NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you support a one world government? As a citizen of the planet could you see this happening? What would be the drawbacks or benefits of this happening. What would have to happen to make this a reality?

I would support it if the people I liked were in power. I wouldn't want to be lead by a partnership between Syria and North Korea, for example. This probably won't happen until after some major world war that wipes out a continent or two.

No. Too many layers of administration, too distant from the concerns of the people. Too expensive. I even have doubts about Federal Government in the large Federations or collections of states (USA, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Russia)

No. Too many layers of administration, too distant from the concerns of the people. Too expensive. I even have doubts about Federal Government in the large Federations or collections of states (USA, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Russia)


This could be solved by semi-autonomous regions.

No-I think we should have smaller governments that more directly serve thier citizens than bigger ones that are incapable of it.

This could be solved by semi-autonomous regions.

Is that not what we have now?

Is that not what we have now?

Well not really. You have competing interests all over the globe. If under one governemnt you wouldn't have to worry about your neighbor invading you for fun and profit. The rescources for example would probably be shared more evenly for example.

No

it give the goverment too much power and my country's (US) goverment is already too big

Also, a friend of mine is convinced that the freemasons are bent on creating a one world goverment.

Yes. A central, united government of representitives from all countries that collects the taxes and distributes funds to regional congresses which deal with things like education spending, healthcare etc. Much more equal that way.

The biggest problem with a singular government as I see it would be that accountability would go down significantly. Similiar to a monopoly, which it would be of a sorts, who can the average person turn to if the government starts doing unpleasant thing?

Only if I were the President of Earth for life.

I would support a world government wholeheartedly. But as a realist, I know that this will never happen.

Only if I were the President of Earth for life.
Somehow I think taking that title would shorten your life significantly.

I'd support a world government. The only thing I can see wrong with it is that fanatic christians would go crazy, since the tribulation is supposed to start when someone suggests a world government and currency. It'd give them something to back their fanaticism, which I personally don't want. But other than that I think a world government would be cool.

if there was a single global government then were would it be based ?

if there was a single global government then were would it be based ?


Paris, France

if there was a single global government then were would it be based ?
Antarctica.

if there was a single global government then were would it be based ?


Antartica of course. No one nation owns it.

No. For the reasons given by alien born. All decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level.

Paris, France
Yeah, because we all know how long Paris can go without being occupied.

Paris, France

Yeah then we will appoint Chirac as our new president! :eek:

Yeah, because we all know how long Paris can go without being occupied.


I know I'm gonna sound stupid asking this, but could you explain your reasoning?

I only picked Paris because it's the base of the world government in Star Trek.

Well not really. You have competing interests all over the globe. If under one governemnt you wouldn't have to worry about your neighbor invading you for fun and profit. The rescources for example would probably be shared more evenly for example.

Why not. One semi autonomus region decoides that it wants the resources, wealth, strategic position of another, Off we go to civil war.

Who ever believes a one world government would be achievable? Look at the problems the UN suffers and that is only a marginal attempt to bring some minor degree of international relationships. Look at the EU - there are so many arguments between member states that it is likely full unity will never be possible. My point is that almost all attempts at even a minor degree of international co-operation end in chaos. Something like a one world government would take a century of agrument after argument and even then it is unlikely that everyone would agree to it.

if there was a single global government then were would it be based ?

Why not Switzerland? It's neutral.

Or...How about we BUILD a base in the middle of the ocean? In international waters?

I know I'm gonna sound stupid asking this, but could you explain your reasoning?

I only picked Paris because it's the base of the world government in Star Trek.
Just more French bashing.

yes

Why not Switzerland? It's neutral.

Or...How about we BUILD a base in the middle of the ocean? In international waters?


hawaii could be modified for such.

it's far enough away from any landmasses (farther than the azores, the only other option.)

[edit] i discount anarctica because it's too cold for anyone to seriously expect a seventy year old politician to live there without getting rather ill rather quickly

Just more French bashing.

Je le déteste quand les gens frappent les Français, là n'est aucune bonne raison à.

No way. I don't like the way most of the world thinks, so I shudder to think of the direction a democratic world government would head. :)

No way. I don't like the way most of the world thinks, so I shudder to think of the direction a democratic world government would head. :)


What, successful?

Je le déteste quand les gens frappent les Français, là n'est aucune bonne raison à.
Il y a beaucoup de raisons à frapper les Français, leur pauvre exécution pendant la guerre en étant seulement un!

Tu est un oeuf de poisson!



yea, that's all i know....

Il y a beaucoup de raisons à frapper les Français, leur pauvre exécution pendant la guerre en étant seulement un!


Cela ne signifie pas que vous devez faire l'amusement d'eux. Qu'ont-elles jamais fait à VOUS?

No I am not for it. If you want to see what a "One World Government" is capable of doing, just look at the U.N.

Tu est un oeuf de poisson!



I hear fish eggs are good in cobbler.

Tu est un oeuf de poisson!



yea, that's all i know....
Cavier is the way to go...

Tu est un oeuf de poisson!



yea, that's all i know....
Ooh, I can mispronounce "bonjour", does that count?

Why not Switzerland? It's neutral.

Or...How about we BUILD a base in the middle of the ocean? In international waters?

If there were a one world govt. there would be no international waters. All waters would be the national waters of the one world govt.

Ooh, I can mispronounce "bonjour", does that count?

Il dépend...

Cela ne signifie pas que vous devez faire l'amusement d'eux. Qu'ont-elles jamais fait à VOUS?
Un homme français a tué mon petit frère.

I am not sure. On the one hand, freedom to travel without the tedium of customs and such would be nice. On the other hand, if I didn't like the administration I wouldn't have anywhere else to escape to.

I don't think this is possible, however. Many dictators have tried and failed to do this, and I think it's such an inherently unstable idea that with a free community, it would soon collapse due to the divisions of belief, wealth, and other important public factors within the world.

Un homme français a tué mon petit frère.


Oh...sorry.

Oh...sorry.
I'm kidding of course, I have nothing against the French! I make fun of them for their surrenderyness the same way I make fun of my own country for our almost sexual fascination celebrities.

I'm kidding of course, I have nothing against the French! I make fun of them for their surrenderyness the same way I make fun of my own country for our almost sexual fascination celebrities.


Phew...For a second there I was getting teary-eyed.

Would you support a one world government? As a citizen of the planet could you see this happening? What would be the drawbacks or benefits of this happening. What would have to happen to make this a reality?


We already have a world government... you've heard of the G-8 summits and other WTO machinations. It meets often and its primary constituents are about 3000 corporations. They decide what we eat, where we can live, how we can advance and what we can know and think.

Governments are secondary, Corporations are primary.

There goal is to have complete control over markets and to introduce individuals as commodities to be traded and shared. If a country will not "convert" to a capitalistic model, then it must be overtaken with military force, which is up to governments to then invent the reason.

Iraq wants to sell oil through the Euro system, Bomb them, Iran wants to sell Oil through the euro system (instead of the US monopoly) well.. we know where the troops are heading next don't we?

Pull your head out of your butt and realize your being played like a wage-slave. No actual offense meant there ;P

If you are a member of the Global-Elite (NWO), and I see you, I'll know it will help the planet if you die, so don't ask for favours. No law is higher than self preservation, as its their job to supress and kill us.

No, I don't need someone from another Country trying to "force" anyone else to "give" to them because they are less fortunate.

We U.S. citizens do more than our part in assisting almost every other Nation on Earth WITHOUT having them tell us how we will help.

Regards,
Gaar

What, successful?

What isn't?

EDIT: I believe I may have misunderstood your answer...

You are saying that a World Government would be successful?

On that I would say I disagree.

Regards,
Gaar

What isn't?


Um... Huh? I have failed at the complexity of understanding your question. how stupid am I.

What isn't?

EDIT: I believe I may have misunderstood your answer...

You are saying that a World Government would be successful?

On that I would say I disagree.

Regards,
Gaar


Oh I see. What I was asking was, Would the person whose post I was replying to be afraid if the world government was successful.

I am not sure. On the one hand, freedom to travel without the tedium of customs and such would be nice. On the other hand, if I didn't like the administration I wouldn't have anywhere else to escape to.


Unless there's a war on, it's pretty hard to 'escape' anyways. You can't just pick up sticks and move to the USA, or to France, or something (Unless you're part of the EU in the latter case.).

I'd fully support a one world government and hell, I'll sign up to whatever army tries to bring it about. A federal system such as the US's would be best, because it would mean decisions got made at several levels - the best policy of course would be a libertarian one-world government (Freedom, equality of oppurtunity, the usual stuff.).

Sadly, it's not likely to happen in my lifetime :(

They decide what we eat, where we can live, how we can advance and what we can know and think.

If they decide what we eat, howcomesit that I've got choices of literally tens of thousands of foodstuffs within a half hour of where my ass is sat right now? Yeah, I daresay I can't get a hold of some Pygmy of Ullawonga delicacy, but I'm not really looking for dried bugs.

If they decide where we can live, howcomesit that I can legally move house? Ok, I can't just wander into the middle of the field and say "I'll build a house here!" but that would mainly be because Farmer Jones owns the field, not me.

If they decide how we advance, why the hell are there patent offices? If the only innovations came from corporate-sanctioned bodies, then the only need for patents is to say which corporation got it first. And you'll also note that a certain hypercapitalist country called Japan is kicking the hell out of most of the rest of the world in terms of technology.

And if they decide what we know and think, how comesit you know and think what you do? Apparently they're not as powerful as you claim they are.


Pull your head out of your butt and realize your being played like a wage-slave.

Uhuh, as opposed to what? Because the only alternatives to money are bartering (Which is what money is an extension of, it simply means you don't need to have two eggs to get a pint of milk.), or getting everything for free, which doesn't make sense, and has no grounding in reality.

I would support it under the following conditions

1)everyone gets a vote

2) there are checks and balances in the system including arms for the people

3) Checks in the system that prevent the majority from tyranizing(sp) the minority(the federalist system in the US is a good example)

4) A flat taxation system(whether it is income based or consumption based(my prefferance) does matter as much) + and no loopholes for corporations, unions, particular groups(including married vs single ect.)

This is VERY important. Why? because it diminishes the govts ability to play one group against another. If govt has to raise taxes, fine, I can live with that. But convince me first that politicians have done that is possible to curtail frivolous spending first. When govt can disproportionaly tax one group(minority/rich) over another, it is much easier to raise taxes than curtail wastefull spending/fraud/inefficiency than it is to raise taxes. If they had to burden the entire voting public because of their poor spending/efficiency habits then it would be a lot harder.

5) Term limits!!!
I dont care how much is gained by having a politician know his way around the block. Much more is gained by having people live under the rules they enact while they are politician.

Short list, I will think of more I am sure. Generally though, short lists are best though.

Would you support a one world government? As a citizen of the planet could you see this happening? What would be the drawbacks or benefits of this happening. What would have to happen to make this a reality?
Absolutely NOT
I have an extremely large fear of centralized power. As history has shown us, the more centralized power a government has, the bigger it grows, and they often become quite tyrannical (numerous absolute monarchies, dictatorships etc).

This one-world government, no matter who was in charge, would destroy national sovereignty. As to prevent the centralization of too much power, I'm not willing to give up my country's sovereignty. This is why I favor States' rights so much, and smaller federal govt.

"That government which governs least governs best"
-Thomas Jefferson

Howcomesit, that that word has to be the coolest in the English language, aside from presbertyrian.

any moron who believes it possible to get humans to follow a one world is well..a moron... i do not support because not onlt does it impede simple things like identity
but if any of u really followed how life is in afghanistan where there are many different religious and linguistic groups who all think their way is the best way..youd know the one world governement idea is laughable...anyways what so bad with people acting and living differently for different interests and competing for some of the same?
isnt it how its been forever?

...anyways what so bad with people acting and living differently for different interests and competing for some of the same?
isnt it how its been forever?


Change is a good thing, my friend.

Absolutely NOT
I have an extremely large fear of centralized power. As history has shown us, the more centralized power a government has, the bigger it grows, and they often become quite tyrannical (numerous absolute monarchies, dictatorships etc).

This one-world government, no matter who was in charge, would destroy national sovereignty. As to prevent the centralization of too much power, I'm not willing to give up my country's sovereignty. This is why I favor States' rights so much, and smaller federal govt.

"That government which governs least governs best"
-Thomas Jefferson

National sovereignity is an outmoded concept, and is rapidly becoming a fallacy entirely. No one nation, nor group of people, is better than any other and none really have better laws, at least in the civilized world, than any other. Think about it... how many Americans agree with the war in Iraq. Right, and how many don't? Quite a lot. Nationality decides little, and worse yet is decided by things completely beyond your control; changes take great lengths of time and effort to bring about.

In addition, what makes your opinions have any ramification on someone half the country aways? They could have a completely different idea on how things should work, and be as valid as you, because of the different situations they are in. A one-world government would indeed have to be watched carefully, I fully agree, but it would also remove many of the artificial barriers we think are so important.

Would you support a one world government? As a citizen of the planet could you see this happening? What would be the drawbacks or benefits of this happening. What would have to happen to make this a reality?

The answer to the first question is: it depends. Specifically, whether I support the government is entirely dependent upon the degree to which it will promote global social justice, and inversely to the degree that it is tyrannical.

The answer to the second question is: it is a possibility, but an extremely remote one. My guess is that there would either have to be some monumental external threat (alien invasion, for instance) or a rapid decrease in the power of the United States before such a government could form.

The drawback of a global government would be what everyone else mentioned: increased risk of isolation, increased risk of tyranny, difficulty in consolidating global authority, and a marginally increased risk of corruption (it would likely be more corrupt than the U.S., but less so than many other nations). The benefits, of course, would be that if successful, the government would successfully end global war, eliminate the threat of nuclear war, increased emphasis on global priorities (environmental protection, space travel, population control, etc.), greater global protection of people, and most importantly, a powerful curb on the effects of global capitalism. In my view, the goods are so great that we may very well want to risk it, but this seems to be a devil-we-know kind of scenario.

Change is a good thing, my friend.

why fix something that isnt broken?

vatherious parties all argue for their local governments can you imagine what itd be like if the whole world was arguyin to be the ruler?

National sovereignity is an outmoded concept, and is rapidly becoming a fallacy entirely. No one nation, nor group of people, is better than any other and none really have better laws, at least in the civilized world, than any other. Think about it... how many Americans agree with the war in Iraq. Right, and how many don't? Quite a lot. Nationality decides little, and worse yet is decided by things completely beyond your control; changes take great lengths of time and effort to bring about.

In addition, what makes your opinions have any ramification on someone half the country aways? They could have a completely different idea on how things should work, and be as valid as you, because of the different situations they are in. A one-world government would indeed have to be watched carefully, I fully agree, but it would also remove many of the artificial barriers we think are so important.

hahahah and what makes you americans so civilized? the fact that you massacre civilians outside of your country? that you can topple any govt you want without anyone doing anything about it? or could it be the high homicide numbers? or how minorities are still treated like crap and denied the well paying jobs?

why fix something that isnt broken?

vatherious parties all argue for their local governments can you imagine what itd be like if the whole world was arguyin to be the ruler?


All I ment was that change was a good thing. You made it sound like it wasn't.

National sovereignity is an outmoded concept, and is rapidly becoming a fallacy entirely. No one nation, nor group of people, is better than any other and none really have better laws at least in the civilized world, than any other.
True . . . but I can't help feel apprehensive about centralizing any power

In addition, what makes your opinions have any ramification on someone half the country aways? They could have a completely different idea on how things should work, and be as valid as you, because of the different situations they are in.
De-centralizing power brings it closer to the people who are being governed; I trust that people know how to run their own lives better than any government official can.

A one-world government would indeed have to be watched carefully, I fully agree, but it would also remove many of the artificial barriers we think are so important.
Here's the thing . . . one-world government involves an extremely dispraportionate amount of centralized power compared to de-centralized.

I am reminded of an excellent quote by Lord Acton:
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely"

hahahah and what makes you americans so civilized? the fact that you massacre civilians outside of your country? that you can topple any govt you want without anyone doing anything about it? or could it be the high homicide numbers? or how minorities are still treated like crap and denied the well paying jobs?
Main Entry: civ·i·li·za·tion
Pronunciation: "si-v&-l&-'zA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
2 : the process of becoming civilized
3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban comfort
It would seem that those things you mentioned have little to do with civilization...

hahahah and what makes you americans so civilized? the fact that you massacre civilians outside of your country? that you can topple any govt you want without anyone doing anything about it? or could it be the high homicide numbers? or how minorities are still treated like crap and denied the well paying jobs?


Tell us what country YOU live in so WE can bash IT!

But I can understand were your coming from, I just don't like people making fun of America.
I'm just way too patriotic...

hahahah and what makes you americans so civilized? the fact that you massacre civilians outside of your country? that you can topple any govt you want without anyone doing anything about it? or could it be the high homicide numbers? or how minorities are still treated like crap and denied the well paying jobs?

LOL, good one. What country you live in? Going to write my weekly letter to Bush and let him know where we should go next.

The rescources for example would probably be shared more evenly for example.
Wow, Marra, I had no idea you were a communist!

If a one world government comes along then I guess I am dying in the revolution to destroy it and bring back nationalism.
Ah sweet nationalism. Wave your flags and spread a little patriotism today. We're better than you are. . .we're better than you are!!

Cela ne signifie pas que vous devez faire l'amusement d'eux. Qu'ont-elles jamais fait à VOUS?

can someone please translate this? im dying to know what it means

can someone please translate this? im dying to know what it means

I asked Arammanar what the French ever did to him.

Translation: That's still not a good reason to make fun of them. What did the French ever do to YOU?
(vous means you, he he...)

If a one world government comes along then I guess I am dying in the revolution to destroy it and bring back nationalism.

I'd be fighting alongside you, then.

I could go for it if it were like DOOP.

I asked Arammanar what the French ever did to him.

Translation: That's still not a good reason to make fun of them. What did the French ever do to YOU?
(vous means you, he he...)

aww i thought you were saying something vulgar, then i could curse out my bad teachers in french instead of spanish because two thirds of my school is spanish and they know what it means

what did he say before that?

I'd be fighting alongside you, then.

My only wish before I was killed by a random artillery round would be that the world government forces would wear those rediculous blue helmets so I could mock them as I shoot.

Yes, I'd support it.

And for my next trick...

aww i thought you were saying something vulgar, then i could curse out my bad teachers in french instead of spanish because two thirds of my school is spanish and they know what it means

what did he say before that?

He said the French didn't do well in the war, or something like that.

Try damnez-vous, or zut alor (damnay voo, zoot alor)

do you think "zoot suit" means anything in Frenchy?

Tell us what country YOU live in so WE can bash IT!

But I can understand were your coming from, I just don't like people making fun of America.
I'm just way too patriotic...

im not making fun...im stating facts... and its not making fun of america its criticizing the people you elect nd how yo support them when they sacrifice lives for money especially your own GIs lives..although im not american that bothers even me, because i relate mostly to u guys more than any country in the world since im just north of u guys and its sad to see Bush send people into a place where they are theatened 24/7 so that Haliburton can make 1.3billion in work they never did....

and to the guy who quoted Websters Dictionary....
if by development of culture u mean MTV FOX etc...well im sorry to be the one to tell you that american culture has not been the greatest in the last years
and if by technological advancement u mean your so-called "smart bombs", the cell phone obsession and SUVs
well the world should once again become uncivilized...

My suggestion is that Arepia be ignored.

Moving on to the issue at hand, I feel that an extremely de-centralized "one world" government would be good. It was mentioned earlier that global issues such as the environment, space and population control would become relevant; I agree, and think this is a good thing.

Ideally the greatest benefit of the global government would be it's ability to extend political, civil and economic rights to every human being on the planet.

Another poster mentioned that the influence of the United States would have to be lessened in order for a global government to form. I, however, believe that a global government is possible only when there is a powerful force behind the movement which other nations can flock to - NATO and the U.N. are examples of the U.S. acting in this fashion. I think if the U.S. remains strong, it could be a focal point around which the global government could form.

Where would it be based? Probably D.C., Geneva, Prague, London, Berlin, Beijing, Tokyo or Sydney.

hahahah and what makes you americans so civilized? the fact that you massacre civilians outside of your country? that you can topple any govt you want without anyone doing anything about it? or could it be the high homicide numbers? or how minorities are still treated like crap and denied the well paying jobs?

First of all I'm English, dolt. You see that 'location' thing to the left of my posts? See how it says 'Leicester, England'? You know how there's no 'Leicester, England' in the USA? Yeah, so please to be not tempting my flaming.

Oh, and also, I make that point because I expressly do not believe there's a great deal of difference in individuals based on nationality. There are murdering luniatics in Sudan, and there are murdering lunatics in America. There are good people in Sudan, there are good people in America. That's half the point of my advocation of Globalization (Both political and economic) - to eliminate these crazy ideas that nationality dictates very much about people.


if by development of culture u mean MTV FOX etc...well im sorry to be the one to tell you that american culture has not been the greatest in the last years
and if by technological advancement u mean your so-called "smart bombs", the cell phone obsession and SUVs
well the world should once again become uncivilized...

I think most people would consider a self-motivating vehicle capable of transporting seven or more people without ANY effort on their parts except the driver's, without the use of animals, and to have a system which can distribute both the products and the fuels throughout almost 3,720,000 square miles, as a pretty damned impressive logistical and technological achievement.

I also think that just because someone else considers MTV and FOX to not be 'culture' doesn't make it not be culture. Doctor Who is one of the greatest cultural phenomina of the British Isles, and it's a hammy science fiction show for Chrissake's. Culture doesn't have to be high art, and it doesn't have to be Palladian architecture.

Wow, Marra, I had no idea you were a communist!


No, no I'm not a communist. When I say share rescources I meant take theres and share with US. Man first time I have ever had my name and communist in same sentance.

;) A World Government is the best idea politically that anyone could introduce at this point in time. The world is in a state of chaos (because of a rambunctious leader who shall not be named..*cough*BUSH!*cough...cough) and we need a certain state of security. One person said on here that we are already controlled by wto and all that bull. Thats very true. But you also have to understand, we are the ones who give them the money to make those decisions, so no matter how much they wouldn't admit it, they need us as much as we need them. And the same would go with a government, if they would want it to be successful, they'd have to give AND take. Not just TAKE all the time. And they would probably know this. By they i mean whoever will assume the ultimate government positions. I have always wanted so much for the world to be one body, and hey...whats so wrong with conformity? Do you really need to be an individual, what does it do? :fluffle: :mp5: :p

No, no I'm not a communist. When I say share rescources I meant take theres and share with US. Man first time I have ever had my name and communist in same sentance.

There's nothing wrong with being communist. You should be standing up for the rights of the oppressed.

I wouldn't support a one world gov. We have enough government as it is.

No, I'd refer you all to the piece Kant wrote about it. He was spot on.

There's nothing wrong with being communist. You should be standing up for the rights of the oppressed.

I wouldn't support a one world gov. We have enough government as it is.


I personally don't believe that communism stood for the rights of the oppressed. It seemed Russia for example oppressed more than it helped. Just a historical observation on my part.

Would you support a one world government? As a citizen of the planet could you see this happening? What would be the drawbacks or benefits of this happening. What would have to happen to make this a reality?
Only if it were a democracy or some variant of democracy. I don't see this happening anytime in the near future; too many non-democratic nations.

There's nothing wrong with being communist. You should be standing up for the rights of the oppressed.

I wouldn't support a one world gov. We have enough government as it is.

WHAT?

And also

WHAT?

Being communist shows your head is buried in the sand when it comes to morality - communism has NOTHING to do with standing up for the 'oppressed' (And even if it did, it doesn't seem able to identify the oppressed or have any suggestions for how to help them other than "Give them what the succesful have earned!"), and everything to do WITH oppression. Communism is not freedom, communism is not advanced, communism is not enlightened, Communism is in fact morally indefenseable and practically impossible.

Second exclamation of incredulous disbelief;

Where does the assumption a government over a large area = a large government coming from? The US has a vast amount of land, whilst the UK has relative nothing (Less than many individual states), yet the UK has larger government. It would be perfectly possibly to have any size of government over the entire world, from a single person such as a Monarch or Tyrant, to a hideous socialist amalgamation of eighty different agencies, each doing things people should be doing for themselves, and could do much better for themnselves.

Being communist shows your head is buried in the sand when it comes to morality - communism has NOTHING to do with standing up for the 'oppressed' (And even if it did, it doesn't seem able to identify the oppressed or have any suggestions for how to help them other than "Give them what the succesful have earned!"), and everything to do WITH oppression. Communism is not freedom, communism is not advanced, communism is not enlightened, Communism is in fact morally indefenseable and practically impossible.Point of order, communism is a form of socialism based on the idea that the working class is being exploited and oppressed by those who are in power; the idea is to help the working class by putting it into a place of power equal to what it deserves as the largest and the hardest working class.

Not an endorsement or a damnation, just trying to show you that you're mistaken.

Being communist shows your head is buried in the sand when it comes to morality - communism has NOTHING to do with standing up for the 'oppressed' (And even if it did, it doesn't seem able to identify the oppressed or have any suggestions for how to help them other than "Give them what the succesful have earned!"), and everything to do WITH oppression. Communism is not freedom, communism is not advanced, communism is not enlightened, Communism is in fact morally indefenseable and practically impossible.

The "successful" didn't earn anything. They took it from the working class.

Point of order, communism is a form of socialism based on the idea that the working class is being exploited and oppressed by those who are in power; the idea is to help the working class by putting it into a place of power equal to what it deserves as the largest and the hardest working class.

Not an endorsement or a damnation, just trying to show you that you're mistaken.

Although I thank you for clarifying, I did already know that, my point is that the working class are not being oppressed, certainly not as Communism thinks, anyway (The worst charge that could seriously be levelled is a lack of safety care, which is being rectified more and more every day.) - whereas people who are really oppressed are rather hard to find (I suppose it depends on you definition of oppression, too.) - and the very fact that we have a system of democracy which gives the most power to the largest class shows one of two things; the working class already has power, but class does not dictate a person's policy on issues; or the Communists view democracy as insufficient and therefore believe not only must wealth be redistributed, but the form of government must change entirely as well. Completely contrary to what they claim, of course.

The "successful" didn't earn anything. They took it from the working class.

Like J.K Rowling, the way she took those millions of pounds from the working class by writing a series of novels that they were legally required to purchase by the thousand?

Like Quentin Tarantino, who has stated he will "Do a Mr. Blonde" to any member of the working class who doesn't mail him $15 per year?

Or maybe like Richard Brason, who's massive successes come not from wise business sense and admirable determination and drive, but actually derive from him paying his workforce only three slices of bread and a lump of wet cardboard per month?

Riiiiiiiiight. Yes, some people exploit other people. No, this does not mean every person who is rich is exploiting or using the working class. And you might be interesting to learn that we have these things called 'laws' which we use to ensure expliotation is minimzed.

;) A World Government is the best idea politically that anyone could introduce at this point in time. The world is in a state of chaos (because of a rambunctious leader who shall not be named..*cough*BUSH!*cough...cough) and we need a certain state of security. One person said on here that we are already controlled by wto and all that bull. Thats very true. But you also have to understand, we are the ones who give them the money to make those decisions, so no matter how much they wouldn't admit it, they need us as much as we need them. And the same would go with a government, if they would want it to be successful, they'd have to give AND take. Not just TAKE all the time. And they would probably know this. By they i mean whoever will assume the ultimate government positions. I have always wanted so much for the world to be one body, and hey...whats so wrong with conformity? Do you really need to be an individual, what does it do? :fluffle: :mp5: :p

I'm glad you like the idea. We'll let Bush go full imperial and the US can rule the world. We'll even let the territories vote for president, but only the States can have senators and of course, the supreme court will remain unchanged. Hey, that's the fun of a one-world government. You really don't get to choose it, it's too big to fight, and if you don't like it you're f#*ked.

me no why cause my bible says that a one world government will arise and that it is ran by the antichrist

I'm glad you like the idea. We'll let Bush go full imperial and the US can rule the world. We'll even let the territories vote for president, but only the States can have senators and of course, the supreme court will remain unchanged. Hey, that's the fun of a one-world government. You really don't get to choose it, it's too big to fight, and if you don't like it you're f#*ked.

What's the difference between one vote in 300,000,000 and 6,000,000,000,000? Very little in the end. Which is why it doesn't make a lot of difference, and why a sensible path is a one-world government for the same laws, free trade, and freedom of movement, and nothing more.

Being communist shows your head is buried in the sand when it comes to morality - communism has NOTHING to do with standing up for the 'oppressed' (And even if it did, it doesn't seem able to identify the oppressed or have any suggestions for how to help them other than "Give them what the succesful have earned!"), and everything to do WITH oppression. Communism is not freedom, communism is not advanced, communism is not enlightened, Communism is in fact morally indefenseable and practically impossible.

The "successful" didn't earn anything. They took it from the working class.

The question of one world government has been mentioned, thoroughly discussed and even promoted as one of the principles of the Baha'i Faith. It is clear scientifically that humanity is one single race, that the worlds political boundries are becoming less and less necessary and ignored by more and more people because of issues of poverty, famine and unrest. The national lines between countries means nothing to someone who is starving or afraid for his life or in desperate need of a means of earning a living. A detailed examination of the topic was written by represtentives of the Bahai Faith. It is interesting reading and can be found by Googling "Turning Point For All Nations."

"Striking the right balance may not always be easy. On the one hand, genuine development and real progress can be achieved only by people themselves, acting individually and collectively, in response to the specific concerns and needs of their time and place. It can be argued that the decentralization of governance is the sine qua non of development. On the other hand, the international order clearly requires a degree of global direction and coordination.

For example, one of the time-tested models of governance that may accommodate the world's diversity within a unified framework is the federal system. Federalism has proved effective in decentralizing authority and decision-making in large, complex, and heterogeneous states, while maintaining a degree of overall unity and stability. Another model worth examining is the commonwealth, which at the global level would place the interest of the whole ahead of the interest of any individual nation

(Baha'i International Community, 1995 Oct, Turning Point For All Nations)

The "successful" didn't earn anything. They took it from the working class.

Let me explain something. It is very easy to get "hired" at a job. Go to work, punch out. Go home and not worry about a thing.

It is entirely different to own a business. Take on the capital risk and physical stress of keeping it open. All the while employing others and worrying about the responsibilities of keeping those employees in a job. There are massive risks taken by alot of so called "successful". By your post I can tell you probably are not a private business owner.

What's the difference between one vote in 300,000,000 and 6,000,000,000,000? Very little in the end. Which is why it doesn't make a lot of difference, and why a sensible path is a one-world government for the same laws, free trade, and freedom of movement, and nothing more.
And if you don't like it you can move... to the moon or Mars.

Let me explain something. It is very easy to get "hired" at a job. Go to work, punch out. Go home and not worry about a thing.

It is entirely different to own a business. Take on the capital risk and physical stress of keeping it open. All the while employing others and worrying about the responsibilities of keeping those employees in a job. There are massive risks taken by alot of so called "successful". By your post I can tell you probably are not a private business owner.
Give it up - L is about as closed-minded and fanatical as it gets.

Although I thank you for clarifying, I did already know that, my point is that the working class are not being oppressed, certainly not as Communism thinks, anyway.Well, you said that communism has nothing to do with aiding the oppressed; I felt this cried out for correction.

Anyhoo. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Only if Australia was in charge.

Only if Australia was in charge.

Then we could all have kangaroo's for pets. Would be great!

Then we could all have kangaroo's for pets. Would be great!

There nothing but pests, seriously I cant shoot enough of them.

Let me explain something. It is very easy to get "hired" at a job. Go to work, punch out. Go home and not worry about a thing.

Interesting how you ignore what goes on in between...

It is entirely different to own a business. Take on the capital risk and physical stress of keeping it open. All the while employing others and worrying about the responsibilities of keeping those employees in a job. There are massive risks taken by alot of so called "successful". By your post I can tell you probably are not a private business owner.

Those risks are things like the possibility of going back to being a worker. If the working class has it as well as you say, that isn't much of a risk at all. A real risk means your life is on the line. Besides, remember that workers are dependent on the business as well. A failed business hurts them, too.

Those risks are things like the possibility of going back to being a worker. If the working class has it as well as you say, that isn't much of a risk at all. A real risk means your life is on the line. Besides, remember that workers are dependent on the business as well. A failed business hurts them, too.

From your statement here you don't have practicle knowledge of how a business is formed. How much work and effort there is. How much of a financial risk is involved. Open a business and hire some employees. Then you can tell me how business owners dont earn it.

BTW what is it im missing in between there? huh?

Well, you said that communism has nothing to do with aiding the oppressed; I felt this cried out for correction.

Anyhoo. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Aye, fair enough. (I have no clue where my later post in this thread has gone ;___; but it clarified a couple of things.) I just don't believe Communism actually knows who is being oppressed, not that they don't want to help the oppressed.