Should we have a One-World-Goverment

Question

evaluate please...

Answer 1

We have at least tried it with UNO (similar), and it doesn't seem to work well.

It will somehow give negative impacts in job market and economics.

Say armies would become jobless (except to fight aliens from Mars if it exists), there would be no huge destruction caused by war therefore there would be no demands for imported stuffs to rebuild things, etc.

hehe. But I think your question has background of hoping for peace.

Answer 2

yeah then we would have no war over anything and share all the oil/money and can be called once country....CANADA :)

Answer 3

Oh, you have got to be kidding right?  You one of Obama's fans who want Socialism for all?  I love my freedom and I love my Country!

Answer 4

If our government is at a standstill, imagine what it would be like if you threw the political views of the rest of the world together.  Nothing would ever get done

Answer 5

NO!

can you imagine the power of ONE?

No, I believe we are OK as we are now, we just need to work on the international institutions, such as the UNO, so their work is accountable and transparent.

We already have a kind of "parliament of the world"-> UNO

And we have criminal judges of the world--Hague

I believe in international law as a good moral order, but I don´t think there should be a "president of the world".

  

Answer 6

I don't think we should have any government.

Answer 7

NO. The governments the world has in place now are corrupt enough as it is.

Answer 8

notice we dont all speak the same langauge and no that would s***w the economy in many ways dont ask why it just would

Answer 9

Its on its way. Just look at the changes that are happening and are going to happen. On the back of 9/11 the changes in laws throughout the world have been dramatic to say the least and nearly all are affecting our way of life especially our human rights when concerning freedom of speech and freedom of movement. With so many of the populace now facing "do as we say " politics it supports the idea that we no longer need to be governed by individual governments at enormous cost as there is almost enough computerized data on us all to have our lives run by computers without the need for politicians. As all our financial dealings,salaries ,benefits,loans,payments for goods etc ,are fed into computers what need is there for someone to be paid to say work at a bank ,the computer makes the decisions not the worker,much in the same way speed cameras operate,the camera catches you speeding then a computer retrieves and collates all the relevant info and a fine lands on your doorstep you pay up and other than installing and taking out the film its all done by computers.There are computer programs out there which can do practically everything from your weekly shop to sentencing someone to jail for murder.If you sit back and look at how much of your life is lived with the "aid" of computers you will soon realise that there is nothing you can do about the inevitable.With the information stored on computers about say the U.K.s population the present government can use it (and probably is ) to make policies and decisions that will eventually lead to a one world government,good or bad its going to happen and there is nothing we can do about it.

Answer 10

If intelligent voters think the U.S. elections are confusing now, with two major candidates who have more in common than not, how about voting for a President of the NAU? Or a Grand Chancellor of the World Union? Guess what their campaign promises would be. (What is vague, cubed?)

Under an NAU and subsequent World Union, you can expect to:

1) ... have little to no voice in top level government policy.

2) ... be unable to effectively oppose any tyrannical law.

3) ... have your every sale or purchase of any goods and services tracked and recorded.

4) ... have your income taxes be calculated and deducted from your bank account "for you", by an anonymous beaurocrat. (Whether or not an income tax is an infringement of a natural human right will be a long dead issue.)

Paradise on Earth. Unless you happen to wish to be a free and unfettered human being.

The problem with idealists who visualize a world of peace and prosperity under such a union is that they don't think too much about who inevitably climbs to the top of the imagined Utopias. It's always the same sort, it's the alpha wolves, and the U.S.A. has one single thing that stops them from absolute rule: our Constitution, which is supposed to specifically limit power in the hands at the top, and place it much closer to the people. It was designed from the bottom up to ensure the protection of individual liberty. (Regardless of the twisting and trampling it has received through the years at the hands of many in our government, and I do not exempt any political party.)

The more central and consolidated a government is, the less an individual's voice will be represented. Under a huge, remote and bureaucratically oriented government you can kiss your personal influence on how you are governed ......... good-bye.

Answer 11

I've thought about this, and used to think yes, but then I saw how the democrats are slowely gaining more power despite thier inability to think practically. It was then that I realized the truth that I had always known mentally, but didn't really realize it. And that truth is that no matter what, our freedoms are not secure and it's only a matter of time before the masses are sufficiently won over and somebody or group of likeminded somebody's get too much power and use it to thier own ends. And then our freedoms become statements of pride that have no real bearing on us and are used as propaganda to keep people pacified.

That's when I decided that no, it is not good to have a one world power because if such a thing existed, then when the time came that the government had become too corrupted and had too much power, where would we go. Who would we turn to. Where would our plymouth rock be, and where would be our allies to help us in our fledgling little begining of a new nation that does not restrict our religous freedom and does not silence the voice of deposition, and will seek true justice for all despite religous, and ethnic background? You see in a one world power, The U.S.A. would never have been born. And it's only a matter of time before we have to start over again because our nation has become corrupted. Right now you see the begining with the adoption of policies the founding fathers never made, and the restrictions on religous freedom the founding fathers never sought. So no, I need a place to go when I see the U.S. government no longer has it's people in it's interest. When I see that the government is no longer for the people, and heaven forbid, no longer by the people, I need a place my family and I can retreat. A new America if this one should fail. Of course by that time I will likely be dead because I am christian, and of all religions in the U.S.A. christians are the most ridiculed, thought to be ignorant, thought to be the least informed, and the most stupid.

Seeing these attitudes becoming more and more apparent in people also brings to my realization that christianity will one day be shunned and the books will be burned, and those who refuse to quit following it, will be punished and various reasons will be given for thier punishments. One day dislike will become hatred, and hatred will become violence, and violence will bring many to pain and suffering that is not called for. And for some even death.

So with a one world order, I would have nowhere to send my family for peace, and nowhere to hide from the corrupted government.

Our nation was formed because of religous persecution, I believe it will be this same reason that it falls. And it may not fall as in anarchy, but will fall as you and I will no longer be truelly free, but government will be sure tell us we are. And elections may very well become a formality that doesn't effect the real power governing the country at that time.

For example, if the UN becomes a soveriegn entity and our government at the time decides to commit to that soveriegn entity, then we would follow the UN, but we would still have elections for our own officials, but they wouldn't make anymore final decisions, no we'd become nothing more then a state labeled a nation.

In short for the sake of inevitable corruption, no we should never ever become a one world government.

Update: 08aug

I agree with "andrew c" that it's inevitable, eventually, but not like he does. He believes it  will happen because of the circumstances happening, and they are valid for his reasoning, but I have faith in Christ, and I do not believe  that a nation who follows Christ will be so easy to make submissive to a world power. However, we are forsaking Christ and His ways more and more, and by chance we are also approaching what "andrew c" was talking about. If revelations and mathew and daniel are to be fulfilled soon, the fulfillment of those books, as it concerns the great tribulation and anti-christ, couldn't happen unless there was a one world government, and it couldn't happen unless there was a massive world wide rejection of Christ as is slowely creaping up today.

Answer 12

Most people can not rule their own households and you want a world government?  What would the religion be? And what language are we going to speak? Chinese? At the moment a pipe dream, perhaps in a 1000 years when we are under attack from the Droidals!

Peace.

Answer 13

One country government is hard enough as it is. One world government would never work because of so many different people with so many interests.