turtlespeed 221 #1 January 8, 2014 Which model should we use? Obviously we can't pick just one country. But which government should it most closely resemble?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,459 #2 January 8, 2014 The world is so disparately developed that I don't think one world government is possible. A cooperative organization, where the different entities get together, talk to each other, and make treaties, is a reasonable thing. Something a little more organized than waiting until a situation becomes an emergency. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #3 January 8, 2014 Somalia.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #5 January 8, 2014 grueSomalia. Is that sarcasm? Or is there a reason you say that? I would suggest a combination of (in order of amount of emulation) US/Canada, England, Bosnia, Australia, and Crete.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 January 8, 2014 None. I think the concept of a "One World Government" is unsustainable. It would initially be some form of (modern day, European style) socialism, but eventually the area of the world being exploited would rise up against the central government and withdraw. See history, entry under British Empire/India. As soon as that happens, you no longer have a "One World Government."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #7 January 8, 2014 turtlespeed***Somalia. Is that sarcasm? Or is there a reason you say that? I would suggest a combination of (in order of amount of emulation) US/Canada, England, Bosnia, Australia, and Crete. because it's been demonstrated pretty well that the larger the governed area, the more awful the government becomes. I cannot imagine the horror of a one-world government. As for your list, are you talking about structure or action? Because between England, Australia and to a marginally lesser extent the US and Canada there is a whole lot of fuck-your-civil-liberties, we-know-what's-best-for-you nanny state goin' on there.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #8 January 8, 2014 quadeNone. I think the concept of a "One World Government" is unsustainable. It would initially be some form of (modern day, European style) socialism, but eventually the area of the world being exploited would rise up against the central government and withdraw. See history, entry under British Empire/India. As soon as that happens, you no longer have a "One World Government." But that was before we had as much technology. We have all the social media as well as mainstream and even "one off" main stream media. With the amount of money that just the US spends on unnecessary things, we could not only educate and feed the world population, we could house most of them too. Add to that the money the rest of the world spends on trivial things, and you have yourself a pretty decent kitty to support the entire world. Just have one world wide election to determine a panel, say 5, "Prime Leaders" and then a supplementary election to determine, say 25, "Sub Prime Leaders" and then district or regional elections to handle the cultural and minority constituencies. It could work.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #9 January 8, 2014 turtlespeed But that was before we had as much technology. We have all the social media as well as mainstream and even "one off" main stream media. With the amount of money that just the US spends on unnecessary things, we could not only educate and feed the world population, we could house most of them too. Add to that the money the rest of the world spends on trivial things, and you have yourself a pretty decent kitty to support the entire world. Just have one world wide election to determine a panel, say 5, "Prime Leaders" and then a supplementary election to determine, say 25, "Sub Prime Leaders" and then district or regional elections to handle the cultural and minority constituencies. It could work. Notice what every large country with a large, spread out population has in common? Their governments don't have the faintest goddamned idea what they're doing. Now scale up…cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #10 January 8, 2014 One world government will require an undisputed leader or dictator. The citizens will be cataloged in one central record system. The economy will be controlled by the centralized government. The citizens will have no ability to prosper, only purchase the goods deemed necessary. All services will be provided. Currency will be obsolete. Transactions will be conducted by each citizen's personal ID number. It will be a wonderful system for the low information voter for about 3.5 years. After that the citizens will sink into depression, anger and fear as problems beyond the government's control will manifest. The support of the BHO presidency is evidence that the one world government is on the horizon. The question is how long will it take to get there?Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #11 January 8, 2014 grue because it's been demonstrated pretty well that the larger the governed area, the more awful the government becomes. I cannot imagine the horror of a one-world government. Has it? Where?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #12 January 8, 2014 QuoteThe support of the BHO presidency is evidence that the one world government is on the horizon. Clearly. There's no need for you to explain why. Please note dripping sarcasm. BTW, people opposed to your 'tribe' said the same thing about Bush (both of them). - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #13 January 8, 2014 Australia before the 'white' folks ever go there. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #14 January 8, 2014 I don't think it will ever happen.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #15 January 8, 2014 Corporations would never let that happen. Big business will be the government of the future. World.Walmart. Either that, or China just takes over by foreclosures. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #16 January 8, 2014 Southern_Man*** because it's been demonstrated pretty well that the larger the governed area, the more awful the government becomes. I cannot imagine the horror of a one-world government. Has it? Where? The us, china, Russia, and Australia is getting there. That's not even counting historical empires.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #17 January 8, 2014 RonD1120One world government will require an undisputed leader or dictator. The citizens will be cataloged in one central record system. The economy will be controlled by the centralized government. The citizens will have no ability to prosper, only purchase the goods deemed necessary. All services will be provided. Currency will be obsolete. Transactions will be conducted by each citizen's personal ID number. It will be a wonderful system for the low information voter for about 3.5 years. After that the citizens will sink into depression, anger and fear as problems beyond the government's control will manifest. ... And then just a short step to evolve into Panem (world of The Hunger Games)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #18 January 8, 2014 RonD1120One world government will require an undisputed leader or dictator. The citizens will be cataloged in one central record system. The economy will be controlled by the centralized government. The citizens will have no ability to prosper, only purchase the goods deemed necessary. All services will be provided. Currency will be obsolete. Transactions will be conducted by each citizen's personal ID number. It will be a wonderful system for the low information voter for about 3.5 years. After that the citizens will sink into depression, anger and fear as problems beyond the government's control will manifest. The support of the BHO presidency is evidence that the one world government is on the horizon. The question is how long will it take to get there? And of course, that dictator will be the Anti-Christ and the Rapture will soon follow as the rest of the Book of Revelation comes true."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #19 January 8, 2014 grue****** because it's been demonstrated pretty well that the larger the governed area, the more awful the government becomes. I cannot imagine the horror of a one-world government. Has it? Where? The us, china, Russia, and Australia is getting there. That's not even counting historical empires. Those are vastly different systems of government with vastly different outcomes. I would posit that the differences between them are much larger than the differences between some of those countries and much smaller countries (US and Australia w/ England for example). Empires are different. They are pretty much exploitative in design."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #20 January 8, 2014 grue The us, china, Russia, and Australia is getting there. That's not even counting historical empires. Further, there are many smaller countries where the government is pretty awful--Somalia, UAE, and Haiti come to mind."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 January 8, 2014 Southern_ManEmpires are different. They are pretty much exploitative in design. So is Capitalism. So is Communism. In fact, I'm trying to think of any system of government that at some level isn't exploitive. Maybe some hippie commune in the middle of nowhere, but other than that, there will always be a group of people at the top that exploit another group of people further down the chain. The only question becomes the highly subjective choice of which any particular person feels is less or more exploitive. Depending on where you fall in the hierarchy, that's going to change.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #22 January 8, 2014 Southern_Man********* because it's been demonstrated pretty well that the larger the governed area, the more awful the government becomes. I cannot imagine the horror of a one-world government. Has it? Where? The us, china, Russia, and Australia is getting there. That's not even counting historical empires. Those are vastly different systems of government with vastly different outcomes. I would posit that the differences between them are much larger than the differences between some of those countries and much smaller countries (US and Australia w/ England for example). Empires are different. They are pretty much exploitative in design. I never said they're similar governments, I simply put forth that the larger the area to govern, with a large population, the shittier the government will likely be.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #23 January 8, 2014 Southern_Man*** The us, china, Russia, and Australia is getting there. That's not even counting historical empires. Further, there are many smaller countries where the government is pretty awful--Somalia, UAE, and Haiti come to mind. Pretty much every government is awful, but imagine if those you mentioned were bigger countries…cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #24 January 9, 2014 You think too small. When I'm Emperor of the Universe.... NO MORE TRAFFIC LIGHTS!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #25 January 9, 2014 kallend You think too small. When I'm Emperor of the Universe.... NO MORE TRAFFIC LIGHTS! The Earth is already in a traffic circle.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
