Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What's Better...A One World Global Government...or Many Sovereign Nations?

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 9, 2012, 10:37 p.m. EST by Renaye (522)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This may well be the question of the century.....

What's Better...A One World Global Government...or Many Sovereign Nations?

With a one world government you have one army, and the inevitable squeezing out of the various religions, educations, cultures and languages.

Compare that to many sovereign nations with many world leaders, cultures, languages, religions.

What are the pros and cons to both? What kind of world would you like to live in?



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by lithosere (65) 6 years ago

socio-cultural diversity is as important as biodiversity and both are the subject of genocide. we have seen the catastrophe of monoculture in farming and the exciting possibilities of polycultural horticulture. We need to understand human diversity equally. One system of governance for 7 billion people is insane, undemocratic, fascist, and fortunately impossible.

[-] 2 points by Renaye (522) 6 years ago

If you only knew how much I agree with you! That is the reason for the post. Many of the ruling elite have spoken openly about a one world government and I think if we open this up to discussion here and really play out the different scenarios, my hope is that many will see how crazy dangerous it would be. Thanks for your opinion!

[-] 1 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 6 years ago

You are right, it is exactly as important as biodiversity and for the same reasons too. Culture is basically superfast and flexible evolution. It's probably the main reason humans are so successful as a species : we don't have to wait on our genes to adapt, and our evolutionary time is counted in decades instead of centuries. Diversity in the "culture pool" is essential.

Interestingly, you can see this at work quite clearly in the comparative history of Europe and China. Wereas after the fall of the Roman Empire all attempts at european unification failed and it remained full of smaller bickering nations, China managed to establish stable (more or less) and long-lasting political unity. The result? In the span of a few centuries, Europe, from a comparatively low to average level of sophistication, managed to massively outstrip every other civilization on earth (and then promptly proceeded to be massive dicks to everyone) while China stagnated. Sucks to succeed, eh?

Also, anyone who thinks democracy can survive world government is kidding himself. And I like democracy.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

What national borders actually represent are the absolute limit of one's ability to defend territory in the attempt to acquire resources and expand our safety zone. (What enslaved populations represent is the free acquisition of resources.)

Prior to Europe's "Green Revolution" the average European peasant subsisted on less per day than those of the hunter gatherer societies of Africa or the Amazon. Ultimately, it was this "Green Revolution" with its more nutritious crops and intense, fertilized, agricultural monoculture that generated European wealth.

China to this day continues in dispute of the extent of its boundaries; it has been ruled by a succession of militaristic dynasties, none of which have ever been able to feed their massive poor.

If the American people were of a different mindset, we would set our mind to expanding our current borders to include all of South America and the Islands. We would set our sites on Canadian oil and lumber. We would enslave these populations, and provide them with a mere subsistence allowance, to acquire natural resources, and where no resources were available, we would build factories and set them to work making products for us; wait a minute...

But in any case, identity is evolutionary; nationalism is a fight or switch defense. And I think we're going to have a hard time convincing the Chinese that they should wear their Roberto Cavillis around the middle of their ass.

[-] 1 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 6 years ago

What allowed the "green revolution" to occur though was largely political fragmentation. States always resist changes to some extent, but the european political make up and geography made it so that if some clever new technique was discovered somewhere, there was a good chance it would be applicable in most regions and while it might lead to social unrest it might also give a significant advantage to those who decided to adopt it anyway. There was pressure to progress and there was much less in China. Same reason the romans knew about steam engines but didn't really bother doing anything with it.

Mind these aren't my ideas, I take them mostly from Jared Diamond.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

impossible ... couldn't be accomplished in the next hundred years.... have you ever been to another country ? ... cultures vary as much as clouds in the sky... people want their own everything

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

hmmm... hehe ...didn't read the whole thread ... it looks like all agree ;)

[-] 1 points by Renaye (522) 6 years ago

Haha! We're batting 100 here! I'm just waiting for the first person to disagree so I can let 'em have it!

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 6 years ago

Well I'll up the anti: Counting nation states is a poor measure of local autonomy. Most nation states encompass a diversity of ethnicities, most of whom are underrepresented. But moreover, having your own state but no control over domestic laws/policy, trade, natural resources, or economic structure really isn't autonomy at all. This is how things are thanks to free trade policy, and intervention from international multilateral institutions like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank, not to mention the NATO if all else fails. I can't imagine anyone in power is talking about a single government, because it pretty much already exists and is way more effective in this form—covert, with interchangeable and fluid component parts, and the illusion of self-determination based on nations. If we want true polyculturalism and autonomy, we need end the Euro-American empire, which means to re-localize economies to the greatest extent possible.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 6 years ago

The problem is "squeezing out of the various religions, educations, cultures and languages" and how does the army do that...mass genocide?

Isn't that what is being done and has been done for the past 2,000 years or so? Then one runs the risk, once again, that one individual feels that his religion, his education, his culture, his language, is the only one that should be the dominating force over all nations....and then sends in his Army....sound familiar? Been there....done that....I for one would rather enjoy the freedoms within my own sovereign Nation...which is just and humane...as it was many, many, many eons ago!!. Not everyone went to sleep on this planet or here!

[-] 0 points by Renaye (522) 6 years ago

There is a mass consensus taking shape that is equating our evolution with becoming one gigantic happy family. That is all well and good...if it could stay uncorrupt and positive for humanity which of course goes against the realistic side of humanity that triggers the survival of the fittest. However, this mass consensus, I believe is being imposed upon us through a kind of subtle manipulation through corporate elite stream media. I think if people were left alone to think on their own without the onslaught of the globalist message, they would quite easily see that sovereignty and a multitude of cultures, religions, governments, languages, etc. is the best way to ensure personal freedoms. Just because we can eliminate all these things, doesn't mean we should.

No, not everyone fell asleep. For those of you who know what happened and want to help, as I suspect you do, keep shedding light on the dark of those still sleeping.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 6 years ago

Do you really want people in Africa deciding if you can have air conditioning or not?

We, the people of Kenya, put forth that the use of air conditioning is a terrible waste of precious natural resources and the unsustainable use of these resources to provide this luxury must forthwith cease.

Yeah boy, can't wait for some one world government.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

You've left "identity" entirely out of the equation; one cannot survive without identity.

What you are actually suggesting is that all resources are funneled to the top as one entity. You are what then,a Rothschild? Go away.

[-] 0 points by Renaye (522) 6 years ago

If you only knew how funny that is to me. No, I am the furthest from a Rothschild or any ruling elite there is. I very much want to bring to everyone's attention exactly what the thinking of the Rothschilds (and the like) is directed towards, but in a round about way without bringing up conspiracy. Wether they are or not doesn't matter because it is a valid question. Thanks for contributing. Identity is absolutely a part of the equation and needs much consideration before handing over our sovereignty to the globalists.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

Hmm... Well then I guess that places us on the same page. SOB, I thought I was here alone, just me and my lonely... all lone, just me, no one else... it's kinda peaceful, don'tcha think?

[-] 0 points by CautiouslyOptimistic (25) 6 years ago

No thanks! I don't see any pros at all with a global government/one army. What's to stop corruption and/or tyranny if it gets out of hand? There would be no agencies or watchdogs in place to oversee human rights. There may be something to be said for efficiency in a global government, but the risk of losing our freedoms is far too great. Who would lead the global government? Who would choose the person/people in charge? Who would have the power to get them out of there if they aren't doing a good job?