World State (2 Viewers)

[Slidey]

No.

In fact, places like America, India, China, Russia and Brazil should break up. Their governments are far too big, cumbersome, and inefficient to minister 300 million people, 1.3 billion, whatever.

 

[Slidey]

Perhaps, the "modern" way of saying 'Muslim'.

Actually, it's the archaic way. C.f. Winston Churchill speaking about Muslims.

Points for trying though, kiddo.

 

[Slidey]

If there is one, I shall take over and set up a oligarchy hand picked by me. I will wipe you all out.

When I am king you will be first against the wall.

 

[Tangent]

No.

In fact, places like America, India, China, Russia and Brazil should break up. Their governments are far too big, cumbersome, and inefficient to minister 300 million people, 1.3 billion, whatever.

Im also talking about a well structured government. And it wouldnt just happen to start off with, there would b mistakes, and lessons to learn, but we'd get there in the end

 

[Slidey]

Im also talking about a well structured government. And it wouldnt just happen to start off with, there would b mistakes, and lessons to learn, but we'd get there in the end

No matter how well-structured it is, a single government cannot adequately manager and administer 6 to 10 billion people (or more!) without significant devolution of powers.

 

[ilikebeeef]

When we can get a state government not run by a bunch of idiotic retards to give us a semi-decent transport system, the idea of an efficient WORLD government might not seem so insane.

That's kinda hard.

 

[volition]

No matter how well-structured it is, a single government cannot adequately manager and administer 6 to 10 billion people (or more!) without significant devolution of powers.

Just curious, Slidey why do you think that a world govt will have trouble with 6 to 10 billion anymore than it would with 2 or 3 billion? Would the size of the govt not scale to 'expand the coverage' so to speak?

I think the number of people isn't the issue so much as having their support is. (I'm just talking about having the government stay in power here, I do of course believe that the world govt would be horribly inefficient and many lives would be lost or made worse off)

And just for people generally in this thread who are for a world state, if you are also for democracy - Do you not think that the world govt would be mostly comprised of Chinese + Indian representatives? How would you feel if they decided that the best way to bring about equality was to take your country's wealth by force and redistribute it?

 

[Tangent]

And just for people generally in this thread who are for a world state, if you are also for democracy - Do you not think that the world govt would be mostly comprised of Chinese + Indian representatives? How would you feel if they decided that the best way to bring about equality was to take your country's wealth by force and redistribute it?

The world government would not be made up of any Chinese or Indians, and nor would they be taking wealth from any country and giving it to another because we'd all be one country. And whats wrong with our tax right now? They tax us, and spend the money where necessary.

As for the governement, it would have to be divided up into sectors, which would be divided up into subsectors, which would continue to be divided up until there was a manageable scope of people to govern. Just an extented version of aust gov. now days.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

The world government would not be made up of any Chinese or Indians, and nor would they be taking wealth from any country and giving it to another because we'd all be one country. And whats wrong with our tax right now? They tax us, and spend the money where necessary.

As for the governement, it would have to be divided up into sectors, which would be divided up into subsectors, which would continue to be divided up until there was a manageable scope of people to govern. Just an extented version of aust gov. now days.

your kidding right?

 

[badquinton304]

When we can get a state government not run by a bunch of idiotic retards to give us a semi-decent transport system, the idea of an efficient WORLD government might not seem so insane.

Its pretty hard to get decent transport because people in sydney live spaced out and the population is less dense than say, japan or singapore. So each person in australia pays for a far larger chunk of track than a person in japan. The only way to fix it would be to greatly increase ticket prices, but then people will complain even more than they do now.

 

[Lentern]

Although I think that none of us shall ever see it, I would say it is highly probable, and quite desirable.

 

[SylviaB]

We need to go in the other direction.

See, if the world government passes a law you don't like, what can you do, go to out of space?

 

[ilikebeeef]

We need to go in the other direction.

See, if the world government passes a law you don't like, what can you do, go to out of space?

I think we'll conquer space before we will ever have a world government.

 

[volition]

The world government would not be made up of any Chinese or Indians, and nor would they be taking wealth from any country and giving it to another because we'd all be one country. And whats wrong with our tax right now? They tax us, and spend the money where necessary.

You're just playing with the definitions here. By country, I mean the geographical region that was previously India or China.

And as for taxing and spending where necessary, I'm sure you're including all the terrible things the govts of the world do like waging warfare overseas and imposing embargoes on other nations (keeping them in poverty). Or all the money they spend on protectionist measures that harm the economy and make most people worse off. So really have a think about whether what the govt does for you is actually good.

 

[moll.]

I think we'll conquer space before we will ever have a world government.

To be honest, I would say that the former is a necessary precondition of the latter.

 

[ilikebeeef]

To be honest, I would say that the former is a necessary precondition of the latter.

Yeah pretty much.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You're just playing with the definitions here. By country, I mean the geographical region that was previously India or China.

And as for taxing and spending where necessary, I'm sure you're including all the terrible things the govts of the world do like waging warfare overseas and imposing embargoes on other nations (keeping them in poverty). Or all the money they spend on protectionist measures that harm the economy and make most people worse off. So really have a think about whether what the govt does for you is actually good.

This is an excellent point which all the pro world government people have just ignored.

Remember also that most of the world's population (around 95%) is religious, and that most of them are used to far more traditionalism and authoritarian government. Developed nations with the sort of modern values most of us enjoy make up less than 10% of the global population.

The idea that world government would eliminate or even reduce wars is also pretty fanciful. Some of the most horrific conflicts of the past century have been civil wars, and most of the worst genocides have been carried out by governments against their own people.

Just because a central body claims to represent everyone doesn't mean there won't still be tension between Israelis and Palestinians, Turks and Tamils, ect ect. It much like how the caste system has been outlawed in India, but in practice it doesn't actually change people's beliefs and behavior.

 

[Lentern]

We need to go in the other direction.

See, if the world government passes a law you don't like, what can you do, go to out of space?

Vote for the other guy? If the law is truly wrong the people will cast out the government and bring in a better one. Or is your faith in the people to make such a decision so little that someone else needs to decide for them?

 

[moll.]

Just because a central body claims to represent everyone doesn't mean there won't still be tension between Israelis and Palestinians, Turks and Tamils, ect ect. It much like how the caste system has been outlawed in India, but in practice it doesn't actually change people's beliefs and behavior.

Well that would be an interesting, if slightly long-ranged, conflict.

 

[funkshen]

Well that would be an interesting, if slightly long-ranged, conflict.

I'm hoping he means Kurds.