One World Government

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:48 pm

Originally posted by JohnClay:
The U.N. has to be properly democratic and not give 5 countries the power to veto any decisions they don't like.

If the UN did this then there would be no U.N or it would only be a pathetically ineffective UN.

One of the reasons those countries have veto power is because if they did not then they would have a few reasons to join. Without them most of the world's political power would rest outside the U.N.

DC

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:17 pm

Originally posted by OneWorldOrder.Org:
Huh?

Wha?

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:38 pm

The decisions of the U.N. need to be enforced - even if its against the U.S.

How?

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:33 pm

Originally posted by DChicken:
If the UN did this then there would be no U.N...

Well there is one now... but the U.N. doesn't have to have its current structure for all time.

...or it would only be a pathetically ineffective UN.

What about WTO? 4 groups do the voting... it is meant to represent all of the countries... do you think that is "effective"? It's effective for the general economic expansion of the largest economies in the world, but it isn't an effective representational democracy.

One of the reasons those countries have veto power is because if they did not then they would have a few reasons to join.

Well they are members now. I'm talking about the future. If their citizens (hypothetically speaking) want their country to participate fairly in the U.N. then why shouldn't they? The government shouldn't just make decisions for the people for their own good. Or say a majority of the world's population, represented by the other countries of the U.N., decided to boycott the U.N. and get the anti-democratic 5 to be fair? There are some theoretical ways it could happen, though it couldn't happen right now because of the lack of support for this.

Without them most of the world's political power would rest outside the U.N.

Well many of these powerful countries are becoming much considerate of other countries. Maybe in the future they'd participate in the U.N. fairly instead of greedily holding on to their privileged status forever.[/B][/QUOTE]

MadMordigan:
The United States needs to become a proper democracy. This means that its government needs to ban all outside funding (which is based on the expectation of getting something in return). If it can't get the money from its taxpayers, then it does without it. Then, if the people become less selfish and care about the world, then they might want to play fair - and make their country play by the rules instead of being an outlaw bully. If they give the (democratic) U.N. more power, then it would have more control of the U.S. and the U.S. would be less able to disobey its decisions.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:52 pm

Then, if the people become less selfish and care about the world, then they might want to play fair - and make their country play by the rules instead of being an outlaw bully. If they give the (democratic) U.N. more power, then it would have more control of the U.S. and the U.S. would be less able to disobey its decisions.

Uh-huh.....and monkeys might fly out of my butt.

This is all well and good, but if the US citizens don't WANT to co-operate on some issue, what then? Nuke em? Call them bad names? Boycott? Invade?

The only way to make it work is to convince people in the US that it is in their interest to surrender power and isolationism. If you can do that, there is no reason to change the way the U.N. works.

Good luck.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:24 pm

People in favour of world government always seem to assume that it would be all sweetness and light.

Let's just think what it might be like.

Do we want a world government run by Bush and the fundies?

Or Chirac and Jospin?

Or how about Stalin and Hitler? (They were aiming for that in WW2, but things went wrong).

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favour of the UN, because nations need to co-operate. But I'm very afraid of world government. It might start off really well, but you can't guarantee that at some stage it wouldn't get taken over by undesirables. That's bad enough for a single country, but at least dissidents usually get to flee to another country for sanctuary. Where would they go to flee a tyrannical world government?

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:03 am

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
This is all well and good, but if the US citizens don't WANT to co-operate on some issue, what then? Nuke em? Call them bad names? Boycott? Invade?

They do what civilized states/electorates do - they complain or ask for appeals or something.

The only way to make it work is to convince people in the US that it is in their interest to surrender power and isolationism. If you can do that, there is no reason to change the way the U.N. works.

Good luck.

Well they wouldn't need to spend any where near what spend on weapons. That would mean more money for education and health. On the other hand, the United States has gotten a lot through its bullying... it would be very tempting for it to continue to be out on its own getting as much as it can for itself. Apparently it is 25% of the world's economy - but that is partly because of its involvement of its military in the economies of poorer countries it exploits.
You'd still need to reform the U.N. - to create a united world you'd need to make the voting fair - not perpetually skewed towards the richer countries so that they continue to get richer and richer.
This could be something that happens in the long term... maybe it will take a world war where the U.S. are the bad guys to get its citizens to be fairer.

DMB:
The government would need to be properly democratic (see the new democracy thread I started for a non-two party system). It should start from the bottom up with major countries like the U.S. being properly democratic (no donations from corporations). Much of Europe seems to be quite democratic and concerned with the welfare of the people, etc.
Then the U.N. would need to be properly democratic as well. It should be extremely transparent too. (No closed door meetings where decisions are made, etc) [see my thread]

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:33 am

Originally posted by Orpheous99:
It appears that you didn't read my message. The ratio of the number asked to the total population is basically irrelevant to such statistical issues.

Why, it is the same percentage based on a random sample. Such statistical issues are irrelevant to begin with and are meaningless in the real world.

If you're saying the poll has little to do with reality, I'm inclined to agree. However, if your attacking the statistics themselves, you're wrong. Asking 1000 random people a question that there's any real disagreement about is sufficient to be pretty sure of how the population feels about it. IIRC it's a 95% chance that the true percent lies within 3% of the reported number.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:42 am

There already is a one world govt......it works behind the scenes and the question is does it have the best interests of the people at heart?

'Rule By Secrecy' by Jim Marrs..it should be required reading for everyone.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 3:16 am

There already is a one world govt......it works behind the scenes and the question is does it have the best interests of the people at heart?

True, and yes we do have the people's best interest at heart...it just deppeneds on which people you are talking about. If you are talking about looters and trash, NO!