For a long time people have said one of them is inevitable...which would you prefer? Would you die for your choice if you had to? Do you understand the differences between anarchy and chaos?
2007-11-29 10:46:03 · 10 answers · asked by Grunty O 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
One world goverment, and yes I would die for that choice if I had to.
2007-11-29 11:10:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are the only choices one world government or none? There must be a happy medium. As for the choices I will not back a one world government. To me that will create the anarchy and chaos the rest of you fear so much. It has nothing to do with a Utopian mindset. I will not martyr myself for such a cause.
2007-11-29 10:55:51 · answer #2 · answered by gone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One world government is an impossibility or it would have evolved as a natuarl course of events. It's all the European Union can do to keep from fragmenting, so forget about anything more all-encompassing. Bush is trying to do the same thing with a North American Union, but he is an idiot and can't tell when he is chasing down a dead end.
There are too many variables all over the world in terms of culture, customs, language and religion to make any cohesive one world government a functional reality.
So we'd have what we have now, no world governement, and that's the way it should be. I would not want my fate determined by a bunch of warlords in Manchuria, I can tell you that.
2007-11-29 10:53:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No single world government. So if there is one tyranny, it won't rule of all people.
But, there can be a weak internatonal government, for things such as:
A) Declaring rights for ALL people
B) A judiciary branch for national disputes and crimes in multiple nations. Also for punishing for taking away the human rights.
C) A police force to protect nations too poor or weak to have it's own effective military/police
D) Ready for unprecedent events, such as extraterrestrial colonization
E) Places to discuss peace, in peace
F) A place for many or all nations to discuss important actions and events that are global
Sounds like the UN. Or the goals of the UN.
2007-11-29 10:53:16 · answer #4 · answered by Mitchell 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather live under a conservative government in the United States. What kind of government other nations choose is up to them, as long it doesn't pose a threat to our national security. I hate the idea of a one world government, plus it would never work.
2007-11-29 10:51:45 · answer #5 · answered by Adolf Schmichael 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clarification is needed: No world government does not mean world anarchy. It means that each country has its own governmental system instead of one form of government for all countries.
My answer is no world government.
If there was only one government throughout the world, Democracy would be lost. Democracy only comes with choices and diversity.
2007-11-29 10:53:03 · answer #6 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Biblically speaking, we alreeady know that the one world govt will come into place and then crash.
Until then Live Free or die fighting for it!!!
2007-11-29 10:52:50 · answer #7 · answered by EddieX 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No world government. Personal liberty should never be sacrificed for security no matter what the circumstances.
2007-11-29 10:52:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I rather live in a one-world gov't rather than anarchy.
2007-11-29 10:48:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Thank God I wont be around when that happens and it will happen, enjoy.
2007-11-29 10:50:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋