Which is better: National sovereignty or having a one world government?

1. 78

   Earl S. Wynnposted 14 years ago

   Which is better: National sovereignty or having a one world government?

   replyreport
2. 0

   nomadicasianposted 14 years ago

   National sovereignty of course. One world government is not an ideal thing as of this age.We have a troubled world and getting that one world government is totally not possible.

   replyreport
3. 61

   weholdthesetruthsposted 14 years ago

   Individual Sovereignity, like the Constitution set us up with.   
   
   Any government big enough to be a 'world government' would by nature be so big it would be instant tyranny.

   replyreport
4. 67

   Jason R. Manningposted 14 years ago

   Weholdthesetruths spoke from true patriotism and fact.  History clearly shows the demise of empires and nations when its government grows beyond its means.  How could you justly rule a world with the required officials and officers it would take?  Where on earth would this body devise its law?  What’s good for Ohio isn’t what’s good for Ethiopia.  The U.N. is absurd, look how serious the tyrants of this world take them…North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, do not even get me started on the Security members, the same security members who were supposed to stop Germany in the 1930’s.  How about that food for oil racket Saddam had going…
   Absolute Sovereignty is the only answer to people creating the life “we” wish to have.

   replyreport
5. 77

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 14 years ago

   Neither.  I'm thrilled that you asked that question here.  What you are seeing in this world is social evolution - it's unstoppable.
   
   Groups of wealthy families have ideas and organizations, and an unquenchable lust for more wealth, and total control.  We'd have to murder them all for their plans to go away, and if we did, then they'd just be replaced by the new super elite.

   replyreport
6. 74

   someonewhoknowsposted 14 years ago

   Even Soveirgns need other people to get things done.Although I agree with personal sovereignty.Sovereigns must agree to certain rules in order for a civil society to exist. For example sound money! If,our money supply is exspandable without some kind of control over it's value then each new unit of currency must necessarily lose some value due to Inflation.Supply and demand must keep pace with one another in order for their  relative values to remain stable.
   
   A world government is only possible with a civil world!Where every person has personal liberties to a reasonable extent and government is limited by those who elected them as was intended by the founders of the constitution of the Unitedstates for America which unfortunately for us has deteriorated due to the lack of interest in the personal rights of the Individual on the part of governments and big corporations which have taken over our government through funding political cadidates and campaigns of their choosing.America has become the land of the brave and the home of the slave.

   replyreport
7. 81

   Wayne Brownposted 14 years ago

   The concept of a one world government belongs in the same box of Cracker Jacks with the concept of world peace and curing world hunger.  A government of a free people is a concept which they create to serve their needs.  They are a like minded people who do not necessarily agree on everything but they have a set of core values that are very similiar...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applies in this country whether one is a conservative or liberal, a republican or democrat or just an independent.  These are shared values and the government is sworn to uphold and defend those values from outside influences which would threaten to take them away.  The concept of world government presiding over all the various cultures of the world with any effectiveness and ability can only be envisioned in a truly totalitarian sense.  In that case, the government does not exist to serve the people, the people become prisoners of the government.  There is no one for the government to defend the people against...except the government.  The government then becomes the only real threat in the peoples lives and they have no say or control over it.  WB

   replyreport