One World Government/ One Currency

Korgoth

Korgoth

Newbie
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
3,233
Reaction score
0
Could someone explain to me why one world government, and one world currency are really such a horrific idea? I mean yes, I do see downs, but there are pluses to right?

+:

- No longer could one country set unfair sanctions upon another.

- Leaders would be voted on by the entire world, thus politicians would play the whole feild, and peace would be more readily achieved

- Economies would feed off one another since one currency is in use, wouldn't everyone want to see everyone else prosper? Thus no more unequal globalism?

I dunno, what are your thoughts?
 
If it were a one-world constitutional democracy, it would be pretty awesome.

In most cases though, one world government implies totalitarianism.

And, frankly, our current one country governments are barely stable as is.

The main problems are nationalism and conflicting ideologies. One world government implies that everyone follows the same rules, which is where the totalitarian problem comes from.
Although nationalistic boundaries cause their own problems, they do produce a buffer zone between nations, so you can escape if needed.

So, basically, if my dream world where everyone is logical, it would work great.
Otherwise, in a reality with leaders (and voters) consistently abusing their power for illogical reasons, what we have now is way better.
 
If we had one world nation the world cup would be abit dull, although the UK nations all enter seperatley, so it could work

Nationalism, and conflicting cultural values would make it impossible to implement for a few hundred years
 
Mr Stabby said:
If we had one world nation the world cup would be abit dull, although the UK nations all enter seperatley, so it could work

Nationalism, and conflicting cultural values would make it impossible to implement for a few hundred years
Click to expand...
if ever
 
- No longer could one country set unfair sanctions upon another.

- Leaders would be voted on by the entire world, thus politicians would play the whole feild, and peace would be more readily achieved

- Economies would feed off one another since one currency is in use, wouldn't everyone want to see everyone else prosper? Thus no more unequal globalism?
Click to expand...

The central goverment would have sanctions on regions though. Besides, the world is too big for a effective central goverment.


And not really. I'd actually like to see my nation/people prosper and everyone else ask for help :p
 
it will never work ..the haves will never allow the havenots to become their equals


could you imagine the enviromental impact if all of the sudden every single person in the world consumed as much resources as westerners do now?
 
Imagine if a baddy got into power?
I'd like a leauge of socialist nations that elect a universal government, that doesn't make all the desicions, but enforces human rights, democracy ect.
 
I like for the UN, EU, NATO to dissolve and everyone go free-for-all. :p
 
CptStern said:
could you imagine the enviromental impact if all of the sudden every single person in the world consumed as much resources as westerners do now?
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd assume food consumption would be balanced out.
Universal western-style consumption is unfeasable and would have to end, while third-world nations would receive far more food than they do now, by virtue of having a minimum wage and such.
 
CptStern said:
it will never work ..the haves will never allow the havenots to become their equals


could you imagine the enviromental impact if all of the sudden every single person in the world consumed as much resources as westerners do now?
Click to expand...

So is it a bad thing, or a good thing that we are unequal? I mean yes, its good for us/bad for them, but is it good or bad? Because humans, as a species, are prone to indulge, we just can't help ourselves. If there is one thing I know about humans, its that greed consumes us, so therefore, if our less fortunate brothers on this rock, had access to all the same things we did, the world would be destroyed by now correct? Pollution would be astronomical, weapons proliferation, war, etc. etc.
 
It would be like Star Trek, where the capitol of the world is in Seattle or something, but the president of the world lives in Paris, and then we could have a 3rd world war, and after that everyone rises up together and we finally get a man to go warp speed, then the vulcans notice it and come down in the 23rd century, and then they help us improve our space technology and then Spock joins the federation and becomes friends with kirk and they go kill God in space but it isn't really God it's a fake god that the aliens made to fool us all, so we kill it.
 
I have read somewhere that if everyone would live like westerners we would need the natural resources of 4 earths to do it. I am pretty sure the biggest issue is fuel and power consumption. If we get better in those areas (Fusion Power and Fuel Cells maybe) it might be possible to achieve global prosperity.
 
It wouldn't work as a federal republic. Millions of people would complain that they are poorly represented, and all the substates (former nations) would still vie for power. Also, I can assure someone would find enough signatures to put a proposition to illegalize democracy on the next ballot.
 
HunterSeeker said:
I have read somewhere that if everyone would live like westerners we would need the natural resources of 4 earths to do it. I am pretty sure the biggest issue is fuel and power consumption. If we get better in those areas (Fusion Power and Fuel Cells maybe) it might be possible to achieve global prosperity.
Click to expand...

Yeah but by that time, our population will be so large, it'll take 15 earths to sustain us :p
 
we can see that throughout history, consolidating many tiny nations into one nation is really not a very good thing. Take for instance the balkans. Before WWI, the powers that be decided it would be a good idea to mash a bunch of them together under the austro-hungarian empire and the ottoman empire. However, this was not a homogenous group of people, and they fought each other continually, which ultimatley led to WWI.

After WWI, they mashed a bunch of nationalitites together into Yugoslavia, and that didn't work out so well, so now all of the nationalities are fighting for territory, trying to regain back their "old lands"

The same thing happened in Africa. During European imperialism, the European powers, namely Britain, Germany, France and Portugal divided the country into neat little colonies. These colonies didn't pay any attention to the people's cultures or traditional nations, but were concerned primarily with economics and European politics. However, after the colonies dissolved following WWII, Africa is now in a constant state of total war, because nations contain a heterogenous mixture of traditional nationalities. This had led to genocide and civil war.


If the entire world were to suddenly become one nation, civil war and rebellion would occur within a decade, and it would be in a constant state of turmoil. Also, without competitive nations, technology would develop at a severly retarted rate, since much of our technology is invented for military purposes.

The only circumstance under which a global government would work is if an outside force threatened us all. If aliens landed tommorow and declared war against us, the entire world would unite in spite of nationalilties to fight them. Therefore, in order for nationalism to end, the entire world would have to become a nation competing with other alien nations. But this event is unlikely to ever happen, so the world will probably be stuck in a neverending state of nationalist war.

However, another situation comes to mind. Should we ever colonize mars, it is likely that it will become a mars vs. earth scenario, and a uniting of all the nations of earth would be neccessary to win such a war.
 
i find the scariest part of a 1 world government is that there are no external threats to the powers that be other than internal threats, This means that the government no longer has to worry about fighting other nations, it only has to worry about rooting out people who do not agree with them, and it can concentrate a massive amount of money towards that endeavor.

Because with a government that large, you cannot afford uprisings, so you have to pretty much stamp out problomatic ideals from the get go. So you end up with a totalitarian big brother type government.

And even if that were not the case. Can you imagine the amount of corruption there is room for in a government that big? It bad enough as it is now. But in a government so huge you'll get corruption everywhere.
 
I don't like the idea of a world government, as there are probably atleast 3 billion people who disagree with poncy western liberalism
 
I wouldn't mind global currency. But, I'm not a big fan of centralization so I'd vote no for one world government.
 
DeusExMachina said:
I wouldn't mind global currency. But, I'm not a big fan of centralization so I'd vote no for one world government.
Click to expand...

Global currency is fine. Global government is bad.
 
It'd be nice, but realistically, it would never happen- and if it actually DID, it'd be a recipe for disaster. If you ask me, investing all the power in the world in a single government seems like putting all your eggs in one basket.
 
JNightshade said:
It'd be nice, but realistically, it would never happen- and if it actually DID, it'd be a recipe for disaster. If you ask me, investing all the power in the world in a single government seems like putting all your eggs in one basket.
Click to expand...

They're...they're easier to carry?
 
There'd have to be some kind of technological leap, and a common enemy. After the colonisation of space. It could be the Republic of Martian humans or something.
 
Oh also, no one would agree on the name of the currency and what to put on it. If they put someone's face on it, half the world would be furious because in their minds that putting someone's face on something endorses their culture's actions. Example: Put da Vinci on there and you'll be called anti-Christian and a supporter of homosexuality. Forget about putting a military leader on there. And don't even THINK of putting Columbus.
 
Thunderclap said:
Oh also, no one would agree on the name of the currency and what to put on it. If they put someone's face on it, half the world would be furious because in their minds that putting someone's face on something endorses their culture's actions. Example: Put da Vinci on there and you'll be called anti-Christian and a supporter of homosexuality. Forget about putting a military leader on there. And don't even THINK of putting Columbus.
Click to expand...

You put a picture of the world. One hemisphere on either side.
 
theotherguy said:
You put a picture of the world. One hemisphere on either side.
Click to expand...

Trust me. People will still be displeased.
 
Inflation disrupts the entire global market, and can't be contained.

I don't want someone from another part of the world having any say in who we elect for OUR nation.

US Soveirgnty can never be given up. Our constitution is the best document and other nations are eager to trample on some of the rights we hold dear.
 
you do that well enough alone, you dont need other countries to trample on your rights
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Inflation disrupts the entire global market, and can't be contained.

I don't want someone from another part of the world having any say in who we elect for OUR nation.

US Soveirgnty can never be given up. Our constitution is the best document and other nations are eager to trample on some of the rights we hold dear.
Click to expand...

The only right they're "eager" to "trample" on is gun rights because they think its the wild wild west over here and they believe they have moral superiority since they banned guns.
 
no we dont want to trample your guns rights ..we just dont want you exporting guns/your gun philosophy to our countries
 
I put trample in quotes. Obviously, I don't believe every nation is just licking its lips at "trampling" our rights. That's ridiculous. We're all relatively "civilized" (keep the jokes to yourself) aren't we?

...Where are you getting us exporting guns from? If we're doing it, you're country likely asked for them.
Unless you're talking about illegal gun smugglers and such. Which...shouldn't count as anything anyway.
 
DeusExMachina said:
I put trample in quotes. Obviously, I don't believe every nation is just licking its lips at "trampling" our rights. That's ridiculous. We're all relatively "civilized" (keep the jokes to yourself) aren't we?

...Where are you getting us exporting guns from? If we're doing it, you're country likely asked for them.


Unless you're talking about illegal gun smugglers and such. Which...shouldn't count as anything anyway.
Click to expand...

most gun related crimes are commited using stolen guns, many of which come from the US
 
I don't really see how that's our fault. Because we produce them I'm assuming?
 
I'm not saying it is your fault ..at least directly. It's more the gun culture than anything else
 
theotherguy said:
You put a picture of the world. One hemisphere on either side.
Click to expand...

You put my hemisphere on the BACK SIDE!?! Racist pig!


theotherguy said:
Then..make it nondescript with random computer generated patterns
Click to expand...

You want to put our currency in the hand of MACHINES? So, you're a robot sympathizer eh, want the AIs to rule the world, huh, huh? :borg:
 
No, no, a friend of mine accused me of being a Michael Moore fanboy awhile back. I'm sorry. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

katsung47
Ron Paul Defends Russia After Malaysian Plane Crash
Replies
0
Views
3K
katsung47
katsung47
Warped
One World Currency
Replies
37
Views
1K
Danimal
Danimal
lord_raken
We all know one
Replies
24
Views
2K
Bad^Hat
Bad^Hat
Pi Mu Rho
Zombie Master Postmortem
Replies
7
Views
7K
Insano
Insano
Naudian
The changing the world thread
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
Naudian
Naudian
Back
Top