Why are you against a Global Democratic Federation?

Why are you against a Global Democratic Federation?

i would expect this from a greek

I'm not, world government would be pretty fucking cool if we did it right

Because I don't want to have to pay so that world leaders can buy the votes of third worlders.

Because of all the slackers who never pay depbts

I'm not. world government would be pretty fucking cool if we did it right... Also, I'm a different poster from but he got here first.

Why should Chinese/Indian people determine what's right for Westerners?

You don't realize in trying to create this federation you will likely cause the wars.

Cultures are not equal.

People are not equal.

Trying to integrate groups with different cultures can only lead to trouble. Globalization will work once differences between cultures becomes negligible.

because federal governments are shit and the south will rise again

>ITT 1st world says its a shit idea
>3rd world says it would be a great triumph for mankind

just as it should be. The weak should fear the strong.

The different cultures of the world are too different to unite under one government.

A set of laws that would be acceptable to Americans/European would be unacceptable to the Middle East and Africa, and vice versa.

Well the world IQ is 90, and every civilization to mongrelize has lost its technological advantage, with literally only European and Northeast Asian civilizations remaining. So probably it would end up a Brazlified dystopia with a vast mulatto underclass and autistic Jew/Asian elite, but sure, why not, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. :)

This whole idea emerged in the first world by the intellectual elites. Mostly third-world fanatics oppose it, like ISIS, North Koreans, Trump supporters etc.

>1 world
>1 government
>It's in your best interests, goyim!

What about high autonomy for said regions?

>world constitution

Fuck that shit.

(((intellectual elites)))

because not all countries are at the same level of economic advancement

Nobody suggested mandatory race-mixing or any of your implications. Different cultures will be preserved and respected.

beat me too it.

So instead of me ruling over myself, you should do it for me?

Sounds like a shit deal, and as you know our next president said we no longer make shitty deals. Guess were out, darn.

Yeah, some Jews too, like Einstein. What an evil guy, right?

You'll be ruling yourself as much as now and even more as a citizen in a global democracy. Didn't you notice that I said democratic globalism? It's actually better than autocratic nationalism.

It's too soon for star trek irl. Another world war at least first for the tech advances

>your ruling yourself just as much now if we add 5 billion people into your voting pool
A nation that cannot control it's own destiny is not free, fuck your globalism, I choose sovereignty.

false clause, no true scotsman, strawman, special pleading

take your pick there Zorba

because democratic federation is not going to be democratic when there are people involved

No, literally Einstein supported this you idiot. I didn't just name-drop a Jew.

Because I don't want to live in the same country as billions of dirt poor, third world shitskins

So the United States aren't democratic either? Because there's people involved there too.

>in the same country
You won't. You'll live in the same world with them, as you already do. You just won't be able to kill them en masse.

As long as cultural relativism and multiculturalism exist world peace is impossible because the very real differences between people and groups are ignored.

You think? I don't know, I like to come here and talk to the worst of the worst to gauge how far we are from good things happening.

Except for the fact that they will be able to move to my neighborhood unimpeded, they will elect a bunch of socialists who promise them free shit and they can vote to tax the fuck out of me (since to them I am part of the super rich who should pay for all their gibsmedats).

I'd support a whites-only worldwide nation. The Japanese and South Koreans can be honorary members.

>6,000,000,000 shitskins voting for gimedats and lowering the standard of living here

all money in circulation and on balance sheets is just loans from a privately owned central bank. the people who control those banks are incidentally close with those who own the world's resources and most valuable corporations. that which is in the public interest is very rarely aligned with that which maintains massive fortunes and lobbying efforts.

Many reasons, including:

-The further removed from a governed populace a government is the less accountable and interested in the governed wellbeing it will be. My mayor is more concerned with my approval than my state house/senate representatives. Those state senate/house represents are more concerned with my approval than my US senate/House representative. They are in turn more concerned with my approval than the US president, who paradoxically is more concerned about my approval than governors or senators from other states I do not live in - California's senators do not give two shits about my opinion. An Indian or Brazilian or Japanese or Korean or Nigerian representative would not give two fucks about my interests. On the contrary his and his constituent's interests would almost certainly go against my interests.
-Even a US senate approach of equal amount of votes per country would favor the more numerous African and Asian and Arab and South American countries over North America and Europe or Japan/China/India/South Korea. We'd be ruled by Niggers, Muslims, and Hispanics.
-Aformentioned differences of cultures. Look at how much umbrage the Muslims have for our western secular liberal laws - they objected to the fucking UN human rights charter because it contradicted their notion of rights enshrined in Islam.

A world government would either be:

-So ineffectual, impotent and weak as to beg the question why it need even exist and why it would need to replace the UN.
-Be so strong, so pervasive, so heavy handed as to destroy the sovereignty of individual nations, allow mob rule and foster more conflict not less by forcing co-existence between vastly different cultures and values systems.

Because I'm a nationalist.

They can take their globo-pipe dream and shove right up their utopian asses.

No. They won't.

And Einstein was autistic as fuck and not some kind of world renowned social sciences major, I really don't see your point.

Also appeal to authority.

I'm not against some sort of 'Federation' in the sense that now we have a 'United Nations' and therefore some kind of Unitary system under the Security Council. A Federation would therefore be less centralised and more democratic, but any sort of binding political control is madness OP.

Democracy was a mistake. The US election is a prime example...

I don't want to be governed by faggy Europeans. California is bad enough as it is.

>ISIS, who wants a global Islamic Caliphate, oppose having a global government

They're all for a global federation, just not democratic and wholly Islamic.

Monopolies are bad mmkay?
Democratic monopolies are the worst kind of monopoly mmkay?

The United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. Idiot.

Tie your arms together and see how much you can get done. Different regions need different things and must be governed by different bodies.

NWO, single government entity WILL always be corrupt no matter what. The same kikes that already control everything will be in power, and once they have no opposition, they'll just start killing billions of people.

Leaf understands for once. Globalism is the greatest evil, it is re-skinned marxism, just like environmentalism is.

Holy shit I didn't think Greeks were this retarded? So much in debt that you can't afford to eat food and have resorted to lead paint chips?

Isn't this the NWO?

>if we did it right

That's the big issue right there. Globalism isn't inherently bad, but if there is just one government then the potential for abuse is also global.

The EU couldn't successfully manage 1.3 million refugees in a Union with almost 750 million people and 7 of the G10 nations, and you want to scale it up?

His point was that "jewish intellectual elite" isn't some shadowy group...there are in fact people who are Jewish, intellectual and no more sinister than you or I

What a stupid thing t-

>a fucking leaf

Oh, never mind

The NWO shilling I've noticed has reached unprecedented levels in the past couple of years. This used to be the fears of tinfoils in the past, and now the propaganda is starting to work on the normies - there are movements for "global citizens," more push for open borders, and the call for increased UN power. It's exactly what the kikes want and they sell it as "peace on earth, no countries, no war!" The reality is that it is an evil consolidation of power seeking complete dominance over everyone's lives, at least those that are "lucky" to be allowed to live once this global government depopulates a couple billion people off the planet, and mixes the rest into mongrelized slaves with no identity or culture but a mass produced "world" culture. I used to laugh at the tinfoils but so far what they have predicated has been unfolding with terrifying accuracy.

I'd expect it from people that revere mt.Sinai.

> if we did it right
If, if, if, and if.

It'll need some strict language. Something like the bill of rights. The original bill of rights declared what the federal government can or cannot do. It didn't suggest what the people can or cannot do. But all forms of government, without regulation of the people, will always boil down to the latter