its a question from political science.
2006-09-29 18:49:24 · 18 answers · asked by Abhilasha S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
For. But it would have to be a Direct Democracy, with very little or no heirachy. Otherwise, I would not support it.
2006-09-29 18:51:16 · answer #1 · answered by sangheilizim 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In the early Days of the United Nations there was much hope expressed that the UN may function as the precursor and prototype of a genuine world Government. As a High School student in the fifties I participated in an essay competion on this subject and argued in favour. But seeing the morass into which the UN has fallen I dont advocate it any more. The UN has become the hand maiden of the powerful few with absolutely no hope for the poorer and weaker Nations to have their voice heard effectively. All the Behind the Scenes consultations are aimed at only one thing- ensuring the hegemony of the Permanent members over the whole world.
The world will be a better place when all intimidatory weapons are simultaneously destroyed and Standing armies are replaced by total Volunteers to maintain civil discipline
If you are interested in a good discussion on the setting up of a World Government I refer you to EARL BERTRAND RUSSEL's essay on World GOVERNMENT
2006-09-30 03:18:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Against!!!!!!! Mega bureaucracy? Leviathan Politburo? If the United Nations won't help the people in Sudan or feed the people in Somalia what makes you think they'd do anything for you?
Real world wide education for everybody (women included) and the freedom to use what you learn leads to wealth, health and prosperity, which will lead to world peace, and less need for big government.
Which will also never happen, unfortunately.
2006-09-30 02:26:57 · answer #3 · answered by angrygramma 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yikes. World government is a sign of the beast, and a tool for the Antichrist. Plus I'm not big on bar codes as a fashion accessory.
2006-09-30 02:34:24 · answer #4 · answered by great gig in the sky 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yea good idea let me guess bush can be the first dictator! Better be getting your guns ready if that happens cause then comes the mark and that's so they know who the terrorists are cause if u are a good citizen take the mark and u can have food from wal-mart and live but don't take it and u will be a terrorists o yea no to ur ?
2006-09-30 02:14:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A world government tribunal that judges cases between nations, is fine.
But a one world government? No way!
The cultural and ethical differences between nations would make it virtually impossible to gain consensus on what the laws should be.
2006-09-30 01:54:17 · answer #6 · answered by Searcher 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
All depends on the principles & values that would inform the process.
Against one world government. Too much "togetherness" thinking.
2006-09-30 01:53:03 · answer #7 · answered by ThomasR 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Another secret of Bush's! His secret talks regarding a Mexico-Canada-USA government a la EU!
2006-09-30 01:52:38 · answer #8 · answered by Hernan Cortes 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
AGAINST. As an American, i do not want nor do i need, anymore government than i've already got. Actually, i could use less.
2006-09-30 17:37:09 · answer #9 · answered by mikey 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah it's impossible, I always dreamed of it tho... :)
Only way its possible is if we all have one common enemy.. Global Warming or Aliens.. lol
+ United Nations needs to get it's *** in gear...
There cant be one world government if it doesnt have the power to support its word...
2006-09-30 01:53:21 · answer #10 · answered by Shadowfox 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Against. How many countries outside of the U.S. and England are being run well. Do you really want some 3rd world dictator influencing your life?
2006-09-30 01:54:06 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋