What are you, some kinda schnorer? Get a job!
No. Why on Earth would I want hundreds of millions or billions of people from places like the Middle East, China or the USA to have a say in things like my freedom of speech, religion, sexual liberation or an unfettered Internet? I don’t care and don’t want to decide what goes in Damascus. I care not that people in Damascus should have a say in what goes in Copenhagen. Instead of a single massive world empire, I’d rather have a lot more independent nations of different character, which people can chose freely between to select the one that suits them best. That way more people can have it like they want, without forcing the neighbour to have it also.
Incidentally. It’s rather striking that even while the EU expands, Europe underneath seems to be ever fragmenting. Some say the future looks more like the Middle Ages with numerous smaller states than like the era of nations. I’m a great supporter of independence from Denmark for my own Faroe Islands, pop. 50.000 and for Greenland too. Denmark (pop. 5mil) is too big.
The US Constitution sucks. At least it does, if it is guilty of creating the two party mess you have.
poking fun at the semantics doesn’t ameliorate the issue. otherwise, let’s just get rid of all legal ramifications to enter America and solve our illegal immigrant problem once and for all. what we don’t legislate can’t be illegal.
Although I don’t think a one world government is a practical idea for any time in the foreseeable future, multiplying the number of sovereign nation-states is hardly a formula for increasing human liberty. Multiplying the number of states multiplies the number of state borders, and the powers of states are greatest at the borders between them. (“States” in the international relations sense, not the U.S. politics sense.) Within the borders of a state, individuals at least have a fair chance of being able to come and go as they please, and of requiring government bureaucrats to follow strict rules about the extent to which they can intrude into people’s personal lives. At the borders of a state–even a generally free one–bureaucrats have vastly expanded powers to snoop through people’s personal effects, rummage through the files on their laptops, and ask them impertinent questions about where they’ve been and where they’re going.
The EU (or more strictly speaking the Schengen Agreement) has expanded human liberty in at least one area: A person can now travel from Portugal to Poland and never have to show a passport. We’ve always had that right when traveling from Maine to California, and I would hate to give that up.
Blimey, I’ve been Godwinized! :smack:
I don’t see what any of this has to do with One World Government. The OP was not “Imagine the worst possible One World Government - would you support that?”
Would you leave if it came?
those things are inevitable.
there won’t be an easy way to elect leaders.
pork is in the eye of the beholder. as much as i don’t want to finance bullet trains in cairo, i’m sure egyptians don’t want to finance bullet trains in Virginia.
taxation is going to be difficult and burdensome towards the west
people living in squalor will make a beeline to the nations with clean water/high wages/good education
nations experiencing a decrease in quality of life (US, Europe, Japan) would say screw this and secede. why wouldn’t they? as benevolent a ruler as this government can be, taking dollars out of western pockets to subsidize 3rd world growth is NOT in their best interests.
how would the best case scenario of world government skirt these issues?
No way in hell.
I can’t see why a world governemnt even if run by the best brightest and most benevolent people in the world would not even remotely be able to reduce any of the inequalities. What magical properties do you think it will have?
And the ammount of bitching about every tiny thing would be annoying and it would stop the world on its tracks.
Hitler didnt think that he would be Godwinized either 
Ah yes, let hundreds of millions around the world starve, be oppressed, and be genocided in every corner of the globe in exchange for your porn not being regulated. What a great deal! But quite frankly that is an utterly selfish statement and I am willing to give up some excessive freedoms in order to have prosperity, equality, basic education, and right to life for all human beings around the globe.
I say, is not the march of Man through it’s hundreds of thousand of years a march of progress, prosperity, and unity? Is it not every Man’s right to have three square meals, a liveable home, and a right to life?
Also we would need a military, because mathematically speaking aliens do exist and they may be unfriendly to humanity.
Still, no reason why a world government would solve any of that.
No, there is no mathematically speaking they do not exist.
Wouldn’t it be better to have prosperity, equality, basic education, life, porn and freedom? It unclear how giving up any of those in hopes that maybe somebody might have a chance at getting one or two of them is a good deal. I guess I could give up unrestricted internet access (and the porn therein) if every woman in every Muslim nation was given the right to a high-school education or better, but what guarantee do I have they they’ll hold up their end of the deal?
By the way, what’s an “excessive” freedom?
Political compromise, for instance moderate Muslims might accept a democratic world government in exchange for banning some forms of porn. As for “excessive” porn look up Fred Phelps or Madlyn Murray O’Hair.
Didnt you know? Freedom is conserved just like energy/matter.
The reason some places in the world have so little is because America has so much. If we give up some of ours, they can have more.
And that’s all they’ll ever demand, right? Just the porn. They won’t beat men whose beards aren’t long enough or punish women who dare walk in public unescorted or while showing their ankles. They won’t demand physical beating for adulterers or execute women who get raped? Just the porn, and they’ll give all their citizens freedom that otherwise approximates what westerners already enjoy?
Neither of them strike me as “excessive”. A bit jerkish and unpleasant, maybe.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it is worth banning porn in exchange for have the Muslim countries join a World-State.
They’re abusing free speech rights though I don’t think they should be censored.
I’m not a particular fan of the accumulation and centralization of power in either the US or EU.
An ideal system, IMO, would select representatives by sortition (though we could have direct democratic election to a sortition pool and direct-democratic recall of a selected representative) and the representatives would only be in session when actually called for by the people they represent. If representatives at a given level couldn’t come to an agreement on the presented issue, they could invoke a higher-level representative body to arbitrate (with the option of applying the decision only to the disagreeing parties, or submitting it to the full lower body for vote to apply to the whole if it seems to be a recurring type problem).
Active government would be local and decentralized.
What?
Which means what, exactly? What new freedoms will the citizens of Muslim nations enjoy under a World-State, and will us giving up porn be sufficient payment to bring this about?
I’d say using, rather than abusing. Abusing, I figure, would be causing actual harm as in libel, slander, or falsely shouting “fire” in theatres and whatnot. Phelps may be borderline with picketing funerals and such, but I’m not aware that O’Hair was ever as annoying, though I admit my unfamiliarity with most of her work.