What's the big deal? Why not a world wide government?

[VIDEODROME]

Why not everyone submit to the UN lolz

 

[slothman]

I'm not going to waste my time explaining basic concepts to you. Go crack open a book instead of asking really stupid questions.

Ohoh an "Ad hominem" attack.

Regardless, I don't think there should be a world gov't because the bigger the gov't the less representation.

 

[Original_Intent]

So children can work all day for a pittance, and when they go home there isn't enough rice in the bowl for the family.... That's OK by you?

"Thou shalt not steal" is a commandment.

I don;t remember the one about "Thou shalt not allow anyone on earth to go hungry.

The simple answer to your question is yes. And hypocrites who legalize theft for the so-called reason of caring for the poor - the biggest pile of B.S. in politics - deserve to be lined up and shot.

I am just waiting for the predictable "Thou shalt not kill" rejoinder.

 

[TastyWheat]

So children can work all day for a pittance, and when they go home there isn't enough rice in the bowl for the family.... That's OK by you?

It's okay by me. And I'll be goddamned if a global government is going to steal the food of my table to give it to someone on the other side of the world. What's wrong? Our government isn't socialist enough for you? We already give billions in taxpayer dollars to 3rd world countries with very little to show for it!

 

[jkr]

do you want ME telling you what to do?

i mean EVERYTING

 

[PaulaGem]

"Thou shalt not steal" is a commandment.

I don;t remember the one about "Thou shalt not allow anyone on earth to go hungry.

The simple answer to your question is yes. And hypocrites who legalize theft for the so-called reason of caring for the poor - the biggest pile of B.S. in politics - deserve to be lined up and shot.

I am just waiting for the predictable "Thou shalt not kill" rejoinder.

Actually, Yeshua said it was the most important one - "Love your neighbor as yourself", if you really loved others you would want to do everything in your power to see that they got basic human rights.

 

[LibertyEagle]

This sound wonderful except for that the fact that supreme power over the planet would be placed in the hands of a few very powerful people. Now let's assume that these few people truly have the best interest of humanity in mind and that they create a global utopia. Than I am sure everyone would be happy and would point to this as an example of how the system works. But let's assume again that the next group in line does not have the best interest of everyone in mind. Well these people would be in control of the world's food supply. These people would be in control of the world's police and military. So who is going to stop them??

We have a hard enough time trying to just take this country back so how in the hell would we ever be able to restore what once was once we have given our nation for the common good of humanity? The idea of a one world anything is just a bad idea.

^
This.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You have just validated my use of the term arbitrary.
-Geographic - pretty irrelevant in the age of modern transportation.
-Cultural - culture is being defined by the media nowadays and it is U.S. based corporations that are defining "culture".
-Religious this is a subset of culture. Truly Spiritual people don't recognize any of the boundaries you have described.
- Ethnic - You do realize that the concept of "race" is obsolete among anthropologists, don't you? Intermarriage is occurring at an ever increasing rate and ethnicity is a concept that is even more tenuous than race.
-Economic, you may disagree, but I believe that nationalistic economics are long gone.
- Resource differences - moot point. If a foreign entity gains economic control the resources no longer belong to the national entity.

You don't travel outside the US much do you?

The differences you mentioned as irrelevant and moot are still killing differences in much of the world.

They will continue to be.

You fail, in some Utopian fantasy, to realize that.

Further, the "will to power" will also remain a constant. Leaving a world government power structure open to that will is a recipe for global genocide.

 

[yoshimaroka]

#1 A world wide "sound money" system could be a good thing, couldn't it?

#2 What about universal "civil rights"? I've got no problem with this, do you?

#3 What if one of those "rights" is to not be hungry? I would share, wouldn't you?

#4 Let's face facts, we HAVE a global economy and that isn't going to change. We are contaminating the space we live in on a global scale, so we have to take responsibility on a global scale.

#4 The issue isn't the scale of government (world wide or arbitrary "nations") the issue is the source of the power - money or the consent of the governed, and the way it is exercised - to perpetuate power or for the good of mankind.

#5 The issue isn't if the system is "democratic" or "republican" or "communist" or "socialist", the issue is, are the rights of the people protected and is humanity as a whole going forward or backward?

#6 The issue is, is what happens to the rest of the world more important than what happens to you personally?

#1 Free market based? Is competition allowed or is it a centralized currency?

#2 & 3 Who enforces these "rights"? Through what bureaucracy?

#3 What if one of those "rights" is to not be hungry? I would share, wouldn't you?
Have you joined the Socialist International? I do share voluntarily but I wouldn't like to be forced to share by the barrel of a gun

#4 "Let's face facts", look, let me make myself clear, listen… lol.
Realize that governments are by far the biggest polluters on Earth. They also tilt the playing field in favour of multinational corporations. The free market is the best way to tackle these problems.

#5 False dichotomy? Red herring? You have a few fallacies in your statements.
Scale of government is a huge frikkin' issue. It means having a monopoly of violence over the whole world as opposed to a nation. It means policies that affect billions as opposed to millions of people. When a world government becomes tyrannical, where do you run to?

#6 Your framing your statements like a politician lol.
"The issue is, is what happens to the rest of the world more important than what happens to you personally?"
So individual vs collective:

Politics Is The Opiate Of The Masses

Theism is not the only kind of mysticism. Collectivist and political ideologies are also forms of mysticism. The nature of politics involves blind faith in a "highest essence". The abstractions of these "highest essences" function as arbitrary authorities to appeal to. The most common of these arbitrary and rhetorical authorities are "society", "nation", "state", "humanity", "race", "class" and "gender". In political ideology, these concepts function precisely in the same way as a deity. As a consequence of faith in these abstractions, individual human beings and/or certain collections of human beings are given the status of a deity. These concepts also all have one thing in common: they obscure the individual and turn the individual into a sacrificial peon to collective abstractions. In all cases, belief in something that doesn't exist (at least in the way concieved) functions as a mechanism to provide a plastic sense of meaning or identity.

While theism assigns a non-existant entity with rights not possessed by human beings, statism assigns certain human beings with rights not possessed by everyone else. While religious ideologies conflict over who rules the universe and how they do it, political ideologies conflict over who rules over other human beings and how they do it. In electoral politics, certain human beings are deified and people conflict over which deifed human being should rule over everyone else. For many people, the election rallies and political holidays are just as much of a "spiritual experience" as any religious ceremony at a fundamentalist christian church. People literally have faith in politicians, bureaucrats, nations, and states and they use that which is attributed to them as a way to legitimize their personal biases and their actions. The health of political power relies in large part on the exploitation of the religious impulse in the broadest sense through the use of rituals, symbolism, illusions, grandios promises, bread and circuses.

Many political assumptions are essentially forcibly inherented from parents and cultural norms, just like in theism. While religions tend to promise a utopia after death, political ideologies tend to promise a utopia during life. Both make use of fear and guilt and exploit the pessemism within people to elicit obedience. The morality of politics is based on arbitrary authority rather than reason. "The law" has the same functionality as a deity's alleged words or religious texts. The individual must submit in spite of their rational evaluation. Furthermore, politics provides a mechanism by which people can enforce their personal preferances and their incorrect conceptions of morality onto innocent bystanders. Politics is more dangerous than religion is by itself, since it is only through the mechanisms of politics that religion can be tyrannical on a large scale. Politics is the opiate of the masses.

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/br.../03/politics-is-the-opiate-of-the-masses.aspx

 

[10thAmendment]

A world wide "sound money" system could be a good thing, couldn't it?

What about universal "civil rights"? I've got no problem with this, do you?

What if one of those "rights" is to not be hungry? I would share, wouldn't you?

Let's face facts, we HAVE a global economy and that isn't going to change. We are contaminating the space we live in on a global scale, so we have to take responsibility on a global scale.

The issue isn't the scale of government (world wide or arbitrary "nations") the issue is the source of the power - money or the consent of the governed, and the way it is exercised - to perpetuate power or for the good of mankind.

The issue isn't if the system is "democratic" or "republican" or "communist" or "socialist", the issue is, are the rights of the people protected and is humanity as a whole going forward or backward?

The issue is, is what happens to the rest of the world more important than what happens to you personally?

You may be overlooking the following.

Regarding ANY government, the brighter crooks in any country, people smarter than you and me, have long since discovered that the easiest way to steal people's money is the following. You don't break into their houses to possibly get shot by the owner or the police. What you do is get yourself a nice suit and start telling everybody what they want to hear so that they will elect you to public office. Once in office you find ways to create disasters in order to justify raising taxes on people to remedy the disasters.

However, since the disasters that you created weren't real, you put the illegal taxes that you collected into a Swiss bank account and then start telling people how their taxes fixed the disaster.

Sounds like something that you'd only dream in a nightmare, doesn't it?

 

[nayjevin]

If there were only 2 people in the world, it would not matter to have one government system over the two of them, so long as they agree.

It becomes less fair the more people over which it rules - and the less agreement there is on rules.

A global government is the least fair form there could possibly be - regardless of the form of that government.

Such is the nature of state - the smaller, the better.

 

[Original_Intent]

Actually, Yeshua said it was the most important one - "Love your neighbor as yourself", if you really loved others you would want to do everything in your power to see that they got basic human rights.

Yep and it is an individual responsibility, not governments.

Stealing money from me to feed someone you (or government) deems worthy is not obeying that commandment. It is called theft.

Poor people voting money out of my pocket for their own benefit is not obeying that commandment.

Charity is only charity if it is given willingly - charity at gunpoint is theft.

You socialists trying to claim the moral high ground is complete B.S.

"Oh I am voting to take money from other people to feed the poor, what a wonderful person I am!" No sorry it makes you misguided at best and a terrible human being at worst (depending on how aware of your intellectual dishonesty you are.)

Go cuddle with your Communist manifesto, you freedom-hating parasite.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

Yep and it is an individual responsibility, not governments.

Stealing money from me to feed someone you (or government) deems worthy is not obeying that commandment. It is called theft.

Poor people voting money out of my pocket for their own benefit is not obeying that commandment.

Charity is only charity if it is given willingly - charity at gunpoint is theft.

You socialists trying to claim the moral high ground is complete B.S.

"Oh I am voting to take money from other people to feed the poor, what a wonderful person I am!" No sorry it makes you misguided at best and a terrible human being at worst (depending on how aware of your intellectual dishonesty you are.)

Go cuddle with your Communist manifesto, you freedom-hating parasite.

Here here!

 

[Dr.3D]

Here here!

I'll second that.

 

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Howdy,

There is no need for name-calling. I do agree that one large global government would leave less choice for people who disagreed with the policies of the regime.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

 

[Agent CSL]

Global governance is a nightmare. Within small communities, like states and counties, there is plenty of freedom for one county to have a different ideological view than another. That's why if one state fails due to bad policies, there is going to be another who is not in the red. In theory, if two states are not interwoven, then their failure is not the other state's issue.

In global governance you will have interdependence. You WILL pay for that state's mistake. The only way to have global government is to brainwash every man, woman and child to believe that taxation is a good thing, that helping the "unfortunate" through mandatory taxes is a good thing, general servitude is a good thing, and their ideas are a good thing.

In essence, global government is a religion all it's own and if you fail to follow it's customs you will be removed from the church.

 

[andrewh817]

Let's face facts, we HAVE a global economy and that isn't going to change. We are contaminating the space we live in on a global scale, so we have to take responsibility on a global scale.

The issue is, is what happens to the rest of the world more important than what happens to you personally?

Those first two sentences sound exactly like Obama rhetoric...... so many "we's. The biggest polluter in the world is the government! And by "taking responsibility on a global scale" do you mean you want someone else to take responsibility FOR YOU on global scale? Individual choices are the only things that can make a difference in taking care of our planet.

For true change to come about, people must LEAD BY EXAMPLE and NOT BY FORCE. If you think the Earth is too crowded, DON'T HAVE KIDS. Don't force everyone else not to. Government continues to spend and force us to cut spending through taxes. What they don't keep for themselves, they waste on invading countries with prized resources. A world government wouldn't even need to invade, they could just take whatever they want with the backing of any local law enforcement.

 

[andrewh817]

If there were only 2 people in the world, it would not matter to have one government system over the two of them, so long as they agree.

It becomes less fair the more people over which it rules - and the less agreement there is on rules.

A global government is the least fair form there could possibly be - regardless of the form of that government.

Such is the nature of state - the smaller, the better.

Exactly, there was a time when the US population was less than the population of most single states now. Our individual voices are heard less on the state level now then they were on the federal level back then...... that's something to think about. Overpopulation is to blame for so many problems in the world today.

 

[Objectivist]

A world wide "sound money" system could be a good thing, couldn't it?

What about universal "civil rights"? I've got no problem with this, do you?

What if one of those "rights" is to not be hungry? I would share, wouldn't you?

Let's face facts, we HAVE a global economy and that isn't going to change. We are contaminating the space we live in on a global scale, so we have to take responsibility on a global scale.

The issue isn't the scale of government (world wide or arbitrary "nations") the issue is the source of the power - money or the consent of the governed, and the way it is exercised - to perpetuate power or for the good of mankind.

The issue isn't if the system is "democratic" or "republican" or "communist" or "socialist", the issue is, are the rights of the people protected and is humanity as a whole going forward or backward?

The issue is, is what happens to the rest of the world more important than what happens to you personally?

Seeing that the balance of humanity lives under the oppression of others, I'll keep trying to make and keep the United States FREE! If you want a one world government try living in China or Saudi Arabia for awhile, then get back to us. I hear Zimbabwe is a hoot... you're not white are you?
Watch the wimp video in my sig.

 

[almantimes2]

The now banned he who pawns already made a thread on this.


Bottom line.

There Is no advantage.

No it will it not end war.

It will be harder to manage.

And history show's all governments eventually turn corrupt. Whats worse?

A government In north America Turns corrupt.
Or.

A GLOBAL government turns corrupt.