World Government

Is it worth a try?

No.

UN ?

Central governing agency = stupid idea =| UN !
Centralism often causes problems with minorities and cultural differences, it's also a too static system to be able to gover the whole world. Federalism is much better, though, but it will take a long road to overcome national reserves and blah.

Too complex topic for today. <_>

United Nations; Not a World Government, but an assembly where international relations can be discussed much like today.

Don't think of the U.N. as a first step to a unified, uniform, centralized world where everyone HAS to speak and think alike. That thought alone is chilling.
Think of the U.N. as the only place where nations can meet on equal terms and solve their problems in a public forum.
Sounds idealistic and naïve, right? Doesn't always work.

>>1 World Government

I RULE YOU KK

SEE MY NAME IS? I MAKE DECISION 4U WOERLDS AND U DONT EVEN KNOW IT

The UN will rule us one day and we will fly in outer space until the gigantic aliens come to attack us, gigantic aliens that look exactly like us but have super proto culture technology

...

The UN, like the League of Nations before it, will never work in its current format. It suffers the fundamental issue that it is not an entity in itself, and has no power of itself - it is simply a sum of its parts, and can serve no further purpose than as an international forum.

Having said that, I dont believe that a single unified power with control is a good idea in any case - this would not be the best model in terms of promoting world peace, imo. The best balance is struck with a large number of relatively small countries, for this purpose.

Unfortunately, this can never happen now, of course.

The only reason this is true, a8a, is because America was retardedly convinced that we HAD to go to war IMMEDIATLY, and just couldn't sit tight and wait to get some fucking results. Bush was like a kid jumping around because he had to take a piss. It was ridiculous.

I think the UN should function as a world mentor, someone who steps in and says "HEY! Okay, someone punched you in the face. Are you SURE it was Billy? Or was it Chris? Or did you just trip and fall?" You know, stuff that calms everyone down and slows down or halts a decision that causes mass loss of lives.

>>8

Remember, it's only HALF of america.  49% of us still think bush is a fucktard.

>>9
The other 51% of us think that Bush sits at the right hand of God, and Jesus moved over to make space for Him.

Since Bush is now a demigod, I demand that everyone capitalize all pronouns that refer to Him, as is done with those referring to Jesus or God by all good Christians.

I am going to have Bush's babies by immaculate conception.

Ironically, world government would probably only function correctly under world peace, under which there`s really no reason to have government anyway.

But then again, government in general doesn`t really work that well either. Maybe we should just go with survival of the fittest?

I have an idea. Let's just overthrow the government and create anarchy.

Chomsky would be proud. Of course we all know it'll never work.

Aborn!

Well.
There already is a World Government and it's name is Corporatism.

I pledge allegence to the Flag
of the Would Corporate state,
And to the Profits for which it stands.

One World under God
with Liberty and Justice for the Privigleged Elite.

I don't understand anarchy; it doesn't make any sense.  People will naturally take power in a vacuum and be organized into larger and larger tribes.  I don't see how anarchy can possibly exist in a human society.  Maybe I'm just taking the definition too literally.

>>16 Actually, you`re probably right.

>> 8

Count the years between the end of the first war, wow, that's what I call immediate. Took Bush a whole year to get around to it, man he was sure in a hurry.

If after more than a decade, Saddam is still a problem and still hasn't changed may I ask what you think "more time" would of accomplished?

World government won't work just yet. I can see a single European government working out, yeah, but Europe couldn't join up with America until America grows out of being an adolescent as far as countries go, and quits warring with everyone.

>>19
"World government won't work just yet."
Depends on what kind of government. One on the Facist model, or one on a Theocratic model, or a blend from Hell of both are emment possibilities.
But if you're like me I think you've got something slightly more benign in mind.  The only way I see this happening any time soon is if something like the plot of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" came to pass. Badass ETs show up and tell us "YO!  Keep yo shit IN yo house 'sKool.  WE don't care.  Show up with it anywhere else and you ALL die.

Or Words to that Effect. 

heh, the only way from a world government is by either pen or sword......by the looks of todays situation....I go by sword......

and damn this place reeks of leftist smell....

It is a primitive thing to jump to labelling your opponents in such a manner. Nobody can stand up to the American military without guerilla tactics, so America labels all its enemies "terrorists" and says they are all extremists who hate freedom and cannot be reckoned with. Before, it labelled its enemies "commies", and said they were against democracy and freedom, attaching all kinds of negative traits. If we go far enough back, it labelled all evil "the devil" in order to better visualize it as something as universally understandable as a person.

The only world government that could happen within ten or twenty years is America flipping out and trying to conquer the world, British Empire style. On a larger scale, maybe within a century, Europe might somehow ally with America peacefully, with Europe spreading eventually to admit western Russia, but that'd be quite some time away.

>>22

Just one comment.  You're confusing "Can fight" with "Will fight."  There are countries that have the ability to fight the US on equal terms, they just have too much to lose by doing so.

World government would be cool though... then I could have a defined evil to rise up and fight.

http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/korea/korean.html

>>24
... so?

>>21

good idea. better idea: by sword AND pen:

http://www.world4ch.org/read/newpol/1105151464/

the haughty terror states of amerikkka is arsehole.
the humanity must destroy the US.

>>27 reminds me... there is a disturbing lack of golgomos on 4chan.

>>16
truth

UN has power and a future. Propaganda is what drives the world now-a-days so the UN is crucial for any wars. If there is any war that doesn't include an UN nation then everybody goes over there and beats the shit out of them. You know why they can do that? Well, because everyone looks at it as the will of the mighty UN that brings "peace" to the world.

>>1
No.  No, it isn't.  Next question, please.

>>22
First part: True, if you cant defeat an enemy, just destroy all credibility. Guerilla tactics are almost impossible to beat, even with the biggest armies and the best technology. A lesson some countries seem to forget time after time.

Second part: We did not "Conquer" (such a harsh word), we errr.... visited those nice people. *cough*

>>30
LMAO!
----
Hey, if my gov wants to drink a pint with the rest of the worlds political elite wannabees, thats fine by me. I wish them a good time. So UN yes.

World Gov? OVER MY DEAD BODY!!! (and if i die, I'll come back to haunt you all as a zombie/politician, scratch what you consider the lesser evil). Not in a million years, will I have a yank ditate what I can and cannot do. And somehow, I suspect that the feeling is the same on the other side of the big pond with the roles reversed. (Note: Is this one of those common things we supposedly have according to mister bush?)

>>32
Sorry, my laptop keyboard is f*cked, ditate = dictate :(

Edit function?

>>32
Guerilla tactics are the last resort of a defeated nation.  You're trying to make it sound like guerillas are nine feet tall, bulletproof, and invisible, when in fact they are never more than a minor nuisance to the occupying power.

Examples:

France, 1940-44
Greece, 1947-48
Malaysia, 1947-49

I'd prefer no world government, myself.

I'd prefer no world government, myself.

I'd prefer no world government, myself.

I'd prefer no world government, myself.

anarchy exists in the international system, it is undeniable. Anarchy, short of complete worldwide social revolution to conform a standard/systematic government in all "sovereign" nations (god forbid) anarchy will always exist in the international system. There will be predator states and pussy states. There will be non state actors and intrastate actors. There will be conflict because there is not international Law that is backed up like it is in our individual nations. Sure, the UN is doing what it can to foster relations and offer a forum for peaceful discussion, but it cannot function like a government we have within borders-- the UN has no "police force" to back up it's many treaties and International Law (though it has a semi-functional court). Like if you get you car jacked you go the police and they bust the guy. If your country is invaded the UN can try to come to your rescue but there are too little resources and absolutely no power behind it.

a world government would have to contain a world police force, ready at any nations beck and call-- there aren't even standardized payrates for UN peacekeepers, how could a world police force exist?

The next closest thing to a world government, with police force potential, is a hegemonic power: today, that would be The States. But a few decades ago it was the UK, before that it was Spain, it was Italy etc. It is obvious that one state, no matter how large, can similarly not provide the strength/police force necessary to  enforce internatinal laws. the States would break down internally because of strained budgets and insurmountable debt-- which it is nearly 10 years in the process btw.. Hegemons come and go and each time they do conflict is large and widespread. the States are garnering backlash, it is only a matter of time before it too, will be "de throned" from superpower position. (expect a rise from Asia.)

To sum, the UN ro hegemonic powers are/were the closest things to world government. But they fail at the "governing" and "protecting" aspects, or will fail in time. No world government will exist, and if it did it wouldn't garuntee stabilized peace.

World Government wins!

World government seems a natural progression from our present state, since it was only 300/400 years ago that large countries were properly formed, english monarchy and us government.

<Inst>
world government is annoying shit, because once world government occurs, what will stop us from getting owned by aliens?

PEACE! PEACE! PEACE! UNTIL WE MEET AN INTERGALACTIC EMPIRE AND GET OWNED!

<Inst> fails!

>>42

lol [4F02] Treehouse of Horror VII

No wait, that was [8F02] Treehouse of Horror II

I get confused

>>34

You forgot 'nam.

World government is a fuck bad idea.

Government would be a bad idea if it weren't for the fact nothing would happen without it. 

The only way for individuals to find any sort of happiness is in a situation where all the powers cancel each other out from having absolute power.   I think this is the system we have now.

bump

>>49
nigger

>>50
^* African American

>>51
What about 49's post makes you think he is an African American?

copy paste the piece of text in
>>49
that suggests this

>>52
What? I didn't say he was an African American. Did you not see the "^*"?

>>53
oh, I see, "African American" is code for "nigger", you were being ironic

>>54
Completely over the head. But stick around, you'll get it eventually.

World government is a disaster. What we need, everywhere, is less government: http://www.humanevents.com/2009/07/22/take-two-aspirin-and-call-me-when-your-cancer-is-stage-4/

>>55
You hate niggers more than I suspected?

sure, why not? if anything fails, just make it bigger and more powerful. that'll fix any problem.

>>58
The present system of divide and conquer doesn't work, no one cares about the atrocities going on in the world by "sovereign states", but if the world were united everyone would get instantly involved.

World government will happen when enough corporations come together to price-fix everything outside of federal awareness. This is how the rich stay rich and this is how a "one world government happens".

>>60
so all the problems in the world can be boiled down to a bunch of guys price fixing

why not use price fixing yourself, then when you have enough money start a propaganda campaign against price fixing?

The benefits of a world government depends, as with regular governments, on the degree and type of control they hold on the governed peoples. A utopian wold government, in my opinion, entails the acceptance of social responsibilities by the people of the world more so than the government of it. An issue that must be considered is the extended power of the ruling class but an easy solution to this is a well regulated communistic society with great social liberty and a lack of a social hierarchy that crippled earlier forays into communist society. An active awareness and monitoring of corruption leads to the elimination of said corruption.

oh and >> 16 a state of maintained anarchy is possible if when a vacuum of power does occur it is destroyed by the larger populace in an act of unity through necessity. Its similar to maos theories on continual revolutionary communism.

You don't need a world government in order to cooperate with other countries.

>>16

I thought this too. When I realized this I was actually thinking about Fallout (the video game), and how after the nuke wiped a large portion of civilization, new "governments" and gangs rose. Yeah, I totally agree with you though.

>>65
Yeah pretty much. The only argument in favor of anarchism is with anarchism being the value of being free from abusive authority and recognizing the limitations of government, but then why decide to turn it into a marxist ideology and ostracize everyone? Ideology is the tool of statists after all. Why not just value liberty?

We need to incorporate our global thinking with our local needs. Globalization is just another sugar coated way to phrase Imperialism. The corporate agenda has us all by the balls and we can't look to government (who are funded and created from these profit monsters) to regulate or navigate us out of our current situation. Creating a world government is the last thing we need to be 'planning' because in reality it is already here. Watch http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the_corporation/

I don't think a world government is possible at least in the time being .. but i think a globalized idea might such as human rights. but given the tremendous development on the cyber world human rights should be taken care of online too .. for example internet anonymity should be emphasized ... but this idea is not going to happen if we just waited for it we must participate as individuals and groups to ensure our rights being covered in such laws ..

>>67
The corporations, maaaaan. They're, like, trying to take over the woooorld. We should have a music festival and show them how free we are, man.

i don't know if i agree with a world government yet.
but if we are to unite the world in peace then a new government must first be created
a new incorruptible government based on the people governing themselves and the "government" acting merely as an orginizational and operational tool.
thus a social experiment is needed to test and confirm the possibility of an incorruptible government.

ideal purpose of world government: unite world in peace
requirements: government controlled by citizens, not other way around
incorruptible government does not yet exist.
incorruptible government is potentially possible in a virtual online setting.
the newly created country must be based on equality between all human beings and must also be based completely on peace.
thus this -> http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1360348224/1-40

>>71
requirements: government controlled by citizens, not other way around
Yeah! And only the Jews are real "citizens". Goyim just think they are citizens, but in fact just a farm cattle.

>>71
peace
Peace = stagnation. Every technological advance of past years was due to war. Even Internet began as DARPA project.

>>71
i agree with your concept of it's purpose.
but let's face it, the only possibility for world peace is through a hivemind consciousness.
and since humans are by their very nature corrupt, even if a hivemind is achieved, the species will always try to break free.
humans will always seek freedom.
freedom to be individuals, free to make their own mistakes.
free to test the depths of the corruption that lies in their hearts.

screw it, world government is needed to enslave the species in order to protect it from its own corruption in the form of its dangerous concept of freedom.

>>74
Enslaving will only lead to rebellions. The only logical course of action is to destroy the species.

Agenda 21, check your privilege.