One World Government

For them points I must applaud you. Wouldn't it be slightly different in the electing process though? For example, with the spartans there's less sub-cultures but if this was on a national scale then how would we decide who's in charge of the military? With everything going on at the moment for example, if a Muslim was elected to be in charge of the military those who are ignorant may fear them having power and cultures would most likely collide to fight and blame any of their faults on their race and religion. Personally, the factor that I believe could be a problem is religion, the Spartan's had the same religion, but since people nationally are devoted to different religions most would find it offensive to be overpowered by someone of a different religion. This is unless there is some sort of way that we can merge all religions into one and come to a mutual agreement.

Oh I am sorry NerdxP, I miss understood your point.

Yes you are quite right, religion would be a problem....unless, like you said we could find a way of merging them together.

This is what the romans actually did!!! If we against followed the roman example and merged all the common beliefs into one whole religion (thus creating another religion), there would be no need to for them to fight.

However, this in itself cannot prevent people from having religion differences saying "but this happened and not that" and is not something we can really get rid of. We could maybe have an agreement where the persons in power do not release their religion to the public and are thus banned from wearing anything associated with religion while in office or for life once the office has been took up.

Basically, we would need to give the people lots of things in common such as the same laws, government, coin etc, so that the similarities out way the differences hugely. The romans did this very well by saying that they could practise their religion in private, but in public they all worship the same god/gods, goverment, follow the same law etc.

Of course we could also amend it so that, no religion can be practised outside in public?

The other solution would be to create a new religion as the defacto religion and members of the empire who follow the "warriors religion" are the only professional soliders in the army while we enslave all the other people who follow a different one like that spartans did with the helots :P Having one religion for the citizens that teaches loyalty to the state and all other religions are false and another for the army that teaches loyalty to the state and the state is absolute, they have no religion and only death is their master.

In the very distant future, I think it could be a good idea. But right now most countries hate each other, there's too much conflict, countries are at different stages of development and the cultures of countries are at odds with each other. It just wouldn't work and would probably end in war

Not a good idea. We need checks and balances. Can you imagine if Hitler II or worse, Donald Trump, got in control of the whole world?

nope - what would be the point? it won't stop war, it will simply agitate international relations. you'll get what's happening in europe via the EU - anger at other countries.

Interesting, but do you mean to say that there would be no benefits what so ever? Yes some wars would occur, but honestly wars occur all of the time anyway so what would be the difference? If countries are free to practice their own "sub-religion" inside the umbrella of a one world Government law then what's to say there's no chance of getting along SLIGHTLY better. Baring in mind I'm not saying it would create world peace- that would never happen.

...so what are you saying it *will* create, exactly?

It would 'create' a bigger and more powerful representative of homo sapiens as one rather than combining confusing and controversial views to present us as barbaric.

It could also create a nicer atmosphere to live in and more advanced trading and easier access. It could help us develop scientifically if we can all work together on projects, the list goes on..

no it won't. unless you're arguing from indoctrination (as in indoctrinating genuinely barbaric cultures to change). and from there, you're basically arguing for dictatorship. so, again, what's the point?



trade? we already have the WTO.
a "nice atmosphere"? lol
how could it help us develop scientifically? how specifically?
the list clearly doesn't go on

'no it won't' In MY opinion it would. No I'm not, I'm arguing that we can make ourselves aware of the similarities we all have so we can work together. I'm not arguing from indoctrination as it wouldn't be teaching people to accept set beliefs as it encourages everyone to have their own 'beliefs' but accept everyone else around you too.

we already have the WTO'. I know we already have trade. It would be EASIER to trade hence everyone being closer and not as many conflicts such as over oil.

'lol'. I'm not sure how to respond to that very strong point.

'scientifically?' Specifically we can have more members and favour some research that's in urgent need and it's in the public interest. This could either be with astrophysics, vaccinations etc..

why do you need a world government to let people know that all human beings have certain similarities? why should we work together when we can compete and get more for ourselves? annd why should we accept the beliefs of savage cultures i.e. the middle east? they stone people for homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, apostasy, etc. why would we want to join them in a world government? how would this be helpful to us?



why would that justify an entire world government though? the whole point of the WTO is liberalising trade WITHOUT having to go that far.



I wasn't really expecting a response, I was just laughing at your point because it is like window dressing and not of any real point, isn't it?



are you implying that creating a world government would meaningfully enlarge the population of world scientists? how? by taking our money and giving it to poorer countries? why would we want to do something as stupid as that?

1) I'm sorry but I cannot comment on that, if that's your beliefs on certain cultures then each to their own and I can't change that view of yours if you can't see community cohesion.

2) It wouldn't, it's just a point of it being beneficial. We're not going that far just for this purpose alone, it's just something that would come alongside of it

3) No, I mean it would unite all scientists together at least more than it is now. I do not mean propaganda or anything to have more scientists but again just better communication skills and technology to help advance research such as if Japan's ideas are inspired globally.

lol nothing says "community cohesion" quite like killing gay people and non-believers...clearly the middle east is a great candidate for your little one world government project of cohesion and co-operation

.

and even then, it can't justify a world government - if the EU does such an atrocious job of transnational governance (henc why we're probably about to leave it), why would you think a world-level government would do better? magic?



why should we share our science with the world? i.e. in 1945 why should the USA have shared its knowledge of atomic weaponry with the rest of the world and the communists, for instance? are you basically just arguing for an alliance of allied-states scientifically? so why are you wanting a *world* government? see, you can do these things, from science to trade, WITHOUT robbing states of their democratic sovereignty.

No, this is just simply an idea. I've not planned anything out, I just wanted to hear some opinions on it. I'm simply stating the benefits and you also have to agree that the EU also has some benefits. I was referring more to astrophysics and cancer vaccinations rather than atomics, I don't know why people would choose to share that when they're going to use it against them? And yes, I'm not saying there's no other ways around this but instead I'm just coming up with points for the THEORY.

well clearly your theory doesn't stand to scrutiny