Democratic countries are coalescing into a new humane world order.

[craig]

I think we should encourage this progress. The UN needs to support Democracy.

 

[SkyChief]

"New World Order" is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

If some countries in the global community don't want to play along e.g., China, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam etc..), then there cannot be a New World Order.

Also, not all members of the U.N. are democracies. Some are republics, some are Monarchies, some are communist, some are dictatorships. It would be unfair to ram democracy down their throats.

Would it be fair if the People's Republic of China petitioned the U.N. to spread Communism? Of course not.

Let democracy take root wherever it can. But the U.N. should not coerce other countries to become democratic. The U.N. needs to make ALL countries feel welcome at the U.N. assembly. This is what best promotes world peace.

 

[craig]

"New World Order" is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

If some countries in the global community don't want to play along e.g., China, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam etc..), then there cannot be a New World Order.

Also, not all members of the U.N. are democracies. Some are republics, some are Monarchies, some are communist, some are dictatorships. It would be unfair to ram democracy down their throats.

Would it be fair if the People's Republic of China petitioned the U.N. to spread Communism? Of course not.

Let democracy take root wherever it can. But the U.N. should not coerce other countries to be democratic.

A world government is nessary for us

"New World Order" is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

If some countries in the global community don't want to play along e.g., China, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam etc..), then there cannot be a New World Order.

Also, not all members of the U.N. are democracies. Some are republics, some are Monarchies, some are communist, some are dictatorships. It would be unfair to ram democracy down their throats.

Would it be fair if the People's Republic of China petitioned the U.N. to spread Communism? Of course not.

Let democracy take root wherever it can. But the U.N. should not coerce other countries to become democratic. The U.N. needs to make ALL countries feel welcome at the U.N. assembly. This is what best promotes world peace.

United Countries of the World. We have to get to a place where weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a single authority and their use is voted on by the UN countries.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I think we should encourage this progress. The UN needs to support Democracy.

The "UN" needs to dissolve and disappear back to the slime from which it came. It is an utterly worthless shell of pointlessness.

There is no such thing as a "New Humane World Order." Such language is that of the dictator and totalitarian and not remotely "democratic."

 

[craig]

The "UN" needs to dissolve and disappear back to the slime from which it came. It is an utterly worthless shell of pointlessness.

There is no such thing as a "New Humane World Order." Such language is that of the dictator and totalitarian and not remotely "democratic."

Government has been evolving in to a single world government since the first troop moved into a cave. Do you read history?

 

[SkyChief]

A world government is nessary for us

United Countries of the World. We have to get to a place where weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a single authority and their use is voted on by the UN countries.

I have already explained that this is not possible.

Some countries that have WMDs are not interested in being controlled by a single authority. They wish to assert their sovereignty, and independence.

Sorry - - it's just the way it is. A "New World Order" is a fantasy unless ALL countries are on board with it.

 

[craig]

I have already explained that this is not possible.

Some countries that have WMDs are not interested in being controlled by a single authority. They wish to assert their sovereignty, and independence.

Sorry - - it's just the way it is. A "New World Order" is a fantasy.

Little steps. The Ukraine war is just one.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I would love it if the democratic countries of the world had each other's back.

 

[craig]

I would love it if the democratic countries of the world had each other's back.

Don't you think the UN vote to expel Russia from the Human Rights Conference is a beginning?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Don't you think the UN vote to expel Russia from the Human Rights Conference is a beginning?

Yep

 

[Geoist]

Nation-states will one day become obsolete. Personally, I think they are already pretty obsolete. It'll either be one-world government or anarchism/panarchism. Maybe even a mix of both.

 

[Mycroft]

I think we should encourage this progress. The UN needs to support Democracy.

Sure...a "new humane world order"...as long as you toe the line established by that new world order. (Whom ever controls the world order will establish that line, you know.) The Globalists, right now, are in the lead on controlling the order.

Do you think freedom loving people around the world will be happy toeing the line? I don't.

 

[aociswundumho]

A world government is nessary for us

Currently there are about 190 governments in the world and most of them are positively awful.

What if your one world government turns out to be totalitarian?

 

[craig]

Currently there are about 190 governments in the world and most of them are positively awful.

What if your one world government turns out to be totalitarian?

That is why it is a United Countries of the World. It is democracy with a Constitution with a well defined separation between countries and the union.

 

[Schism]

Google "UN 21/2030 Agenda".

They're working on destroying sovereign nations and creating the security-police-state utopia you liberals desire.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Government has been evolving in to a single world government since the first troop moved into a cave. Do you read history?

That is just plain garbage - and "history" - if it proves anything, proves entirely the opposite.

Yes I read history - and history proves that megalomaniacal totalitarians in every age have attempted their version of "one world government" (i.e. theirs) - and have failed-every-single-time. What you believe to be evidence of the evolution towards one world government is in fact proof of the impossibility of it.

And are you seriously trying to tell us the UN is the result of some sort of logical evolutionary step towards a single world government? We're in dire straits if that's true.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Don't you think the UN vote to expel Russia from the Human Rights Conference is a beginning?

smh

...which is about as effective as Jill Biden telling Putin to put on a shirt - "or else."

 

[Schism]

Currently there are about 190 governments in the world and most of them are positively awful.

What if your one world government turns out to be totalitarian?

Will Lebanon and Afghanistan join their glorious union?

What about Congo and Iran? LOL these people.

 

[craig]

Google "UN 21/2030 Agenda".

They're working on destroying sovereign nations and creating the security-police-state utopia you liberals desire.

You don't think the United States works?

 

[EdwinWillers]

Currently there are about 190 governments in the world and most of them are positively awful.

What if your one world government turns out to be totalitarian?

"What if..?"

By the very definition it would be totalitarian.

 

[craig]

"What if..?"

By the very definition it would be totalitarian.

Like the United States?

 

[EdwinWillers]

Like the United States?

What in the world is your problem?

No, not "like the United States." Good grief - you think we're the totalitarian one world order?

 

[craig]

What in the world is your problem?

No, not "like the United States." Good grief - you think we're the totalitarian one world order?

The United Countries of the World? (With a constitution.) Why not? Do you like a democratic republican government?

 

[EdwinWillers]

The United Countries of the World? (With a constitution.) Why not? Do you like a democratic republican government?

A "United Countries of the World" would, by definition, be a totalitarian government. That you don't see that is - frankly - a little scary.

 

[Goshin]

A couple of points.

This may seem a bit pedantic, but democracy per-se is not always a good thing. We use that word as a shorthand for "free societies that do things in a way that we think makes sense". Typically, that respect individual liberty, the dignity and value of the citizen, a certain amount of capitalism (face it, capitalism produces prosperity like no other system), and a certain liberality.

But democracy does not always lead to these things, in and of itself. When Palestine got to hold their first real vote, they chose to be ruled by a terrorist organization. Afghanistan is run by the Taliban because the Taliban has a lot of support among the population... or at least no competitor has enough support to challenge them.

Many Middle Eastern nations, if they allow voting at all don't allow women to vote. Many of these countries have demonstrated popular support for Sharia law, such as beheading adulterers, apostates and gays.

There's the old saying, pure Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The Founders, despite their flaws, were some pretty smart fellows. They did not want pure democracy.

We have a mixed system in the US, with checks and balances and different branches and so on. MOST importantly we have LIMITED GOVERNMENT... at least in theory. The Constitution remains important despite many incursions on its written limits.
Many nations have democracy but no hard limits on how much control government can exert, and their continued status as free nations is uncertain.

Another question is scale. In the US, a lot of things are settled at the state or local level. If one State congresscritter represents 100,000 voters, I might get a chance to talk to him on the phone or 15 minutes in his office. My chances of getting personal facetime with a US Senator, who represents millions if not 10s of millions, of people, is much more improbable.
When I vote in national elections, I am one vote among a hundred million.

Now imagine that scale of world government.... how far removed the legislators are from the common folk, how little the Senator from Bangladesh might know about life in Oklahoma before voting on an issue crucial to Oklahomans. How unlikely the population of Oklahoma is to make an impression on the World Senate (or whatever) and how it legislates. How little my one vote would seem to matter when billions are voting.

And remember the sheep and the wolves. There are MANY countries in the UN who would love to have the authority to plunder the wealthier countries for the benefit of their own.

These are just a few of the reasons I'm not a supporter of the idea.