• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are the majority of people against a world government?

Kelfuma

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
708
Reaction score
107
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the way I see it, they are concerned over individual rights and security. Who will run the world government? Can I trust it? How does it enforce law? How will the people be represented? What if Indians and Chinese rule the world government? What if white people rule it?

I cannot wrap my head around why people are so insecure about anything relating to a world government.

It is inevitable that Earth will be a planet in which "mortal races blended and biologically fit. There are no race or color problems; literally all nations and races are of one blood. The brotherhood of man flourishes, and the nations are learning to live on earth in peace and tranquillity. With the near completion of the task of race blending, nationalism wanes, and the brotherhood of man really begins to materialize. Representative government begins to take the place of the monarchial or paternal form of rulership. The educational system becomes world-wide, and gradually the languages of the races give way to the tongue of the violet people. Universal peace and co-operation are seldom attained until the races are fairly well blended, and until they speak a common language." (Paper 52 - Planetary Mortal Epochs | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation)

I was thinking that the world government would be based off of the US Constitution. The alternative to this is a constant cycle of war and disaster - global warming, climate change, and aliens aren't going to care about YOU.
 
there's nothing inherently evil about a global government, anymore than a continental, national, regional, or local government. the real problem arises if the global government goes hitler, because there's no one who can fight it, since it controls the world.
 
You mean like an Anti-christ such as the one from the book series Gone?
 
Because I want more choice, not less. Frankly, the advancement of human beings needs to be towards no government, not towards no choices in governance.
 
I see NOTHING particularly "wrong" about World Government.

I can certainly see some problems with it...as almost anyone should be able to see.

We are, however, nowhere near a stage of development where a World Government is a reasonable expectation.

I would not hold my breath waiting for it.

But it is nice to see people advocating for it.

I join you in wanting to see it happen, Kelfuma.
 
Increasing levels of organization seems to be built into the fabric of the universe and humans aren't immune to it. We've evolved increasingly complex organization from tribes to towns to countries to alliances. It seems a unified world government is a inevitability. The only question is will we survive long enough to see it.
 
Kelfuma said:
I was thinking that the world government would be based off of the US Constitution. The alternative to this is a constant cycle of war and disaster - global warming, climate change, and aliens aren't going to care about YOU.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the US Constitution was not based on the premise that government is good, but based on the premise that it is a necessary evil and thus must be limited and small. The whole idea of one government that reaches across the globe and governs all human beings is very much opposed to that undermining premise
 
Because for those of us living in first world nations, it means a lowering of our standards. Why should we trust our welfare to people who can't run a small nation sucessfully? Look at Cent. America and Africa (and even parts of SE Asia), they have incredible resources, yet they can't seem to get past their corrupt gov'ts and put those resources to work for the betterment of their own people. Look at both Russia and China, who are pretty much "corruptocracys". A One World gov't puts the free people under control of the corrupt and incompetent. Oddly enough, we dislike that idea....
 
Kelfuma said:
I was thinking that the world government would be based off of the US Constitution. The alternative to this is a constant cycle of war and disaster - global warming, climate change, and aliens aren't going to care about YOU.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with a world government, right there. You cannot have a world government without one part of the world forcing another part of the world into accepting its ideals for governance.

I don't want to be ruled by the Chinese or the Saudis, and they don't want to be ruled by us.
 
A single node of control equates with a single point of failure, and a single point of corruption.

Too dangerous. Nation-states are a much better idea.
 

Seriously?

If this is a serious question then all I ask is that you take a look around you. The success of ANY species is based in it's diversity and it's ability to adapt to changing circumstances. A "One World" government is pretty much the opposite of that.

It's one thing to seek to create order from chaos but nature is entropic and imposing order inevitably results in rather spectacular failures.
 
Last edited:



This is idiocy!

You are creating a debate about something that doesn't exist. You want a conversation about fiction, myth, made up stories

I would suggest the non-biased, open-mended, adult approach would be to ask "Is a world government necessary?"
 

Never going to happen.

So why waste your time ??
 
Huh... That really does sound better
 
At the risk of being called the sorts of names I am so often called, I do not respect all cultures as being equal.

I have this silly notion that cultures where women are doctors, scientists, lawyers and captains of industry are better places than those where they are nothing but brood mares, married off to their Dad's lecherous brother at an early age, killed for "honor", subject to female genital mutilation and degraded into wearing mummy suits.

I do not want those practicing stone-age beliefs to have any say over the people who support civilization.
 

On this planet, they do this: "The feeble-minded are trained only in agriculture and animal husbandry, and are committed for life to special custodial colonies where they are segregated by sex to prevent parenthood, which is denied all subnormals. These restrictive measures have been in operation for seventy-five years; the commitment decrees are handed down by the parental courts."

Paper 72 - Government on a Neighboring Planet | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation
 
A one world economy ok, a one world government no thanks.
 

My ideal world government wouldn't have complete unitary power over everything. The nation-states would still have considerable autonomy and could run things as their people desire. A global government would mainly serve to prevent war (a global military would be a tough force to reckon with), prevent human rights abuses and ensure fair trade. Needless to say, liberalism would have to take place in most of the world for this to be able to occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…