World Government

[Lelouche]

And in your society,a few spoil sports will rape and kill that 13 yearold girl, simply because they can and nobody will stop them.

Valuing liberty over security shouldn't be the same thing as being so fucking lazy and desiring of independence as to allow this to occur.

A system with no safeguards will eventually devolve into just this thing

until enough people with guns/weapons band together and form an "Establishment" in order to "Safeguard" the "Liberties" of the people

[Paradisal Warrens]

until enough people with guns/weapons band together and form an "Establishment" in order to "Safeguard" the "Liberties" of the people

If they did, that action would be what is noble about anarchy.

[The Archiepelago]

I'm gonna go with "maybe". Some sort of decentralised representative body to arbitrate disputes and coordinate disaster relief and the like is a good idea in principle...sounds familiar, doesn't it?

The only forms you can have to effectively rule with power is either a Empire or Dictatorship. At least the Dictator or Emperor can control what happens as long as they're smart with their power.

Strongly centralised governments as in the above case tend to be greatly inefficient when applied to large scales.

couldn't they just apoint people to over see it and still have some idea about that person's every move as well?

[Lelouche]

until enough people with guns/weapons band together and form an "Establishment" in order to "Safeguard" the "Liberties" of the people

If they did, that action would be what is noble about anarchy.

Until it is decried as "The Man" "Oppressing our freedom" and your right back to square one

Someone needs to enforce Community Standards, this means a system of control is necessary, Ideally this system should be at the least intrusive as possible, and still maintain the function of that society.

[NoNamesLeftGodDamnIt]

Trolls: Don't feed them.

[Paradisal Warrens]

Someone needs to enforce Community Standards, this means a system of control is necessary, Ideally this system should be at the least intrusive as possible, and still maintain the function of that society.

Unlike Urstania, I think that the community, or at least the authority, enacting standards that disallow allow the rape of thirteen year old girls makes the community something that can be looked at with more respect.

[Non Aligned States]

Anarchy is the idea no one has power over me, I am my own person I know what I need to do and live and I dont need anybody telling me how to live.

And then a bunch of people who do what someone tells them to do come over and break your head. And all your like minded friends don't lift a finger because they "don't need anybody telling me how to live".

All this strongly individualistic philosophical claptrap is rubbish when put to the test.

[Non Aligned States]

Oh no! Businesses want to make money! Is there a point you are trying to make?

Prisons exist to isolate those that violate other's rights.

Prisons as a state/societal entity, yes.

But what happens when prisons are in it to make money? And money is determined by the number of inmates? Obviously, as a business, you want to make more money. That means more inmates? How do you get more inmates? Increase crime or actions that can be considered criminal.

Yeah, no problem there you think?

[Skibereen]

Would you support the existence of a world government with at least some power?

Nope.

[Zeppy]

The Kabutz in Israel where they supply you with free clothing and accomodation in exchange for working on the land and cleaning duties

The gathering over the fence having a BBQ where everyone puts in and contributes something whether it be entertainment or food and with no real concept of ownership everything takes out from the party what they need and it becomes a fun event for all.

donating your old clothes to charity, using popular initiative to pick up a peice of rubbish and putting it in the bin becuase your proud of the community you live in

Please spell it right, its Kibbutz!
The Kibbutzim are so damn near collapse and on the government's teats, that it isn't even funny.

[Angleter]

No. Horrible bureaucratic mess, the probability of horrible civil war, the likelihood that some nasty will get elected World Leader, and the likelihood that smaller and sparser cultures and ethnicities will be assimilated into and unified with other and larger groups. Dreadful.

[Greed and Death]

NEVER, any move toward such should be killed with fire.

[Chrobalta]

Not plausible, the wide range of cultures religions and varying populations of the different regions of the world would make any attempt at a Democratic world government improbable, a dictatorship is really the only plausible method to do it (and I am sure people would object to this).

I think a more empowered UN is probable in the future, and perhaps the conglomeration of groups of countries into larger countries(IE: The EU becoming one country). Though this won't exactly happen over night, decades maybe even a century away.

[Teh ebil mozlemz]

People are naturally coming to this conclusion and if you really think that its a nessasary life experience to be oppressed by something well then perhaps this horraible nightmare of theirre being a master was just a nessasary phase in the developement of the species and now that we are a global community we can naturally return to what is natural and free to you and anybody who loves politics and history would be free to write about their experiences living under an "establishment" and eventually it will pass into ancient history.

If you believe Establishments are so useless, why were they made in the first place and why are you using their services?

Imagine one day you're an 80 year old speaking to your grand child and he asks

"Hey what was an Establishment?"
and we could respond
"Well once upon a time humans seemed to believe they needed a 'master' at some level, it was uterly rediculous but for thousands of years humans lived under things called Establishments and systems. Some establishments were more harsh then others like the North koreans had quite a bad establishment, new zealand's wasnt too bad but for 20 years I lived under an establishment where at things called school's we were required to wear uniforms and always answer and obey the person above us, then one day we came to the natural realization that we didnt need anybody to impose thier morals and beliefs onto us and now we have the society we have today where you do have the liberty to start up a news paper or radio station in your garage free from requiring permits and liscences, your free in this society to descover any truth and unleash your fullest potential"

"Wow im lucky, i want to be the youngest person to sail around the world solo"

"Good for you, who am I or anybody to stop you, you should be the master of your own destiny!"

.........................................

Unfortunatly in todays society a few spoil sports think its ok to let the courts take a 13 yearold girl into protective custody for 2 months and stall her passion to go on a solo voyage around the world in her yacht.

So...You don't support education?

[Unidox]

NEVER, any move toward such should be killed with fire.

Why? A world government is inevitable, with the likes of communication technologies (the internet) and global economy. Each day the world gets a little smaller; each day people get a little closer. It is one damn blue marble in a infinite sea of stars and we're all so puny.

[Non Aligned States]

NEVER, any move toward such should be killed with fire.

Why? A world government is inevitable, with the likes of communication technologies (the internet) and global economy. Each day the world gets a little smaller; each day people get a little closer. It is one damn blue marble in a infinite sea of stars and we're all so puny.

A global network is one thing, but a single governing entity is unlikely, especially as the vast majority of countries in the world are governed by a relatively small circle of elites who would rather burn their country to ash (and some of them are doing it anyway) than give up their positions.

[Unterzagersdorf]

Deleted

[Teh ebil mozlemz]

NEVER, any move toward such should be killed with fire.

So you favo(u)r arson over anything resembling world unity?

[Vetalia]

Unless we've colonized a few other planets, hell no. I barely trust our government with protecting even the most basic freedoms, let alone one with sway over the entire planet...

[Coffin-Breathe]

...some might see the European Community as some kind of experimental step to some world government, if some wishes to...I´d say, let´s see, how they manage, and look for the outcome - imo, it doesn´t work so fine at the moment, but we´ll see, what the future might bring...

[Slaytesics]

If Peter Wiggin (From the Ender Series) was in charge, yes.

[Arugganath]

Would you support the existence of a world government with at least some power?

After my ded body.

[Lord Tothe]

There are 4 general descriptions of humanity:

1. All people are good
2. most people are good
3. most people are bad
4. all people are bad

1. If all are good, we don't need any government.
2. if most people are good, the evil will seek to gain as much power as possible, and government allows them the best opportunity to exercise their greed to harm the majority.
3. if most are bad, the majority will use the power of government to oppress one another as well as the good people.
5. if all are bad, then government will be bad because it is impossible to create good by concentrating power in the hands of a few of the bad.

Thus I contend that any form of centralized government is bad, and that one large government with more power will necessarily be more oppressive than the several competing smaller governments we have now.

[Lelouche]

There are 4 general descriptions of humanity:


2. most people are good
3. most people are bad



2. if most people are good, the evil will seek to gain as much power as possible, and government allows them the best opportunity to exercise their greed to harm the majority.
3. if most are bad, the majority will use the power of government to oppress one another as well as the good people.

I eliminated 1 and 4 because they are absolutes in a world that is not black and white, and thus bad descriptors, one can argue universal good/bad, but...they won't be very successful.

2. if most people are good, then it is in their best interest to prevent the evil from gaining undue influence, Government provides them the best opportunity to do so, double edged sword
3. if most people are bad, then the good minority must create a government designed to eliminate/restrict the abuses of the Majority from being inflicted upon the minority, A Constitutionally controlled government provides the best opportunity for them to do. another double edged sword.

it's in the best interest of all people, to limit the amount of power any one person can receive, because history proves that power is the greatest corrupting force of all time, followed by wealth (which is a means to achieve power).

[Greed and Death]

NEVER, any move toward such should be killed with fire.

So you favo(u)r arson over anything resembling world unity?

Yep I will set those hippies on fire for trying to unify the world.