World Government

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Kazmarov, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Do you believe world government (a unitary government that incorporates countries into some larger form- a confederation, federation or republic) is a good idea at some point? Do you support increasing or decreasing the strength of international organizations like the World Bank, the IMF, and the United Nations in influencing world policy and pressuring action?
     

  2. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I don't even think small governments work. I'd be scared shitless of a person who thinks they could unite the world under one system. People are way too selfish, greedy, and territorial to live in a world society.

    It's laughable.
     
    pro2A and MenInTights like this.
  3. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    The world is huge (duh!) and I've seen governments that manage a small community fail. So I wouldn't be able to put much faith in a government that rules the whole world. At least on a country by country basis, the government is governing people with similiar climates, cultures and the like. The issues are similiar from one person to another within a country. If there was just one government for the whole world, it would be a huge undertaking to try and appease everyone. If a government can't make a everyone in the country happy, then how would a world one do any better?
     
  4. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Well a global government would have no clear majority on anything, so all decisions would have to be made with a broad consensus. It's actually an argument from James Madison- that republics actually work better in a large scale because there's less domination by interests. Even America has problems on occasion with interests seizing control, so why not go bigger?
     
  5. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    Sorry my knowledge of politics is very basic =P I don't understand how a system that has a hard time working on a small scale would work better in the large scale. If you increase the size of the governed population, wouldn't the problems just increase in size as well?
     
  6. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Think of a city-state. In the city, 75% of these people are Reds and 25% of them are Blues. The Reds, despite the city being a republic, control everything and easily can do whatever they want to the Blues.

    Think of the country of Freedonia. It is much bigger than the city-state. 33% are Reds, 33% are Blues and 33% are Greens. Because there are more interests and nobody has a majority, all decisions are rooted in agreement and compromise.

    In a world government, only a quarter of voters would be Christian, a quarter would be Muslim, a quarter would be eastern folk religion, and the remainder would be Hindu, non-believers, etc. Thus, how could one maintain religious persecution? Or racial persecution?
     
  7. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    Personally, I believe we are very close to implementing global governance. Most of the other big leaders of the world are calling for it now, America is just not paying attention. As a Christian, I see it as inevitable. The Bible cleary says there will be one government based in Europe, Babalyon will be rebuilt and we will all use the same electronic currency. I see it every day. I don't approve of it at all, but if its to be, so be it.
     
    Mirage likes this.
  8. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.


    Oh, okay, I get it lol. Since all the different majorities will be smaller, they won't be able to pressure certain things into being an issue. I can see how that would work better.
     
  9. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    A world government would go a long way towards fixing the problem of nations being self-destructively uncooperative due to a lack of trust. Really, good governments mainly just exist to facilitate trust and cooperation. Consider the stag hunt as an analogy, where a person can choose to try to hunt a stag or a rabbit, but will only succeed at bagging a stag if someone else cooperates. If that persons actions are a complete unknown, it makes more sense to hunt the rabbit to ensure you don't starve, despite the stag being a greater prize. The modern world and all its advantages are built on trust and cooperation, and it would seem that everyone could win out if we could trust a nation to e.g. build nuclear reactors without building nuclear bombs to be used on another.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2009
  10. Bjarki

    Bjarki Registered Member

    There should always be a place to go to incase your own government starts being repressive. Furthermore, I think it's virtually impossible with the current conflicting interests. Only on an economic level a world government is 'desirable' (well desirable.. profitable.).

    It would be the ruin of all cultural diversity and almost surely end in religion-inspired civil wars. No thanks.
     

Share This Page