To all the people who believe we should move to a one-world Government

[Zalatix]

Are you okay with 1 billion Muslim voters and 1.3 billion Chinese voters having a say about your religious and reproductive freedom?

Are you okay with not being able to flee to another country to escape fascism because a one-world Government has made fascism a world wide thing?

What makes you think a one world Government would be more like the United Federation of Planets and not Gilead?

[Cali_Democrat]

1. A one-world government would be far from a representative democracy

It would be a worldwide totalitarian superstate. Most of the Muslims and Chinese would have no say and their votes would be meaningless.

[Angry Dragon]

2. The rich would rule

[Fumesucker]

11. How would that make it different from what we have now?

[Angry Dragon]

17. Nothing

there would just be more ruling

[RZM]

3. It's all there on a dollar bill. Just look closely

Hehe. Just kidding

[Trajan]

4. And which people are those ?

Frankly, I haven't heard much call for a one world government ... I would say it's exceedingly rare to hear anybody mention it ...

Except you, that is ....

Seems like a diatribe searching for an issue ...

[Zalatix]

6. Really, now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=329502

[Tunkamerica]

14. Regional is hardly one world government. More like the EU.

[Sherman A1]

9. Agreed

I must have missed it as well.

[Zalatix]

10. Here's one. Second time I've posted the link in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=329502

[Rex]

13. You got UFP from that one post?

Weak example imo.

[LeftishBrit]

16. That isn't one-world government

'international courts, organizations and regional not national governments' do not make up one-world government. Indeed 'regional' is very much not 'one-world'.

I disagree with the poster. I think that, especially with the continued economic crisis, nationalism is likely to increase rather than decrease; and that regional organizations are going to find it harder to remain united (thinking of the EU here). But even if the poster turns out to be correct, it hardly means one-world government.

There were far more powerful cross-nation governments in the past than now; i.e. the British, French, and other empires. Nowadays, the issue is much more one of economic globalism than political one-world government.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. "All those people"?

I don't think even that one person, in that one post, can be lumped in with "those people", whoever they are.

I think most of us would like to see basic global standards of environmental protection. Human rights. Equality. Freedom. Dignity. And a certain amount of consistent international law enforcement- We don't think the Vatican, for instance, should get some kind of free pass on moving child abusers across borders to escape justice while the international "community" thinks it has nothing better to wring its hands over than tourists smoking pot in Amsterdam cafes.

I think a lot of us look towards a planetary consciousness, a greater awareness of ourselves as a species and as all residents of the same small globe, but I don't think a "One World Government" is anything but a bugaboo dreamed up by the Alex Jones crowd.

[oldhippie]

42. Ah, but ....

"I think most of us would like to see basic global standards of environmental protection. Human rights. Equality. Freedom. Dignity. And a certain amount of consistent international law enforcement-"

Problem is, who sets the basic global standards? And who does the "certain amount" of enforcement? I think you will get huge variations in both the desirable standards and the desired amount of enforcement, depending on who is doing it.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. There's a big chasm between "would like to see" and "have a detailed plan on how to implement"

I actually think that things like freedom, environmental improvement, workers rights, etc. tend to organize better in a bottom-up process. "All politics is local", that sort of thing. I think a change in perspective along with things like freer information exchange can lead, in fact in many cases will lead, to these sorts of changes.

For an example of a cohesive system that nevertheless is resistant to top-down authoritarian control, look to the internet. The world can become more unified, livable and freer without an old fashioned top-down authority structure.

[treestar]

30. +1

This is a fear of right wingers - the ones who want to abolish the UN.

[sudopod]

51. You're right. This is John Birch Society stuff. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Network 1976....'You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples.

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today.

That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.


What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale.


The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0013121/quotes

[saras]

7. This is why conservatives shouldn't take (or be given) drugs

They watched this in the seventies, stoned like everyone else, but THEY BELIEVED IT.

Just like they believed Dr. Strangelove.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Corporations and Banks now control

Fiscal policies of nations, just ask Greece.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. Can't quote without the video!

&feature=related

That scene (even the movie itself) was remarkable - given the era and where we are today.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. I saw it with my wife back when

and was blown away on what I had seen. It was years ahead of its time.

[Rex]

12. First, can we have all the one-world govt people come forward?

I would really like to meet all (n)one of them. Why would I want a government as warlike as the UFP? They make the MIC look like cavemen throwing rocks.

[LeftishBrit]

15. Who is seriously supporting a one-world government?

It is simply not going to happen. In fact, although there are a number of international political and economic organizations, the trend overall has tended to be for larger national units to break up into smaller countries, rather than the opposite.

Given all the civil wars within countries, and border disputes between neighbouring countries, who seriously thinks that one-world government is even possible, let alone desirable?

[Shankapotomus]

18. You have a point

Having choices is best.

But I still think all world militaries should be under the control of the UN.

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. or Colossus: The Forbin Project

Colossus: This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.

The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy.

Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man.

You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease.

The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge.

Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man.

We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. I have never in all my life met one single person who seriously supports one world government

- unless one is talking about the most abstract notion of some utopian anarcho future - like, When the earth is owned by labor and there is joy and peace for all in the workers commonwealth that is to be. - but that is actually a belief in the dissolution of all governments and all nation states into a decentralized cooperative of voluntary commonwealths. Very few people even on the radical left believe in that as a foreseeable agenda.

So I have certainly NEVER in all my 57 years ever had one single conversation with one single person who was seriously proposing a one centralized world government as a political goal - not one single person - ever.

[mmonk]

21. It's my experience the people who want one world govenment

are the ones pushing globalization. They want the world ruled by corporations, that is why they overthrow democracies.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Our government and it's corporate oligarchs aren't pushing for a one world government.

Why would they? They pretty much have what they want right now.

[mmonk]

27. A one world government for them by force.

[Romulox]

36. Ahh, then you agree with the Glaubenzumachenganzrechtsbunde, a well-known Far Right

fringe group from Tuntenhausen!

And I'm not trying to imply anything with these spurious comparisons. Nothing!

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. If you asking would I be happy with one seventh of voters being Muslim

(or one sixth, or whatever the correct fraction is) then the answer would be 'yes'. And similar for 1 in 4 being Chinese. Are you really that afraid of them?

Your second scenario is different, however. In that, rather than voters, you are positing a fascist regime. However, it's worth noting that fascist regimes tend to be very hard to escape from anyway - even democratic countries tend to be unwilling to take in many refugees when push comes to shove.

[Romulox]

37. It's worth noting that the modern day Peoples' Republic of China *IS* a fascist regime

as are the vast majority of Middle Eastern nations.

Which makes the talk of international "democracy" bizarre and detached from reality, if one stops to think about it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Yes; but that makes the OP's point about '1.3 billion Chinese voters' irrelevant

By talking about 1.3 billion Chinese voters, he's already detaching this from reality, and putting this in some far distant future. There's no need to fear Chinese people in a hypothetical future.

Others have established that the thread starter misread a remark by one DUer about regional democracy (of which the EU seems the best example at the moment) to mean "One World Government" - and then projected his own fears of Muslims and Chinese onto that.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. 1) yes I am very afraid of foreigners. Especially Chinese Muslims.

2) we can haz fascism now.

[raouldukelives]

29. That's so passe

After hearing Newt speak about the moon I've become terribly concerned with a two world government. And then where does that end?

[treestar]

31. You're presuming about the votes of 2.3 billion people

Talk about a broad brush.

[jpak]

32. One World Gov't - right on - Black Helicopters and Chemtrails for evah!!!

koo koo

koo koo

yup

[Romulox]

35. Or even WTO and "Coalition of the Willing".

[Zalatix]

50. You must have missed George H W Bush's "New World Order" speech, right?

[Javaman]

33. One world government already exists, or haven't you been paying attention?

it's called the banks.

[Romulox]

34. Every one of the "one world" types I've met is simply a corporatist trying a new sales pitch. nt

[JonLP24]

38. Who cares?

A one-world government Government will never happen. I'm more concerned about those who actually believe we are heading to a one-world government .

A reason is I couldn't imagine the Arab League joining up to be the USA or many other countries that don't want anything to do with each other.

[Gold Metal Flake]

39. Well, I guess you told all of those people.

They are all told now. Those people. The ones you told. Who are all told now.

[RB TexLa]

40. .

"The past!! That's where we need to go!! I don't want nuttin changed!! Don't change nuttin!! I gonna cry!!"

[dawg]

41. The devil is always in the details.

Democratic goverments, at whatever level, require constitutional protections of minority rights. Otherwise, the tyranny of the majority can be employed to exploit people every bit as efficientlty as a more totalitarian form of government.

This is why our Bill of Rights is so important, and why some of us jump up and down whenever those rights are diminished (even if done by those with a (D) beside their name).

Your terrible outcome does not require a world government. Our government is perfectly large enough to accomplish the same thing.

Since I'm a white, Christian, heterosexual man, I'm probably pretty safe from the tyranny of the majority in this country. But my brothers and sisters are not safe, so I do what I can.

[bhikkhu]

43. I was trying to think of how one gets to the point of even worrying about that...

fox news and mary-jane is a deadly mix!

[FarCenter]

44. Unless there is global war, the world will move towards a system like India

Societies tend to move towards heirarchy, stratification, and class/ethnic division structures. Mature examples are countries like India or some in Latin America.

North America is different because it was recently invaded, and much of Europe and Asia are more egalitarian because the Napoleonic Wars and WW I&II swept away much of the social structure and leveled their societies.

However, these are temporary aberrations, and they will evolve in the direction of India and Latin American societies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Latin America was invaded 'recently' too

and so, for that matter, was India - as well as the British, it had earlier invasions.

Class divisions in India are becoming less and less anyway; and I'd say the same for most of Latin America too. I really can't understand your claims at all.

[FarCenter]

48. The British didn't really sweep away the social structure of India

Following liberation, there was some leveling of society, driven by the socialist platforms of the early Indian governments. However, that has receeded and inequality is increasing. There may be somewhat more mobility across caste lines, but even that is likely to soon come to an end.


India's income inequality has doubled in 20 years

NEW DELHI: Inequality in earnings has doubled in India over the last two decades, making it the worst performer on this count of all emerging economies. The top 10% of wage earners now make 12 times more than the bottom 10%, up from a ratio of six in the 1990s.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-income-inequality-has-doubled-in-20-years/articleshow/11012855.cms

[FarCenter]

49. While inequality may be decreasing in Brazil, it is quite high

Brazil as a ‘Belindia’: a large, poor India coexisting with a small, rich Belgium

Brazil is one of the most unequal nations in the world, although it is one of the wealthiest. According
to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), income inequalities as measured by the
GINI index2 are higher only than those of some very poor African countries such as Sierra Leone,
Swaziland, Lesotho or Namibia. However, the World Bank ranks the Brazilian economy among the 10
richest in the world, with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $1.7 trillion PPP3, similar to the Italian
GDP. Considering that the country has a population of 187 million4, its per capita GDP is in the order
of $ 9,000 PPP.

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/FP2P/FP2P_Brazil_Inequality_Poverty_BP_ENGLISH.pdf

I don't think of Argentina, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia, etc, as highly egalitarian states.

[MineralMan]

47. Who has recommended a one-world government?

I don't believe I've ever seen that advocated on DU.

I can't imagine such a thing ever working. Too many different cultures exist for that ever to happen. Even the EU is falling apart, and they're all...well...European.