[Joseph]

Yes, I am a rather large poopy-head, alpha.

[Nuu™™]

In the United States the constitution states that each person is guaranteed the three basic freedoms. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Wrong document. That's the declairation of independence.


Right now, I pay about 8 cents on every dollar I make so that old people can die slower. That's america. I'd have to pay 108 cents on the dollar to support the entire world's poverty. Also, some poor chinese kid is probably working his {expletive antidisestablishmentarianized by Cspace} of every day so that I can buy stuff cheaper and live a less costly life. That only works because not everyone is subject to America's labor and wage laws. If they were, I wouldn't be able to afford all the things I can. That's why the world cannot exist under one governemnt. One country has to rape another in order to promote growth.

Thank GOD I'm not alone.

Ziggy.

As for Alpha, that is precisely what a world government would get rid of. Capitalism and nationalism don't mix (or, in my opinion, capitalism is the root of all evil. Quiet Cactuar. )

Also to Nuu, if the world was to form a world government. Who would be the people in charge of forming those laws saying what is right and what isnt right?

The government.

Call me ignorant if you wish. Maybe I am just listening to American propaganda. But to be honest, as long as people are around, there will always be war. Some people will always pose the government and there will be some group out there trying to cleanse the world of another ethnicity. Always will be some insane whackjob out there trying to harm innocent people. I really dont know what you would call this. But thats my opinion and what I think.

You are right, there will always be war. But as I have said, with a world government, there will be significantly less war. Take the Israel/Lebanon conflict. If Israel would listen to the UN, there wouldn't be any war.

There is no possible way a world government that could be formed. When it comes to wester and eastern society, things vary greatly. Ranging from religious and culutural beliefs to ethical and social beliefs. What some people in western society find acceptable is considered a sin and atrocious in eastern society. In the United States the constitution states that each person is guaranteed the three basic freedoms. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. This is totally different in a country say like China, India, or Iran. The only real way the world would come anywhere near to forming a world government would be that everyone would have to be brain washed and genetically altered so people are tolerable and acceptable of everyone. Next to impossible.

Err.... can I stop to say how ridiculously stupid that post was?
I'm Indian. When I go to India, my cousins are happy. They play games, aren't 'forced' to do anything, hang out with friends. They are certainly different than us, think more 'innocent'. But just because the US decided to put it on paper and name it Constitution, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't have those rights too.

Tick Tock, I dont know what your problem is but please stop being so disrespectful. It's fine if you want to speak your mind, but geez leave the nitpicking and insults at the door. I was naming off countries that first came to mind. Neraphym you were right, it was the Declaration of Independence. When I posted this I was up very late the previous day and wasnt fully awake.

Also to Nuu, if the world was to form a world government. Who would be the people in charge of forming those laws saying what is right and what isnt right? Call me ignorant if you wish. Maybe I am just listening to American propaganda. But to be honest, as long as people are around, there will always be war. Some people will always pose the government and there will be some group out there trying to cleanse the world of another ethnicity. Always will be some insane whackjob out there trying to harm innocent people. I really dont know what you would call this. But thats my opinion and what I think.

P.S. My opinion, everyone is created equally and deserves to be treated with the same amount of respect and decency as anyone else. It does not matter who you are, where you come from. No one is better than someone else. Dont judge a person by their looks, but look at the inside of them and see them for who they truly are.

'First came to your mind'. Hah. "It does not matter who you are, where you come from. No one is better than someone else."? What a hypocrite!

I dont see how you can call me a hypocrite. I didnt say or do anything that shows that I am a hypocrite. If I said that everyone deserves to be treated with respect, but I go and disrespect someone else. That is being a hypocrite. The first three countries that came to mind were the ones I listed. That has nothing to do with me being a hypcorite. I'm not going to try and argue with you anymore. We can agree to disagree, you can call me a hypocrite all you want. I know who I am and what I have to say. If you dont like what I have to say then fine, that' your opinion.

I wouldn't say you were a hypocrite, but the last comment did seem to contradict some of your earlier ones. You say everyone is equal, and yet earlier you were opposed to world government, because India, Iran and China don't have the 'freedoms' of Life, Liberty and Happiness.

[Neraphym]

Actually, capitolism is the best way for humans to grow wealthier and more powerful, while still retaining freedom. If everyone got paid the same, would Bill Gates have had any incentive to invent the desktop computer? No, why spend all that time and effort into building a super-complex machine when you can sit around all day and ask people to supersize their meal and get paid the same? No one would have any incentive to take a risk and expand. Communism is completely static... unless of course, you force them to make a computer. Then you lose freedom...

On the other hand, capitolism can be evil if left pure. The government does need to step in and make laws preventing monopolies, super-low wages, and shifty corporate dealings.


And if Israel went pacifist, it'd get wiped off the map.

[ticktockclok]

There is no possible way a world government that could be formed. When it comes to wester and eastern society, things vary greatly. Ranging from religious and culutural beliefs to ethical and social beliefs. What some people in western society find acceptable is considered a sin and atrocious in eastern society. In the United States the constitution states that each person is guaranteed the three basic freedoms. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. This is totally different in a country say like China, India, or Iran. The only real way the world would come anywhere near to forming a world government would be that everyone would have to be brain washed and genetically altered so people are tolerable and acceptable of everyone. Next to impossible.

Err.... can I stop to say how ridiculously stupid that post was?
I'm Indian. When I go to India, my cousins are happy. They play games, aren't 'forced' to do anything, hang out with friends. They are certainly different than us, think more 'innocent'. But just because the US decided to put it on paper and name it Constitution, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't have those rights too.

Tick Tock, I dont know what your problem is but please stop being so disrespectful. It's fine if you want to speak your mind, but geez leave the nitpicking and insults at the door. I was naming off countries that first came to mind. Neraphym you were right, it was the Declaration of Independence. When I posted this I was up very late the previous day and wasnt fully awake.

Also to Nuu, if the world was to form a world government. Who would be the people in charge of forming those laws saying what is right and what isnt right? Call me ignorant if you wish. Maybe I am just listening to American propaganda. But to be honest, as long as people are around, there will always be war. Some people will always pose the government and there will be some group out there trying to cleanse the world of another ethnicity. Always will be some insane whackjob out there trying to harm innocent people. I really dont know what you would call this. But thats my opinion and what I think.

P.S. My opinion, everyone is created equally and deserves to be treated with the same amount of respect and decency as anyone else. It does not matter who you are, where you come from. No one is better than someone else. Dont judge a person by their looks, but look at the inside of them and see them for who they truly are.

'First came to your mind'. Hah. "It does not matter who you are, where you come from. No one is better than someone else."? What a hypocrite!

I dont see how you can call me a hypocrite. I didnt say or do anything that shows that I am a hypocrite. If I said that everyone deserves to be treated with respect, but I go and disrespect someone else. That is being a hypocrite. The first three countries that came to mind were the ones I listed. That has nothing to do with me being a hypcorite. I'm not going to try and argue with you anymore. We can agree to disagree, you can call me a hypocrite all you want. I know who I am and what I have to say. If you dont like what I have to say then fine, that' your opinion.

You say "Don't judge a person by their looks, but look at the inside of them and see them for who they truly are" but right before you judged Indians, Iranians, and the Chinese because they are on the other side of the globe and (probably) have a different color of skin from you. Thus, hypocrite.

[Zziggywolf5]

Actually, capitolism is the best way for humans to grow wealthier and more powerful, while still retaining freedom. If everyone got paid the same, would Bill Gates have had any incentive to invent the desktop computer? No, why spend all that time and effort into building a super-complex machine when you can sit around all day and ask people to supersize their meal and get paid the same? No one would have any incentive to take a risk and expand. Communism is completely static... unless of course, you force them to make a computer. Then you lose freedom...

On the other hand, capitolism can be evil if left pure. The government does need to step in and make laws preventing monopolies, super-low wages, and shifty corporate dealings.


And if Israel went pacifist, it'd get wiped off the map.

Indeed. Why have goals and expectations if they won't help you get anywhere? That's why Communism tends to damage growth. "Oh, I could research the AIDS virus, but it'd be easier and just as worthwhile to cut trees." Unless, of course, you follow Stalin's example: demand workers to produce 200% more and execute/enslave those who can't keep up.
Capitalism does need restrictions, in order to protect quality and safety.

Israel has a huge military because most of the nations around it hate them. Israel did get invaded in 1948 by five nearby countries.
(I agree w/Alpha 2 much... )


I guess a world government could exist, but the current international hatred would still exist in some way. :/ The government would have a hard time trying to keep all these groups from attacking each other. I personally see problems putting Neo-Nazis, Israel, Hezbollah, the Janjaweed, blacks, Communists, etc under the same roof.

[Neraphym]

There will always be an "us" and a "them".

[Re@dy_2_Ki!l]

And if Israel went pacifist, it'd get wiped off the map.

I totally agree with that, as they are surrounded all by enemy countries hence why they are normally supported by USA etc, coz lets face it, being surrounded by mostly arab/muslim nations and being their enemy aint going to work too well. Also

The only real way the world would come anywhere near to forming a world government would be that everyone would have to be brain washed and genetically altered so people are tolerable and acceptable of everyone. Next to impossible

True. People need to be totally changed, to get along! Some things will never change, when it all comes down to it, you have to be realistic, countries are all different, people are all different, even if you chuck a handful of every nation in one room, their will be conflict, and now imagine that for the whole world, not a good idea me thinks.

Although I say that, some things could work, like the richer countries helping some of the poorer ones, but I don't think the system would have to be in a "Government" form, that wouldn't work, maybe have like a series of extremely detailed "world laws" that are signed by all countries and need to be respected, although "your word" means nothing these days, nor a signature on some piece of paper. So again, I doubt it would work, I mean look at how countries get along these days.

But the reason for not having a world goverenment is because as soon as you do that, you are opening up people for conflict, over all issues. I mean say for example, a certain issue is viewed one way, and another group wants another way, nothing is going to convert either side to the other persons way, or a compromise, because underneath it all that conflict will still be there, this then eventually builds, and things go from bad to worse, it simply wont work.

For example... the UN decides that they shouldn't test nuclear weaponry, Turkey think they should, USA also support the move, but Engalnd and Australia don't, where on earth do u start for a compromise for such a topic (using the countries and their views as examples only) and who is to say what is right and wrong, a World Government would just support the country of their origin, and hence no solution would be found.

The whole thing is that trying to "bring" people to act rationally and make a decision together, a decision will never occur, now can we end this debate already, I don't see any reasonable ideas that outweigh the bad for this World Government, so next debate perhaps?

[Neraphym]

There is a way that we can get a world government to work. Take one homogeneous country, have them kill every last person on the planet save themselves, then colonize the rest of the now empty world. That way, it'll be just 1 big country instead of an alliance of countries.

[Elvenblader]

Ok I'll admit it, a lot of the comments I made were contradicting. My mistake, I'll try to think about what I say before I open my mouth next time. The point I am trying to make is if the world was to form one governing body. Who would be in charge of forming laws and the policies of that government? Would one country that is more powerful than another have more say in what laws passes? How would this all be decided? Moving away from the Iranian, Chinese, and Indian thing. Hypothetical situation. If a society considered it legal to consensually murder someone, but yet the right is tied in with their religion, who would say that is not considered legal in another country? If one society is not willing to budge, what would you to say other people that have other beliefs and agree that certain rights of people are not to be taken into account.

[ticktockclok]

Ok I'll admit it, a lot of the comments I made were contradicting. My mistake, I'll try to think about what I say before I open my mouth next time. The point I am trying to make is if the world was to form one governing body. Who would be in charge of forming laws and the policies of that government? Would one country that is more powerful than another have more say in what laws passes? How would this all be decided? Moving away from the Iranian, Chinese, and Indian thing. Hypothetical situation. If a society considered it legal to consensually murder someone, but yet the right is tied in with their religion, who would say that is not considered legal in another country? If one society is not willing to budge, what would you to say other people that have other beliefs and agree that certain rights of people are not to be taken into account.

If that happened, which it never will under peaceful means, then I guess each country would become a state like in the USA, and would be appropriated seats in a parliament based on their population. So Asia would rule the world.

[Nuu™™]

[quote='Neraphym' date='Jul 28 2006, 01:47 AM' post='360790']
Actually, capitolism is the best way for humans to grow wealthier and more powerful, while still retaining freedom. If everyone got paid the same, would Bill Gates have had any incentive to invent the desktop computer? No, why spend all that time and effort into building a super-complex machine when you can sit around all day and ask people to supersize their meal and get paid the same? No one would have any incentive to take a risk and expand. Communism is completely static... unless of course, you force them to make a computer. Then you lose freedom...[/quote]

So does religion.

[quote='Neraphym' date='Jul 28 2006, 01:47 AM' post='360790']
On the other hand, capitolism can be evil if left pure. The government does need to step in and make laws preventing monopolies, super-low wages, and shifty corporate dealings.


And if Israel went pacifist, it'd get wiped off the map.
[/quote]

In my opinion, Israel shouldn't be there. There are plenty of other places to build a Jewish state, plenty of places where Jewish-friendly people live. Putting Israel in surronded by Arab countries was a bad idea, whether there is some historical significance of that place or not.

[quote='Zziggywolf5' date='Jul 28 2006, 10:38 AM' post='360844']
I guess a world government could exist, but the current international hatred would still exist in some way. :/ The government would have a hard time trying to keep all these groups from attacking each other. I personally see problems putting Neo-Nazis, Israel, Hezbollah, the Janjaweed, blacks, Communists, etc under the same roof.
[/quote]

As I have already stated numerous times, those sort of people can be found in any country. I'd also like to remind you that Hezbollah is a democratic political party formed after Israelis invaded Lebanon, and it also funds many schools and hospitals throughout Lebanon. Don't believe all you hear from the media.

[quote='Neraphym' date='Jul 29 2006, 02:20 AM' post='361000']
There will always be an "us" and a "them".
[/quote]

I've said this too. Third party authorities tend to lessen conflict. Yes, there will always be an 'us' and a 'them', but they will not be able to attack us as violently while the teacher is watching.

[quote='Re@dy_2_Ki!l' date='Aug 3 2006, 03:02 PM' post='362159']
For example... the UN decides that they shouldn't test nuclear weaponry, Turkey think they should, USA also support the move,[/quote]

A big problem with the UN, is they have no power. The goverments of Turkey and the US might reconsider if they get sacked for disobeying the UN/World Government.

[quote='Re@dy_2_Ki!l' date='Aug 3 2006, 03:02 PM' post='362159']
but Engalnd and Australia don't,[/quote]

England, or to be more correct, the UK, does support nuclear weapons. They make them, actually.

[quote='Re@dy_2_Ki!l' date='Aug 3 2006, 03:02 PM' post='362159']
where on earth do u start for a compromise for such a topic (using the countries and their views as examples only) and who is to say what is right and wrong, a World Government would just support the country of their origin, and hence no solution would be found.[/quote]

Country of origin?

1. A world government doesn't 'originate' anywhere, it is a world movement.

2. As I have already said numerous times (I've said that numerous times too. You people need to learn to read), there won't be any countries.

[quote='Re@dy_2_Ki!l' date='Aug 3 2006, 03:02 PM' post='362159']
The whole thing is that trying to "bring" people to act rationally and make a decision together, a decision will never occur, now can we end this debate already, I don't see any reasonable ideas that outweigh the bad for this World Government, so next debate perhaps?
[/quote]

No.

[quotee='Elvenblader' date='Aug 4 2006, 12:54 PM' post='362361']
Ok I'll admit it, a lot of the comments I made were contradicting. My mistake, I'll try to think about what I say before I open my mouth next time. The point I am trying to make is if the world was to form one governing body. Who would be in charge of forming laws and the policies of that government? Would one country that is more powerful than another have more say in what laws passes? How would this all be decided? Moving away from the Iranian, Chinese, and Indian thing. [/quote]

Answered that before. Not restating it.

[quote='Elvenblader' date='Aug 4 2006, 12:54 PM' post='362361']
Hypothetical situation. If a society considered it legal to consensually murder someone, but yet the right is tied in with their religion, who would say that is not considered legal in another country? If one society is not willing to budge, what would you to say other people that have other beliefs and agree that certain rights of people are not to be taken into account.
[/quote]

You say they can kill anyone of that same religion, and not to bring it to other religions. Simple.

And I do believe you were hinting at Jihad there. Remember, Jihad is really just an 'inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith' (Wikipedia), it is the extremists that interpret this as destroying the Crusaders.

[quote='ticktockclok' date='Aug 4 2006, 05:38 PM' post='362420']
[quote='Elvenblader' post='362361' date='Aug 4 2006, 03:54 AM']
Ok I'll admit it, a lot of the comments I made were contradicting. My mistake, I'll try to think about what I say before I open my mouth next time. The point I am trying to make is if the world was to form one governing body. Who would be in charge of forming laws and the policies of that government? Would one country that is more powerful than another have more say in what laws passes? How would this all be decided? Moving away from the Iranian, Chinese, and Indian thing. Hypothetical situation. If a society considered it legal to consensually murder someone, but yet the right is tied in with their religion, who would say that is not considered legal in another country? If one society is not willing to budge, what would you to say other people that have other beliefs and agree that certain rights of people are not to be taken into account.
[/quote]

If that happened, which it never will under peaceful means, then I guess each country would become a state like in the USA, and would be appropriated seats in a parliament based on their population. So Asia would rule the world.
[/quote]

Yeah, that is sort of what I said. You support equality or whatever you said, everyone from every part of the world is treated equally.



And why are the quotes stuffing up? I changed it to quote= instead of quote name= and it still isn't working.

[Elvenblader]

The idea of the world having one governing body is not that bad. The major reason why I am opposed to a world government is because no one has any idea how long the world could maintain that government. I mean if another country rebels against the government and declares themselves an idependent state. How would someone go about dealing with the rebel state?

I really dont think that the world could from a world government. Reaons being that there are so many political hotspots that I have no idea how people would go about. I am very tired and will edit this post later on.

[Nuu™™]

The idea of the world having one governing body is not that bad. The major reason why I am opposed to a world government is because no one has any idea how long the world could maintain that government. I mean if another country rebels against the government and declares themselves an idependent state. How would someone go about dealing with the rebel state?

I really dont think that the world could from a world government. Reaons being that there are so many political hotspots that I have no idea how people would go about. I am very tired and will edit this post later on.

That could be a problem, although more for the rebel state than for the World Goverment. The rebel state would effectively cut itself off from the rest of civilisation, unless the World Government would consent to trade with it, which, obviously, it wouldn't. If the rebel state declared war, it would simply be crushed. So unless the state wanted to commit suicide, that or become a very backward and poverty stricken place, it would stay loyal to the World Government.

By the way, because a lot of you seem to be confused, what I am suggesting is not a UN, or a union of nations, but more of a single, universal nation. That might clear up a lot of those problems.

[ticktockclok]

The idea of the world having one governing body is not that bad. The major reason why I am opposed to a world government is because no one has any idea how long the world could maintain that government. I mean if another country rebels against the government and declares themselves an idependent state. How would someone go about dealing with the rebel state?

I really dont think that the world could from a world government. Reaons being that there are so many political hotspots that I have no idea how people would go about. I am very tired and will edit this post later on.

That could be a problem, although more for the rebel state than for the World Goverment. The rebel state would effectively cut itself off from the rest of civilisation, unless the World Government would consent to trade with it, which, obviously, it wouldn't. If the rebel state declared war, it would simply be crushed. So unless the state wanted to commit suicide, that or become a very backward and poverty stricken place, it would stay loyal to the World Government.

By the way, because a lot of you seem to be confused, what I am suggesting is not a UN, or a union of nations, but more of a single, universal nation. That might clear up a lot of those problems.

That's a nice dream. Why don't we have Iran kill off Israel, USA, and Britain, and then maybe let Pakistan destroy India, while Bush wars North Korea, China, and Venezuela simultaneouly. And Africa can infect everyone with HIV. After we're all dead, we can have one nice happy worldwide country.

[Zziggywolf5]

I guess a world government could exist, but the current international hatred would still exist in some way. :/ The government would have a hard time trying to keep all these groups from attacking each other. I personally see problems putting Neo-Nazis, Israel, Hezbollah, the Janjaweed, blacks, Communists, etc under the same roof.

As I have already stated numerous times, those sort of people can be found in any country. I'd also like to remind you that Hezbollah is a democratic political party formed after Israelis invaded Lebanon, and it also funds many schools and hospitals throughout Lebanon. Don't believe all you hear from the media.

My point is quite simple, really. Let's use the United States as an example. The US has roughly 300,000,000 citizens. It has one main federal body. Okay now my question is: Does this government really have a good control of these people? Well, let's see... Gangs, militas, several mobs, and, of course, "normal" crime. The US government has some control, but still relies on the people, who, like it or not, aren't exactly friends with each other.

Now the planet Earth has 6,500,000,000 people. That's about 22 times more people. Try to control all those people with the same government.



Eh, why do I bother? You'll just say the government could be better run or something just as vague and avoid saying how. Unless you figure out a way to brainwash billions of people without spending a huge amount of money to spread it. Or spied on everyone and killed any rebel of any kind before they could tell their message.