User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 41

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    A world government would result in a massive curtailment of individual freedoms for too many people. The world is too culturally diverse to tolerate one set of values being forced on everyone.

  2. #22
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    No, it would prolly be oriented towards american values and they start wars with everyone. I'ld rather like a sneaky government who is nice to everyone at first and then when they trust them, break their backbone !
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  3. #23
    Head Pigeon Mad Hatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    -1w sp/sx
    Socionics
    IOU Ni
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Global government is just the last step before the ultimate victory of totalitarism.
    Totalitarism has proven its incapability repeatedly. A global government would mean a large government indeed - i.e. extensive - , but it does not necessarily have to be a "Big Government" in the sense of totalitarian regimes, i.e. intensive. Considering the EU, I can see that fear or overregulation is not unwarranted at all, but there isn't necessarily an automatism.
    I'm somewhat bothered by the notion that government != individual freedom. In fact, a well-functioning government is what makes public freedom possible in the first place, provided that this is a constitutional aim.
    I suppose that any "global government" which a lot of posters have in mind should be elected in a democratic way and adhering to a democratic agenda.
    Considering that the majority of people is currently living in countries that can be labelled anything but "free", such a global government would indeed be a great benefit for these people. Of course, free elections in an un-free country are anything but free.
    Already as far as such elections are concerned, it would be necessary that undemocratic regimes either abandon a part of their power or needed to be forced to do so, and either one of these alternatives is not very likely to occur, at least not in a great number of countries.
    IN SERIO FATVITAS.

    -τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ-

  4. #24
    Nickle Iron Silicone Charmed Justice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    What do you guys think about this idea ?
    When it will be possible to create a first official global government ?


    Explain in more detail.
    Where would people go if the government were to turn hostile?
    There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

  5. #25
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnFpFer View Post
    Where would people go if the government were to turn hostile?
    Excellent point...

    I know exactly how this feels like. Your own government turning against you.

  6. #26
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    We haven't had a World War since the UN.
    Correlation doesn't imply causation. There hasn't been a large-scale hot war since 1945 because free countries finally matched and then surpassed totalitarian countries technologically and militarily.

    To the OP: Given sharp contemporary differences in the rights of citizens which nations guarantee, global government would be pointless. Nations seem to be the largest effective unit for governance, though I suppose if the range of liberties between countries narrowed to that between the United States and Europe (as opposed to the West and, say, North Korea) and culture became homogenized, a global republic could be possible in the distant future.

  7. #27
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    OK could someone define "totalitarian" then, seeing as we see it used a lot. Always seemed a phrase of questionable worth to me.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  8. #28
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    The question's more of "why would we want a global government?"

    The idea of governments, countries, and religions, is to divide people into groups of ideology. Whot yeu prefer or believe.

    Like minded individuals who form a group to strengthen their belief system.

    "When" we can achieve a global government will be either A: when we have everyone on the same page (usually a very bad idea; see nazi germany), or B: when one group gets so much power that they forcibly make themselves the world government (also see nazi germany).

    Even in our current respective countries, we can't make up our minds. If people are given a choice, the grass always appears greener on the other side; the usa flops back and forth between their two choices every 8 years more or less. Canada keeps changing its' mind on which parties even exist. Give people a choice and they will disagree.

    Don't give people a choice, such as a dictatorship, ie cuba, and sometimes yeu'll get alot of people quite happy with the idea, usually due to propaganda, or a very like minded people.

    Thing is, anyone not in that group will generally dislike the idea.

    Why would we WANT a global government? It would obviously exclude many different mindsets, and only occur after either a massive war or a major melting pot effect had occured, in which case we'd have lost much of our diversity in the process.

    And whot if yeu have scandals or abuses of power or someone who just has no clue whot they're doing in charge? If they only have ONE country, it limits the damage as a whole; bush was only able to screw up 3 countries and indirectly affect a few more. Would yeu really have wanted him in charge of the entire planet? Do yeu think the entire planet could even vote for a single person?

    I'm not sure I see the purpose behind a global government, other than that it looks good on sci-fi shows because they don't have to worry about complex politics that way.

    If yeu want to see the best done idea on how to make a global government, I'd suggest watching all of Babylon 5. Very well done and shows planets with both dictatorships, democracies, random luck draw leadership (red drazzi fight green drazzi! ), spiritual governments, and whot would happen if earth had a single president for the entire planet.

    It's a broad enough showing that it pretty much gives yeu an idea that every system has its' flaws. But if yeu have a totalitarian regime that controls the whole planet... it's probably not going to work out too well in the end for anyone.

  9. #29
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    OK could someone define "totalitarian" then, seeing as we see it used a lot. Always seemed a phrase of questionable worth to me.
    Per wikipedia: Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.




    Per common sense: Pretty much whot happened with Louis XIV in france some time ago, though that was called the "absolute monarchy". Essentially one person in absolute control of everything who wanted noone else to have any power at all.

    In totalitarian rule, the concept's pretty much the same but expanded to a group instead of one person, and their influence goes farther because of that.

    Things like being able to choose yeur religion, yeur job, and so on, all falls to the choice of the government in play. They control every waking aspect of yeur life because there's noone to challange them and tell them not to. They have no opposition party.

    If we had a global government come into play, this would probably happen fairly quickly, because once one party had a vast amount of power, it'd be virtually impossible to unseat them. How do yeu rebel against the entire planet, who has all the guns and all the militaries of the world under their control? They have all the manufacturing plants, all the weapons, and all the manpower, the fanatics, and the money.

    Once yeu have power, yeu try to get more of it. And more. And more. And with that much power, yeu have no reason to let go of it once yeu have it. So yeah, things would probably snowball into a totalitarian regime pretty quickly under a global government, as they'd have no balances to prevent it. The biggest reason the states didn't go that way, nor does china fully, or russia, or wherever, is because of the reprocussions of other countries; another country could declare war, or just refuse to trade with them anymore. When yeu own the entire planet, yeu don't have anyone left to go to war with yeu, and yeu don't have any counteractions like embargoes.

    About the only way we'd fix that, is to have more planets to work with, and treat each as a country, so we really wouldn't've changed anything at all other than the scale of the definition of a 'country'.

  10. #30
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Well it seems a subjective definition. I know nothing of Louis XIV, but I know the definition is not very useful concerning any 20th century govt., as neither the Nazis nor the Stalinists nor Pinochet nor Pol Pot nor Franco, nor the dictatorship of industrial-finance capital in the west, "strove to regulate every aspect of public and private life".

    They all allow "freedoms" for the ruling classes and castes, at the expense of the exploitation and oppression of the workers and poor. The extent to which they have to impose draconian measures on the masses, depends on the threat to their priveliges. Hence the revolutionary situations in Italy and Germany had to be crushed with fascism, while the brueaucracy int he Soviet Union needed enormous levels of violence and oppression to erase the memories of the revolutionary movement.

    On the other hand, in the UK and US, the ruling classes due to their exploitation of the colonies/neo-colonies, had more room to manouvre "peacefully" at home. But yet, these regimes were established violently, through the respective revolutions int hose ocuntries, and through the displacement of the peasants from their land and the slave trade in the UK, and the genocide of the Native Americans and the slave trade in the US, not to mention the super-exploitation of labour in both countries.

    But, it's a question of scale not of "kind".

    So in conclusion, I think it's a loaded term, and best not to use it.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFJ] ENFJ+ESTP as lovers= yes or no?
    By Jonathanthegreat in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 03:55 AM
  2. Yes or No?
    By wolfy in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 04:44 PM
  3. Preschool, Yes or No?
    By Tigerlily in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 12:18 AM
  4. Homeschooling: yes or no?
    By Oberon in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 06:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO