Where are the leaders like John?

[Swami Dring]

The fact that cuntmaggots like Howard, Bush and Blair continue to live as free men is yet more evidence that our species requires a world government.

The reasons why people form local governments, state governments and federal governments are exactly the same reasons why we need to form a world government.

One of the many benefits of doing this would be that the Marty Bryant-wannabe leaders of rogue states like the US, UK and Australia would face justice for their war crimes.

LOL. I think you'd find that these type of pollies would welcome a world govt with open arms. Ignoring the fact that there are plenty bigger psychos out there, in positions of power, these are the types of people who would get elected. The more decentralised a democratic govt, the more voters need to rely on media to form their opinions, rather than their personal experiences of the person. We vote in good media manipulators.

You missed my point. A world government would ensure that military action would require majority approval, ie >50% of the countries in the world. How many countries took part in the invasion of Iraq? Five? Ten? How many countries did not invade Iraq? Two hundred or so? This is my point. A world govt would ensure that if rogue states popped a Marty B on someone's ass, then the rest of the world would smack them down.

BTW, these types of pollies would be the last to welcome a world govt, for the reason above, and because first-world countries' populations would gag at the thought of living sustainably and distributing the world's resources more evenly.

[TomB]

[boxy]

This is my point. A world govt would ensure that if rogue states popped a Marty B on someone's ass, then the rest of the world would smack them down.

So, this world govt would have smacked Saddam down earlier... when he went into Kuwait?

I don't think so. With the number of undemocratic and relgiousously insane "leaders" in this world, it would be an even bigger shambles than the current UN, with self interst driving beaurocratic inertia... or worse, promoting anti-democratic religious rule through democracy itself.

[Swami Dring]

This is my point. A world govt would ensure that if rogue states popped a Marty B on someone's ass, then the rest of the world would smack them down.

So, this world govt would have smacked Saddam down earlier... when he went into Kuwait?

Of course. Invading a country unprovoked constitutes popping a Marty.

I don't think so. With the number of undemocratic and relgiousously insane "leaders" in this world, it would be an even bigger shambles than the current UN, with self interst driving beaurocratic inertia... or worse, promoting anti-democratic religious rule through democracy itself.

So your point is:

Local govt - makes sense.

State govt - makes sense.

Federal govt - makes sense.

World govt - doesn't make sense/too hard.

[boxy]

My point is, that the further away our leaders are from us, the less control we have over them. And now you're suggesting that I should willingly hand over some messure of control over my life, to unelected swill from around the world?