Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
internetperson

What's so wrong with a one world government?

121 posts in this topic

Honestly I've wondered this for a while. A united world seems nice, albeit unrealistic. So fire away! 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often thought too, but then, with my avatar you'd expect that wouldn't you. Peace, love and the dictatorship of the proletariat! 

I suppose that it's the associations with Communism that make people, particularly in America, somewhat dubious, but people often seem to feel that a One world government would immediately set about reducing the population drastically, because a smaller population would be easier to rule, consume less resources, and, I suppose, be less likely to rebel. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A totalitarian state?  Let me count the ways that this is not desirable.......(how long have you got!?)  Ha!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I echo this sentiment, I don't see a problem with a world government. I doubt it would ever happen because humans just aren't unified for that, but I really don't see an issue with it, conceptually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Podo said:

I echo this sentiment, I don't see a problem with a world government. I doubt it would ever happen because humans just aren't unified for that, but I really don't see an issue with it, conceptually.

Key word there 'conceptually' i.e. if humans could be relied upon to be decent and not power mad/tyrannical!!!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Centralization of all power into the hands of a few, or one, has always worked out oh so well. <_<

If it was Jesus Himself, sure. Anybody else, forget it.

Edited by WoIverine
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sees said:

Key word there 'conceptually' i.e. if humans could be relied upon to be decent and not power mad/tyrannical!!!

A world government doesn't necessitate that it would be totalitarian. There's no larger chance of a world leader going mad with power than any other country's leader.

2 minutes ago, WoIverine said:

Centralization of all power into the hands of a few, or one has always worked out oh so well. <_<

If it was Jesus Himself, sure. Anybody else, forget it.

I dunno if I'd trust Jesus himself. His followers cause a lot of mayhem.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, Podo said:

A world government doesn't necessitate that it would be totalitarian. There's no larger chance of a world leader going mad with power than any other country's leader.

I dunno if I'd trust Jesus himself. His followers cause a lot of mayhem.

Many of "those followers" more than likely haven't even cracked open their Bibles to begin with.

Edited by WoIverine
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WoIverine said:

Many of "those followers" more than likely haven't even cracked open their Bibles to begin with.

Agreed. They cause problems nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, Podo said:

Agreed. They cause problems nonetheless.

Bad apples everywhere these days pretty much, from all walks. If we could just figure out a way to weed out the corruption, things would be so much better.

Edited by WoIverine
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WoIverine said:

Centralization of all power into the hands of a few, or one, has always worked out oh so well. <_<

If it was Jesus Himself, sure. Anybody else, forget it.

After he has exterminated everyone else. That's what we need a Christian theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, sees said:

A totalitarian state?  Let me count the ways that this is not desirable.......(how long have you got!?)  Ha!

Why does it have to be a totalitarian state? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks.   

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

After he has exterminated everyone else. That's what we need a Christian theocracy.

I'd trust Him, ten thousand times over anyone else we've ever had already running the show.

Edited by WoIverine
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WoIverine said:

I'd trust Him, ten times over anyone else we've ever had already running the show.

And Muslims trust Mohammad. Your end goal isn't that different.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

And Muslims trust Mohammad. Your end goal isn't that different.

To each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, internetperson said:

Why does it have to be a totalitarian state? 

Please explain how it would avoid this common pitfall?  Centralised power?  Jeez.....

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, sees said:

Please explain how it would avoid this common pitfall?  Centralised power?  Jeez.....

Thank you for sticking to the topic.

I'll be the first to admit I don't have the answers, but I don't think you do either. And I think keeping borders will keep an 'us against them' attitude. Everyone wants the world ran their own way which is why we have wars and killing (right?). If we all just lived in the same world then this problem would be mitigated to an extent. This whole hypothetical scenario is ridiculous because a 1 world gov will never realistically happen anytime soon. I'm just saying I imagine it would be better than what we have now. 

To answer your question is hard because I'm not educated. But I think it's obvious larger countries have it better than smaller states which are constantly at war, have famines etc. These are typically the centralized power places right? So one would think on the biggest scale that everyone as a whole would live better because they actually have access to resources. Also, I could flip the question on you and say explain why this wouldn't/can't be a democratic process? People simply rebel when things get too bad and a compromise is eventually formed between the higher powers and the people.

Edited by internetperson
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, internetperson said:

Honestly I've wondered this for a while. A united world seems nice, albeit unrealistic. So fire away! 

It means a very few people get to dictate to everyone. It will result in massive wars no matter where you live. WW3

People against the state.

Edited by The Silver Thong
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dystopian utopia ruled by a political elite, erm no thanks...........

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, internetperson said:

Why does it have to be a totalitarian state? 

It doesn't "have" to be. But history tends to indicate it would end up being that way or something closely resembling it. The reality is most people are already "controlled," or influenced, far more than they realize to begin with. And a one world government would only allow for such control and influence to be wielded all the more effectively upon the general public.

There's corrupt, ill-minded wrongdoers throughout all walks of life - and this includes those who hold high ranking positions within the government. And those same people tend to be the ones that most desire having a one world government / New World Order put in place.

If the general public were to accept such a thing all it would do is result in us surrending even more of our freedoms to the government than we already have seen them pick away at.

To think a one world government would be beneficial to the general public is a very naive belief. For the most part those pulling the strings within the political realm and those who produce all we see on the news (and to some extent television in general) have nefarious purposes in mind already. And those are the same people who would be calling the shots within a "one world government."

It's not as if a one world government would suddenly make a better world. You'd still have wars. And we would all still be dealing with the same struggles we go through already. The only difference is that this one world government would have even further control upon dictating how it is you live your life, earn and spend your money, where (portions of it) would be forced to go, what it is that will be and won't be taught to children in school and all whole host of other concerns.

In addition to taking all that into consideration as / if it were to occur in the present, you'd also be wise to consider the long term ramifications. In effect, future generations would be growing up indoctrinated to this one world government - making it all the less likely there'd be people rising up to challenge the corrupt nature of it. And it would also be more difficult for those that did challenge it to make a meaningful impact on changing things for the better. It would also be easier for the government to silence such critics.

Edited by AeroZeppelin
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply aero, great post and gives me something to think about. I've been behind the pc all day and am about tapped out haha. I'll give you a decent reply tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great if it was democratic. It would suck if it was authoritarian. But that's where we're currently leaning, worldwide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracies seem to sooner or later decline into autocracies, and one fears that would happen to even the best designed world government.

Still, which is better -- one dictatorship or several hundred periodically going to war with each other?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

Democracies seem to sooner or later decline into autocracies, and one fears that would happen to even the best designed world government.

Still, which is better -- one dictatorship or several hundred periodically going to war with each other?

 

There would still be plenty of warring going on within a one world government. And for a number of other reasons - some of which I mentioned in my previous post - conceding to or willingly accepting a one world government is a horrible idea. It'd be a terrible thing for adults living through the change and all the more horrible for the generations that follow knowing nothing other than the one world government they were born into.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.