Why would a World Government be a bad thing?

[Travis]

One could argue that at an economic level we're pretty close to a One World Nation already.

 

[Rikeln]

Only true of people that have one dimensional political outlooks. I am a moderate libertarian and have no problems with a one world government. The jurisdiction of government has nothing to do with its scope or how it uses its authority.

A libertarian who loves the Fed and has no problem with a world-government. Interesting

 

[Naddig74]

One could argue that at an economic level we're pretty close to a One World Nation already.

Really? I'm about as poor as it's possible to get in the UK while still having a home, but I'm sure I'm considerably better off than the poorest in India or Brazil for example.

 

[Toke]

That assumes that the people of a country under such a regime, say China, would, given the choice, retain their current rulers as their 1WG representatives and not oust them at the first opportunity.

Of course, if China just conquers the planet somehow, well then we're properly done for.

No, it assumes that a lot of people are not given a choice.

 

[LightinDarkness]

A libertarian who loves the Fed and has no problem with a world-government. Interesting

Your inability to understand what moderate libertarians believe is not my problem. I recommend you do some research - in peer reviewed journals, not google.

 

[LightinDarkness]

So in a libertarian version of a one world government would local authorities have the power to say people of religion X or ethnic group Y or women may not own land?

What in the world? Of course not. In a one world government equal opportunity applies to everyone (not equality of results). Government authorities cannot discriminate in a libertarian worldview. The only people who can't own land are the ones that can't afford it. Also, I'd rather not get into this (political ideology debate) on the conspiracy forum.

 

[Ladewig]

What in the world? Of course not. In a one world government equal opportunity applies to everyone (not equality of results). Government authorities cannot discriminate in a libertarian worldview. The only people who can't own land are the ones that can't afford it. Also, I'd rather not get into this (political ideology debate) on the conspiracy forum.

I wasn't criticizing libertarianism in any way, I just wanted to point out that 10 to 30 percent of the population of the world is very, very unwilling to buy into the idea that all people should be equal in the eyes of the law. Many of them would take up arms rather than open their minds.

 

[dtugg]

No thanks to having people in China or India or the Middle East having a say in how things work here.

 

[Brainster]

Why should there be more than one chain of restaurants?

Because people like to have a choice.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

A one world government might be a good thing, eventually. At some point, once we have already solved the major problems now dividing the world and the majority of people actually want it. Provided we ever manage that
I'd envision it the way the EU seems to be slowly moving in such a direction, step by step in a process that would likely take centuries.
A one world government imposed on the world of today would be an unmitigated disaster.

I dont think such a government would bring a star trek like happyness across the world, I'd more see it as something the US has. Of course there will be friction and problems and large sections of populations act as if they can drink each others blood, but the amount of outright violence is at least limited.

 

[Hans]

Although a good idea from the theory point of view the reality of far different cultural systems would make a world government impossible at present. The best we can do is the anemic and weak United Nations. How a Theocracy like Iran could find common ground with a atheistic dictatorship like N. Korea or a place like Luxembourg could come to any type of agreement on major issues.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Why should there be more than one chain of restaurants?

Because people like to have a choice.

sure, you can go to A&W, KFC, Long John Silver's, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell or WingStreet

 

[PhantomWolf]

No thanks to having people in China or India or the Middle East having a say in how things work here.

They already do, you just don't realise it. Go and look up how many UN Conventions and Declarations you government has ratified without asking you.

 

[dtugg]

They already do, you just don't realise it. Go and look up how many UN Conventions and Declarations you government has ratified without asking you.

Key world being "your government has ratified."

 

[PhantomWolf]

Key world being "your government has ratified."

And perhaps you need to take a look at what that means. In most cases it means that a unelected official signed something and your Government has to follow along with it, without asking the electorate what they think about it. I will give the US Government props on one thing though, they tend to be slower to ratify things than our mob.

 

[drkitten]

Why does it follow that a 1WG would be something other than a democracy?

It doesn't. But the British Empire was also a democracy, and didn't particularly treat the disfavored races/nationalities particularly well.

Democracy in many cases just means the tyranny of the well-connected and populous. If the United States, China, and Taiwan had a joint referendum about the government of Taiwan, who would win?

 

[drkitten]

And perhaps you need to take a look at what that means. In most cases it means that a unelected official signed something and your Government has to follow along with it, without asking the electorate what they think about it.

No. It means that my government chose to follow along with it.

Look at how many treaties the US has signed but NOT ratified for counterexamples; the idea that just because the President has signed something, the Senate needs to ratify it (or that the Senate and House need jointly to enact enabling legislation) is simply wrong.

There's no need to submit treaties to a popular referendum; Congress is supposed to act for the people. And they demonstrably do, which is why signed treaties are languishing....

 

[dtugg]

And perhaps you need to take a look at what that means. In most cases it means that a unelected official signed something and your Government has to follow along with it, without asking the electorate what they think about it. I will give the US Government props on one thing though, they tend to be slower to ratify things than our mob.

In the US, treaties must be ratified by the Senate with a 2/3rds vote before they become binding.

 

[drkitten]

In the US, treaties must be ratified by the Senate with a 2/3rds vote before they become binding.

And even when ratified, many treaties are toothless without enabling legislation. For example, Obama could sign a treaty of eternal chumship with Ruritania that calls for the establishment of a joint US-Ruritanian federal research institution on the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. The Senate could even ratify it.

But until Congress as a whole authorizes that institution and allocates funds to it, it isn't happening.

 

[Marduk]

sure, you can go to A&W, KFC, Long John Silver's, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell or WingStreet

If youre saying that a 1 world government would cause Taco Bell to open in the uk then where the hell do I sign up