Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Would a one world government be doomed to fail since its an empire?

  1. #1
    Valued Senior Member desi's Avatar
    Posts
    1,616

    Would a one world government be doomed to fail since its an empire?

    Something has been bothering me about a one world government and maybe this is it. It seems like the Romans and the British failed in their efforts. Why would a "new world order" work now when it has failed in the past? Is it possible an effort to make the NWO would make things worse for many people and forge a new dark ages?

  2. #2
    nukes make unshattering walls of trust

  3. #3
    Worship me or suffer eternally
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by desi View Post
    Something has been bothering me about a one world government and maybe this is it. It seems like the Romans and the British failed in their efforts. Why would a "new world order" work now when it has failed in the past? Is it possible an effort to make the NWO would make things worse for many people and forge a new dark ages?
    It wouldn't work now unless it was made so that absolutely every single person has the same amount of power and influence over what happens and that is impossible.

  4. #4
    Worship me or suffer eternally
    Posts
    1,635
    Not to mention that the currently powerful entities in the world would want to keep their power and thus not cooperate with creating this world government.

    What laws would there be? Everyone has different opinions. And you can't just enforce the laws that 60% want on the other 40% that wants different laws.

    What would the role of the world government be? What kind of power would it have?

    How would the people be protected from this insanely powerful government?

    People would need to be taught to be very critical of the actions of their government and there's no room for religion, it's too easily used to control large populations.

    The government wouldn't be democratic, as large populations (and thus the elections) are too easily controlled.
    Last edited by s0meguy; 09-07-07 at 02:36 PM.

  5. #5
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    A world order is not the same thing as a world government. In fact, the phrase "world order" implies that there are *multiple* polities, which are placed in some kind of pecking order. A single world government obviates the notion of an "order," since there is only a single polity in that case.

  6. #6
    Worship me or suffer eternally
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    A world order is not the same thing as a world government. In fact, the phrase "world order" implies that there are *multiple* polities, which are placed in some kind of pecking order. A single world government obviates the notion of an "order," since there is only a single polity in that case.
    The same still applies... too much power with too little people.

    And by the way... that's still called a government. Even if you disagree, what kind of power would this order of yours have, and how would it be elected, if at all?

  7. #7
    All Pyramid schemes fail. The dumbest shit humans do over and over again.

  8. #8
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by s0meguy View Post
    The same still applies... too much power with too little people.
    Err... that's true of a one-world government, but a world order doesn't imply anything about how big or (un)representative the constituent polities are. Complete world anarchy is just as valid a world order as a one-world government, or anything in between. People use the phrase "new world order" to indicate that the old pecking order has been replaced. It doesn't imply that the new pecking order includes a one-world government. "World order" is not a form of one-world government that I'm proposing; it's simply a description of the power relationships as they exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by s0meguy View Post
    And by the way... that's still called a government.
    No, a world order describes the power relationships between various governments. It is not in and of itself a polity or institution. It is not possible for there *not* to be a world order, short of the complete elimination of mankind. Any and every conceivable configuration of geopolitical power qualifies as a world order. It does not matter how centralized, or orderly, this configuration is.

    Quote Originally Posted by s0meguy View Post
    Even if you disagree, what kind of power would this order of yours have, and how would it be elected, if at all?
    It doesn't have any power, because it is not a polity. Nor is it "mine." I'm simply trying to get you guys to stop misusing the term "world order" as a synonym for "one-world government." There is nothing to elect, or not, because a world order is not a government. It is a set of relationships between polities. As long as people exist, there will be polities, which will relate to one another. This set of relationships constitutes the world order.

  9. #9
    Worship me or suffer eternally
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Err... that's true of a one-world government, but a world order doesn't imply anything about how big or (un)representative the constituent polities are. Complete world anarchy is just as valid a world order as a one-world government, or anything in between. People use the phrase "new world order" to indicate that the old pecking order has been replaced. It doesn't imply that the new pecking order includes a one-world government. "World order" is not a form of one-world government that I'm proposing; it's simply a description of the power relationships as they exist.



    No, a world order describes the power relationships between various governments. It is not in and of itself a polity or institution. It is not possible for there *not* to be a world order, short of the complete elimination of mankind. Any and every conceivable configuration of geopolitical power qualifies as a world order. It does not matter how centralized, or orderly, this configuration is.



    It doesn't have any power, because it is not a polity. Nor is it "mine." I'm simply trying to get you guys to stop misusing the term "world order" as a synonym for "one-world government." There is nothing to elect, or not, because a world order is not a government. It is a set of relationships between polities. As long as people exist, there will be polities, which will relate to one another. This set of relationships constitutes the world order.
    Fine, I understand what you mean, but if it's anarchy you're proposing, that's impossible anyway. The world would be a unorganized mess full of conflicts.

  10. #10
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by s0meguy View Post
    Fine, I understand what you mean, but if it's anarchy you're proposing, that's impossible anyway. The world would be a unorganized mess full of conflicts.
    I haven't proposed anything beyond a proper understanding of what is meant by the terms "one-world government" and "world order."

  11. #11
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,375
    "Every government needs an enemy government" Abbey.

  12. #12
    Worship me or suffer eternally
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    "Every government needs an enemy government" Abbey.
    Any government with a lot of power compared to the others yes...

  13. #13
    BlueMoose
    Guest
    It is slow progress, but it will happen. First came European Union, the progress of making North American Union is going on as we speak, options to create African Union is in rhetorics already and then finally Asian Union. Then later something major catalysm-force do bring all the Unions under One World Government. The goal is shift paper money to purely digital numbers in RFID chips, and then the Elite owns and control everything.
    Far out, I dont know, evidence of that kind of path is there to all to be seen, it will happen so slowly that people dont get it before its too late. Just a theory, but I see it this way. One World Government, One Religion, One Currency.

    "We shall have World Government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent"

    -Paul Warburg - Council Of Foreign Relations/architect of the Federal Reserve System

Similar Threads

  1. By Pollux V in forum SciFi & Fantasy
    Last Post: 02-14-14, 07:05 AM
    Replies: 23597
  2. By 85681356 in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 10-21-08, 06:51 AM
    Replies: 5
  3. By TimeTraveler in forum Earth Science
    Last Post: 12-16-07, 11:41 PM
    Replies: 1
  4. By ghost7584 in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 06-20-05, 09:59 AM
    Replies: 73

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •