Some of us argue that a world government would lead to a unified nation and thus eliminate conflicts and wars. We know bringing about such a system is first, impossible. But imagine, that it could someone be achieved and we have a unified World Government with a capital anywhere. Would it mean the end of wars and conflicts. Would it bring about the World Peace which most of us seem to want? Let us discuss and argue on this topic.


In order that the debate is not turned into a personal attack or insult campaign, I'll make a few things clear. I won't be too polite or 'beat around the bush' I'll put it clear cut so that you can understand. Sorry for being so stern but personal experiences are good teachers, there are some immature people who need to be made clear of these guidelines -

• It doesn't matter how many debating, public speaking or even arguing classes you have taken. If you can't debate with facts you better give up instead of boasting of how many 'classes' you take. No boasts. If you can't win, give up.

• It doesn't matter what your IQ or education is. If you have a 210 IQ or a Ph.D dgree or come from the 'best school in state' it doesn't make you a better debater than a street urchin from a Congo slum who can argue using facts and logic. If you cannot have a factual or logical argument or cannot bring up authetic sources, no one cares if you did your graduation at 14 or your IQ is high as the sky.

• No personal attacks and insults. No one here brings their momma, poppa - it is them a you in the discussion. They are here because they chose to discuss for whatever reason, no 'you should be in NNN place than here' or 'get a life' comments. Be civil and respectful of others.
• No threats. Don't make statements like, "If you come to our Ice Cream forum we will ban you or insult you". Any sane person wouldn't let themselves be baited by this so give up.
• No insult campaigns. Don't get your pals from other forums for the sole purpose of insulting an opposition. Use your own arguments and try being a brave person instead of a coward.
• Above all don't debate if you can't handle it, your opinions are too shallow or if you don't know much to argue on the subject. Be prepared to have your views challenged but without resorting to insults and attacks.

If any of these rules are broken, the offender gets and infraction and a kick out of this discussion.

I'm going to assume "some of us" includes yourself, and phrase my queries as though they were addressed to you. Anyone is free to answer, though.

It seems to me that under such a system you'd merely be internalising conflicts. World wars would simply become very large civil wars, for instance.

How would you stop areas of your unified nation from seceding?

Essentially, I'm asking how you think a unified world government should go about preventing conflicts from occurring, and why you think it would be successful in doing so.

Assuming you do set up a unified world government, where would you locate the world capital and why?

I would put the capital where the north pole is...cus then it's on top of the world.
It wouldn't work anyway, wars would just become civil wars and i doubt most countries would take any notice if someone announced themselves as world leaders.

You know, theres an old bit of advice that if someone is afraid of your ability to contradict them, they'll insult you more. Thanks for the compliment, Neo.

I think a World Goverment would be difficult to pull off, if not impossible. Too many people in this world hate each other, and I for one doubt that anyone is going to let their rivalries die any time soon. Try to get the US and North Korea to cooperate and you'll see my point.

A global goverment would be difficult to maintain as well. A HUGE staff would be required, with thousands of interpretors and millions (if not billions) of localized representatives. After all, for something to be a truly global goverment, you need to include the small populances (for example, states) rather than just the country. Because if you limit your perspective to country wide, there's still a goverment in that country in order to maintain its respective populance.

Lastly, I doubt anyone could agree on what type of goverment a world goverment would be. Communist? Democratic? Monarchy, even? There are far to many goverments in the world for this union to be possible, I think.

Make sense? I can break that down later if need be, I know some people have a hard time with english translation.

Pure command system or mixed system?

As you said, this is impossible. The world is filled with too many different cultures, and too much hatred. The creation of a world government would mean the creation of a world holocaust and a world secret police.

World government? Like the U.N.? All I can say is you can't be any more "un" then the U.N.

Isn't it clear you shouldn't make personal attacks? You're impossible, can't you resist a personal attack at every thread or topic I post in? An infraction on your way, as per the rules.

Don't act like a child, try to debate maturely without personal attacks.

I don't think the UN fits the idea described in the first post, since it has very little real power over its members. It's also unlikely that a world government would give veto power to a select few regions under its governance.

I'm going to suggest that the best way of dealing with that would haven been to explain the above in the infraction notice, and use your post to answer the questions that have been posed regarding the thread. Your post is entirely off-topic.

Well, someone say's world government I think of the UN. A good idea in theroy, but a bad one when put into pratice. Does anyone else see the UN as a horrid basterdisation of the League of Nations? Not saying the League would work better.

One of tha major hurdles that needs to be surpassed in the creation, theoretical or not, of a world government would need to be the somewhat skewed and biased idea of patriotism. People in general as well as politicians would need to become aware that the nation they live in is not the end of the world, that there are people other than their people that have the same rights, wishes, intentions and needs as the people in their nations. A great deal of wars and conflicts are started simply because one nation thinks itself superior to another, that its people somehow have the right to live and exploit the natural resources and the people of the other nation do not have the same rights. Such one-sided views must be abandoned if such a world government is to exist. Both politicians and people must understand that they cannot ally themselves simply with their nationality but with the entire human race.

I should not say that a global government is impossible, but I shall say that it is difficult to create. To do so would require abandoning our archaic hatreds, our outmoded divisions. It would require changing our societies, it would require more democratic governments than are currently present. It would require the people of the world to be more informed than they are in the present. Such a change will not occure overnight, but such a change is inevitable. I say this, if for no other reason, than because of its inherent benefits. Humanity will eventually come to realize, as it has realized a great many things before, that a united government would more efficiently provide for the stability and the people. The world will no longer be divided into hundreds of quarreling states, each wanting what the other has. Instead it will be united with everyone having access to the resources of the planet. People will not need wars to secure the basic things needed to live. They would not need to fight over control of strategic resources. They would not need to waste resources in needless posturing, needless competitions with each other, needless destruction or needless death for what is now called national security.

How likely is it that people will abandon their hatreds, though? Surely nothing is impossible, but I think we can classify that as "highly unlikely" and still sleep at night.

And Neo, you opened this thread by mentioning a disagreement and announcing that there is a rule against it here. However, by bringing up the arguement, you break your own rules.

If anyone has read Aldoulus Huxley's "Brave New World" then you will understand how a world government is organised and controlled. If not then I will explain. There is 10 world controllers and they each watch over a region of the world. the people of earth are now 'decantered' - google it [a process which has no natrality about it] and they are then controlled with a drug called soma.

of course this world wouldnt be socially viable but its a system that works!

in the real world, its impossible. simply because there will always be the minority groups who dont like the government or what they are doing in the world.

I'll open another thread related to communism, namely Jonestown.