[Nuu™™]

Why don't we have one yet? It solves so many problems, war, poverty, racism etc. and yet humans still seem to be unable to forget our differences and unite for the greater good.

Discuss. Or I'll send my dogs after you. They have very big teeths.

[ticktockclok]

Hah. Hah. Good luck with that. Try having India and Pakistan together? Yeah right. Iran and USA in unity? In your dreams.

[Re@dy_2_Ki!l]

I agree with Ticktockclok, some nations will just not come together, and besides, we're all human, we want power, and for some countries that thirst is too great to share with anyone. And look at the United Nations for a second, they are a lot of talk, and yes they are good for some issues, but most of the time they just ramble their opinion.

Oh and I would love to see poverty being solved through a world government, how would that work? I mean how would they vote for what to do, etc? Countries with larger populations would they get the upper hand when voting for something to happen or not to happen? When giving money to save poverty, how can they control who gives how much, and no doubt there will be countries who will give nothing and then there will be arguements and blah blah blah, the idea is riddled with more problems than that it solves.

And for the case of solving wars, I think it would just aggrevate more people, at the start I'm sure people will try to get along, and then some petty issue will arise and one thing will lead to another and boom, WAR! I mean look at how many wars were started by little issues that were escalated by certain events. And people will always have a certain view to people of different ethnic origins. Like your optimism, but I doubt a World Government would solve anything..

[Nuu™™]

I agree with Ticktockclok, some nations will just not come together, and besides, we're all human, we want power, and for some countries that thirst is too great to share with anyone.

Alright, let's compromise here. There are several groups that share the same ethics etc., for example, Western Europe/North America/Australia and New Zealand. Why couldn't there be a union between those groups? Or, why couldn't all the Islamic countries unite? Or the Spanish nations of South America? It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be a first step.

And look at the United Nations for a second, they are a lot of talk, and yes they are good for some issues, but most of the time they just ramble their opinion.

The UN is inefficient, and, to tell you the truth, pretty useless. They have no control over countries or the population. They make laws, and no one gives a toss. Although, a UN that makes laws and can enforce them would work more to what I am proposing.

Oh and I would love to see poverty being solved through a world government, how would that work?

Simple. Taxes. In Australia, taxes, payed by the employed, go to homes for the poor and dole for the unemployed. It works here, why can't it work taking money from the West and giving it to the Developing World?

I mean how would they vote for what to do, etc? Countries with larger populations would they get the upper hand when voting for something to happen or not to happen?

Does it matter if countries with larger populations get the upper hand? Is what I am suggesting is abolishing the national system anyway, in favour of a more efficient demographic system so there are no divisions between populations. Are you saying that instead, every New Zealander should get the voting power of hundreds of Chinese people, just to even out the populations?

When giving money to save poverty, how can they control who gives how much, and no doubt there will be countries who will give nothing and then there will be arguements and blah blah blah, the idea is riddled with more problems than that it solves.

It would work on an individual scale, rather than a national one. How much you give depends on how much income you gain, and how much you get depends on how much money you need to get yourself out of poverty.

And for the case of solving wars, I think it would just aggrevate more people, at the start I'm sure people will try to get along, and then some petty issue will arise and one thing will lead to another and boom, WAR! I mean look at how many wars were started by little issues that were escalated by certain events. And people will always have a certain view to people of different ethnic origins.

That is true, where there is culture, there will always be conflict. But, that conflict has slowly been lessening. There is far fewer wars today, then there was, in, say, the feudal or medieval eras. Maybe this is because there are less seperate rulers, less people trying to gain power? If there was just one ruling party, then no one would be fighting for power. Yes, ethnic conflicts would still exist, but it would be like two siblings when their parents were around. Third power authorities tend to lessen conflict, and as long as the World Government doesn't take sides, I think we can say goodbye to war.

[Neraphym]

Congrats, that was the most pro-communist post on this forum. Try joining the PSRCI!

[Nuu™™]

Congrats, that was the most pro-communist post on this forum. Try joining the PSRCI!

Was not.

I am the most anti-communist person on this forum. *cough cough*

[Joseph]

What kind of commies want a world government? o.O

[©allum]

If it were to work well (As well as a government can, LOL!OL!OLOLOL), who wouldn't?

[Jake]

commie....

join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us
join us

[Joseph]

*cough* ...commies go back to 'Nam...! *cough*

[©allum]

Go back to the trailer park.

[Jake]

nam... what is nam?

is it like yam? But them your telling us to go to yam....

[ticktockclok]

nam... what is nam?

is it like yam? But them your telling us to go to yam....

Lol. He said 'Nam, referring to Vietnam.

[Joseph]

It might've taken 80 years, but communism was defeated! :-]

[©allum]

Yeah, communism was defeated, which is why everyone wears shirts with Che Guevara on them.