One World. One Government.

[SepulchreUK]

Yes ok this might have been inspired by watching Star Trek BUT what are your thoughts on a one world government?

Do you ever think we will see a one world government before the end of humanity?

If so, what style of government could you envisage?

If not, why not?

[Barry Goldwater]

The world government I see, should it ever come to pass?

A totalitarian police state. It would be the only way you could hold all of mankind together. That, or a 'democracy' that is actually an elitist, possibly corporatist oligarchy.

[tree151]

Absolutly not. If you can't create a one government for rival states, you sure can't bring diffrent ethinities and beliefs to one single government. and sadly, that means there would never be a chance for humanity to survive when a greater threat comes and tries to exterminate them, but as you know, that's only a second priority, after exterminating each other.

[Da Skinna]

Absolutly not. If you can't create a one government for rival states, you sure can't bring diffrent ethinities and beliefs to one single government. and sadly, that means there would never be a chance for humanity to survive when a greater threat comes and tries to exterminate them, but as you know, that's only a second priority, after exterminating each other.

Huh?

[Confederate Jeb]

No, especially considering it would probably be a socialist state.

But there won't be one.

[Oldgamer]

Yes ok this might have been inspired by watching Star Trek BUT what are your thoughts on a one world government?

Do you ever think we will see a one world government before the end of humanity?

If so, what style of government could you envisage?

If not, why not?

One world government will inevitably end in the worst of tyrannies, because the government will be so far removed from the people that it purports to represent. Also, what would a one-world government care about my rights, guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States?

Will the Muslims ever submit to a government whose leader is a Christian or a Jew? Will Christians or Jews ever submit to a government whose leader is a Muslim? One world government is a blueprint for endless civil war, on this planet.

I will not envisage any type of world government, nor will I ever submit to one. That would be when I exercise my Second Amendment right to defend myself and my country.

[Cluny the Scourge]

One world government will inevitably end in the worst of tyrannies, because the government will be so far removed from the people that it purports to represent.

It will function federally, each nation sending its own representatives and their national governments becoming a higher form of local-government with an elected National Governor.

Also, what would a one-world government care about my rights, guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States?

It will care about your rights, guaranteed to you by the Constitution of the Global Republic of Earth.

Will the Muslims ever submit to a government whose leader is a Christian or a Jew? Will Christians or Jews ever submit to a government whose leader is a Muslim?

Of course they will - they already do. Loyal Muslims live in the United States and other non-Muslim countries across the world, and likewise for Jews and Christians.

Plus the votes of those Muslim, Jewish and Christian global constituents will all be coveted by the President of Earth, so he will have to campaign each election on as broad a tent as possible like any democratic leader today.

And of course, the National Governor of each nation - acting as a US State Governor does today, for example - will still be whomever his national constituents voted for separately.

One world government is a blueprint...for endless civil war, on this planet.

"...for lasting peace and security world-wide."

I will not envisage any type of world government, nor will I ever submit to one. That would be when I exercise my Second Amendment right to defend myself and my country.

Meaning that you will grab a gun and start randomly shooting Federal officials, and planting fertiliser bombs in Federal buildings, irrespective of what the will of the people has been as manifested in their chosen elected officials.

In other words you will become a terrorist. And as I'm sure you know, Oldgamer, governments shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

[Antagonist88]

I don't think that there will ever be a united humanity or something like a world government. Such a thing would be just against human nature, always there will be the need to seperate from each other or the will to live at the expanse of others.

The only possibility was a world government by force, allthough I doubt that anyone could ever possibly achieve that, at no time in history, one talented leader or highly developed people was able to conquer the world.

Considering the hypotetical situation of a world gov:

Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, …has no charm for me. Robert E. Lee

[aarons got funky fresh]

One world, no government rather.

[Oldgamer]

One world, no government rather.

Anarchist ...

[Helm]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=223215

[Helm]

But you still need someone to tell everyone what to do. It doesn't really work otherwise.

[duda]

People might be smart like a few of us and be anarchist.
They might be kinda negative if they think totalitarianism is the solution.
But only the heavy optimists (guys who expect eggs in cuckoo clocks) will want democracy

[Oldgamer]

People might be smart like a few of us and be anarchist.

Don't get me wrong: I rather like anarchists. At the very least, they value their freedom, and desire liberty rather than security.

However, one world government won't even deliver security.

[Helm]

However, one world government won't even deliver security.

It could if backed by a one world army.

[Oldgamer]

It could if backed by a one world army.

They would need that one-world army, because millions (billions?) of people would not submit to one-world government.

[Oldgamer]

It could if backed by a one world army.

That's why I would become part of the "global resistance". One world government inevitably corrupts to one-world tyranny.

[Tiwaz]

People might be smart like a few of us and be anarchist.
They might be kinda negative if they think totalitarianism is the solution.
But only the heavy optimists (guys who expect eggs in cuckoo clocks) will want democracy

Smart? Anarchist?

Those are not words I would use together.

Anarchism is failed concept. It presumes that everyone gets along and does things which benefit the whole.

Most anarchists, or who support anarchism, are people who think they would be the leading figures. In reality, they would be prey for those who would take advantage from lack of structured society to carve a little fiefdom for themselves.


It tells something about disfunctionality of anarchism that there is nowhere stable, successful and reasonably large anarchist society.

Some anarchist communions have been attempted in USA for example, but within one generation they either have been abandoned or have been forced to become structured society with rules and rulers. "Every man for himself" just does not work.

[Helm]

Democracy is the worst system ever, except for all the alternatives.

[duda]

Agreed oldgamer