One World Government

[arabie]

You are assuming the one world government will be communist, tryanical or totalitarian, however, if it were democratic, then no one would get left out?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere that doesn't include life with the various assorted types of misery we have to choose from today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Utopia is a pipe dream.

[arabie]

Examples of specific attempts to impose a specific type of government not working in the past do not disprove the purpose of creating a unified government, but rather imply fault to the methods previously used in an attempt to achieve this goal. Therefore we must not dismiss a unified government as wrong, but rather attempt to think of what went wrong and with what we know, decide what kind of government can potentially work.

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't even want to know what your idiotic, socialist definition of getting "anywhere as a species" is? Where the hell are we supposed to be going?

[/ QUOTE ]


What evidence do you have exactly that says anything other than that the human race is thriving.

Population increasing,
life span increasing
length of and frequency of war decreasing
quality of life (health care, diet, use of technology to do work, liesure time) all increasing.

At what point in our existance did the species peak?
If you think I'm a socialist, I assure you, you're missing the mark by a wide margin.

And where are we going? Somewhere that doesn't include life with the various assorted types of misery we have to choose from today.

[/ QUOTE ]

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]

One world government is a goal to be aspired to, and is in fact essential if the human race is ever going to get anywhere as a species.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? You have made an assertion, but you have not given any argument to support it. (Actually, two assertions, because you imply that so far we have not gotten anywhere as a species.)

What's wrong with a world of free, or mostly free, states? As long as people and capital are free to move across borders, and no government threatens its neighbors, there is no reason to merge all the states of the world.

To be concrete about it: what's the point in the U.S. and Canada becoming one? We have friendly relations; we are no threat to each other. What's to be gained by a merger?

[Non_Comformist]

then why exactly did you add the last sentnce about something crazy like Bush ruling the world if your views are not polictical?

WOuld you feel the same way about Clinton? Would that be crazy?

[Six_of_One]

I added the last sentence because I was afraid someone would misconstrue my argument as somehow supporting Bush's foreign policy or supporting forced American hegemony over the rest of the world or something. The fact is, I don't really care who wins the election. I'm not even going to vote. Politics has nothing to do with any of this, Clinton or Bush.

[Six_of_One]

Depends on your definition of "thriving," I guess. In many ways, people are better off now than at any time in the past in terms of quality of life. I agree with you there. I just happen to believe that we are a long, long, long,...,long, long way from where we could be in those terms.

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere that doesn't include life with the various assorted types of misery we have to choose from today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Utopia is a pipe dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I'm not talking about a life without misery. I just think there could be a lot less of it than there is now. Not utopia, just a better life.

[PITTM]

our current system of government is not democratic because the founders of our country thought that the people of the United States could not be trusted with the vote, so they added an electoral college, which takes away the equal voice everyone would have in a democracy. Many people(especially those of us in California) feel that their vote doesnt mean anything already, can you imagine how we would feel with a world super government?

rj