When people talk about a one world government it's usually in a sinister context, like a globe dominated by some villain, or in an apocalyptic Biblical sense where Satan rules.
But could a one world government actually be beneficial? Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country, and the world votes for a president/PM/Council, etc. Anyone can emigrate freely to any country without the usual bureaucracy and wait times; aid can go to poorer nations without the usual political loops to consider.
This really wasn't feasible at any time but now in the digital age and this could be a reality.
Could a one world government be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
27 Mar 22
2 edits
@vivify saidCould a one world government be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
When people talk about a one world government it's usually in a sinister context, like a globe dominated by some villain, or in an apocalyptic Biblical sense where Satan rules.
But could a one world government actually be beneficial? Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country, and the world votes for a president/PM/Council, etc. This really was ...[text shortened]... nment be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
It could be a good idea, but I don't know of anyone who has the character to remain incorruptible and also the knowledge to make the right decisions, even if there were such a person, what would happen when they die? Some greedy jerk of low degree would no doubt take their place eventually.
27 Mar 22
@vivify saidThey'd need nukes to maintain their power over others.
When people talk about a one world government it's usually in a sinister context, like a globe dominated by some villain, or in an apocalyptic Biblical sense where Satan rules.
But could a one world government actually be beneficial? Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country, and the world votes for a president/PM/Council, etc. Anyone can emig ...[text shortened]... nment be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
@vivify saidI keep thinking about that old Star Trek episode "Space Seed" with Khan. Remember what Spock said in response to that idea?
When people talk about a one world government it's usually in a sinister context, like a globe dominated by some villain, or in an apocalyptic Biblical sense where Satan rules.
But could a one world government actually be beneficial? Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country, and the world votes for a president/PM/Council, etc. Anyone can emig ...[text shortened]... nment be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708447/
The whole world under one whip. That is what Spock said.
You would probably get institutionalized economic slavery. Who would stop them? How would people be able to tell they could be doing better. There would be nothing else to compare your standard of living to except the other people under the same whip.
People who want to dominate the world are not ethical people. They don't have other people's interests at heart. They use people as pawns and sacrifice their lives for their own selfish interests. Unless you serve their interests they don't care about you.
Would you let an organized crime syndicate rule the world? That is essentially what would happen. People do not get that much power by being nice.
27 Mar 22
@vivify saidOf course it’s possible.
When people talk about a one world government it's usually in a sinister context, like a globe dominated by some villain, or in an apocalyptic Biblical sense where Satan rules.
But could a one world government actually be beneficial? Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country, and the world votes for a president/PM/Council, etc. Anyone can emig ...[text shortened]... nment be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
Parts of society are already based along those sorts of lines: United Nations, European Union, etc.
There are treaties and declarations.
A declaration states intent, treaties are binding (so national law is lower).
Basically, a world government would just add an extra tier (or echelon) to the political system.
So, you’d have, in the Netherlands:
- world government
- EU
- Dutch government
- provincial government
- local government
I can’t imagine it being very effective, though. Getting something passed will only serve to water down. Maybe a good thing though?
Take the Paris agreement as an example. That’s an international treaty (so binding). Pretty much watered down to suit various nations.
Yet, a very good example of international decision making. And it’s already been used in international court cases (for example: Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell ).
27 Mar 22
@shavixmir saidThat is not what he was talking about. The UN is a joke. Do I need to quote that human scum John Bolton? Even that liar tells the truth sometimes.
Of course it’s possible.
Parts of society are already based along those sorts of lines: United Nations, European Union, etc.
There are treaties and declarations.
A declaration states intent, treaties are binding (so national law is lower).
Basically, a world government would just add an extra tier (or echelon) to the political system.
So, you’d have, in the Netherl ...[text shortened]... ady been used in international court cases (for example: Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell ).
@metal-brain saidThat IS what he was talking about.
That is not what he was talking about. The UN is a joke. Do I need to quote that human scum John Bolton? Even that liar tells the truth sometimes.
Whatever you're talking about is not what he was talking about.
You're like that one dumbass uncle who's never had a job in his entire life giving you advice on finance.
27 Mar 22
@vivify
Not feasible. There are too many local and regional differences of mores and customs to get all interest groups to sit down at the same table and agree on basic procedures. There are people who think democracy is evil and don’t want people to decide for themselves how they are to be governed. There are people who think women should not be sitting at the negotiating table.
27 Mar 22
@vivify said" Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country"
When people talk about a one world government it's usually in a sinister context, like a globe dominated by some villain, or in an apocalyptic Biblical sense where Satan rules.
But could a one world government actually be beneficial? Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country, and the world votes for a president/PM/Council, etc. Anyone can emig ...[text shortened]... nment be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
" Anyone can emigrate freely to any country without the usual bureaucracy and wait times; aid can go to poorer nations without the usual political loops to consider"
Those two statements contradict each other. Either it is one country or it is not. Which is it?
27 Mar 22
@moonbus saidIf you look at the US, it's not just one government; there's federal, state and local governments that address region-specific issues and demographics.
@vivify
Not feasible. There are too many local and regional differences of mores and customs to get all interest groups to sit down at the same table and agree on basic procedures. There are people who think democracy is evil and don’t want people to decide for themselves how they are to be governed. There are people who think women should not be sitting at the negotiating table.
A one-world government could work the same way, where there's one overarching government that takes precedent over others (like federal government outranks state governments), then there are smaller governments, like national governments, which each have their own smaller local governments.
27 Mar 22
@metal-brain saidSee my post above this one. You could still have countries in the same way the U.S. has states. It would be like the United Nations only their laws are more binding and enforceable throughout the world.
" Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country"
" Anyone can emigrate freely to any country without the usual bureaucracy and wait times; aid can go to poorer nations without the usual political loops to consider"
Those two statements contradict each other. Either it is one country or it is not. Which is it?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
27 Mar 22
@vivify saidA world without borders.....Idealistically...YES,
When people talk about a one world government it's usually in a sinister context, like a globe dominated by some villain, or in an apocalyptic Biblical sense where Satan rules.
But could a one world government actually be beneficial? Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country, and the world votes for a president/PM/Council, etc. Anyone can emig ...[text shortened]... nment be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
realistically....NO.....Religion is the main obstacle,
(my God can whip your God.)..............And all of the other
foibles shared by humankind.........greed, family feuds, etc, etc
I have thought oh that idea since childhood but,
humans, being humans makes it impossible for me to see.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
27 Mar 22
1 edit
@metal-brain saidNaw, don't think it's possible.....
Fine.
Let him say what he was talking about.
don't forget The US is unified by one language and history....
We are all immigrants....Some countries have blood feuds that date back centuries....we'll undo that in one generation?
As for The UN idea, it barely works now, what would make it work better.
force of arms? Then we're back to square one