-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Overall, Would a Single World Government be More Beneficial than Not?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Socialist - yes.
Capitalist - no.
Good luck with that one.
Capitalist - no.
Good luck with that one.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It would be more efficient. However a single centralized govt will require substantially a lot more brutality to subjugate people into compliance.
Depends on the political and social leanings
You mean i would be banned from my friday nights out?
Nah, scrap the idea
WalterTrull
Godfella
We have a world government. It's just not centralized.
It's up to the locals to decide on the orgies.
It's up to the locals to decide on the orgies.
Probably, although most people would be resistant to the idea. There have been numerous examples where, even when people would benefit from living in a larger country, they still choose to break off and form smaller countries. Even those who live in larger countries seem to favor a situation where there's dozens of independent small fry, as capitalists seem to want tiny islands of convenience to hide their ill-gotten booty.
But small countries are at an extreme disadvantage. They can't defend themselves against larger powers and often depend upon and appeal to other large powers to defend them. This was what caused both World Wars and was a major theme during the Cold War. Prior to that, America had a policy of "no foreign entanglements," meaning that small countries were on their own and could expect no help from the U.S.
I think it might be better to have just a few large powers in the world - with no small fry. That would mean a balance of power without allowing a single faction to gain total power over the entire world. But it would also be more peaceful without the small fry to serve as an excuse for war.
Countries have had various leaders.
So a 1 world government would too.
Imagine these people running the entire world.
Joseph Stalin
Donald Trump
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
So a 1 world government would too.
Imagine these people running the entire world.
Joseph Stalin
Donald Trump
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
It would depend on the nature of the government. It would need to be democratically elected and the fundamentals of human rights would need to be agreed upon. We're a long ways off from uniting governments with China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It depends. Something like a working version of the UN, yes that would be most beneficial. We could really do without the need for defence. It's a big hole in which be dump big piles of money.
Nope. That would go too far. Those are not things for a world government to decide.
You would first have to establish the criteria upon which we are to judge forms of government in order for us to determine whether one is more or less beneficial or efficient in meeting your established criteria.
And then we are left arguing over your set of criteria.
No idea but once in place, if it turns out FUBAR, it will be very difficult to get rid of.
Augustus
…
Audie
Veteran Member
Gimme a wise benevolent dictator.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Generally I support a global government, or at least greater global cooperation. My problem is that world government would be yet ANOTHER level of bureaucratic stupidity and lethargy.
I think that if enough people favoured free speech and if the things the global government where to oversee would be minimal in scope it could save on some warfare potentially.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
There is already a United Nations, which is a form of world governance, whose purpose is to help maintain peace between the nations. And the fact is that the quantity and severity of conflicts has declined in modern times. So I call this a success.
The real question isn't whether or not there should be some form of World Government, but rather what role and what powers such a government should have.
I think the powers of the United Nations are currently sufficient.
Other might want to propose other forms of government like World Monarchy, but I don't see a good justification for such additional governance.
Consider the EU, where the UK has had to go through incredible amounts of difficulty because they discovered they didn't want to be part of the EU.
If we had a more powerful world government, it could trigger a devastating world wide conflict. There's just not a good enough reason to justify a significant increase in the centralized power of a world government.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ah! I'm a Brit and we are deep in to Brexit and also nearing devolution within the UK so ..... No ..... Different peoples and cultures need their own laws and rules, I think.
Maybe, although the U.S. has comprised many different peoples and cultures, yet can still have the same laws and rules - provided that they're enforced consistently and everyone is treated equally. It's also helpful if people assimilate to a single culture.