be better placed to tackle them.
i think it's inevitable...within the next century or 2 it will happen...
Separate names with a comma.