NumbahWon Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I vote no because there's no way to keep corporations out of it, and what appears like freedom in the west is really an oligarchy controlled by megacorporations and multinational conglomerates, the richest lobbyists. Diversity is one of those things that are almost always Good, example is the Australian government legalizing mod chips for console gaming. if you were to create one government you would make it easier for the few rich assholes to lord over everyone else, as it stands they'd have to launch assaults on literally tens of thousands of state/provincal/local/federal governments -and succeed- in order for them to get that kind of control. Star Trek is FICTION people, nice fiction but FICTION nonetheless, if you really think mankind is capable of uniting in peace under one banner, I'd have to say you're delusional and aren't in touch with human nature all that well. If there was a World War III, the sudden invention of the warp drive, and a first contact scenario such as in the fictional world of Star Trek, then perhaps enough things would be different to change the mindset of humanity. but as it stands we're little more than pack animals, and if you abolish one alpha another one through deceit malice and murder would merely climb its petty little way to the top. *BITCHSLAP* Personal and individual sovereign freedom is the closest these present generations will ever get to the fictional freedom in fictional Star Trek, I hope the bitchslap woke you up some. The government is not your friend, most of your neighbors would rip you off only if they thought they could get away with it, humans are inherently greedy and on the survival level, no better than any of the most ferocious mammals. I hope the bitchslap served to wake you dreamers up... -- AND, if there ever is first contact and other paramount(teehee) changes to the way this power hungry world operates, I will gladly update my post and change my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Should the world unite under one all powerful government: Answer: No Reason: It's a bad idea. Example: The European Union. CASE CLOSED ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 huh, since when is the EU united under a single government... I must have missed that... :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Woah...I voted before reading the small print in your post. I thought you just meant "a government, whatever you think it should be", not "this specific form". I think the world should be untied under a fully democratic system, in which things are voted upon - by everyone - say, once per month. We have the necessary technology to make this possible. Also, every person in such a world would need to be properly educated as to the nature of each vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumbahWon Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Woah...I voted before reading the small print in your post. I thought you just meant "a government' date=' whatever you think it should be", not "this specific form". I think the world should be untied under a fully democratic system, in which things are voted upon - by everyone - say, once per month. We have the necessary technology to make this possible. Also, every person in such a world would need to be properly educated as to the nature of each vote.[/quote'] Enter more pipedreams, 'every person in such a world would need to be properly educated' Do you not know any willing morons? I know plenty of people who have no desire to better themselves, no desire to be properly informed, they will believe anything mass media throws at them, in that respect a federal republic (as the US has) is better than a true democracy, the most watched show on earth REMAINS Baywatch, consider this. "The people cannot all and always be well informed." -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William S. Smith Nov.13.1787, if you'd like to see it in his own handwriting, go to thomas.loc.gov and search through his archived correspondence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Nah you are gonna end up with a world government some time, so why not try to control what the people with enough money to BUY their copies do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumbahWon Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 so far over 70 percent of the voters have stated their approval of 'one all powerful government', ironically I bet most of them hate GWB and the Patriot Act and how America wields its sovereignty, do you guys have no grasp of how it could be much, much worse? The question says nothing of a beautiful star trek future, it's more likely to be orwellian or like equilibrium, absolute power corrupts absolutely, why do so many people ENDORSE globalism? It's truly baffling, because I'm sure those same people wouldn't want to be treated as cattle, wouldn't want to be treated as a jew in hitler's germany. I detect a lot of doubleminded folks here, and some age old literature implies we should shun the doubleminded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I'm sure those same people wouldn't want to be treated as cattle' date=' . . .[/quote'] MOOOOOOO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 i have no feelings for jwb i think he cheated to get elected but thats the yanks problem if we have a world government we get to have a more enlightened populace and a lot less bigotry cos it would be a WORLD government based on DEMOCRACY not JWB's idea of democracy but the real thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Enter more pipedreams, 'every person in such a world would need to be properly educated' Do you not know any willing morons? I know plenty of people who have no desire to better themselves, no desire to be properly informed, they will believe anything mass media throws at them, in that respect a federal republic (as the US has) is better than a true democracy, the most watched show on earth REMAINS Baywatch, consider this. "The people cannot all and always be well informed." -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William S. Smith Nov.13.1787, if you'd like to see it in his own handwriting, go to thomas.loc.gov and search through his archived correspondence. I quite agree. I thought this was asking whether it would be ideal to have a world government, not whether it would be possible. Edited to include the quote and for grammar. Damn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Unless humanity seriously changes itself in the near future to act more collectively, I seriously doubt there'll be any chance that a unified world government would work. If it IS at all possible, I seriously doubt it'll be within the lifespan of most of the major countries that currently exist. Maybe after a major, devastating war and a social disaster strong enough to rewrite the economic map equitably we may be ready for it, but until then? Not a chance. Our current systems are so fatally flawed they can't be made to come together and function in a unified way. Also, the 'eggs in one basket' problem is a serious one. If this world government was seperated into relatively autonomous zones, it may be more workable... maybe a hierarchy of layers responsible for smaller and smaller areas, with each layer responsible for problems exactly at it's level of significance? (i.e. Each level splits the world into smaller areas, and each level up manned by representatives from the next layer down. All problems that affect an area are dealt with by the lowest level that fully encloses that area, and decisions trickle down for vetoability towards the bottom levels.) Of course, that model has the problem that the lowest levels are basically the law of the land, and the higher levels probably would be fairly useless (i.e. how many truly global problems have you heard of recently?)... As for the 'ideal' vs. 'possible' question? How can any impossible government be ideal? ^^' Look at strict communism. It's ideal on paper, but... the only relatively stable communist countries I know of are China and Cuba... and they aren't strict, by-the-manifesto communist states. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 "Ideal" means just that: the perfect idea. It is the thing that would be best, were it possible. If everybody had an equal say, and was well-informed enough to make good decisions, then that would be ideal. Now, in my opinion, the best possible government would be something akin to a parliamentary republic, but with more socialism than the Canadian system, and more libertarianism than the European ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Socialism is NEVER ideal. :P Personally, the only way I can see it working would be if you had two levels of government. Local and global. Oh and you'd have to kill people. A whole lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Socialism is NEVER ideal. :P Personally, the only way I can see it working would be if you had two levels of government. Local and global. Oh and you'd have to kill people. A whole lot of people. It depends on how youdefine socialism mate... It is a VERY broad church indeed. To me socialism means government that is conducted with regard to the health of the entire social community. At the very least Socialism does NOT equal communism. It equals the welfare state and its antecedants (The Third way & what not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightopian Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 "Should the world unite under one all powerful government?" Not anytime in the near future. At present, it would just magnify the problems already present to the nth degree. How should that "all powerful government" be constructed? Presumably, you'd have to have all the world governments agreeing to one governmental system, when even the governments who have similar systems can't agree on the specifics (ie: the EU), never mind the corruption that grows out of trying to acommidate highly disimilar forms (ie: the UN). And of course, none of the above even begins to touch on human irresponsibility, or to quote one of my favorite authors: "Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure 'good' government; it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare -- most people want to run things but want no part of the blame. This used to be called the 'backseat-driver syndrome'." - From "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" by R.A.Heinlein Shade and Sweetwater, Nightopian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 A United States of Earth? The major issue here is distribution of wealth and frankly I can't see a solution to that. Imagine the wealthy industrialized nations giving away >50% of it's GNP to the poor 3rd world nations. Instead of making $30000/year you'll have to settle with $10000-$15000 or even less. Personally I'm not ready to give away my current standard of living without a fight. Another approach would be the elimination of currency, but how would that motivate anybody to 'earn' a living? Still I dream that one day the Earth will unite and there are no wars, so a voted: Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 A United States of Earth? The major issue here is distribution of wealth and frankly I can't see a solution to that. Imagine the wealthy industrialized nations giving away >50% of it's GNP to the poor 3rd world nations. Instead of making $30000/year you'll have to settle with $10000-$15000 or even less. Personally I'm not ready to give away my current standard of living without a fight. If that were to happen, my income and that of many of the people I know would go up, and I am living in the very heart of one of those so-called, 'wealthy industrialized nations.' Wealth distribution within many of these countries already sucks, and I doubt it would improve soley because the government went global. As for motivation to work, are you saying your only motivation is money? If so, you have my sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumbahWon Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 If that were to happen, my income and that of many of the people I know would go up, and I am living in the very heart of one of those so-called, 'wealthy industrialized nations.' Wealth distribution within many of these countries already sucks, and I doubt it would improve soley because the government went global. As for motivation to work, are you saying your only motivation is money? If so, you have my sympathy. This is a common problem, healthcare workers, doctors especially, who are only in it for the money, should be executed. it extols ALL that is bad with capitalism, while there are definite pluses to capitalism, healthcare isn't one of them, I've heard the BS about research money, that's just a low excuse to overcharge people for crap care Deep down, we all know there are serious problems with the medical profession, and having doctors as financial vultures... I'd say it's one of the reasons most successful scifi shows MUST have a miracle worker doctor, who NEVER loses a patient due soley to incompetence, and usually pulls a miracle out of his/her ass to save their patient, or even an entire world. Everybody wants doctors who care again, I'd say everyone is sick and tired of the capitalist bullshit and putting a pricetag on human life. As for some of our pseudosocialist neighbors, I'd have to imagine the chief motivation for doctors there is the passion involved in SAVING LIVES, as I assume they must receive horrible pay compared to their American peers. Just think about it, every Star Trek series, both Stargate series, and countless other shows, have 'the best doctor', just the other day I heard an atlantis quote 'the best doctor in two galaxies' that's as much of a dream as a wonderful floating ancient city with unimaginable technology and a star drive, in fact, I'd rather have the doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCOLancer Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 The EU if you must know changes hand every year ie a diff country each year gets to head it britain just chaired it. not forgeting most country's are part of NATO now aswell that includes their armed forces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 As for motivation to work' date=' are you saying your only motivation is money? If so, you have my sympathy.[/quote'] Thanks, I needed that. :) The sad truth is I work only for the money, since I haven't got the dream job I wished for. Many of my friend hates their jobs, but still they go to work and I know that their motivation is the money. I'm always looking for a better job. Hopefully I'll find a part time job (25-30h/week) that I love and pays well enough so I can save a little each month. I value my free time above all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now