EagleAye
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,697
- Reaction score
- 3,241
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
A Constitution would be meaningless without a government to enforce and uphold it.
And large governments have a strong tendency to seize more and more power, in spite of any Constitutional protections written to deter this. Just look at what has happened with the federal government in the United States. In spite of very strict Constitutional provisions to severely limit its scope and power, it has grown very, very far outside the limits that were intended to be imposed upon it.
Do you really believe that we could have any better success keeping a worldwide government under control, than we have had with our own national government?
it is those same people that complain about something their neighbor is doing to the police rather than just talking to them themselves.A continually growing and more powerful government is usually the fault of the governed. The governed commonly demand "why doesn't the government do something about this," rather than solve the problem for themselves. So when the government adds an Agency to solve the problem, it grows bigger and also stronger. So with a new government, we the people should...stop giving the government more power.
it is those same people that complain about something their neighbor is doing to the police rather than just talking to them themselves.
I would support a world government only so long as membership was completely voluntary. As long as it had a built-in right to unilateral secession, I'd be fine with it.
I believe that people should always be free to withdraw from their current government and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
People living under a government that forbids secession are little more than slaves.
Good one.Maybe Newts Moon colony would be the perfect place for the ones who don't want to live under the world government.:mrgreen:
A Constitution would be meaningless without a government to enforce and uphold it.
Do you really believe that we could have any better success keeping a worldwide government under control, than we have had with our own national government?
Now that is funny as hell. :lamoIf you read my first post in this thread, you will see I mean something different for "government". The government must act as a judge and certainly NOT as economic policy to boost growth, GDP, bla-bla-bla.
As to enforcing international order, imagine you are at class and you have a bully that beats some of the weaker pupils, may be even you. What you do is getter the council (i.e. the class itself) and decide what to do with him. If you have to you can even give him the beating of a lifetime.
Well, that depends on the type of the OWG. At the current stage, no.
What actually happens is the rest of the class stands around and laughs while the bully beats your ass because they don't want him to beat their ass.
The same thing happens with natiion states. Look at WWII. Did any country get in until they feared attack was eminent or were actually attacked?
The USA now ges around the world beating on one small country after another. Has anyone dared challenge them?
Have at it big boy. :roll:Not if they agree to have order in the class and defend that order.
I don't recall any international agreement at the time to keep peace in the world.
You're right, perhaps the first thing that the OWG must do is kick uncle Sam's ass for being the bully of the world.
Have you carefully considered the logic of your post?
Seems to me that a one world government would prevent the likelihood of a third world war, not precipitate it.
You employ your rights to freedom of speech, assembly, the press, as well as the right to bear arms, obviously. This is why such individual rights would have to be a non-negotiable condition of such a world republic constitution.
I can agree with this assessment. Countries need to decide for themselves what kind of society they want but their should be limits. Bombing whole indigenous populations out of existence and other mass killings is one of them. External aggression is another. But whether a country wants to make it illegal for women to drive or not is nobody else's business. At this point in time I do not support a OWG.Oh right, so you think the rest of the 6.7 billion population will all agree with US ideals of "human rights"?
This is why I hate OWG supporters
If a "one world government" thinks revenge as to the bully problem, then the world does NOT need this.....so-called government..If you read my first post in this thread, you will see I mean something different for "government". The government must act as a judge and certainly NOT as economic policy to boost growth, GDP, bla-bla-bla.
As to enforcing international order, imagine you are at class and you have a bully that beats some of the weaker pupils, may be even you. What you do is getter the council (i.e. the class itself) and decide what to do with him. If you have to you can even give him the beating of a lifetime.
Well, that depends on the type of the OWG. At the current stage, no.
Oh right, so you think the rest of the 6.7 billion population will all agree with US ideals of "human rights"?
IMO, they should, if they were living in the 21st century; but "they" are not....Its closer to the stone age...for Russia, China, it may be the 1800s....and this, we must respect...hard as it is to do.Oh right, so you think the rest of the 6.7 billion population will all agree with US ideals of "human rights"?
This is why I hate OWG supporters
Right, so the League of Nations managed to prevent WWII? Has the UN, a massive failure, prevent the Cold War, the Middle East mess, the African wars, or any wars?
IMO, they should, if they were living in the 21st century; but "they" are not....Its closer to the stone age...for Russia, China, it may be the 1800s....and this, we must respect...hard as it is to do.
Neither the League of Nations nor the UN can possibly be considered a genuine description of a world republic.
They're imitations and failures at trying to preserve world peace, which is surely the aim of the "world republic"
A one world government would work, if anyone read that short excerpt; I'll sum it up. Bassiccly we need to stop viewing other nations AS nations and start viewing them as other states. This way we would, as states, not allow tyrants like Kim Jung Il to exist. The reason we allow this to exist is because China is profiting off of it. This would also not be allowed in our state-to-state commerce. I think it has to be accepted as a idea or else it will be to late. Unfortunately with the way things are going in the middle east and, especially, the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, I fear we will not be able to make it to where we view everyone as a neighbor. Also, he throws in that this is all religious backed, IE the Muslims don't want us to be viewed as brothers and sisters and nor do some Christians want to view them as brothers and sisters, rather, they view them as some ultimate goal that they need to convert (Remember, this wasn't ALL Christians or ALL Muslims, just some and I won't speculate on whether it is a large sum or not).
Wait, so your solution is to replace the word "nations" with "states"?
Good heaven, the solution to saving the world was as simple as this :doh
The only way China could possibly benefit from North Korea is politically, that China looks good compared to North Korea. How is that going to change? Are you planning to attack North Korea and kill millions of Koreans and in the process destroy Seoul? We can do that today as well, you know?A one world government would work, if anyone read that short excerpt; I'll sum it up. Bassiccly we need to stop viewing other nations AS nations and start viewing them as other states. This way we would, as states, not allow tyrants like Kim Jung Il to exist. The reason we allow this to exist is because China is profiting off of it. This would also not be allowed in our state-to-state commerce.
The only way China could possibly benefit from North Korea is politically, that China looks good compared to North Korea. How is that going to change? Are you planning to attack North Korea and kill millions of Koreans and in the process destroy Seoul? We can do that today as well, you know?
How would it help that people view nations as states. All the problems I have listed above, will still be there. And secondly, people are not going to view their nations as states. Why should we?
You did the trick of finding benefits that conservatives care about. Tell us your real reason for wanting a world government. Is it to force the US to implement measures, you are not able to get through democratically? Do you believe handouts to poor countries will really solve world's problems? Do you think corporations power will be limited by measures from a world government, when in fact companies will be much more interested and able to donate to a world government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?