Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

world government

Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 5:15:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 5:15:19 AM, Kahvan wrote:
I mean a world government that has power. That has the cajones to do stuff unlike the U.N.

fixed
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 6:37:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
more detached, more theft, more killing, more bureaucracy, more bullsh!t.

though to be sure, a failure to sufficiently answer "what's wrong with world government" is by no f-ing means any justification FOR world government.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 7:01:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 5:14:47 AM, Kahvan wrote:
What would be wrong with a world government? It seems like it would be a very good idea to me.

It will never work.
To many interests going in different directions.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 7:57:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is nothing wrong with a "world government" per se, but the fact is that there is probably no way it will ever work, unless it is a total dictatorship.

As comon said, there are too many interests pulling in too many ways for any one-world government to get a handle on it. Given the huge regional disparities and cultural/socioeconomic conditions, grievances between countries and nations, etc., a world government that is in any way a federation would collapse mighty easily in my mind. I mean, look at the amount of energy put into keeping together places like Canada or the EU, where nations squabble over powers and differences to ad nauseum. Imagine that on a world scale.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:02:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
'The larger your goverment, the smaller your voice.'

I dont remember who said that quote but it came from somewhere before me saying it hear.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:23:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nothings inherently wrong with world government. It might even convince a government to govern less per person, as they'll have more people to do it for (It's notable that the Soviet Union collapsed and North Korea did not. Micromanaging gets harder on a larger scale).

But whether it actually will depends first on someone being competent to take that degree of control, and judging from their reactions whether they'll be convinced by such.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:40:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
our interests are not as disparate as these guys say. we all have interests in ethical practices around the world. we sll have interests in keeping the environment healthy. we all have interests in gcc, demonstrated by the fact that 194 countries have ratified the fccc and acknowledged gcc as a real threat and needing attention, although people on DDO would still claim that the jury is out lol. we all have an interst in peace and stability, and along with it sustainable economic development for all. gcc, if as disastrous as predicted may cause the need for world gov't in order to force everyone to comply with c02 mitigation. i dont think there are any true logistical problems with a world govt other than the fact that humans need someone else to compete with. if aliens were discovered, i imagine we would end up with a world govt because it would make earth just another country. then we would simply be having this coversation about a galactic govt.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:45:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
We all have an interest in food. Therefore we should all pay 50 bucks for one slice of bread each.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:47:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 5:14:47 AM, Kahvan wrote:
What would be wrong with a world government? It seems like it would be a very good idea to me.

You know that tiny country called the United Kingdom, you know how really, really small it is? Well it has about six internal separatist movements.

How would a world Government be able to rule for the benefit of every community?

A global (con)federation may be the way to go, indeed that may in fact be the eventual destiny of the UN.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 8:50:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Fact is Rob, those that sign agreements over GCC and other global-logistical issues are ones who care about it - it doesn't, however, mean they'll actually do anything about it, unless its in their vested interests and for their benefits, which half the time it doesn't seem to be. If coming together was as easy as you said, our carbon levels should have been reduced years ago.

And I doubt that if any aliens were discovered, we'd all come together under one banner. Maybe if they attacked us, sure, but what happens after? We go right back to focussing on our differences. It's simply what we do as humans. We only share a common humanity when something threatens it. Otherwise, our existence is based on our individualism, and the differences between each other. Doesn't always mean it'll lead to conflict, but it doesn't get rid of it, either. And that's just human nature. You can't change it, nor do I see why you would want to.

And can you see a world government, a large, bulky federation, trying to wrestle together all these disparate movements? It's not impossible to do, but it takes a lot of energy, and some question why we should expound that energy when we can simply keep our countries as they are and work for our interests in a common forum like the UN? Same goals, no world government.
Kahvan
Posts: 1,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 9:33:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:50:52 AM, Volkov wrote:
Fact is Rob, those that sign agreements over GCC and other global-logistical issues are ones who care about it - it doesn't, however, mean they'll actually do anything about it, unless its in their vested interests and for their benefits, which half the time it doesn't seem to be. If coming together was as easy as you said, our carbon levels should have been reduced years ago.

And I doubt that if any aliens were discovered, we'd all come together under one banner. Maybe if they attacked us, sure, but what happens after? We go right back to focussing on our differences. It's simply what we do as humans. We only share a common humanity when something threatens it. Otherwise, our existence is based on our individualism, and the differences between each other. Doesn't always mean it'll lead to conflict, but it doesn't get rid of it, either. And that's just human nature. You can't change it, nor do I see why you would want to.

And can you see a world government, a large, bulky federation, trying to wrestle together all these disparate movements? It's not impossible to do, but it takes a lot of energy, and some question why we should expound that energy when we can simply keep our countries as they are and work for our interests in a common forum like the UN? Same goals, no world government.

reminds me of enders game.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 9:47:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 9:33:26 AM, Kahvan wrote:
reminds me of enders game.

Shh, don't give away my sources.

But, really, its clear even outside of fiction. The Allies of World War 1 and 2, united against an enemy, then turned around after and squabbled amongst each other. The Twelve Tribes of Israel, united into a confederation to ward off more powerful enemies, bickered among each other after repelling several invasions until one tribe managed to conquer them through division. Or in modern politics, with coalitions uniting to take down a party in government, simply to squabble once in power.

Thing is, when presented with an enemy which threatens every actor, its better to work with the devil you know than the devil you don't. In the aftermath, however, all bets are off. Only sustained attacks against a united front keeps together that united front.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 9:54:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 9:33:26 AM, Kahvan wrote:
At 4/21/2010 8:50:52 AM, Volkov wrote:
Fact is Rob, those that sign agreements over GCC and other global-logistical issues are ones who care about it - it doesn't, however, mean they'll actually do anything about it, unless its in their vested interests and for their benefits, which half the time it doesn't seem to be. If coming together was as easy as you said, our carbon levels should have been reduced years ago.

And I doubt that if any aliens were discovered, we'd all come together under one banner. Maybe if they attacked us, sure, but what happens after? We go right back to focussing on our differences. It's simply what we do as humans. We only share a common humanity when something threatens it. Otherwise, our existence is based on our individualism, and the differences between each other. Doesn't always mean it'll lead to conflict, but it doesn't get rid of it, either. And that's just human nature. You can't change it, nor do I see why you would want to.

And can you see a world government, a large, bulky federation, trying to wrestle together all these disparate movements? It's not impossible to do, but it takes a lot of energy, and some question why we should expound that energy when we can simply keep our countries as they are and work for our interests in a common forum like the UN? Same goals, no world government.


reminds me of enders game.

LOL i was thinking the same thing. volkov will your policy change dramatically when we discover the ansible?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 10:01:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Centralized global dictatorship. Yeah, sounds like a great idea.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 4:47:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ender's Game would have been the best story ever, but it just reeked of authoritarian grovel. It was still pretty good though. Would've been best if the author didn't make a series out of it.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 4:55:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 4:47:05 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Ender's Game would have been the best story ever, but it just reeked of authoritarian grovel. It was still pretty good though. Would've been best if the author didn't make a series out of it.

Authoritarian? Maybe in the sense "not libertarian," but not much else, and most literature isn't libertarian. The government is criticized and heavily throughout the series, and it's not for not being restrictive enough.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 4:57:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As long as everybody's needs were looked after, I wouldn't see too much of a problem with it. Maybe then people will be more inclined to move towards unity.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 5:00:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 4:55:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/21/2010 4:47:05 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Ender's Game would have been the best story ever, but it just reeked of authoritarian grovel. It was still pretty good though. Would've been best if the author didn't make a series out of it.

Authoritarian? Maybe in the sense "not libertarian," but not much else, and most literature isn't libertarian. The government is criticized and heavily throughout the series, and it's not for not being restrictive enough.

Oh. Okay.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 5:01:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 4:57:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
As long as everybody's needs were looked after, I wouldn't see too much of a problem with it. Maybe then people will be more inclined to move towards unity.

The issue is the how in that case. The Catholic church endorses it to a degree (not the Govt part, the global charity fail part).
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2010 5:03:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/21/2010 8:40:49 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
our interests are not as disparate as these guys say. we all have interests in ethical practices around the world.
However, our ethical standards and other coutries' ethical standards vary greatly.

we sll have interests in keeping the environment healthy. we all have interests in gcc, demonstrated by the fact that 194 countries have ratified the fccc and acknowledged gcc as a real threat and needing attention, although people on DDO would still claim that the jury is out lol.
An entire country does not ratify a document. A select group of politicians and scientists paid by said politicians ratify a document.

we all have an interst in peace and stability, and along with it sustainable economic development for all.
And yet, we're all willing to go to war to defend our rights and our interests.

gcc, if as disastrous as predicted
By who? Al Gore?

may cause the need for world gov't in order to force everyone to comply with c02 mitigation.