What's wrong with a one world government?

What's wrong with a one world government?

Why is it such a bad idea and why is everyone afraid of it?

If there's only one government, there won't be any wars. There wouldn't be any need to get stressed out every time Russia, North Korea, or China saber-rattles because they won't do that since they're controlled by the one world government.

Wages and cost of living would probably stabilize across the world. You wouldn't need a passport or a visa because you would be a citizen of Earth. You'd be able to travel to any country freely without worry. Everyone would be taught a common language in school, probably English. So you'd be able to live any where easily.

There's literally no downside.

>If there's only one government, there won't be any wars

Yeah, like Jugoslavia. It was such a great idea. No wars ever happened between Jugoslavian people.

because it will be slavery for the shlomo

>what are civil wars

>If there's only one government, there won't be any wars
Civil wars would happen, because it would still be the oppressors versus the people.

Because different environments produce different cultures. Different cultures have different methods to things, including governance. You can't expect everyone in the world to be able to all abide by the same rules unless you also mean to annihilate all culture, which in that case, fuck you, go die in a fire.

There won't be any civil wars. Only military and law enforcement will be allowed to own firearms. All others firearms will be confiscated when the one world government takes power.

Because the best government is local. I see the mayor at the grocery store and the city council meetings are two miles away. Sure, I don't always get what I want but I can show up in person to bitch.

Now imagine the only seat of government is in The Hague or Beijing. I could go my whole life without even seeing a politician, let alone have the ability to bitch them out.

>no downside

There is if you want to preserve your culture, people, and soveriegnty.

Burger doesn't mind because he thinks his cultureless multi ethnic war mongering big brother nation is goin to be in charge,

I'll happily accept a one world governmennt if it was my country that governed, see where i'm coming from ?

Posting in a fucking idiot thread.

culture is cancer. we should destroy it all so that we can focus on science and fuck off into space.

Well, while it is a nice thought, a one world government just would not function. At least not without a vast majority of people revaluating the way they look at the world.

You can't vote for it for one thing. Another thing is your vote suddenly doesn't count as much when you add billiions of voters.

>If there's only one government, there won't be any wars.
War isn't just a thing that happens between nation states. It's conflict on a greater scale because of different (national) interests.

Conflict still exists within one nation, especially when your population is very diverse. Specific people want specific things. They group up and defend their interests before other groups.

>There's literally no downside.
Fantasies usually don't have downsides, because they're imaginary bullshit. Reality plays out very differently, and once you understood that conflict is an essential part of nature that cannot be erased, you'll understand why a permanent "world peace" is unachievable.

Just look at Europe

People will separate via ideology and relocate. In time their universal language will divide into various dialects depending on the people who encompass them. (see: latin)

Further down the line people will adapt to their geographical location and acquire skills/intelligence necessary to survive in specific climates. The stronger and smarter groups will inevitably progress enough to dominate the other new nations economically and militarily.

>What's wrong with a one world government?
>Why is it such a bad idea and why is everyone afraid of it?
no safeguards against tyranny
not actually feasible
disenfranchisement of local power
entire world ruled by rootless bureaucrats

>If there's only one government, there won't be any wars
civil wars, coup d'etats, etc. are proof that a single government is no guarantee against war
furthermore war is an unavoidable reality of human nature, it literally cannot be stopped so long as humans qua humans exist

>Wages and cost of living would probably stabilize across the world
so everybody except for elites would be dirt poor

>You wouldn't need a passport or a visa... You'd be able to travel to any country freely without worry
so complete strangers can invade my homeland en masse without any safeguards against the ill effects of culture-mixing, cool

>Everyone would be taught a common language in school, probably English.
this has happened throughout history, the lingua franca of the day always gets taught widely, especially now

>you'd be able to live any where easily
So everybody becomes rootless and detached, that's pretty dystopian if you ask me

>There's literally no downside.
(((There's literally no downside.)))

Why did Hitler get destroyed again?

>What's wrong with a one world government?

Concentration of power.

Because the government will be unopposed and supreme, which will extremely quickly turn into a dystopian dictatorship.
Your country invades 2 countries a year btw so I wouldn't talk about sabre-rattling.

desu I'd be okay with the idea of a one world government if it wasn't for the fucking process of ripping everything that has ever existed apart in the process.

The NWO isn't what I hate
It's the path that takes us there.

>Everyone would be taught a common language in school, probably English

You're an idiot if you believe this.

There's nothing wrong with A world government. There is a lot of shit severely wrong with THIS world government.

Governments should serve and unite people, not dominate and control them. The current world government that is forming wants us to be bred down into idiotic slaves, fed poison, kept stupid and focused on busywork, and prevent us from ever becoming greater and more godlike just so that they can ride high on our labor. We can't have that.

It drops the ceiling 12 feet to raise the floor by 6 inches.

>You'd be able to travel to any country freely without worry. Everyone would be taught a common language in school, probably English. So you'd be able to live any where easily.
This is my fucking problem

>
>
What?
Do you know anything about history or do you just assume that everyone is okay with letting someone else dictate their livelihood?

>culture is cancer.

Culture is what binds people together. It's the very essence of family.

>>culture

Cultures and traditions is a non-argument. If you travel around the world, you can see that virtually every country is becoming "Americanized" in some way. You've got McDonalds in China and Japan for crying out loud.

All of those white and Asian countries make music, dance, and wear clothing very similar to the Hip Hop fashions in the U.S. Everyone wants to be cool like the Americans.

Eventually every country will be Americanized with McDonalds, Starbucks, Walmarts, IKEAs, and Sabarros. They'll retain some of their culture obviously, like Japanese McDonald's selling Ramen or Octopus burgers, but they'll become mostly Americanized.

A new global culture will be born.

There are many people and limited good stuff.

The rich can only exist by expense of the poor.
The globalism will make everyone poor but the government rich.

What a fucking slut.

I wonder what her asshole tastes like.

1. It concentrates more power in the hands of fewer people, which historically ALWAYS leads to corruption, violence, thought police, and the disappearance of individual liberty.

2. Having a single, uniform government/country doesn't overcome the cultures and identities of all the people in the world. For example, Muslims are Muslims first, Pakistanis/Afghans/Germans second. Francophones from Quebec are Quebecois first, Canadian second. A one-world government can never counteract that.

3. There will be no effective means of fairly splitting natural resources. There will be no effective means for natives/locals to survive when their land and resources are redistributed to Africans, South Americans, and the less literate (and therefore impoverished) people of the middle east.

The nation state is simply a reasonable tier from which to govern people while still maintaining cultural, economic, and religious identities.

I will not be part of a nation with that many shitskins
Eurocucks might be okay with it but America never will

Feces and disease.

tower of babel

read your bible

This is a 10/10 in the US.

a based one world government would be great, only the globalists now are not for the people.

And when the USA inevitably falls, then many American cultural elements will disappear throughout the world, and be replaced by whatever is there.


Culture lives through people, and if all Americanized people inevitably die off, so does the culture unless it's preserved. The good parts will survive, the degenerate ones (which are plentiful in your culture) won't.

>f there's only one government, there won't be any wars.
Why the fuck would you ever think that ? Or do you count uprising and civil wars as "technically not war because we're fighting our own"
>You wouldn't need a passport or a visa because you would be a citizen of Earth
That's a very small formality. And I'm not a citizen of the World, I'm French.
Surely we're all humans, but we're part of a human continuum. Sure I have a lot more in common with Italians, Spanish or British (except the food for the last one) but I sure as hell have no cultural links to Chinese.
Languages and cultures will evovle anyway independently as real life proximity is far more important for language than online communication is.

that aint shit, she's used to get rougher treatment from her bull
>be american, prep bull.

And who do you think would hold that one government accountable? The reason having separated powers works is because they keep each other in check, numbnuts.

>centralizing power leads to corruption
>conflicts will only end if racial, cultural, religious, and economic boundaries are erased between all nations
>benefits no one

shit that will never happen.

Part of the redpill is acknowledging that humans have a certain tribal instinct. I really don't think one world culture and ethnicity is possible, no matter how much social engineering (((they))) try.

>Thinks culture is based on entertainment and food consumption

A fucking burger

I only made it halfway though the vid.

8/10

One word Depopulation so Fuck the NWO!

>60%

This.
Power corrupts. Keep power as local as possible so we can still control it.

The movie Elysium.

>muh everybody would be equal
>muh no wars
If you were on Sup Forums more than a day you'd realize that complete equality is impossible and struggle/conflict is something that is bound to happen.

it sounds like a good idea on paper, but like communism it will not be practiced very well.

>modern women

>mexican culture

oh fuck

>lets take away everyones guns except the governments

And you basically killed your idea with that. Maybe next time actually think about your fellow man and his freedoms before trying to make the whole world a shithole you cuck. No one in there right mind would actually sell their freedom because you want your safe space all over the globe. While a one world government would be nice in theory, the way you want it set up is pure autism friendo.

yes....I want to give up all I've earned and share a house with 7 third worlders because things have to be equal

Having multiple governments is like capitalism for governments.

There is a need to be competitive - support your users.

If there is only one choice, the scenario gets pretty shit because that requirement is gone.

Consider everyone saying "I'm gonna go to canada if...(insert bullshit here)"

We all know that the faggot isn't going anywhere.

> BUT
If shit ever actually got so bad that it was unbearable, you CAN decide to leave. Refugees do this all the time.

Imagine if there were no other choices. There is no more need for the gov to at least mask corruption.

Look at the history of internet service providers.

Remember when you could tell them to fuck off and just switch providers?

We recently had a period where there were no alternatives. They instilled data caps. They throttled certain websites. They charged unholy sums for the same service (my package went up from 99$ a month to 199$ a month on comcast). (Now google and a couple other companies are throwing a wrench into that.)

That applies to everything really. When there are no alternatives, the person with power over the resources can do whatever the fuck they want.

Hammud, come on, don't you have praying to do?

...

Empire>Nation>State>City

You can see where this is going can you? Civil liberties would always be at stake on any new kind of governing body formed and sovereignities rewritten to repurpose it to its cause.

sage

heres my question

why do we all assume a one world government was to have cenralized power?

Couldn't a one world government be anarchist?

Exactly what is wrong with one national government instead of state government or provincial or boroughs

It would be excellent if it wasn't capitalist, money driven. Ethno nationalist, one world goverment, niggers in africa etc.. Would be perfect.

Statist, ethno-nationalist goverment would be great too. Just steal all 3rd/2nd world countries resources, and kill/enslave the natives.

The weak should fear the strong,

Happened to Caligula. Bad idea.

>power corrupts
>absolute power corrupts absolutely

Not gonna happen wop

And if that doesn't scare you, congratulations, you are officially retarded.

A lot of people argue concentration of power and the merits of local gov't.

For our current tech level (or age, however you wish to look at it), that's very true.

However, Star Trek is a viable future. Just gotta wait... 300-4000 years before that's a thing.

Talk to me then and we'll discuss the merits of central power.

A one world government would be like the UN without the rest of the world there to actually do shit.

>implying a coup isn't possible

With anyone able to move to the area it would create a low trust society which would increase the demand for a coercive state. Anarchy can only be maintained if it has small nations with collectively defended borders.

I'd accept if it was a good government. The eu and the UN are way too corrupt for me and don't even get me started on the NWO. World peace
=/= getting raped by shitskins.

Nothing like the UN would be acceptable. If the UN were given any actual power, we'd need to have a massive revolution to overthrow them.

THE WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA WAS ARTIFICIALLY CREATED BY THE JEWS YOU FUCKING PIZZA KEK EVEN HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS PUBLICLY ADMITTED THEY TOOK BRIBE FROM THE CIA SO THEY CAN SPREAD NATIONALISM
btw everybody who still lives in the balkans praises Comrade Tito and wants to live in a state like Yugoslavia, but that's simply impossible now

This.

>There's literally no downside
Except for the flood of subhuman filth flooding everywhere that isn't a shithole this turning said places into shit holes.

It's great if you're a shithole country who contributes nothing.

did pol just autocorrect cuck into kek

wtf is a low trust society?

and why would we need a coercive state?

>THE WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA WAS ARTIFICIALLY CREATED BY THE JEWS

But, that was like a one time thing right? Wouldn't happen with a one-world government?

We have no planets to compete with.

This doesn't make sense. Anarchy means 'no rulers'. It's the opposite of government.

If a random group of strangers was dropped on another planet, there will be anarchy (at first). Then libertarianism, when the people are respecting others rights also. This is the natural state of being. Any rulers or governments will come in much later, and will oppress the people in the end (very likely, bc power corrupts).

Because shitskins are not equal to white people, and we don't want our cultivated cultures, infrastructure and way of life to go to shit when blended with barbarous ones as they are beginning to do now with the influx of nonwhite emigrees.

We are already getting a taste of globalism, and the only people who like it are shitskins and billionaires.

Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.

hundreds of millions of people from poor undeveloped parts of the world will be able to freely move to the rich developed parts.

the western world and the developed east asians will be over run in poo in loos, muslims, africans, and hispanics.

everything goes to shit as public infrastructure and services are overwhelmed. high unemployement. culture destroyed. everyone is worse off except the rootless international clique.

>If a random group of strangers was dropped on another planet, there will be anarchy (at first). Then libertarianism, when the people are respecting others rights also. This is the natural state of being. Any rulers or governments will come in much later, and will oppress the people in the end (very likely, bc power corrupts).

Assuming you mean another earth-like planet. Would be awkward if it was like Venus and everyone would die fast. More like, there would be uncertainty of who's best to be in charge, this isn't anarchy. When leadership is etablished, then divisional labour will be distributed based on what skills, and apparent strengths you may or may not have.

>everything goes to shit as public infrastructure and services are overwhelmed. high unemployement. culture destroyed. everyone is worse off except the rootless international clique.

Actually, we may be looking at a new set of countries be formed with this ethnic and demographical divisions. Towns that share political and demographical structures will cooperate, cities like Detroit and Malmö will disintegrate into their own chiefdoms, free of the former host nations authorities.

nah the idea of a one-world government is pretty retarded, my point was that comparing Yugoslavia to a one-world government is straight up stupid

although the end of both of them would be similar :^)

>There's literally no downside.

>every job will have much more competitors.
>taxes will be higher than ever. because social benefits will apply to everyone,including third worlders
>much more crime. because of the overly competitive job market and other reasons
>native and unique cultures will disappear
>prices of everything will rise too because everyone will be using more government services
>debt will be merged which means the burden of a few is imposed on many

any more bright ideas smartass

Yes, an earth-like planet. There would be no need for rulers, except if you can't take care of yourself and want a leader to provide for you. That's the reason for rulers in the first place.

>wtf is a low trust society?

A low trust society would be basically a society where you (rightfully) wouldn't feel safe to let your kids outside along or leave your door unlocked, there's plenty of conflict and degeneracy, etc. Meanwhile in a high trust society everyone would probably know each other (i don't know if that would be a result or cause of a high trust society) and you generally feel safe.

>and why would we need a coercive state?

I don't necessarily think that there would need to be one but a low trust society would give birth to one whether i personally think that it would be needed or not.

Need a ruler or not, they're going to be present anyway. If a group of strangers are dropped on an earth-like planet, they will need to cooperate because you'll have no idea what you're doing on your own. You won't survive trying to fend for yourself.
So a ruler will be appointed or appoint him or themselves to point out what needs to be done.
You'll have no choice in the matter, you sperger.

1.5 billion muslims and anti jews from other cultures get together. Suddenly the jews and Israel are irrelevant in world politics.

smelly unwashed orthodox jews will be begging in the streets. holding up signs "well tell you about 6 million for change".

>CIA
>Jews

The CIA has been all about American nationalism and anti-marxism since it's creation. They probably influenced the breakup in Yugoslavia in the interest of anti-marxism or some sort of American Nationalism that we don't realize.

Honestly I think the CIA are /ourguys/

But there is one. Have you ever heard of the UN?

no.
orthodox jews will just join the "underprivileged" group as minorities and will suck the government tit on your expanse.

there are no smart leaders, only politicians.

>googles swarm the west creating wars and anarchy
>global government falls within days
>anarcho capitalism is the dominant ideology now
>you finally get to hold TOW missiles in your basement along with a couple dozens of child workers employed in your underground meth lab

Not If there are enough resources like food, water. And everyone has some skills to trade for something else.

>What's wrong with a one world government?

People don't want it, so it would invariably be a dictatorship.

ok but all conspiracy theories aside, the cia was just afraid of yugoslavia, before the war yugoslavia had one of the top armies in the world with 200 000 active members and 3 milion in reserve capable of being deployed within one week, also although yugoslavia was a very progressive country it's policies weren't 100% pro-west