P
patrick457
Guest
But then again instead of WW3 you could have the possibility of a civil war erupting.
- Status
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Most of us believe in a powerful God who created us and the world, but we look to humans when it comes to politics and ruling the world. Trust, and have faith, that this world belongs to God and that He shall guide it according to Divine wisdom. Why do we think that our beliefs and judgements are more important in discussing these types of issues? Better that we use our free time to better know and do God’s will.
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
What if it is God’s will for us to discuss these types of issues? Who are you to dictate otherwise? I’m guessing that he gave us reason for a reason.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
God did not create our world and then walk away. God is still with us, and He’s in ultimate control.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Agreed.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
I think it’s a terrible idea. If thee was only one government, it would become almost impossible to enact any sort of change on that government, meaning that if it starts to veer off-course (or, more likely, starts off-course) it would become almost impossible to correct it. (I’m basically thinking about every major distopia book or movie to come out… ever)
O
oliver927
Guest
I could not agree with you any more.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
As with any form of government, I’m sure there is both good and bad. On the plus side, it could reduce the occurrence of war. I could see where it might have a positive impact on simplifying global commerce, trade, travel, etc… We’d have no criminals fleeing to extradition-free countries and no one sheltering millions of dollars in off-shore accounts. 
There would be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. 
But, yeah, it would seem mighty unwieldy. And who exactly would be running the show? What country’s government would serve as the model for the one world government? Imagine the bureaucracy! I would think that things would move at a snail’s pace trying to get the whole world to agree on matters of policy in certain areas.
I think the principle of subsidiarity is a good one. That which can be handled at the lowest level should be handled at the lowest level. The only question then is, are there certain things that could only be resolved at the highest global level? And how would we go about doing that?
I don’t expect anyone to come up with agreeable answers to those questions anytime within my lifetime.
There would be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. But, yeah, it would seem mighty unwieldy. And who exactly would be running the show? What country’s government would serve as the model for the one world government? Imagine the bureaucracy! I would think that things would move at a snail’s pace trying to get the whole world to agree on matters of policy in certain areas.
I think the principle of subsidiarity is a good one. That which can be handled at the lowest level should be handled at the lowest level. The only question then is, are there certain things that could only be resolved at the highest global level? And how would we go about doing that?
I don’t expect anyone to come up with agreeable answers to those questions anytime within my lifetime.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
I have to laugh whenever I hear anybody talk about the coming one world government. Human nature being what it is, the elites in every region are almost always going to bump up against the elites in other regions. When things are going well, they might be able to feed off the same troughs, but when things fall apart, the elite fracture quickly and then it becomes every man for himself. The EU has been held out as a model, well hello folks, the EU is about to break up. Also one has to wonder whether the Chinese would tolerate a one world government to be above them and at the same time one has to wonder whether anyone else would sit still should the Chinese attempt to assume the mantle of one world government for themselves.
G
GratefulFred
Guest
About 7 billion people on Earth today. About 196 countries on 7 continents.
One government?? Not a chance it would work for the betterment of all 7 billion people with so many different cultures.
But, is there a set of PRINCIPLES that should guide governing 7 billion people? What Principles, when followed, would result in fair treatment? What Principles would allow or require others to intervene when fair treatment is abused?
We have those Principles already set down for us. The Law of Love. On this, all the rest of the Law depends.
One government?? Not a chance it would work for the betterment of all 7 billion people with so many different cultures.
But, is there a set of PRINCIPLES that should guide governing 7 billion people? What Principles, when followed, would result in fair treatment? What Principles would allow or require others to intervene when fair treatment is abused?
We have those Principles already set down for us. The Law of Love. On this, all the rest of the Law depends.
T
TARRAT
Guest
I don’t know if “control” is a good word to use. He didn’t control Adam and Eve, and He certainly didn’t contro Hitler.
He is certainly Lord, King, and Above all the earth.
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
I imagine that the heads of each govement would represent one throne, one world goverment. But of course there would have to be a major incentive. What kind of carrot would have to be dangled inorder to get the horses moving in the same direction?
I think something like a one world goverment is already in play. I mean look how a country can be banned from trading with the rest of the world. Who has a say in that?
I think something like the EU is enivatible and perhaps neccesary for the sake of a global economy, and does appear to be the embryo of a global authority.
P
PseuTonym
Guest
Excellent observation! Imagine violent conflicts like that between the Hutu and Tutsi simultaneously occurring throughout the world, rather than merely in Rwanda. Provided that Rwanda is no longer an independent country, but is a region in a world that has a single country, that would be okay?But then again instead of WW3 you could have the possibility of a civil war erupting.
**Let’s deflate the grandiose question in the title of this thread to this: would it be a good thing to have one government for Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India?
**
In other words, would it be a good idea to try to undo the Partition of India, and risk a repeat of the bloodshed that accompanied the First Partition of India? There was a Second World War. Why not a Second Partition of India?
- Status