World Government

[F1-Insanity]

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

No.

Reason: we'd be worse off. Can't have theocratic fundie nations and dictatorships get influence on what our laws should be.

[F1-Insanity]

Do you have any dreams? perhaps you wanted to be a film maker, an actor, artist, singer, mechanic, cook? in an anarchist society if anything was free and open nothing would stop you from reaching your dreams. Budding singers could organize open mic concerts in a stadium owned by the people, people could freely broadcast on a pirate radio station anything they wanted, film makers could have the resources they need and budding actors would have a movie to star in no matter what they looked at. Its about mutual appreciation and respect for everyone's dreams and aspirations

I aspire to be an evil dictator, and promise spoils to those who join me. Then I take away your precious rights and you have no means to defend yourself against my arbitrary decisions.

And if not that, I'll start up my own company, hire people to do the work for me and take home the bacon

[BrightonBurg]

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

NO.

There is to much govt.as it is,we need LESS govt. not more..

[Sionis Prioratus]

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

As long as it has Western progressive values, it can't come soon enough.

If there's ever a World Government under Sharia, I'll buy the first ticket to Mars. I'll be as dead in Mars as under Sharia, so I'd prefer a different landscape.

[Maxaxle]

IMO, it's too early to tell, what with so many developing nations. We don't really know their true colors when in power. However, if I had to make a decision now, I'd say that we could just expand our current alliances and current organizations to the point where they might as well be one, or go through some sort of merging program.

[Teh ebil mozlemz]

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.

But that's illegal.

[Lelouche]

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.

But that's illegal.

Working to prevent the establishment of The New World Order is a crime?

in what world?, and who enforces that law?

[Teh ebil mozlemz]

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.

But that's illegal.

Working to prevent the establishment of The New World Order is a crime?

No. Setting people on fire is.

in what world?,

This one.

and who enforces that law?

The government.

[Lelouche]

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.

But that's illegal.

Working to prevent the establishment of The New World Order is a crime?

No. Setting people on fire is.

in what world?,

This one.

and who enforces that law?

The government.

Hippies aren't people

I reject your world, and the government that protects

infringing on my god given right to light hippies on fire....that's just oppression

[Coffin-Breathe]

Hippies aren't people

I reject your world, and the government that protects

infringing on my god given right to light hippies on fire....that's just oppression

Well, some hippies (just like me) are of the mean and big type, and tend to like to break your neck like a tindertwig, when you´re trying to disturb the environment by setting up a little fire - you might choose carefully, man...

[Burchadinger]

You have two choices for President

1)

OR

2)

[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.

But that's illegal.

only if I am caught.

[Greed and Death]

You have two choices for President

1)

OR

2)

Ricahrd Nixion.
He might be shady but he will actually form a practical EPA. instead of a shut down all coal plants now program.

[Bears Armed]

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

Only if it were a revival of the British Empire...

[New Ziedrich]

I'd support a world government if they were competent and had cool uniforms and tanks.

[Pope Joan]

No. I don't believe that mankind can be effectively governed under one body, what with all the different cultures, religions, taboos, needs, etc.

I personally do not believe that any government has ever been effective or just.

Why then should I want to there to be an enormous one?

[The Romulan Republic]

Not sure why I haven't gotten involved in this thread before. Its certainly an interesting topic. Anyway, better late than never.

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

It depends. I might support it if:

a) it had limited centralized power.

b) was democratic with a constitution that upheld basic rights.

c) Earth was no longer the only world on which humans lived. There are certain advantages in a modern, globalized world to a single planet-wide government, but there's also a huge drawback of having everything under one authority with no outside influences or alternatives. A world government would be a lot more attractive if we were dealing with multiple worlds.

[James_xenoland]

The whole flimsy concept of a "need" for global government, has become thoroughly irrelevant in the last 50-60 years or so. Not to mention that (most) people have advanced and matured enough to fully grasp the profound absurdity and recklessness (danger) of such a notion.

Super states (US etc) and strategic alliances are a different story altogether. (US + Japan + Canada + Israel + taiwan + UK, etc... EU.. Those types of things.) And help to preclude the possibility of such a bureaucratic and authoritative monstrosity even further.

[Sel Appa]

Absolutely, and it is almost certain within the next 500 years.

[Danielturner]

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

Well, the UN has some power...

WA not UN.

[Teh ebil mozlemz]

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.

Except that'd be the formation of a new government and therefore not be anarchy

[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.

Except that'd be the formation of a new government and therefore not be anarchy

it would be proof that people prefer at least some form of government over anarchy, and frankly good for them

Anarchy is made of fail anyways

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

On the other hand - all people are people. Thus, government of some kind is always going to be a necessity. The more interdependent the whole gets, the broader the base of that government will have to be.

World government is pretty much inevitable.

[Lelouche]

World government is pretty much inevitable.

Not necessarily

it seems simple to me, that the question of world government boils down to whether you are a collectivist, or an individualist.

And people tend to express a preference for freedom (personal freedom) and tend to reject collectivism, which it views as it's own kind of tyranny (collectivist tyranny)

I for one would never support a world government, and I don't know anybody who would, the idea that people in France should be allowed to make decisions for people in Georgia, is seen as a rather absurd Notion. and Sovereignty is considered far more preferable to centralization

This is why the UN is effectively little more than a forum with which to argue to no end.

[Grave_n_idle]

World government is pretty much inevitable.

Not necessarily

it seems simple to me, that the question of world government boils down to whether you are a collectivist, or an individualist.

No, it doesn't.

Those are individual opinions or ideologies - what matters is whether or not the trend to amalgamate will continue - and it will for at least as long as capitalism dominates, because amalgamation is profit.

So - there will be a border balkanisation effect around a greater trend towards unification. The logical outcome is world government - whether you believe in collectivisation or individuality.