The Student Room Group

One World Government

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheNerdxP
I couldn't agree more and I must thank you for this debate as they are hard to cross recently :P

Another alternative could be an "umbrella religion" that compliments all of the other religions underneath it in a certain way by embracing the similarities between them all (when you study both the Bible and the Qur'an you would see that there's not that many differences). It could act as a culture which holds all of the sub-cultures inside of it which naturally occur with controversy but yet still obey the same laws. For example, this could act as binding precedent where the EU laws overrule English laws when being questioned.


No worries, its been quite interesting :smile: also ye that was the first solution I gave but it was poorly explained by me. Yes it is kind of like the EU.

HOWEVER, it is a failed imitation of this and has very large differences to the purposed idea. They are trying to have a EU army etc before they are strengthened the unity between the EU members states. Which is why it is now self destructing as it cannot maintain unity.

Original post by sleepysnooze
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.


I do not agree with this, sure some wars will still happen (probably freedom fighters fighting the empire). However, as explained the EU is trying to run before it can walk and thus this is why the other countries are angry.


Original post by TheNerdxP
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.

Yep this is my thought exactly and this is what would happen. Although like I said if religion was removed and only practised in private and in public we remain religion neutral/practised the same religion. Then this would solve the issue.
Original post by mrITguy
I do not agree with this, sure some wars will still happen (probably freedom fighters fighting the empire). However, as explained the EU is trying to run before it can walk and thus this is why the other countries are angry.

I think you've misunderstood my argument
1) statism doesn't stop conflict from within. that's why the civil wars of the former yugoslav republics occurred, as opposed to remaining in a federation
2) I was saying, with regards to the EU and the anger that it's fostered, that countries like poland and romania being allowed in, causing huge influxes of migration, is just a terrible idea when it comes to international relations. it will create tensions with those countries.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
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

LOL, are you trying to say we don't need a government to bring order to our lifes? and you think by having a world empire is barbaric :P

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?

Yes, I agree with will most likely leave (which is a good thing). But as stated a world government is different to the EU.

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.


You see you are still thinking nationally within your own country instead of thinking nationally with the world order/empire/government. If this happened, it would effectively create a new nation. If the world shared our science today with each other, we could have eliminated cancer by now.
Reply 43
Original post by mrITguy
No worries, its been quite interesting :smile: also ye that was the first solution I gave but it was poorly explained by me. Yes it is kind of like the EU.

HOWEVER, it is a failed imitation of this and has very large differences to the purposed idea. They are trying to have a EU army etc before they are strengthened the unity between the EU members states. Which is why it is now self destructing as it cannot maintain unity.


Oh I see, I'm sorry I didn't realise. Exactly, it is like the EU but slightly better intentions and priorities which would make it more sustainable and therefore more successful :smile:
Original post by mrITguy
You see you are still thinking nationally within your own country instead of thinking nationally with the world order/empire/government. If this happened, it would effectively create a new nation. If the world shared our science today with each other, we could have eliminated cancer by now.


please keep your statements outside of the quotation boxes or else I won't be able to see them when replying - I think goernments *do* create order, do if you have multiple demoses that have massive potential for friction (e.g. western europe with the middle east/north and central africa) then there will be no room for social order. conflict will be inevitable. you can't have a state without a common thread of social identity/belonging.

also, you can create states, but you can't just whip up "nations" like they're a souffle - they are created over hundreds of years
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze


I think you've misunderstood my argument
1) statism doesn't stop conflict from within. that's why the civil wars of the former yugoslav republics occurred, as opposed to remaining in a federation
2) I was saying, with regards to the EU and the anger that it's fostered, that countries like poland and romania being allowed in, causing huge influxes of migration, is just a terrible idea when it comes to international relations. it will create tensions with those countries.

Oh sorry, thanks for the clarity. I just posted another post above before I saw your post.

Yes, I agree it will not stop conflict all together (and no one is arguing about that) but it will stop the majority of the conflict. I think you are also underestimating the extent to how big the world order is. The rebels won't have anyone funding them and because of huge unity people will have, they won't feel the need to rebel.

Yes that is true, but these countries would cease to exist under the empire. This would be a challange that the empire would have to face, but it can be solved quite easily when you have the world resources available to you.
Original post by sleepysnooze
please keep your statements outside of the quotation boxes or else I won't be able to see them when replying - I think goernments *do* create order, do if you have multiple demoses that have massive potential for friction (e.g. western europe with the middle east/north and central africa) then there will be no room for social order. conflict will be inevitable. you can't have a state without a common thread of social identity/belonging.

also, you can create states, but you can't just whip up "nations" like they're a souffle - they are created over hundreds of years


Sorry, I thought it would be easier for you to read.

But you wouldn't have multiple governments in the world order. You would have one elected government managing the world along with two elected kings.

Please read my post about detailing how I suggested this would work. As it sounds like you have to read it because it would create social order as everyone would believe the same things.

You are correct in that it takes time to create a state. The roman empire effectively did this very quickly :smile:
Original post by mrITguy
Sorry, I thought it would be easier for you to read.

But you wouldn't have multiple governments in the world order. You would have one elected government managing the world along with two elected kings.


I never suggested that there would be multiple governments under a "world government". by "demoses" I'm talking about the different cultures/societies of the world. you can't just make cultures/societies homogenise or go away via one government. and wait, two elected kings? what are you talking about? why?

Please read my post about detailing how I suggested this would work. As it sounds like you have to read it because it would create social order as everyone would believe the same things.


where?

You are correct in that it takes time to create a state. The roman empire effectively did this very quickly :smile:


if it was so effective, why did it collapse?
also, wasn't the roman empire a dictatorship? umm
I doubt you would find many people who would like to live under the dictatorship of a Rothschild NWO.
Original post by mrITguy
Not sure about a world government. Perhaps, robots will deal with these matters for us? :P


A world government might happen eventually, however I think it will be an empire (or two empires) rather than a coalition. The reason is an empire is more united than lots of different factions (can you imagine the back stabbing that would occur in a coalition?).

Either we impose our culture on others and they accept it while an single or two men hold equal power (think Roman empire/Spartan except with less corruption and more democratic).

One day an empire will raise, however there are alot of different ways of going about creating one (its not just war empires have been built on, for example Carthage).


Original post by mrITguy

Hi TheNerdxP,

That would be true if we followed the exact roman model, however if we added a bit of Spartan in there. Then there should be no problem.

The Spartans for example had two kings, one in religious matters and one for military. Therefore, the new world order or empire would have two elected men of equal power, but only one would control the military or we could have a council where the state controls it (kind of like the senate when they had power before the emperors).

So the elected kings or emperors would have power politically etc but they would either serve as different roles and thus there should be no conflicting interests or/and we could have a senate where they control the army/army's and are accountable to the people (who also vote for who will be a senator).

If one did try to attack with their army or built one of their own to try and take over, the senate could give full power to the other king temporally or march in themselves with an elected person. Naturally the Senate and the other king would declare the blood thirsty king as a enemy of the empire and thus anyone able should do him harm. They could even allow the people to elect a new king and give the military power to both kings to deal with the traitor (though this would be a last resort).

In addition the senate could pass a new law where they summon the fyrd if needed that are there to be called upon when dealing with traitors.

Ultimately, the Spartan and Roman's had an excellent system that if the best bits fused together would make for an excellent government (add a little bit of Saxon/modern into the mix for good measure).


Original post by mrITguy
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.





Original post by sleepysnooze
I never suggested that there would be multiple governments under a "world government". by "demoses" I'm talking about the different cultures/societies of the world. you can't just make cultures/societies homogenise or go away via one government. and wait, two elected kings? what are you talking about? why?



where?



if it was so effective, why did it collapse?
also, wasn't the roman empire a dictatorship? umm


The bit in bold is what I said earlier. Now for your bit.

I am sorry I didn't understand what you meant by "demoses". I thought it meant to give a show to an audience, so by that I thought you meant have multiple leaders to give announcements.

You are wrong in that assumption as history has showed that we can combine cultures if there is enough common things between them. The tricky part is creating those common things.

I am afraid I would need to write along essay as to why the roman empire collapsed. So ill save you the pain. The roman empire was a dictatorship, but it had some good things going for it which is why for the most part stayed united. Before the empire, it was a republic which was not a dictatorship. Read above for the rest.
Disastrous.
Because then you'd have:

One country to rule them all, One country to find them,
One country to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Reply 52
Original post by IAmYourdog
Because then you'd have:

One country to rule them all, One country to find them,
One country to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.


Ooh a nice bit of rhyming going on there :smile:
I understand your perspective, but this would be where there could be two leaders in charge of different things therefore one country wouldn't rule all, but a combined force. I do agree however, that there's always that risk.

Quick Reply

Latest