Poll inspired by the "What would be so bad about a World Government?" thread.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Poll inspired by the "What would be so bad about a World Government?" thread.

My intention is not to hijack useful traffic from the original thread, so I'd prefer it if people used this thread solely for posting silly straw men, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions, accusations of personal bias, links to partisan blogs and hate-filled rants about religious, ethnic and national groups.

If the poll generates interesting results I think they should be discussed in the original thread.

 

[Sushi]

What's wrong with not wanting fundamentalist muslims voting?

 

[Mephisto]

The one thing that would certainly be bad about a "World Government" is the fact that the people with the most weapons (who are crazy enough to use them) would rule. Governments (especially the U.S. government in these past few years) aren't generally remembered because they were benevolent and prosperous.

Instead of working to stamp out HIV, poverty and hunger our misguided concentrations would work toward securing the longest reign possible for those in power. I'd prefer anarchy to a centralized group of power-hungry men who would stop at nothing to remain in power.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ah, that's hilarious.

I decided after thinking about it that my poll wasn't worth the trouble and closed the window. I didn't realise that I'd end up with a meaningless post and no poll.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[AmateurScientist]

The best argument against it is the distinct possibility that the national anthem of the World Government would be "It's a Small World After All."

Reason enough to shelve the idea.

AS

 

[RandFan]

The best argument against it is the distinct possibility that the national anthem of the World Government would be "It's a Small World After All."

Reason enough to shelve the idea.

AS

Damn you! Now I've got that idotic song in my head.

 

[Tricky]

Damn you! Now I've got that idotic song in my head.

Try it with these lyrics. It won't hurt so badly.

(selected verses)

It's a world of acne, a world of germs.
It's your brand new dog coming down with worms.
It's the notes being played
By a cockroach parade,
It's the real world after all.

It's the real world after all.
It's the real world after all,
It's the real world after all,
It's the real world after all,
It's the real world after all.

It's a world of hunger, a world of sin.
It's a million products to keep you thin.
It's machinery exhaust
Causing air to be lost.
It's the real world after all.

 

[Beerina]

A world government, especially with unrestricted democracy, would turn the US into a nation of Mr. Howels, with the rest of the world voting away our money. "Poor" people in the US who weigh 300 lbs. and have only 3 TVs, one (how sad) DVD player, and only one PS3 and old computer with Internet are rather wealthy by average world standards.

 

[Megalodon]

A world government, especially with unrestricted democracy, would turn the US into a nation of Mr. Howels, with the rest of the world voting away our money. "Poor" people in the US who weigh 300 lbs. and have only 3 TVs, one (how sad) DVD player, and only one PS3 and old computer with Internet are rather wealthy by average world standards.

Yes, and that is why nobody (AFAIK) proposed unrestricted democracy... That doesn't work for a single country, why would it be used for a global one.

The idea of a global government, in my opinon, would only work as a gradual extension of the EU (or any EU-like systems that might appear in the future). The efficiency of the EU rests in the simplicity of the recipe. Rich countries help poor countries get their economies in better shape and then export their products to the now wealthier consumers in the common market.

Everyone wins, and in the process standards of living are improved significantly. I think the idea will eventually go regional, with the EU continuing to expand, and some other Unions appearing in other spots of the globe. Eventually those unions will form a meta-Union, always with the goal of reducing the chance of conflict and improving and expanding available markets.

Do I think I'll live to see it? Well, if it actually happens, and I manage to live around 200 years, then maybe. So far so good, only 169 to go

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A world government, especially with unrestricted democracy, would turn the US into a nation of Mr. Howels, with the rest of the world voting away our money. "Poor" people in the US who weigh 300 lbs. and have only 3 TVs, one (how sad) DVD player, and only one PS3 and old computer with Internet are rather wealthy by average world standards.

"I've got mine. A world government might make me share some it, and who wants that?".

Would it really be a tragedy if 300lb USians could only afford two TVs but there was peace in Africa?

 

[RandFan]

"I've got mine. A world government might make me share some it, and who wants that?".

Would it really be a tragedy if 300lb USians could only afford two TVs but there was peace in Africa?

Is there really a link? I thought the problem in Africa was politics. How come when we send aid it is appropriated by corrupt leaders. Hey, I'm struggling financially so I don't fit in your dichotomy but I'm not sure its a fair one.

 

[Beerina]

"I've got mine. A world government might make me share some it, and who wants that?".

Would it really be a tragedy if 300lb USians could only afford two TVs but there was peace in Africa?

Pouring our money into it won't solve the problem. Creating nations where people are relatively free to lift themselves up without having to make kickbacks to local politicians just to get them out of the way (or worse, pay off mafia-style pseudo-governments) would solve this problem.

 

[gnome]

"I've got mine. A world government might make me share some it, and who wants that?".

Would it really be a tragedy if 300lb USians could only afford two TVs but there was peace in Africa?

Certainly few would have a problem with this... the devil is in the details, and it is easy for people to be afraid of some methods of trying to achieve this--especially if those same methods could be perverted for other ends... the communist revolution comes to mind.

 

[Huntster]

If the U.N. acts in Korea in 1950, it had damned well act appropriately in Bosnia in 1992, Rwanda in 1994, adn Darfur in 2003.

But it didn't.

If Alaska was to be invaded by someone, I'd expect Washington DC to react, and I wouldn't want to see the U.N. here.

I need the U.N. like I need a nuclear detonation in my watch pocket.

The vast majority of acts it takes is financed with both money and cannon fodder by the U.S., who then gets thanked with continual political and ideological condemnation from the "non-governmental" body.

 

[Rob Lister]

"I've got mine. A world government might make me share some it, and who wants that?".

Would it really be a tragedy if 300lb USians could only afford two TVs but there was peace in Africa?

Donno, why don't you set the example and write a check to the UN for $2550. That's what I'm about to spend on a new flat panel. Problem is, its so freaking big I have to also by a new 400 entertainment center just to hold it.

so go ahead and cut a check for $2900.

Thanks.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Is there really a link? I thought the problem in Africa was politics. How come when we send aid it is appropriated by corrupt leaders. Hey, I'm struggling financially so I don't fit in your dichotomy but I'm not sure its a fair one.

I'm not sure there is a direct link, but it was a link Beerina made. I was criticising Beerina's specific argument, not making a claim about how the world actually is.

The problems in Africa aren't ones that can be solved by throwing aid money at them, but by the same token they aren't going to solve themselves and they aren't going to be solved for free.

Much as in the Middle East, the root of a significant part of the trouble in Africa comes from a combination of rulers who are accountable to nobody and national borders drawn along straight lines by colonialist powers. Aid money will do nothing about either problem.

A world court with teeth could attack the problem of unaccountable leadership. In theory the a world government could supervise referendums allowing local groups to secede from existing states and enforce the results with a standing army.

Neither would be cheap though, nor would certain rulers accustomed to acting with impunity be willing to subject themselves to any kind of rule of law unless there were obvious benefits to be had for themselves. It's hard to see what's in it for Bush or Mugabe to support the establishment of a world court with the power to try them.

 

[Skeptic]

My intention is not to hijack useful traffic from the original thread, so I'd prefer it if people used this thread solely for posting silly straw men, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions, accusations of personal bias, links to partisan blogs and hate-filled rants about religious, ethnic and national groups.

"They dare to disagree with me in the original thread."

 

[Skeptic]

"I've got mine. A world government might make me share some it, and who wants that?".

Would it really be a tragedy if 300lb USians could only afford two TVs but there was peace in Africa?

Why don't you set a personal example by living now as you would under a world government? Make a rough estimate of how much of your income the world government would need in order to help Africa and other poor areas of the world. Then, donate that money to the UN (I've heard they already spent the $12 billion in bribes they got from Saddam) or to whatever agency you think will help Africa the most. After all, it's not like you have to wait for helping Africa until a world government is established.

Now, if you were really concerned about helping Africa, you would be doing something like this already, world government or no world government. But you don't really care about helping Africa. What you really want is for the world government to screw US citizens, or to make sure "300 lbs. USAians cannot afford a 3rd TV", as you put it. Your real reason for wanting a world government is obviously not love of mankind, or of Africa, but simply hatered of the USA. This is, as I noted in the previous thread, quite typical of world government proponents.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why don't you set a personal example by living now as you would under a world government? Make a rough estimate of how much of your income the world government would need in order to help Africa and other poor areas of the world. Then, donate that money to the UN (I've heard they already spent the $12 billion in bribes they got from Saddam) or to whatever agency you think will help Africa the most. After all, it's not like you have to wait for helping Africa until a world government is established.

Now, if you were really concerned about helping Africa, you would be doing something like this already, world government or no world government. But you don't really care about helping Africa. What you really want is for the world government to screw US citizens, or to make sure "300 lbs. USAians cannot afford a 3rd TV", as you put it. Your real reason for wanting a world government is obviously not love of mankind, or of Africa, but simply hatered of the USA. This is, as I noted in the previous thread, quite typical of world government proponents.

Feel free to assume for the sake of the argument that even as I type this I am taking bribes from Saddam Hussein and warming myself with a fire made from burning African children, just because I hate America.

Now we have got that out of the way, we can talk about the issue of a world government rather than your (by now routine) attempts to turn a thread into a personal fight.

 

[Skeptic]

Now we have got that out of the way, we can talk about the issue of a world government rather than your (by now routine) attempts to turn a thread into a personal fight.

You aren't giving Africa one thin cent, are you, Kevin?

Anyway, why am I any more personal than your description of Americans as "300-pound USAians" who only oppose a world government because they are afraid they "could not afford a 3rd TV"? If it's all right to imply the worst personal motives to those who oppose a world government, it's also OK to imply less-than-holy personal motives to those who support it.

Especially since, in this case, you have not got the slightest shread of evidence that the "USAians" who oppose the world government do it our of greed and racism, while your obviously hate-filled comments about Americans are rather strong evidence you in fact support a world government out of hate.