Political Crossfire Forums

[IMPERATOR CAESAR]

A world Government would do a great service to mankind. It would force countries and races to work together. And the structure of a world government would be similar to the what we have in the US. At the bottom of things there would be the village, or city. Next the county, then the state, and the federal government. THEN, all the governments would make laws for themselves, but would be responsible for enforcing laws made by the world government.

But if this government ever gets off the ground, it will pool the worlds resources in to one large pot, that would be a breeding ground for technological improvements. A world government would also allow developing countries to move faster, as well as under-developed ones.

[CeleronAcheronius]

IMPERATOR CAESAR wrote: A world Government would do a great service to mankind. It would force countries and races to work together. And the structure of a world government would be similar to the what we have in the US. At the bottom of things there would be the village, or city. Next the county, then the state, and the federal government. THEN, all the governments would make laws for themselves, but would be responsible for enforcing laws made by the world government.

But if this government ever gets off the ground, it will pool the worlds resources in to one large pot, that would be a breeding ground for technological improvements. A world government would also allow developing countries to move faster, as well as under-developed ones.

Ah, but rebellion would kinda screw that up wouldn't it? The point of the matter is however good a world government might seem, it is simply impossible. The only way to keep the illusion of the world under a single banner would be totalitarinium/a police state, and there is something inherently wrong in these systems. They are programed to implode. More stableity and more progress would be made in the world as it is.

-Celeron

[Eonve]

CeleronAcheronius wrote:
Ah, but rebellion would kinda screw that up wouldn't it? The point of the matter is however good a world government might seem, it is simply impossible. The only way to keep the illusion of the world under a single banner would be totalitarinium/a police state, and there is something inherently wrong in these systems. They are programed to implode. More stableity and more progress would be made in the world as it is.

-Celeron

wrong. wrong. wrong.

world government is inevitable. sooner or later it will come to being. and we only make things worse by resisting it. if we would realize the inevitability of it and the benefits it is going to bring, it would come much faster and would cost us less.

and there is no need for a totalitarian/police state. it can exist on other premises. look at the EU, for example. it is neither a totalitarian nor a police state, but year after year it brings European countries closer and closer together. while it has not yet acquired all the characteristics of national governments, it is steadily moving in that direction and eventually it will be there. i think that the same kind of process is certainly possible on a global scale. true, it would take a lot of time to achieve ultimate success, but this is a different matter.

[CeleronAcheronius]

Eonve wrote: CeleronAcheronius wrote:
Ah, but rebellion would kinda screw that up wouldn't it? The point of the matter is however good a world government might seem, it is simply impossible. The only way to keep the illusion of the world under a single banner would be totalitarinium/a police state, and there is something inherently wrong in these systems. They are programed to implode. More stableity and more progress would be made in the world as it is.

-Celeron

wrong. wrong. wrong.

world government is inevitable. sooner or later it will come to being. and we only make things worse by resisting it. if we would realize the inevitability of it and the benefits it is going to bring, it would come much faster and would cost us less.

and there is no need for a totalitarian/police state. it can exist on other premises. look at the EU, for example. it is neither a totalitarian nor a police state, but year after year it brings European countries closer and closer together. while it has not yet acquired all the characteristics of national governments, it is steadily moving in that direction and eventually it will be there. i think that the same kind of process is certainly possible on a global scale. true, it would take a lot of time to achieve ultimate success, but this is a different matter.

Right, Right, Right. As inevitable as a world government is(That I don't refute) just as inevitable is the "resistance" you speak of above. you say it would "only make things worse by resisting it" and it is true, but unfourtainantly there will be droves of people who will, many violently. The EU is a fallacius example. It is a loose bond of friendship between a bunch of countries that are very much alike. A world government would be forceing together a lot of people who hate eachother, and a lot of nations that just hate everybody. No muslim(radical) would allow a christain to rule over him. How many people in india would sit idley by is a man from pakistan was in office. Old tradition and animosity play a huge role into this, and this seems to be something you ignore. I would oppose a world government, because I would not like to see a bloodbath.

Iraq would be child's play compared to what a united world would do.

-Celeron.

[IMPERATOR CAESAR]

[quote=Right, Right, Right. As inevitable as a world government is(That I don't refute) just as inevitable is the "resistance" you speak of above. you say it would "only make things worse by resisting it" and it is true, but unfortunately there will be droves of people who will, many violently. The EU is a fallacious example. It is a loose bond of friendship between a bunch of countries that are very much alike. A world government would be forcing together a lot of people who hate eachother, and a lot of nations that just hate everybody. No muslim(radical) would allow a christain to rule over him. How many people in india would sit idley by is a man from pakistan was in office. Old tradition and animosity play a huge role into this, and this seems to be something you ignore. I would oppose a world government, because I would not like to see a bloodbath.

Iraq would be child's play compared to what a united world would do.

-Celeron.[/quote]

Since the world government is going to come, these nations who will not work with it would have to be dealt with, either economically, politically, or militarily.

[Eonve]

CeleronAcheronius wrote:
Right, Right, Right. As inevitable as a world government is(That I don't refute) just as inevitable is the "resistance" you speak of above. you say it would "only make things worse by resisting it" and it is true, but unfourtainantly there will be droves of people who will, many violently.

well, too bad for those people who will choose to do it. look at those people who participate in the anti-globalization protests. they come to every significant meeting of the world leaders or important international organizations such as WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc. but difference does it make? they trash cities and cause a lot of damage to ordinary people who are simply trying to work and make a living. but they do not affect the outcomes of international politics in any substantial way. after all, they get beaten up by police and thrown in jail. this is all they can achieve. period.

Quote: The EU is a fallacius example. It is a loose bond of friendship between a bunch of countries that are very much alike. A world government would be forceing together a lot of people who hate eachother, and a lot of nations that just hate everybody. No muslim(radical) would allow a christain to rule over him. How many people in india would sit idley by is a man from pakistan was in office. Old tradition and animosity play a huge role into this, and this seems to be something you ignore. I would oppose a world government, because I would not like to see a bloodbath.

i think that EU is actually a rather good and relevant example of how world integration might look like. if you really think about it, for the most of its existense EU integration was based on the alliance between France and Germany - two consistently rivaling countries that fought each other in three major wars over less than a century. these two hated and feared each other more than anyone else. and yet they have managed to create a Union that has covered the Europe. later on they have been joined by the UK that has also consistently opposed both France and Germany for centuries in one form or another. three greatest rivals coming together to forge a Union that takes away a pretty big chunk of their sovereignty. i think that it is a very good example of the kind of cooperation that can and should take place in the world today. and i do not see any reason why rivalry between, say, India and Pakistan should be regarded as an obstacle more serious that the divisions between the UK, France and Germany that have been in place for centuries.

also a little something about religious conflicts. as you might know, once Europe has been plagued by numerous religious conflicts. 16th and 17th centuries were all about it. England, Germany, France - all of them were affected. Protestantism has challenged Catholicism and that gave rise to the Religious Wars. however, the conflicts that might have seemed neverending those days, do not exist today at all. years have passed and there is no sign left of former struggle between different branches of Christianity. the only place where you may come across something similar to what it used to be like is Northern Ireland. but even there religion is only a part of the puzzle and not the most important one. so i think that the conflict between Christians and Muslims is not as serious as it might seem. time will pass and it will burn out.

[CeleronAcheronius]

Eonve wrote: CeleronAcheronius wrote:
Right, Right, Right. As inevitable as a world government is(That I don't refute) just as inevitable is the "resistance" you speak of above. you say it would "only make things worse by resisting it" and it is true, but unfourtainantly there will be droves of people who will, many violently.

well, too bad for those people who will choose to do it. look at those people who participate in the anti-globalization protests. they come to every significant meeting of the world leaders or important international organizations such as WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc. but difference does it make? they trash cities and cause a lot of damage to ordinary people who are simply trying to work and make a living. but they do not affect the outcomes of international politics in any substantial way. after all, they get beaten up by police and thrown in jail. this is all they can achieve. period.

Quote: The EU is a fallacius example. It is a loose bond of friendship between a bunch of countries that are very much alike. A world government would be forceing together a lot of people who hate eachother, and a lot of nations that just hate everybody. No muslim(radical) would allow a christain to rule over him. How many people in india would sit idley by is a man from pakistan was in office. Old tradition and animosity play a huge role into this, and this seems to be something you ignore. I would oppose a world government, because I would not like to see a bloodbath.

i think that EU is actually a rather good and relevant example of how world integration might look like. if you really think about it, for the most of its existense EU integration was based on the alliance between France and Germany - two consistently rivaling countries that fought each other in three major wars over less than a century. these two hated and feared each other more than anyone else. and yet they have managed to create a Union that has covered the Europe. later on they have been joined by the UK that has also consistently opposed both France and Germany for centuries in one form or another. three greatest rivals coming together to forge a Union that takes away a pretty big chunk of their sovereignty. i think that it is a very good example of the kind of cooperation that can and should take place in the world today. and i do not see any reason why rivalry between, say, India and Pakistan should be regarded as an obstacle more serious that the divisions between the UK, France and Germany that have been in place for centuries.

also a little something about religious conflicts. as you might know, once Europe has been plagued by numerous religious conflicts. 16th and 17th centuries were all about it. England, Germany, France - all of them were affected. Protestantism has challenged Catholicism and that gave rise to the Religious Wars. however, the conflicts that might have seemed neverending those days, do not exist today at all. years have passed and there is no sign left of former struggle between different branches of Christianity. the only place where you may come across something similar to what it used to be like is Northern Ireland. but even there religion is only a part of the puzzle and not the most important one. so i think that the conflict between Christians and Muslims is not as serious as it might seem. time will pass and it will burn out.

You will not see the world come peacefully together as you did the EU did, to think that is ignorance. Regions will unite and only polarize the world further. The middle east is not going to decide that it likes america, or for that matter western thought. South-east asia is becoming more united, and so is europe, and America is becoming more assertive, and therfore distanceing itself from everybody else. We are dealing with very big egos, and very different thought. There will be hundreds of thousands who will resist, and the only way to pacify them will be through totalitarinism: and there goes the whole ball game.

-Celeron

[Eonve]

CeleronAcheronius wrote:
You will not see the world come peacefully together as you did the EU did, to think that is ignorance. Regions will unite and only polarize the world further.

i think that what you just have said is a speculation, not a predetermined outcome. there may be some violence in the process, but i am inclined to think that it will be rather a war than an internal tension within the newly formed political entity. the truth is that every major conflict presents international community with an opportunity to reorganize the international system and establish new rules of the game. the victors, whoever they will be, will have a chance to influence the subsequent period in the development of the human race. if they use their chance wisely, as US and Europe did after WW II, i think we can rest assured that the peaceful future is secured for us.

Quote: The middle east is not going to decide that it likes america, or for that matter western thought. South-east asia is becoming more united, and so is europe, and America is becoming more assertive, and therfore distanceing itself from everybody else. We are dealing with very big egos, and very different thought.

while it is true that the current integration proceeds rather along the regional lines, i would like to point out that this integration concerns more economic matters rather than any serious security-related arrangements. the only regional security organization with considerable capabilities is NATO. there is no other in the world as of this moment. most of the other integration-related organization deal with free trade, development and monetary policies. and i am inclined to consider it a positive trend. i think that it is much easier to negotiate global agreements in WTO framework when we already have a lot of free trade areas around the world. it takes a lesser effort to set and implement the global standards if states are already doing similar things on regional level.

Quote: There will be hundreds of thousands who will resist, and the only way to pacify them will be through totalitarinism: and there goes the whole ball game.
-Celeron

i think i have to disagree with you on that. totalitarian states are very unstable entities and they tend not to last long. they do not accomplish their missions and fall apart under the weight of external pressures and internal weaknesses. i don't think that creating a worldwide totalitarian state would be possible and effective. i think that the world government would come into being by way of persuasion, diplomacy, negotiation, etc. while it may be a byproduct of a major violent conflict, i don't think that it will be based on the principles of violence and totalitarian control.

[CeleronAcheronius]

Eonve wrote: CeleronAcheronius wrote:
You will not see the world come peacefully together as you did the EU did, to think that is ignorance. Regions will unite and only polarize the world further.

i think that what you just have said is a speculation, not a predetermined outcome. there may be some violence in the process, but i am inclined to think that it will be rather a war than an internal tension within the newly formed political entity. the truth is that every major conflict presents international community with an opportunity to reorganize the international system and establish new rules of the game. the victors, whoever they will be, will have a chance to influence the subsequent period in the development of the human race. if they use their chance wisely, as US and Europe did after WW II, i think we can rest assured that the peaceful future is secured for us.

Quote: The middle east is not going to decide that it likes america, or for that matter western thought. South-east asia is becoming more united, and so is europe, and America is becoming more assertive, and therfore distanceing itself from everybody else. We are dealing with very big egos, and very different thought.

while it is true that the current integration proceeds rather along the regional lines, i would like to point out that this integration concerns more economic matters rather than any serious security-related arrangements. the only regional security organization with considerable capabilities is NATO. there is no other in the world as of this moment. most of the other integration-related organization deal with free trade, development and monetary policies. and i am inclined to consider it a positive trend. i think that it is much easier to negotiate global agreements in WTO framework when we already have a lot of free trade areas around the world. it takes a lesser effort to set and implement the global standards if states are already doing similar things on regional level.

Quote: There will be hundreds of thousands who will resist, and the only way to pacify them will be through totalitarinism: and there goes the whole ball game.
-Celeron

i think i have to disagree with you on that. totalitarian states are very unstable entities and they tend not to last long. they do not accomplish their missions and fall apart under the weight of external pressures and internal weaknesses. i don't think that creating a worldwide totalitarian state would be possible and effective. i think that the world government would come into being by way of persuasion, diplomacy, negotiation, etc. while it may be a byproduct of a major violent conflict, i don't think that it will be based on the principles of violence and totalitarian control.

I will not rebut the middle as it ALL is speculation, but

You're conclusion makes my point. The only way to have the government is to put one in place that is destined to fail. So there you go, why even try? Unless you want to see a blood bath.

[Eonve]

CeleronAcheronius wrote:
I will not rebut the middle as it ALL is speculation, but

You're conclusion makes my point. The only way to have the government is to put one in place that is destined to fail. So there you go, why even try? Unless you want to see a blood bath.

that's all you can say? this is really weak. do you have nothing at all to defend your position?

as for the blood bath, i do not want to see it. i just think that if it happens it is likely to have a positive long term outcome. and i do not think that a blood bath will come because of the world government, as you were trying to say, but rather that it might come before it and indirectly assist its creation.

it becomes rather obvious if we use EU example once again. when Hitler has started the bloodiest war in human history, he did not expect Germany defeated and Europe come together as it did since 1950s. however, WW II with all the bloodshed that tool place has served as one of the factors that made the creation of the European Union possible. it was an unintended outcome.

[cap'n queasy]

Eonve wrote: CeleronAcheronius wrote:
I will not rebut the middle as it ALL is speculation, but

You're conclusion makes my point. The only way to have the government is to put one in place that is destined to fail. So there you go, why even try? Unless you want to see a blood bath.

that's all you can say? this is really weak. do you have nothing at all to defend your position?

as for the blood bath, i do not want to see it. i just think that if it happens it is likely to have a positive long term outcome. and i do not think that a blood bath will come because of the world government, as you were trying to say, but rather that it might come before it and indirectly assist its creation.

it becomes rather obvious if we use EU example once again. when Hitler has started the bloodiest war in human history, he did not expect Germany defeated and Europe come together as it did since 1950s. however, WW II with all the bloodshed that tool place has served as one of the factors that made the creation of the European Union possible. it was an unintended outcome.
As a "secular" Christian, what do you make of the book of Revelations and the immense number of Bibical prophecies that have come to pass?

[Eonve]

cap'n queasy wrote:
As a "secular" Christian, what do you make of the book of Revelations and the immense number of Bibical prophecies that have come to pass?

this is a very, very vague question. could you specify what you mean and how it is relevant for the discussion? sorry, but at the present moment i do not see any connection between book of revelations and the coming of the world government.

[YGB]

I believe that if there was to be a world government, the best way to organize it would be to crete a Federal system, with separation of powers, checks and balances, a constitution, a bill of rights etc etc...
I think America is a very good example of how different political bodies unite regardless of their differences under one government.
Their could be a world congress, a world supreme court, just imagine it's beauty.
It is also important to say that the one organization that was trying to achieve the unification of nations, the cooperation of the different regions of the planet and the agreement of the different countries in the world to work according to common laws was, yes, you know what I'm talking about, THE UNITED NATIONS!
An organization I might say you americans have done an excellent job in destroying.
And yes I know I know, America is the country that gives more money, and yes I know, France and Russia and Germany had secret treaties with saddam, but for Crying out loud, you guys blew it, and you did hardcore.

Yoel