One World Government

[Rin]

When you hear the concept of a world government, what is your initial reaction? Are you generally more positive or negative towards such a possibility?

Going beyond your initial reaction, what causes you to feel that way? Do you feel that it would be a cesspool of corruption or a force for universal peace? Perhaps it is a nice idea but totally impractical? Why?

 

[BucephalusBB]

More possitive, but as overshadowing organisation of the standalone governments. Also, not in this era.. We are still getting used to the world being connected.

 

[Sunstone]

I think there's a role for international organizations like the UN. I am less happy with the notion of one world government. But whether I'm happy or not with it, such a thing might be coming.

Since the 1200s, there has not been a case in history when government did not expand to embrace economic unity. The world is becoming economically unified, and so if the trend continues, government will expand to embrace that unity.

 

[te_lanus]

When you hear the concept of a world government, what is your initial reaction? Are you generally more positive or negative towards such a possibility?

I'm quite neutral to a idea of one world government

Going beyond your initial reaction, what causes you to feel that way? Do you feel that it would be a cesspool of corruption or a force for universal peace? Perhaps it is a nice idea but totally impractical? Why?

Methinks that as a species we have never in history been able to come together for any long period of time. For a "one world government" to work we will have to work together, which we never could do.

Also there is a lot of countries who will never give up their independence:E.G. North-Korea, Iran, etc. also if one look at the UN it is a miserable failure to do anything, except having a discussion about something.

Also corruption would be rife in centers not close to the main government hub.

 

[Kathryn]

To twist a prhase a bit:

Government corrupts, and absolute government corrupts absolutely.

I have yet to see a government entity work within a predefined budget, finish a project within the proposed timeframe, or contain costs, paperwork, or policy manuals in any sane manner.

I have, however, seen private individuals and companies do all of the above quite well.

 

[BucephalusBB]

To twist a prhase a bit:

Government corrupts, and absolute government corrupts absolutely.

To twist that even more, opposite governments actually have reasons to get into war. An absolute government only has disadvantages in war.

 

[Kathryn]

An absolute government will war against the people it governs.

 

[Rin]

An absolute government will war against the people it governs.

You could change the nature of government. For example. the DWG propose that elected officials must be recorded at all times to ensure absolute transparency. Obviously imperfect but other steps could be taken to ensure that the government is made up of elected officials who are literally the will of the people.

 

[Gino Cerutti]

I think that we need more collaboration among countries and peoples. What do I think about One World Government? It depends on different thinks:
1. Different countries have different problems, so a lot of autonomy to different countries should remain. I think that differences are richness.
2. "One World Government" should be democratic.

Therefore I don't vote the above poll.

 

[Storm]

I voted "Other." My first reaction is to demand details.

 

[Gino Cerutti]

I voted "Other." My first reaction is to demand details.

Good idea.

 

[RomCat]

Fear.
Authority should be exercised at the lowest level possible.
This is our greatest insurance against being ruled by tyrants.

 

[Aquitaine]

I voted Positive because that was my hoenst reaction to it, I like the idea of the "utopian one-world Government" where there's no more wars and we're finally co-operating as a species.

Although it's not as simple as that.

It could go either one of two ways:

1) Really good, we get Peace, Economic Stability, Unification etc. (less likely)
2) Really bad, we get even more Tyrants, and even less chance to "break free from the system". (More likely)

 

[te_lanus]

Fear.
Authority should be exercised at the lowest level possible.
This is our greatest insurance against being ruled by tyrants.

Ya, I think also that if there is only one world government it could easy give rise to a tyrant like Hitler, Who would kill of everybody he hates, or Bob Mugabe, Who says %$#@ the rest I'm living for me and "my" People and let the rest die of hunger and malnutrition.

 

[Mister Emu]

I almost picked other instead of negative, because I'm not sure "negative" conveys the true extent of what I feel towards one-world government...

Then, I thought... it'd be ok if I was the one-world government sovereign mwahahaha! I'd be benevolent Vote Emu, King of the World!

Seriously, I think it would be a terrible idea... either it would be akin to the U.N. and be ultimately powerless, as the nations would retain their sovereignity, or it would end up a ruthless dictatorship(maybe not immediately, but some time) and then the world is screwed...

 

[Twilight Hue]

You could change the nature of government. For example. the DWG propose that elected officials must be recorded at all times to ensure absolute transparency. Obviously imperfect but other steps could be taken to ensure that the government is made up of elected officials who are literally the will of the people.

That's nice conceptually, but such a system could hardly be maintained and monitored if even at all on a local or regional level, not much less than that on a global scale. I ask just how many of those today holding positions of power and/or a strong political/economic influence abide by written laws or regulations without any fear of reprisal should they choose to wantonly break them? I share Kathryn's view that it will for the most part to eventually end up warring against the people it governs using (I would surmise based on what is being developed now) paramilitary style police and intense surveillance deployed just about everywhere you could think of. Of course always in the name of "safety" and "security". Ahem....

I'll stay with local governorship where I could always choose to retreat to a better run environment should one cross the line. In a world scenario, there is simply nowhere for people to retreat to which would mean very bad news.

 

[idea]

Very negative.

Monopolies are bad – agreed? What happens when one company controls a resource like medicine, fuel, communications, News, etc. etc. Bad things happen. It is much better to have multiple companies all providing the same product so that the consumer has a choice / competition drives the price down, the product is not unavailable if something goes wrong with one company.

The same for governments. World order is the equivalent of a monopoly. Too much power in the hands of too few. I’m for lots of little companies, not one big one. I’m also for lots of small countries that are locally governed by people who are not far removed from the people. It is impossible for a person, or an organization, to rule something as large and diverse as the world without taking freedoms from everyone.

 

[idea]

You could change the nature of government. For example. the DWG propose that elected officials must be recorded at all times to ensure absolute transparency. Obviously imperfect but other steps could be taken to ensure that the government is made up of elected officials who are literally the will of the people.

How can a single official represent the will of the entire world? Obviously the world is made up of as many wills as the number of people in it. What works for one region, is not going to work with another. cultures are too different. If you force one mandate to work for everyone, you will be forcing everyone to abandon their culture/will.

Small local community/town - you can get consensus on what to teach in school, who should pay for the roads, local laws etc. etc. that work for those specific people's wants. The smaller the community, the smaller the country, the better the gov can be at representing the will of the people.

Examples:
-Small town of farmers where people live off the land - these people need guns to get food. Big city where people do not live off the land, might need a different set of arms regulations.
-Some people live where it is OK to own pigs/horses/chickens. Other people live where that kind of a pet would not be good.
-Those living ina swamp should have different water rights than those living in a desert. etc. ect.


different people need different things. How can anyone possibly make universal laws that apply to everyone? To say no one gets a gun deprives some people of food. etc. etc.

Try to control too large of a group of people, and you have diverse wills. It becomes impossible to represent everyone's will.


This is one reason I think the Fed gov should back off and let states govern themselves.

 

[England my lionheart]

When you hear the concept of a world government, what is your initial reaction? Are you generally more positive or negative towards such a possibility?

My initial reaction is negative,in fact the idea of a world Government sends shivers down my spine.

Going beyond your initial reaction, what causes you to feel that way? Do you feel that it would be a cesspool of corruption or a force for universal peace? Perhaps it is a nice idea but totally impractical? Why?

One only has to look at the UN or the EU to see what happens,the UN takes months if not years to make a decision and has become a useless organisation IMO and almost as bad as the EU because when a Government or organisation becomes that big it loses touch with the people it represents.

 

[YmirGF]

One only has to look at the UN or the EU to see what happens,the UN takes months if not years to make a decision and has become a useless organisation IMO and almost as bad as the EU because when a Government or organisation becomes that big it loses touch with the people it represents.

I think that is the point, England. I do not see how any world government could be formed, even in the distant future, that would reflect the beliefs and aspirations of all the citizens of Earth. Invariably there would be nations that opted out due to something or other.