Should we have a World Government
Yes, we should have a W-G
Side Score: 13
|
 |
No, we shouldn't have a W-G
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
A world government could decide things like national boundaries, set rules for international relations and commerce, and shift the burden of defense away from individual countries, removing the need for individual armies. It is a necessary prerequisite for international peace. Side: Yes, we should have a W-G
1
point
I believe that something as serious as a W-G would be discussed by every leader of every country. I believe the best thinkers would be put to the test to make the most efficient government possible. It would be fair for them all or they won't join it. This is all unless the Illuminati doesn't plan it... If it were a good enough deal for every country to be in on it, then it would be acceptable, I think. Side: Yes, we should have a W-G
1
point
|
2
points
2
points
2
points
There's another small version of this, it's called the United States, and it's doing pretty well. Despite what the perpetual complainers would tell you, it's still the best country in the world to live in, and it started out as a confederation of individual states. Side: Yes, we should have a W-G
it's still the best country in the world to live in That is wrong. The best countries to live in, from life's quality side (welfare), are Scandinavian countries, Australia, some others. As it says it's subjective but it's got it pretty much right. http://www.financialjesus.com/ Side: No, we shouldn't have a W-G
1
point
A confederation of individual states that speak one language. A confederation that originally consisted of hard working individuals who did not feel entitled to government handouts. The United States is no longer what it used to be. It won't be long before we are no longer the best country in the world to live in. Maybe I'm one of the perpetual complainers ;) Side: Yes, we should have a W-G
1
point
I guess you missed the part where I said, "They tried a small version" as in "just a handful of countries" instead "of all of them." That's what a small version means. I also found it funny that you found it necessary to define "euro." I guess someone explained it to you and you thought everyone needs to have it explained to them as well. Did you Google it? Maybe you found it in Wikipedia ;) Side: Yes, we should have a W-G
"Euro-zone" refers to those members of the EU that use the Euro currency. Also, The EU is a constitutional league of nations. While they are bound to each other constitutionally and to some degree administratively, each country remains its own independent state. In the United States, we use the word "state" in a completely different context. It used to be that the "states" were sovereign, independent states with defined boundaries, all of which were members of a confederation of states under the Articles of Confederation (before the US Constitution was ratified). Today, those same "states" (and the others that have been added since) are simply members of a federal republic to which all are constitutionally bound. Side: No, we shouldn't have a W-G
1
point
It all sounds great when you picture the World Government the way you'd like the goverment to be, but what if it's not like that? Once you create this government, it will take on a life of its own, and there's no way to predict what form it will eventually take. What if it becomes a brutal dictatorship? What if it represses women, or certain religions, or whatever? What will you do then? Side: No, we shouldn't have a W-G
1
point
1
point
You know nothing about the anti-christ or anything related to it. Believe me just look at my username. 999=666 Bhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...Ha, Ha, H...Cough..whack..cough. eh um. Ah, seems like i need to work on the evil laugh. Oh and by the way 666 has nothing to do the beast than it does to do with the relation of an secret occult. Side: Yes, we should have a W-G
|
