PDA

View Full Version : A Government of the World


Porpoise101
August 1st, 2016, 10:37 PM
Look at the title. What do you think? Should it happen? Is it inevitable to have a world government? What would it look like? Maybe... is it already here?

I would like to start by saying that I believe that a world government is inevitable if we haven't nuked ourselves to extinction by that point.

Ghaem
August 1st, 2016, 10:40 PM
Look at the title. What do you think? Should it happen? Is it inevitable to have a world government? What would it look like? Maybe... is it already here?

I would like to start by saying that I believe that a world government is inevitable if we haven't nuked ourselves to extinction by that point.

Some kinda reminds me of Medieval II Total War when I conquered whole Europe and Middle East :D

But seriously, I am in no way in favor of a Global Government. It is not Star Wars for God's sake. There must be seperate independent cooperating governments in the world.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 10:46 PM
An awful idea.

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2016, 10:56 PM
We live in such a diverse world, it won't happen. Look at the EU, that's probably the closest we have to a united world and it is falling apart at the seams.

As a libertarian at heart, I don't believe that a world government would be beneficial in any way. Look at European Imperialism or the Roman Empire. They never last, people don't like someone from a distant land dictating how their life should work.

Christian doctrine teaches of a future one-world government. This may be a bit off-topic but it would probably be interesting to some and show why Christians are generally against the idea of one world government.

Revelation 13 King James Version (KJV)

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

I won't go into detail regarding the specifics, but basically what this is saying is that Satan will achieve his dream of world domination by uniting the Earth through lies and trickery. It is often thought that he able to do that because of the earlier event regarding the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. His true face will later show through, and will basically become a tyrannical god/king.

Flapjack
August 1st, 2016, 10:59 PM
Yesss!!! I desperately want a world government! A world republic that protects everyone! It is inevitable but may take a few centuries:)

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 11:02 PM
We live in such a diverse world, it won't happen. Look at the EU, that's probably the closest we have to a united world and it is falling apart at the seams.

As a libertarian at heart, I don't believe that a world government would be beneficial in any way. Look at European Imperialism or the Roman Empire. They never last, people don't like someone from a distant land dictating how their life should work.

Christian doctrine teaches of a future one-world government. This may be a bit off-topic but it would probably be interesting to some and show why Christians are generally against the idea of one world government.

Revelation 13 King James Version (KJV)

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

I won't go into detail regarding the specifics, but basically what this is saying is that Satan will achieve his dream of world domination by uniting the Earth through lies and trickery. It is often thought that he able to do that because of the earlier event regarding the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. His true face will later show through, and will basically become a tyrannical god/king.

Isaiah implies the messiah will rule the world?

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2016, 11:15 PM
Isaiah implies the messiah will rule the world?

I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you clarify?

Cadanance00
August 1st, 2016, 11:20 PM
Revelation isn't universally accepted as scripture. All the Orthodox world doesn't include it in the bible. It was written in about 400 AD by a mystic monk in a cave on an island and it was only through an accident of history that Pope Gregory included it in the canon. He also threw out the apocrypha which is included in the Coptic church.

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2016, 11:25 PM
Revelation isn't universally accepted as scripture. All the Orthodox world doesn't include it in the bible. It was written in about 400 AD by a mystic monk in a cave on an island and it was only through an accident of history that Pope Gregory included it in the canon. He also threw out the apocrypha which is included in the Coptic church.

We aren't arguing the validity of scripture here. I was simply bringing that up as a point to show what Christianity thinks of an one world government.

400AD? Revelations was written by John the apostle around 70AD. Numerous resources both in and out of the Bible points towards this fact.

Periphery
August 1st, 2016, 11:26 PM
Oh god this simply cannot end well.

Cadanance00
August 1st, 2016, 11:26 PM
No, not John the Apostle. Another John.

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2016, 11:32 PM
No, not John the Apostle. Another John.

John the Elder you talking about? Yea, he is the same guy as the apostle, sorry to break it to you.

Oh god this simply cannot end well.

Agreed, lets quit with the religious debate for now. This is going to lead no where. If you wish to continue, The ultimate schismatic thread exists for such.

Reise
August 2nd, 2016, 06:11 AM
What do you mean by "world government" people?

Stronk Serb
August 2nd, 2016, 06:31 AM
Seeing how the EU is falling apart, a thing resembling a superstate, no. Just no. The whole world would be extremely unstable. I would rather trade fracturedness for stability

Flapjack
August 2nd, 2016, 07:15 AM
What do you mean by "world government" people?
A single goverment that rules the whole world I think :)
Seeing how the EU is falling apart, a thing resembling a superstate, no. Just no. The whole world would be extremely unstable. I would rather trade fracturedness for stability
Why not see the positives of the EU or countries like the USA and Russia?

PlasmaHam
August 2nd, 2016, 09:58 AM
Why not see the positives of the EU or countries like the USA and Russia?

I don't see how America or Russia equates to an one world government. As for the EU, its hard to see the positives in something that is falling apart at the seams.

Porpoise101
August 2nd, 2016, 10:01 AM
What do you mean by "world government" people?
Any government with jurisdiction over all of the Earth's population.

To me, this type of government will be needed. People will want it. Governments only come into being because of the desire of the constituent peoples. People will want more coordination at the international level for newer threats like epidemic control and environmental catastrophes. Some organization, most likely the UN, will step in to do this.

Flapjack
August 2nd, 2016, 10:04 AM
I don't see how America or Russia equates to an one world government.
Huge masses of land ruled by one government? With the political polarisation in the USA I think it is impressive they're still one country.
As for the EU, its hard to see the positives in something that is falling apart at the seams.
Like no more wars between the member states? Human rights? Humanitarian aid? The EU has it's problems caused mainly by letting too many in too fast and nationalism.

PlasmaHam
August 2nd, 2016, 10:11 AM
Isaiah implies the messiah will rule the world?

I think I finally realized what you are talking about. The parts in Isaiah that says the messiah will rule the world. That was a big reason why so many people didn't believe Jesus was initially the Messiah, the Jews wanted a messiah to bring freedom and rule to the Jewish people. Well, many of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah refer to not just his first coming, but the second.

To make it simple. Satan rules the world through the figurehead of the anti-Christ. Jesus comes down from Heaven on a white horse, leading the armies of Heaven. Satan responds with gathering his own army, and is promptly beaten in probably the biggest curb-stomp battle of history. Satan is chained for a millennium in the bottomless pit, while Jesus and those who stayed faithful to him reign on Earth for 1000 years.

So yea, the Messiah does rule the Earth, but the Earth by that point is no longer deceived by Satan and his demons, it is perfect.

Stronk Serb
August 2nd, 2016, 09:12 PM
A single goverment that rules the whole world I think :)

Why not see the positives of the EU or countries like the USA and Russia?

Well, Russia and the USA have a primary majority culture. The EU is in constant bickering and can implode. Other countries would see this rule of the minority as a sort of apartheid and all would go to shit. I guess only with a rise of religious tolerance and economic himogenisation would this be feasible.

James_Wilson
August 2nd, 2016, 09:36 PM
Illuminati = New World Order

Periphery
August 2nd, 2016, 11:23 PM
Illuminati = New World Order

Yeah well there is no way it can end well. Like, Hitler tried.

Uniquemind
August 2nd, 2016, 11:37 PM
I don't think we can have one world government, at least not literally nor successfully by force.

If it does occur it will happens slowly as a result of social obstacles that threaten the world to the point where people across various cultures will either see strength in unity or ultimately demise of a good percentage of society. (This could be due to disease, radiation, extreme weather events that cause the death rate to spike annually for a long period of time, etc.)

At least not in the literal sense can I see this happening in what remains in this century.

But I do believe that in Revelations, scripture is talking about a world that actually is united but also divided at the same time, united through trade agreements, and a global economy, but not necessarily one set of representatives or leader figureheads.

Also it is important to also point out that one world government as a concept isn't what is railed against in Revelation, because later on it goes on to describe the 1000 year reign of Christ, which is apparently a good prophesied era of peace time with a centered world power structure. The issue is, as is with the whole Bible, that it's Satan that is controlling the power structure, rather than God.

Reise
August 3rd, 2016, 04:06 AM
Any government with jurisdiction over all of the Earth's population.
Yeah. That is obvious.
I was just asking for a more "accurate" definition of yours.

Paraxiom
August 3rd, 2016, 06:23 PM
Look at the title. What do you think? Should it happen? Is it inevitable to have a world government? What would it look like? Maybe... is it already here?

Nooooooooooooo! Just no. That is yelling great opportunity for totalitarianism and other unpleasant stuff, with or without corruption (though probably with corruption, seeing the options of how such a world government could form from the given situation today).

Arguably a world govt is already here through seeing elite bankers and co being the real runners of humanity, but keeping to definition of govt as I see it, there is too much variety of ideology and opposition between known govts for there to be any one world power.

So, is there a world organisation? Arguably so. A world government? No. Even if we allow govts to be corrupt, a govt has to, well, govern in some way, officially and/or unofficially.

There is too much cultural+social variety in the human world for there to be one world govt that does not necessitate great destruction of some of that variety.


I would like to start by saying that I believe that a world government is inevitable if we haven't nuked ourselves to extinction by that point.

I believe that nuking ourselves is inevitable if there is an attempt at forming a world government.

Porpoise101
August 3rd, 2016, 06:30 PM
Nooooooooooooo! Just no. That is yelling great opportunity for totalitarianism and other unpleasant stuff, with or without corruption (though probably with corruption, seeing the options of how such a world government could form from the given situation today).
But it would be a utopian world without any wars and it will be safer and more peaceful. People can live without the threat of conflict and be happy that Big Brother is looking out for them.

Paraxiom
August 3rd, 2016, 07:09 PM
But it would be a utopian world without any wars and it will be safer and more peaceful. People can live without the threat of conflict and be happy that Big Brother is looking out for them.

I suspect / hope you are being sarcastic!

SethfromMI
August 3rd, 2016, 07:37 PM
according to different Scripture verses, there is going to be a one world government. most people are actually going to go along with it, even going as far as to join the one world religion which it will have. I know for a lot of people who do not believe in the Bible are going to find it hard to believe, but it will happen one day. whether or not we will be alive to see it or not is a completely different issue

Flapjack
August 3rd, 2016, 08:15 PM
Illuminati = New World Order
I don't get your point? A world government can exist without the IlluminatixD

Uniquemind
August 3rd, 2016, 08:39 PM
according to different Scripture verses, there is going to be a one world government. most people are actually going to go along with it, even going as far as to join the one world religion which it will have. I know for a lot of people who do not believe in the Bible are going to find it hard to believe, but it will happen one day. whether or not we will be alive to see it or not is a completely different issue

I think that the One World Religion alluded too in those verses, is love of $, it totally makes sense given that in the other following verses it says "nobody can buy or sell" without having the mark of the beast.

SethfromMI
August 3rd, 2016, 08:44 PM
I think that the One World Religion alluded too in those verses, is love of $, it totally makes sense given that in the other following verses it says "nobody can buy or sell" without having the mark of the beast.

that is interesting. I have certainly heard that interpretation before. I know the mark is involved with worship(for the mark is allegiance to the antichrist) and it still certainly could apply. Scripture only tells us so much so it is not hard to believe that is one of the possibilities. (and a good one at that :) )

Uniquemind
August 3rd, 2016, 11:10 PM
that is interesting. I have certainly heard that interpretation before. I know the mark is involved with worship(for the mark is allegiance to the antichrist) and it still certainly could apply. Scripture only tells us so much so it is not hard to believe that is one of the possibilities. (and a good one at that :) )

Thanks.

But it's to me just common sense, look at 2008, love of money and excess of hoarding it through a lie in true value, ends up causing societies to lose it all eventually.

Also in previous books, the same theme is applied, like building a strong foundation etc.

Jesus throwing the money changers out of the Temple.

It just makes sense.

James_Wilson
August 4th, 2016, 06:25 AM
I don't get your point? A world government can exist without the IlluminatixD
Personally, I believe that it makes sense that the Illuminati could have possibly infiltrated the government, finance, science, business, and the entertainment industry with one goal in mind. That goal being a New World Order and/or world domination. The Illuminati has existed before, there is no reason why it couldn't still be around today.

Yeah well there is no way it can end well. Like, Hitler tried.

That's debatable. If you really read into it, Hitler asked for peace multiple times. He just wanted the parts of Germany that were stolen as a result of WW1. He just did what any leader would have done. Imagine what America would do if Canada just claimed a couple states?

Double post merged. Next time, please use the "Edit" or "Multi" button. ~Elysium

Vlerchan
August 4th, 2016, 07:01 AM
That's debatable. If you really read into it, Hitler asked for peace multiple times. He just wanted the parts of Germany that were stolen as a result of WW1. He just did what any leader would have done. Imagine what America would do if Canada just claimed a couple states?
Hitler wanted to end encirclement - which was the traditional issue Prussian governance faced - and that involved taking a considerable amount of Lebensraum from the East.

He had no intention of creating a world Empire but he for sure wasn't just going to stop at German-speaking regions.

Ghaem
August 4th, 2016, 07:08 AM
Hitler wanted to end encirclement - which was the traditional issue Prussian governance faced - and that involved taking a considerable amount of Lebensraum from the East.

He had no intention of creating a world Empire but he for sure wasn't just going to stop at German-speaking regions.

Considering his intentions for Iran oil rich regions, I do not think so neither. He wantes a share on World's Then Empire.

Reise
August 4th, 2016, 07:36 AM
Woohoo! Nazis!

Actually there was first the "German vital space", which was supposed to be bound West-East by the Alsace and roughly the Kirov (Esit: Region Volga, I skipped Russian geography lessons sorry) and North-Sound by Denmark and Switzerland (considering the huge size of the alleged territory Switzerland constitutes the Southest region, and conversely to the others it is not included).
On the other hand total domination of - at least - Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East was part of the plan.

Periphery
August 4th, 2016, 08:02 AM
That's debatable. If you really read into it, Hitler asked for peace multiple times. He just wanted the parts of Germany that were stolen as a result of WW1. He just did what any leader would have done. Imagine what America would do if Canada just claimed a couple states?

The land taken away from Germany was small. The size of a couple states in the US would be incomparable to what Germany lost as it is way larger. Hitler asked for peace to get the Germans who were broke to like him. Are you supporting Hitler?

Any leader would gas Jews? Yeah no.

Also, do you know what the illuminati are?

Vlerchan
August 4th, 2016, 08:48 AM
On the other hand total domination of - at least - Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East was part of the plan.
Had Hitler intended to engage in direct administration over MENA or rule through proxies ala Vichy?

I'd thought the latter.

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 09:11 AM
Personally, I believe that it makes sense that the Illuminati could have possibly infiltrated the government, finance, science, business, and the entertainment industry with one goal in mind. That goal being a New World Order and/or world domination. The Illuminati has existed before, there is no reason why it couldn't still be around today.
There is no physical reason why they cannot exist but if they do! What evidence is there?

Reise
August 4th, 2016, 09:19 AM
Had Hitler intended to engage in direct administration over MENA or rule through proxies ala Vichy?

I'd thought the latter.
Use of puppet governments, proxies, very probably.
It has been made in most if not all European countries Germany had defeated.
French colonies were under Vichy's administration. But there was still the Wehrmacht's occupation.
However, total domination means total domination, what the Germans wanted, they had it in the minute.

Porpoise101
August 4th, 2016, 09:40 AM
Considering his intentions for Iran oil rich regions, I do not think so neither. He wantes a share on World's Then Empire.
He just needed the oil. If he had defeated the USSR on the Eastern front and taken Baku (Azerbaijan), it would have been more than enough. During the war, governments were pushed to extreme measures to invade places just for strategic benefit. Even the Allies did it with their invasion of Greenland and Iceland.

Ghaem
August 4th, 2016, 09:48 AM
He just needed the oil. If he had defeated the USSR on the Eastern front and taken Baku (Azerbaijan), it would have been more than enough. During the war, governments were pushed to extreme measures to invade places just for strategic benefit. Even the Allies did it with their invasion of Greenland and Iceland.

And Iran. A tragedy killing millions here of starvation and lack of medicine. We have lots of pro-Nazists here who are racist about what Arian blood? Heck they still believe Arians are the best race of humans!

Porpoise101
August 4th, 2016, 09:52 AM
And Iran. A tragedy killing millions here of starvation and lack of medicine. We have lots of pro-Nazists here who are racist about what Arian blood? Heck they still believe Arians are the best race of humans!
In India I believe that some of the conservative right consider Nazi collaborators to be heroes. In reality, they would have made India into a puppet state of the Empire of Japan. The biggest figure is Subhas Bose.

Ghaem
August 4th, 2016, 10:05 AM
In India I believe that some of the conservative right consider Nazi collaborators to be heroes. In reality, they would have made India into a puppet state of the Empire of Japan. The biggest figure is Subhas Bose.

Empire of Japan. During my studies in history I have realized that Empire will end no where good.

Right now I fear from three Empires:

American and European Hegemony

Russian Hegemony

Chinese Hegemony


I personally am in favor of Regional Coperation World. A government of the world is the worst thing which can happen.

Porpoise101
August 4th, 2016, 10:10 AM
I personally am in favor of Regional Coperation World. A government of the world is the worst thing which can happen.
Yes, I agree. Regional blocs will dictate the future political landscape as more regional cooperation is needed. Even if the EU collapses, European nations will still have interests to work with their neighbors. Even today, there are smaller groups like Nordic Union, Benelux, etc. In West Africa, you see Nigeria leading a transnational coalition that fights terrorists and disease. But eventually, maybe a few centuries on, these larger regional 'unions' will merge into a world one.

As for the Empires:
One is declining
One is stagnating
One is passive

Ghaem
August 4th, 2016, 10:19 AM
Yes, I agree. Regional blocs will dictate the future political landscape as more regional cooperation is needed. Even if the EU collapses, European nations will still have interests to work with their neighbors. Even today, there are smaller groups like Nordic Union, Benelux, etc. In West Africa, you see Nigeria leading a transnational coalition that fights terrorists and disease. But eventually, maybe a few centuries on, these larger regional 'unions' will merge into a world one.

As for the Empires:
One is declining
One is stagnating
One is passive


I only hope stability and peace reigns over the World.

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 03:37 PM
I don't see why everyone is against a world government?

Vlerchan
August 4th, 2016, 03:42 PM
I don't see why everyone is against a world government?
Governments need a stable base from which to govern from, and gulfing regional heterogeneity doesn't exactly provide that.

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 03:44 PM
Governments need a stable base from which to govern from, and gulfing regional heterogeneity doesn't exactly provide that.
Yeah there is great diversity in countries like the USA and they manage! I don't think it is possible today but I think a world government would be best for the world:)

Reise
August 4th, 2016, 03:48 PM
Yeah there is great diversity in countries like the USA and they manage! I don't think it is possible today but I think a world government would be best for the world:)
What do you call "diversity" here?

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 03:48 PM
What do you call "diversity" here?
Political and cultural:)

Reise
August 4th, 2016, 03:50 PM
Political and cultural:)
Because you think that there are significant political and cultural differences between two states like, Oregon and Vermont?

Vlerchan
August 4th, 2016, 03:50 PM
Yeah there is great diversity in countries like the USA and they manage!
Liberals constantly complain that the US governance is structurally racist. It's also clear that states without the same legacy of multiethnicism have a much tougher time dealing with those that aren't their co-ethnics, such as most of Europe.

Though, bigger issues emerge at an economic level.

---

What Reise is claiming, too. The amount of diversity within the U.S. actually isn't huge.

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 03:53 PM
Because you think that there are significant political and cultural differences between two states like, Oregon and Vermont?
States like Utah and Vermont yeah :)

PlasmaHam
August 4th, 2016, 03:56 PM
Because you think that there are significant political and cultural differences between two states like, Oregon and Vermont?

Don't underestimate American diversity between states. Its not the racial diversity that liberals love, but cultural and ideological diversity, which is much more important. Statistics show considerable differences between regions when it comes to religion, politics, and culture.

Yeah there is great diversity in countries like the USA and they manage! I don't think it is possible today but I think a world government would be best for the world:)

But, even with all the diversity in America, it is no where on the scope of the entire world. Historically, immigrants would willingly come to America and would abandon some practices of their home country and learn American practices and language so they could coexist with the rest of the Americans. They would become Americans first, and their home country second. That isn't happening nowadays, and just look at the American response towards immigration. The Mexicans are not bothering to learn English, not bothering to help their community, and see themselves as Mexicans in America instead of Americans from Mexico. There is a limit to diversity people will accept, as some practices clash and some diversity cannot work together.

Reise
August 4th, 2016, 04:07 PM
States like Utah and Vermont yeah :)
In what sense exactly, then?

Don't underestimate American diversity between states. Its not the racial diversity that liberals love, but cultural and ideological diversity, which is much more important. Statistics show considerable differences between regions when it comes to religion, politics, and culture.
Of course, states are not identical, but when one says culture I hear in the economical way. In this sense, I am not talking about which kind of Christianity or what party are dominant in each state.
It's also not really the point, French regions have considerably diversified cultures, even in their very roots, Brittany has Celtic roots, Alsace Germanic ones and Corsica Italians. Still, it doesn't significantly undermine the stability of the French government in those regions (Corsica being perhaps a bit of an extreme).

bandofbros20
August 4th, 2016, 04:13 PM
I'm with you on that I believe we will one day have a global government. Like the UN. Only more involved. Like it's made of Representatives from each country or whatever. As long as we don't kill each other and we can come to the realization that working together is a lot better than killing each other. I believe it could and would work great if we humans could be smart enough to realize that.

Vlerchan
August 4th, 2016, 04:20 PM
The Mexicans are not bothering to learn English, not bothering to help their community, and see themselves as Mexicans in America instead of Americans from Mexico.
This occurs because Mexicans, unlike the German and Irish immigrants, continue to arrive and replenish their statues as immigrants in both the eyes of natives and other immigrants. Not because Mexicans are a different kind of immigrant.

It also took some immigrant communities, I believe the Germans are one example, near a century to integrate.

Porpoise101
August 4th, 2016, 04:24 PM
What Reise is claiming, too. The amount of diversity within the U.S. actually isn't huge.
True. But it's not evenly spread around either. Many areas are majority-minority, which compensates for the almost exclusively white rural regions.

If you want a really diverse country, then what about Russia? Or India?

Vlerchan
August 4th, 2016, 04:29 PM
If you want a really diverse country, then what about Russia? Or India?
Russia has never had an effective democracy so it doesn't make a great reference point. Historically, there has also been numerous successions from it.

How federalised is Indian governance, by the way. Further, where does Indian nationalism derive it's legitimacy from? I had always presumed anti-British imperialism.

---

Brazil is another example, though perhaps not one of a well-functioning state.

Porpoise101
August 4th, 2016, 04:46 PM
How federalised is Indian governance, by the way. Further, where does Indian nationalism derive it's legitimacy from? I had always presumed anti-British imperialism.
From my understanding, it is a situation similar to the US. It has a federal government, then states, districts (like a county), then town. States tend be drawn on ethnic lines.

Indian nationalism mostly draws it's legitimacy from three things: Reaction against The British Empire, past Indian Rulers (Ashoka's united India is the archetype), and the idea of a united Hindu population. The third is one I personally disagree with though, because it is contrary to India's diverse and secular nature. One thing though, if the British hadn't come, there probably would have been an Indian nation. It would probably be smaller and without Balochistan, Pashtun areas, Northeast India, and the southern tip of India.

James_Wilson
August 4th, 2016, 05:31 PM
There is no physical reason why they cannot exist but if they do! What evidence is there?

"Novus Ordo Seclorum" which translates to "A New Order of the Ages" on the American $1 bill for example. Along with the descendants of the previous society, images related to the Illuminati like The Eye of Providence in pop-culture and media.

The land taken away from Germany was small. The size of a couple states in the US would be incomparable to what Germany lost as it is way larger. Hitler asked for peace to get the Germans who were broke to like him. Are you supporting Hitler?

Any leader would gas Jews? Yeah no.

Also, do you know what the Illuminati are?

Yes, America is larger. So, America has more land to lose, unlike Germany. No, I don't support him but I don't believe he is as evil as the world makes him out to be.

Yes, he did put in motion the killing of a couple million people. But, it's a pretty common tactic to single out a group of people. Especially since these people were already separate by being wealthier than most others at that time.

And yes, The Bavarian Illuminati is a secret society from the late 1700's.

Posts merged. Use the edit/multi quote button next time. ~Mars

Porpoise101
August 4th, 2016, 05:54 PM
Yes, America is larger. So, America has more land to lose, unlike Germany.
I am just going to say that the land that Germany lost was 'stolen' by them first (as Prussia). They took Alsace and parts of the Baltic Coast. Then those places were 'returned' after WW1. The only places you could say were actually 'stolen' were colonies. And colonies are already stolen from the natives!

The analogy makes more sense like this:
US attacks Mexico, Steals the southwest
Mexico and a coalition win against US, returns southwest
President declares war on Mexico on grounds that "US had the Southwest first"

Replace Mexico with the victims of Germany. And the US with Germany.

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 06:50 PM
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" which translates to "A New Order of the Ages" on the American $1 bill for example. Along with the descendants of the previous society, images related to the Illuminati like The Eye of Providence in pop-culture and media.
Fuck how did I miss this condemning evidence? xD Bet I live with a lizard man too:')

James_Wilson
August 4th, 2016, 06:55 PM
Fuck how did I miss this condemning evidence? xD Bet I live with a lizard man too:')
I am a shape-shifting lizard person so I don't judge.

Flapjack
August 4th, 2016, 06:55 PM
I am a shape-shifting lizard person so I don't judge.
Are you friends with the reptilian king, leafyishere?:D

SethfromMI
August 4th, 2016, 06:57 PM
with all this talk about lizard people, I just have to post this

vUG-wzYxHVI

Porpoise101
August 7th, 2016, 10:58 PM
Judean Zealot Ghaem PlasmaHam Paraxiom

Even if you guys are not supportive of a world government, do you believe that we need to have more international-level cooperation to tackle problems like disease, pollution, and crime?

Paraxiom
August 8th, 2016, 10:42 AM
Russia has never had an effective democracy so it doesn't make a great reference point.

It can be argued that it is the same for the US (the election of George Bush as example). Perhaps off-topic, but wanted to comment on this.


Judean Zealot Ghaem PlasmaHam Paraxiom

Even if you guys are not supportive of a world government, do you believe that we need to have more international-level cooperation to tackle problems like disease, pollution, and crime?

Oh yes. I don't see a conventional world govt happening, and I'm against such a thing anyway, but to have a lack of international cooperation for pollution/disease/etc is also not good. More needs to be done on that front.

For crime, perhaps the same as above, but there's a problem in that the meaning and scope of crime means different things to different govts. Sure, the same can be argued for the pollution and disease, but they are much less 'open to interpretation' than with crime.

So yes, I'm in favour for what you've said, but currently its practice is half a disaster (with failing to meet targets in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, as example), and it's doable but not without conflicts of some sort.

PlasmaHam
August 8th, 2016, 04:04 PM
Judean Zealot Ghaem PlasmaHam Paraxiom

Even if you guys are not supportive of a world government, do you believe that we need to have more international-level cooperation to tackle problems like disease, pollution, and crime?

There are certain things done better at a national level, and certain things that could be done better on an international level. Do I believe that international cooperation and work is good? Yes, of course. But I also believe that things are better handled at a national or regional level.

ethan-s
August 8th, 2016, 06:39 PM
hell no. we all know how that works if you studied rome.

Flapjack
August 8th, 2016, 07:26 PM
hell no. we all know how that works if you studied rome.
You clearly didn't study Rome! :D Unless by study you mean when you're 5 and the made you dress up as Roman solders! How does Rome show that a world government cannot work? Do you know why they think the empire collapsed? Does the USA and Russia show that it can work?

Human
August 8th, 2016, 07:42 PM
I don't think it will ever happen because people in different geographical areas will always conflict with another, it depends on the definition of a 'world government' really. The middle east isn't going to form a world government if it means sharing it's oil for free.

Periphery
August 8th, 2016, 09:37 PM
hell no. we all know how that works if you studied rome.

As far as I'm aware the Roman Empire worked out pretty well. Not sure what your history teacher told you about Rome but Rome was no empire on its own.

phuckphace
August 8th, 2016, 09:44 PM
As far as I'm aware the Roman Empire worked out pretty well. Not sure what your history teacher told you about Rome but Rome was no empire on its own.

the parallels with the Republic/Empire and the USA are so similar it gets spooky. started out glorious, but then they squandered it all on expansionism and then devolved into syphilis-ridden degeneracy before collapsing

PANEM ET CIRCENSES = welfare cash + proto-Super Bowl

Periphery
August 8th, 2016, 09:48 PM
the parallels with the Republic/Empire and the USA are so similar it gets spooky. started out glorious, but then they squandered it all on expansionism and then devolved into syphilis-ridden degeneracy before collapsing

PANEM ET CIRCENSES = welfare cash + proto-Super Bowl

It did work out for a couple thousand years, can't say that for the US.

phuckphace
August 8th, 2016, 09:53 PM
It did work out for a couple thousand years, can't say that for the US.

that's true, but then again in 2016 we've reached post-scarcity when it comes to hedonism thanks to technology (24/7 on demand access to extreme fisting porn, etc) so you could say that our decline was dramatically accelerated.

Porpoise101
August 9th, 2016, 08:44 AM
There are certain things done better at a national level, and certain things that could be done better on an international level. Do I believe that international cooperation and work is good? Yes, of course. But I also believe that things are better handled at a national or regional level.
So why would you not have another level of government to coordinate those jobs? Just as we delegate power to local, state, and federal levels, we can give some powers to regional and international governments. That way certain jobs are executed at the best level.

Paraxiom
August 9th, 2016, 09:12 AM
Does the USA and Russia show that it can work?

I say no, because we have the USA, and we have Russia, with each not liking the other. There was the Cold War, and arguably a second one now.


that's true, but then again in 2016 we've reached post-scarcity when it comes to hedonism thanks to technology (24/7 on demand access to extreme fisting porn, etc) so you could say that our decline was dramatically accelerated.

How does this hedonism in the form of techno-entertainment lead to the decline/collapse of the US though? The culture of a state is one thing, its existence another.

PlasmaHam
August 9th, 2016, 10:08 AM
So why would you not have another level of government to coordinate those jobs? Just as we delegate power to local, state, and federal levels, we can give some powers to regional and international governments. That way certain jobs are executed at the best level.

Just look at the USA over the last 200 years. Originally states had considerable power in their own governance, the Federal government was really just for dealing with interstate or international affairs. Now look at today, where a large percentage of state power has been taken away and replaced with Federal power. Education, taxation, domestic affairs have all shifted away from states to the Federal level. Now you see the Federal government suing states that put in laws they don't like. Power always shifts towards the bigger fish.

Certain things are done better at the national level without international oversight, which you are proposing. Countries should have the right to do whatever the people want without having to answer to a higher power.

Vlerchan
August 9th, 2016, 10:51 AM
Countries should have the right to do whatever the people want without having to answer to a higher power.
Even God and natural law?

---

I am also good with more international cooperation.

It can be argued that it is the same for the US (the election of George Bush as example).
I wouldn't agree that this is a basis to claim that the US has an ineffective democracy.

Paraxiom
August 9th, 2016, 10:54 AM
I wouldn't agree that this is a basis to claim that the US has an ineffective democracy.

Alright. What is an ineffective democracy, in your view?

ethan-s
August 12th, 2016, 11:34 AM
As far as I'm aware the Roman Empire worked out pretty well. Not sure what your history teacher told you about Rome but Rome was no empire on its own.

Were you sleeping in class when they talked about how the Roman empire catastrophically collapsed?

Flapjack
August 12th, 2016, 11:43 AM
Were you sleeping in class when they talked about how the Roman empire catastrophically collapsed?
Then how did the Roman Empire collapse? xD No offence dude but it is so obvious that you haven't studied the Roman Empire in any detail xD

Periphery
August 12th, 2016, 01:21 PM
Were you sleeping in class when they talked about how the Roman empire catastrophically collapsed?

The Roman Empie split up and still lasted about 1000 years untill both sides fell. Just saying.

Reise
August 12th, 2016, 02:27 PM
Were you sleeping in class when they talked about how the Roman empire catastrophically collapsed?
The Western Roman Empire fell due to multiple reasons, one being the secularly unchanged defense system that was based on the idea of placing almost all the troops at the frontiers. This was somehow effective, until invaders achieve to pass the frontier, they were then meeting very large lands without any significant military opposition. Another being the technique of integrating barbarian chiefs to the military/senatorial Roman system, it was an easy way to extend the empire but at a moment there was a large barbarian influence on Rome (just look at the very last days of the empire, Végèce).
And actually it wasn't really a collapse, the death of the Western Roman Empire was a long process, some even mention Christianity, which deeply modified the mores of the population (Gibbon).
There are lots of theories about it, but one thing is sure, the Western Roman Empire didn't fall because of a too large territory. That's even the contrary, the reduction of its territory (which basically started during the IInd Century) was a real problem as less taxes were collected.

If you have been taught that it "catastrophically collapsed" I'm sorry to tell you that your American Eduction system poorly described you History.

PlasmaHam
August 12th, 2016, 09:09 PM
Even God and natural law?

Good catch.

Higher Law supersedes human law, and thus is an universal constant that countries should obey. The differences between Higher Law and Human Law is that Higher Law comes from nature and God, while Human Law comes from just man. Higher Law should be the basis for all countries, and sense it isn't of man, no one claims it.

Paraxiom
August 13th, 2016, 07:09 AM
Higher Law supersedes human law, and thus is an universal constant that countries should obey. The differences between Higher Law and Human Law is that Higher Law comes from nature and God, while Human Law comes from just man. Higher Law should be the basis for all countries, and sense it isn't of man, no one claims it.

What does this Higher Law entail?

As I said in the gender-neutral bathrooms thread, a country's laws should be made such that the physical+mental health of the population is optimally maintained with maximal efficiency.

The law is meant to be set by perceptions of what optimally sustains a civilisation of some sort (physically and mentally). It is not meant to be set by perceptions of reality.

Continuation of large-scale existence is only necessary here; it is not to be conflated with searching for the truth/reality of existence.

Bob billy
December 21st, 2016, 01:21 PM
there would be too much power over the people. A government of that scale would become corrupted very easily with that much power

Amethyst Rose
December 21st, 2016, 02:10 PM
there would be too much power over the people. A government of that scale would become corrupted very easily with that much power

Please don't bump threads :locked: