NationStates

Kormanthor wrote:Scripture says it will happen

But since the scripture is false, doesn't that prove it WON'T happen?

Kormanthor wrote:As you said, you can only hope .... I KNOW.

Do you? Or do you only think that you know? Its not as if you would know the difference.

Well, we're all entitled to our beliefs. But its still a horrible idea to base global political policy on End Times prophecy (a big problem in America these days).

This is the most retarded thread I've ever read; quite obviously, you're some naive kid who's never actually read any proper history. Try formulating your arguments based on facts and not just your bullshit emotionally-driven optimistic view of how a real world government would work.

If you want an example of how awesome a World Government would work, take a gander at the United Nations and their record of utter, abysmal failure and absolute ineffectiveness.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Kormanthor wrote:As you said, you can only hope .... I KNOW.

Do you? Or do you only think that you know? Its not as if you would know the difference.

Well, we're all entitled to our beliefs. But its still a horrible idea to base global political policy on End Times prophecy (a big problem in America these days).

Oh Moddess... Epistemology.

North-Point wrote:This is the most retarded thread I've ever read;

You clearly haven't read many threads, then. Sad to say, their is much greater stupidity out there.

quite obviously, you're some naive kid who's never actually read any proper history. Try formulating your arguments based on facts and not just your bullshit emotionally-driven optimistic view of how a real world government would work.

I'm not sure why I'm replying to this, since I don't think it was addressed to me, but you might try posting a more thoughtful or persuasive argument than a cheap Ad hominem and a suggestion to read more.

If you want an example of how awesome a World Government would work, take a gander at the United Nations and their record of utter, abysmal failure and absolute ineffectiveness.

One example. That was never an actual world government in the first place, and has in fact had some success in certain areas (if not in International Peacekeeping).

One could just as well point to, say, a failed non-profit organization on the national level, and conclude that all attempts at government are doomed to failiure.

It was addressed to the thread author, not to you.

Entire books have been written about the failures of the UN; I find it boring to argue with you here, so I'll ask you to type in "UN fails to" in Google and read some of the results.

North-Point wrote:It was addressed to the thread author, not to you.

Entire books have been written about the failures of the UN; I find it boring to argue with you here, so I'll ask you to type in "UN fails to" in Google and read some of the results.

Oh, I'm aware that the UN has failed at many things (but not, I think, at everything). However, it is but a single example that is not and as far as I know was never intended to be a genuine World Government. You cannot dismiss the possibility of a successful world government simply by citing the UN as precedent, a point that you clearly failed to fully address.

As has been already stated, an effective, active world government is impractical and foolish. War, misery, and poverty would not end, as people fight over cultural differences and material goods, not just because so and so's nation has a different name. In fact, I could only see more problems arising, as bands of militias try to topple the world government, causing the world government to become paranoid and oppressive.

The United States has STATE and LOCAL governments for a reason. What works in Nevada may not work in New York City.

Having one single legislative body that rules the entire world is a bad idea on so many levels.

Go read 1984 or something, because that's the ONLY way a world government controlled by bureaucrats, bankers and politicians would turn out!