Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

One World Government watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNerdxP)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ♥Samantha♥)
    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
    This is very true, but let's face it we're probably going to end up having WW3 anyway with how things are going on xD The question is, will there ever be the "right" time or will we always have immense conflict no matter what the circumstance.
    Offline

    19
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Platopus)
    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?
    Very true. But I would never believe that such a ruler would be supported again after all of the teachings of Hitler... Oh wait... He's leading.
    This could very well be the case, however hence the idea of multiple people being in power of different agents such as the military from different religions/backgrounds.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    ...so what are you saying it *will* create, exactly?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...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..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNerdxP)
    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.
    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?

    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..
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Have no problem with it. Lets devils do the work of preparing the arrival of fake Jesus :noway:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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 will ensure our progress is faster. This could either be with astrophysics, vaccinations etc..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNerdxP)
    '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.
    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?

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

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

    '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..
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNerdxP)
    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.
    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

    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
    .

    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?

    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    .

    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNerdxP)
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    well clearly your theory doesn't stand to scrutiny
    I appreciate your time used to criticise my theory. Apologies if it seems like I'm enforcing my own opinion, the purpose of this was to see others' opinions.
    I just want to see the potential of them by coming up with ideas.
    Many thanks.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.