World parliament

Please give all your arguments against this:

http://en.unpacampaign.org

^JEWSSSSSSS

Women, in my binders? It's more likely than you think!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcztg0g7gI1rj8amio1_1280.jpg

>>1
But you already has world parliament: it consists from shareholders of major banks and corporations. You voted for these Jews, when purchased their products. You vote for Hollywood, when watch Hollywood production. You vote for Intel, when buy Intel powered PC.

>>3
Hella old joke dude.

>>5
It's Mitt Romney styled. Heyyyyy pretty lady!
http://youtu.be/NSeck0CZeFg


 ___ _____ _____    _____ _____ _____ _____ _____    _____ _____ _____ _____
| | |     |_   _|  | __  |  _  |  _  |   __|   __|  |   __|   __| __  |   __|
|_  |   --| | |    |    -|     |   __|   __|__   |  |__   |   __| __ -|   __|
  |_|_____| |_|    |__|__|__|__|__|  |_____|_____|  |_____|__|  |_____|_____|

Why? Why should corrupt governments get any say on how the world is run? Fucking fix your own country and help your own people first

>>3
Wow, that meme is still going on?

>>1
I think we should democratize the EU a bit before attempting reform of the UN. Babby steps and such.

Meaningful powers specific to the parliament need to be delineated explicitly for it to have any meaning. This would probably involve an expansion of UN powers, and I'm not sure we could get everyone on board with that.

Logically there is a lot wrong with world government.

I recognize the advantages of centralization and hierarchy, for instance the fire brigade doesn't have time to decide everything democratically, if a car is parked in front of a needed hydrant they should have the authority to break its windows. The fire brigade is just a "rung in the ladder" however, world government would be inherently different as it is essentially the "top of the pyramid" in the hierarchy which is not answerable to any higher or competing authority. As a result the entire hierarchy would be subject to one political entity representing only a proportion of the total number of people under its authority.

Centralization of course also has its disadvantages, as with all things anything in excess is counter-productive and in this case world government would be an excess even in terms of streamlining diplomacy, world trade and issuing uniform standards, let alone problems with corruption, heavy hand of government and increasing distance of government from those it is meant to represent. Nations are perfectly capable of cooperating on their own accord without the need for some central body, the EU for instance was a success when it acted as a medium for negotiation then started to become inefficient when EU membership demanded compliance. Italian auto manufacturers are at the mercy of regulations passed by the Germans, British fishing fleets have to abide by Spanish rules, Greek financial decisions are influenced by Brussels and so forth.

tl;dr: centralization's disadvantage in taking into account a range of concerns is a form of administrative inefficiency

>>12
How do you explain the popularity of Intel processors or Microsoft's OS? These are monopolistic entities and yet no one complains. Then we have Abrahamism, which is pretty much monopolistic in ideology.

To avoid World Government, you need to adopt incompatible religion and install software, no other country uses. Without isolationism, your country slowly loses sovereignty

>>13
Well because people are bandwagon-jumping morons who use those things simply because everyone else does, plus it's also easy fo justify not leaving your comfort zone. Not to mention the network effect and switching costs and such. These are problems even in a truly free market, but you'll never hear a libertarian adddess them when they're spouting their gospel.

One World Government
governed by the UN
I don't think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliament_%28expression%29

>>15
That is why Poland became a Russian colony.