How a one world goverment COULD actually work.

a reply to: Krakatoa

If you are American, you had no say in ANY laws laid out. Nor if you were English, German, French or any other Representative democracy. You didn't vote on a single law. You want to try again?

What if I told you that your way of thinking is what hold society back? You would, of course, deny this. Safe to say you won't have to worry. Your love of nation states and division will more than likely bring about another world war.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
You forgot the second amendment .

That IS kind of the POINT, isn't it?

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: Krakatoa

If you are American, you had no say in ANY laws laid out. Nor if you were English, German, French or any other Representative democracy. You didn't vote on a single law. You want to try again?

What if I told you that your way of thinking is what hold society back? You would, of course, deny this. Safe to say you won't have to worry. Your love of nation states and division will more than likely bring about another world war.

I did have a say in the laws I must follow. I did have the ability to vote upon local legislation that affects me and my local area. Sometimes I got what I wanted, sometimes not. And, I am OK with that....know why? I accept that others may not agree with my view of what is right. I am not in the mindset that i MUST CONVERT THEM to my way of thinking.

And how do you plan to change my mind again? How will you "show me the error of my ways" as you stated at the start of this conversation?

Please enlighten me with actual details and examples of it working successfully.

I expect you will again deflect and not answer because the truth really is you do not know. It is just a "feel good" thought that everyone should think alike.

a reply to: Krakatoa

You again claim you got a say in the laws? In a representative democracy? Funny I didn't know that they allowed citizens in to do their jobs. No wonder there isn't any integrity among elected officials.

The original laws laid out were done so years before you were born. Tell me again, how did you have any say so in those laws?

Why should I change your mind? Any decent human being would strive toward the betterment of the whole species. I've shown you where you are wrong with your selfish thinking. You just choose to adhere to an inherently selfish thought process and care not for others of your species.

It would work if the leaders were sane.

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: Krakatoa

You again claim you got a say in the laws? In a representative democracy? Funny I didn't know that they allowed citizens in to do their jobs. No wonder there isn't any integrity among elected officials.

The original laws laid out were done so years before you were born. Tell me again, how did you have any say so in those laws?

Why should I change your mind? Any decent human being would strive toward the betterment of the whole species. I've shown you where you are wrong with your selfish thinking. You just choose to adhere to an inherently selfish thought process and care not for others of your species.

So, I am not a decent human being to you? How very judgmental of someone you do not even know. See that is the big difference between you and me. I don't hold myself higher than others because of my personal opinions. Nor do I see them as selfish in their own ideals.

It must be sad to be you, and live in your head....looking down on everyone that doesn't meet your personal value system. Ever consider someone, somewhere is looking down upon you in the same way? Perhaps not, since your narcissism wouldn't allow it.

a reply to: Unruhestifter

BS,can paint any picture you want,there would be a supreme leader,dream on pal that will never happen

originally posted by: Nickn3
We aren’t ready, maybe in a few hundred years.

It would never get my vote for dozens of reasons. The first would be gun rights.

Gun rights would be allowed via your local government. The federal govement would not interfere,

originally posted by: UncleReamus
a reply to: Unruhestifter

What happens when a district goes over 5 million people?

Culling! Joke..... (Though I expect you thought I was going to say that).


Simple. Create a another district. Not exactly rocket science.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Unruhestifter

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Unruhestifter

So your government gets to determine rights?

Last time I checked your government is doing right now.

Thats kinda the point of a constitution......to safeguards rights.

The Constitution is to limit government infringing on rights.

We are all born with rights, the government, your government, would want to define and determine them.

Which is what my constitution would do. The federal world govement would be as minimal as it can be only concerned with 2 things. Security and protecting fundamental rights. No welfare, no healthcare, no meddling in identity politics, no interfering in businesses. That a better deal than the current US or EU federal govement.

originally posted by: UKTruth
We should be moving towards less centralisation, not more.
There is no purpose for a world govt other than for an ever decreasing number of people to gain control of the world.

Cultures around the world are different. Stop trying to make them the same. It has never and will never work.

Actually that would be my goal. If you read the federal govement would have minimal powers to legislate of interfere in day to day life.

Everything else would be handed at a local level. Therefore different cultures could have their own twist on things provided they abide by some fundamental rights.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: DBCowboy

A disaster that threatens all of humanity would be a good unifying force. Or the gradual implementation of a global constitution over a period of time would lessen the shock of change. We can do it as a species. Look at how interconnected the world already is today.

Nope.

The only way you'll ever have a one-world government is through force and the removal of individual freedoms, liberties, and ideologies.

I am trying to figure out what you would be resisting or what freedom you would be losing in my proposal.

If anything you would have the same freedoms plus not have a meddling federal govement.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Unruhestifter

99 percent you say?

Then why bother with the "world" govt.?

It's bad enough now with politicians being out of touch...how much worse would they be with this silliness?

Better a govement be restricted to a few million that govern hundreds of millions. That how out of touch plutocracys develop. USA, Russia, China, EU, hell even the UK...... You cant honestly believe they have the peoples best interests at heart let alone know what people need in each region.
Country need to be split in to manageable chunks where the politicians who govern actually KNOW the people.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Unruhestifter

As for your "gun rights" being a local decision...piffle. Either it's a right for all, everywhere, or it's not a right, at all. The right is, also, a right not to have. So if I live in one of your fanciful jurisdictions...do I have to move to practice my rights if that jurisdiction decided that guns are the "debil"? If so, how is it a right again, and not a privilege that can be taken away at a whim?

Most of the world does not and never will view guns a right or a freedom, just a American Freedumb.

My guess is under my sort of system most American Jurisdictions would allow guns as your local government would not want to change that. And the federal govement would keep out and NOT interfere with that decision.

originally posted by: Lab4Us

The OP is the picture of communisim and/or socialism,

You obviously
dont know what communisim and/or socialism is as at no point did I propose ANY form of wealth distribution in any way shape or form. In fact one of the rights the federal govement would protect is the right to property! A concept opposite to communism!

originally posted by: Lab4Us

and ANYONE living in a currently free country should detest what it represents.

And what freedoms would my federal govement be taking away?
If anything you get more than your current federal govement that seems to want to regulate EVERYTHING.

originally posted by: Lab4Us

I don’t know the author, but will make a WAG they have never worked hard for what they have, whether basic security like food and shelter, or property, like a house, car, and clothing.

Well as your reading skill seem to be a joke and you have no idea clearly what communism is, I am hardly surprised you are wrong in this aswell..

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

10) If a district fails due to corruption or mismanagement the federal government can remove that districts leaders

What happens if the federal government itself becomes corrupt then?

Thats where the districts militia come in and the fact the feds cant have a military more powerful that 50 combined districts.

It cant work better than as dysfunctional mess of red tape.

a reply to: UnruhestifterI am in.