One World Govt

The ONLY way a one world government would come into being would be through blood. The blood of millions would be required to form a OWG, and millions more would die sustaining it. Destroying all competing ideologies is the only way I can see the OWG being able to survive.

People are mainly concerned with regional/local issues. Most people don't care what happens on the other side of the world. As a result of this focus on regionalism/localism, I don't see how a government could manage say, a province in....Somalia, and a province in New York.

Now, if Somalia and New York both had the same values and beliefs, then a OWG may work, but that would only happen through war, one ideology completely destorying and replacing another.


Edited by Adalwolf - 26-Dec-2006 at 20:22

I am talking about accommodating ideological differences, present and  those that may arise in the future and not an elimination. Certainly not by force, the whole point is to coexist peacefully, otherwise it will just be an imperialism of sorts. The Jewish faith is a testimony to the fact that ideologies will survive persecution and attempted assimilation by force. Look at post communism CIS countries in case of Muslims, or the Donmeh in case of the Jews. People will always create new ones or will change between. NO BLOOD!!! thank you very much.

The whole point is to reduce the 'other' footprint to reduce conflict to the smallest possible denominator.

Originally posted by bg_turk One world government can only be achieved through facism and extreme centralization of power where the population is kept under control.  I think the US is heading in this direction, and no doubt it will soon take over the whole world.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT_ZqCH8TW4

Top opening post Malizai!

As Adalwolf said, people are most interested in local issues, this I think is a major advantage in forming a One World Government. In fact, I argue that this has infact been done before. Of course, the whole globe was not united under one government, but any empire that spanned a huge amount of land, with innumerous different ethinic groups inside them has already shown us the way. Take the Roman Empire, is not a Gaul and a Egyptian as far apart (if not more) as a Somali and an American? Many Somalis are living in america, and frequently return to somalia. How many Gauls were living in Egypt before the OW government? Effectively none.

Communication and travel now allow the centralisation in a never seen before situtation. If country A could control country B, which takes months even to get a letter to, let alone an army. Then surely it is possible to control countries now where we can send messages instantly.

What is the world now, except a One World Government (america), a series of vassal states, and rebellious frontiers?

As for the 'other' you only need to make sure that people are more preoccupied with local issues.

I would disagree with Malizai's assertion that the greatest threat (and greatest obstacle) to global unity is ideology.  I think the greatest obstacle would simply be economics if you want to call it that.  No wealthy nation is going to want to join a OWG that will take more of their money and give it to poorer countries which, in their view at least, did not earn the money and when there are other things they want to spend the money on.  Poorer countries are not going to join a OWG which will not promise them much money and instead leave them vulnerable to the power of the wealthier nations.

Edited by Genghis - 27-Dec-2006 at 23:29

consider the fact that there are over 6.5 billion people on the planet, world domination would be impossible.

One world government?

'One world anything' is too much control in the hands of a few. Kind of sounds like us, lol!

I wouldn't even dream of a one world government in our lifetime. I like the idea of seperate governments running their own show and bartering with another to sell some goods and compete in international afffairs.

One world government would require much war and conflict to accomplish and on top of that even more simply to sustain it. Large numbers of people would be divided into classes and the difference between the haves and have-nots would be even greater than we have today. I wouldn't want this to happen at all, in fact we should even break up huge nations that we have today into smaller self-sufficient communites.

Originally posted by Genghis I would disagree with Malizai's assertion that the greatest threat (and greatest obstacle) to global unity is ideology.  I think the greatest obstacle would simply be economics if you want to call it that.  No wealthy nation is going to want to join a OWG that will take more of their money and give it to poorer countries which, in their view at least, did not earn the money and when there are other things they want to spend the money on.  Poorer countries are not going to join a OWG which will not promise them much money and instead leave them vulnerable to the power of the wealthier nations.   Simply put, people want resources and most don't want to share.  No species in nature (or at least most of them, there might be some very odd exception I've never heard of) care for their species as a whole, only a small group of them.  I don't think humans have evolved past that fact.

Edited by malizai_ - 03-Jan-2007 at 21:26