World Government. Yea or nay?

[Guest Syrius]

Well, i am against all government actually, i know all the reprocushions of it if it did not exist but i'd love to see mankind fend for themselves, to see what kind of animal we could be, i know what type of animal i'd be.


ANARCHY.

[KatanaViolet]

Honestly, there is no way anarchy would work.
Look at Iraq. THATS anarchy. Do you really want that? I sure don't. Alot of people would die.
Economic systems need some sort of structure if they are going to work, otherwise the whole nation would be in dissaray. I know all the punk kids seem to think anarchy would work, but that's just because the only governments we've known have been useless. The system just doesn't seem to work. But that certainly doesn't mean there should be NO system. Just a better one.

That's my ramblings anyways...

[Guest Gun Preacher]

if its one thing i've lerned is that the goverment likes to keeps its little secerets and not to be rude in any sort of way we all have learned thourgh history that power corrupts also having a world wide goverment is to dangerous because think about it whos are leader and know matter who you look at it the problems will be racsism or that we will be ruled over by the rich.

[Tyler Koregaten]

YEA. A world government would end many problems. But, however, there is one exception. The capital city of this world-state woulde have to be COPENHAGEN, and Denmark would gbe the most important province of the world-state. The ruler would be the monarch(s) and Prime Minister of Denmark. ;)

Sorry, I'm Danish, a soldier, and biased (they promoted me too much :animeswea )

[CENTER]HIEL DANMARKES WELT!![/CENTER]

translation: Hail Denmark's world ;)



~ Tyler

[Lt.Zero]

Nay to the world goverment. Nay to the smaller goverments for that matter.
The goverments are groups of people who are paid to plant lies the publics minds so that the public will blindly support the govermental corruption.

[Raiyuu]

[font=Trebuchet MS]That's a pretty naive viewpoint. You would prefer maybe anarchy? Enough people have pointed out the failings of anarchy as a political (or anti-political) system in this thread that I won't go into it, but any system of government - yes, yes, even fascism - is preferable to a complete lack of one.

Try and think what you would do in the position of Blair, Bush or any world leader. Yes, a lot of them appear to be out of touch with the people; yes, the war in Iraq happened against the wishes of the general populace, at least of England. Bad decisions do not a corrupt government, nor an evil person make. Labelling them so is reactionary; it's taking the easy option, rather than thinking through and realising the difficulty these people go through in making decisions.

Hating people in power seems to be a common mindset nowadays. Why not use your brain and fight the trend?
[/font]