Page 1 of 2
Will this Game come to Reality?
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:12 pmby Gavino07
I have always wondered, since I played the board game RISK, will the concept of World Domination will eventually come to Reality? Will the world become united under one government, one economy, and one state in the future of Earth and Mankind? Don't you think that nations are guided by the fact that the world needs to be under a world order of some type of government or ideology, such as the Fascist Party, the Communist Party, the Democratic Party, or other known parties. As an American, I think Pres. Bush is trying to influence the middle eastern countries to deeply follow the States of Democracy and to perhaps later use the middle eastern connections to spread Democracy throughout Asia and Africa. Democracy is the vehicle to world domination. Once every nation has been dipped into Democracy, the nations will then unite into one state, one government, and one economy.
The truth of Mankind is simply this: Human Beings will fight to be organized and to be dominant.
What do you think will happen to the future of Earth and Mankind?
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:15 pmby Machiavelli
I hope that revolution happens in 10-50 years, so that I can be the one to rule the world!!! Mwuahahaha!!!
Errr...
I mean....
Go democracy!
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:20 pmby AznBoi97531
It's an interesting idea, and yes, I too believe that one day, we'll all be under a "New World Order", but not because of democracy. I think it will just happen after a great worldwide conflict. Maybe World War III or World War IV, or something like that in the future. With nuclear weapons flying during times like those, the only thing that would be left is people without a leader. Someone could stand up then, and unite everyone under one government, while everyone is weak. But I don't think that would happen for a while.
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:23 pmby Jesse, Bad Boy
With any luck, government will collapse and the people will be free to rule themselves.
Posted:
Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:23 pmby Hologram
It won't happen. Too many nations have thermonuclear warheads, so even if someone did try to take the world, the world as we know it would probably be destroyed as a nation used it's nuclear arsenal as its last resort. But it would be pretty neat to have a uni-government world.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:11 amby AznBoi97531
I'm a social anarchist, so a uni-government is against what I like, but I honestly think that that's what it's gonna resort to in the future.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:42 amby Spuzzell
Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:With any luck, government will collapse and the people will be free to rule themselves.
Christ on a bike, the naivety. "The people" are morons. Without government, I'd give it 2 years before people in the US deep south and Newcastle in England are living in caves and eating each other.
I can't see a unified worldwide state in our lifetimes. The Middle East and Africa are too far behind the rest of the world in terms of social and economic advancement for unification to happen as anything other than the result of a worldwide holocaust.
The only thing that could do it is, er, war with another planet. Damn, that's depressing. Hey, here's hoping
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:32 amby qeee1
Spuzzell wrote:Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:With any luck, government will collapse and the people will be free to rule themselves.
Christ on a bike, the naivety. "The people" are morons. Without government, I'd give it 2 years before people in the US deep south and Newcastle in England are living in caves and eating each other.
People aren't morons... they're just conditioned to act as such.
As regards a new world order... it's possible in theory, but very difficult to accomplish, the bigger your empire gets the more people you have to rely upon to rule it, the more chance there is of revolt/incompetence.
Centralised rule is a bad idea anyway, and a nightmare situation, as it fails to reflect the concerns of people on a local level.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:16 amby MeDeFe
I think it's unlikely that there will be an
end of history.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:20 amby Kugelblitz22
Personally I think we are eventually going to lapse into small communities, local governments etc. It may take along time. Unless we find a truly renewable, unending and completely clean source of energy. Otherwise all this global talk is just living on borrowed time.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:07 amby MR. Nate
Kay wrote:A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.
order
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:53 amby Gavino07
To anarchists out there, please explain to me that with no form of government over the people will not become a state of chaos. If there is no governments and only the people will do whatever they want, the people will be divided into families and get in conflicts with other families. Then eventually Families will unite as a organized society, which pretty much operate as a goverment. Do not forget the Truth i stated about Mankind!
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:24 pmby Jesse, Bad Boy
Spuzzell wrote:Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:With any luck, government will collapse and the people will be free to rule themselves.
Christ on a bike, the naivety. "The people" are morons. Without government, I'd give it 2 years before people in the US deep south and Newcastle in England are living in caves and eating each other.
I am not going to take that comment seriously, so if you would like, present an actual argument.
Re: order
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:28 pmby Jesse, Bad Boy
Gavino07 wrote:To anarchists out there, please explain to me that with no form of government over the people will not become a state of chaos.
How about the Non-Aggression Axiom or the relative Armed Citizentry Principle?
If there is no governments and only the people will do whatever they want, the people will be divided into families and get in conflicts with other families. Then eventually Families will unite as a organized society, which pretty much operate as a goverment.
This is quite possibly one of the most classic -if not stupidest- failing arguments against Anarchy.
First, you're relying on a slippery slope, which is no valid basis for a conclusion as ill thought as yours.
Second, Anarchy =/= Anomie. People need to learn and understand that. Anarchy is simply the removal of artificial hierarchies and coercive entities from society.
Do not forget the Truth i stated about Mankind!
You stated no truth.
no explaination
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:46 pmby Gavino07
Still you have given me no explaination on how Anarchy works. It sounds cool but chaotic to me. Please, i am open to discussion.
Re: no explaination
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:51 pmby Jesse, Bad Boy
Gavino07 wrote:Still you have given me no explaination on how Anarchy works. It sounds cool but chaotic to me. Please, i am open to discussion.
Explaining all of the nuances of Anarchy would result in tl;dr. I will point you in the direction of a few good articles concerning Anarchy and it's various archetypes.
Anarchy
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:12 pmby Warrior987
I don't think the world will be united until threatened by an outer force. Will retain our feelings of seperation until some big bad-ass alien nation tries to kill us. We will then proceed to throughly beat the living shit out of them till they scream mercy. We will hten be in such a frenzy with our new technoligy (thanks to the aliens) that we will unite and proceed to span the galaxya nd kick all alien ass! This is our future and it SHALL vome to be!
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:18 pmby Stopper
The sad thing is that the only reason why I go on this site, is to start games. That way, I am always red, and so when I win, I imagine I have united humankind under the One World Democratic Socialist Republic.
Re: no explaination
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:43 pmby unriggable
Gavino07 wrote:Still you have given me no explaination on how Anarchy works. It sounds cool but chaotic to me. Please, i am open to discussion.
I dont think there is such a thing as permanent anarchy. Imagine a tribe of maybe fifty people. One person is smarter than all others - he has a record of getting out of dangerous situations. So the people look to him - when he advises that somebody should do something, they do it. Eventually, they make his power official by office. There we go. Back to the start.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:44 pmby unriggable
Also the world will never be under one ruler. There could be a UN - but as long as fuckers like George Bush think they are smarter they will never have power.
Re: no explaination
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:56 pmby qeee1
unriggable wrote:Gavino07 wrote:Still you have given me no explaination on how Anarchy works. It sounds cool but chaotic to me. Please, i am open to discussion.
I dont think there is such a thing as permanent anarchy. Imagine a tribe of maybe fifty people. One person is smarter than all others - he has a record of getting out of dangerous situations. So the people look to him - when he advises that somebody should do something, they do it. Eventually, they make his power official by office. There we go. Back to the start.
A state resembling a permanent state of anarchy has existed at times, for example a state of relative anarchy existed amongst the Igbo people prior to colonisation. Decisions were made at a local level, every village was free to govern itself, and decisions within villages were made by an assembly of the common people of which no one was given special privilige.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:19 pmby MR. Nate
If each village had a representative ruling body, isn't that a form of government? I mean, presumably, they are making and enforcing decisions for the good of the community, which sounds a lot like government.
Re: no explaination
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:35 pmby flashleg8
qeee1 wrote:unriggable wrote:Gavino07 wrote:Still you have given me no explaination on how Anarchy works. It sounds cool but chaotic to me. Please, i am open to discussion.
I dont think there is such a thing as permanent anarchy. Imagine a tribe of maybe fifty people. One person is smarter than all others - he has a record of getting out of dangerous situations. So the people look to him - when he advises that somebody should do something, they do it. Eventually, they make his power official by office. There we go. Back to the start.
A
state resembling a permanent state of anarchy has existed at times, for example a state of relative anarchy existed amongst the Igbo people prior to colonisation. Decisions were made at a local level, every village was free to govern itself, and decisions within villages were made by an assembly of the common people of which no one was given special privilige.
In more modern times during the Spanish Civil War anarchist groups (CNT) seized control in Barcelona and surrounding regions for some months in '37. In some situations they abolished money and ruled through a collective will - outlawing political parties and operating through trade unions of workers. One of the only "pure" socialist experiments in history. Disrupted unfortunately when Stalinist backed groups took control of the anti-fascist forces in Spain.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:57 pmby foolish_yeti
Spuzzell wrote:Christ on a bike, the naivety. "The people" are morons. Without government, I'd give it 2 years before people in the US deep south and Newcastle in England are living in caves and eating each other.
Right back atcha. An example would be Vietnam...where the areas controlled locally were actually doing much better than the ones the States were supposedly rehabilitating. People tend to think of these types of social organization as failing because that's what they've been told. Do a little digging and you'll find they were promisingly successful. In terms of long term sustainability we have yet to see, but our democracy for sure isn't working and we're all gung-ho about that........so what's the harm in finding out?
Spuzzell wrote:I can't see a unified worldwide state in our lifetimes. The Middle East and Africa are too far behind the rest of the world in terms of social and economic advancement for unification to happen as anything other than the result of a worldwide holocaust.
Ever wonder why they are so far behind? Hmmm...perhaps our "advancement" is on the backs of others. To me unification does not necessarily mean one government. I means one global power. The States are going for this, but I don't think they'll reach it. The empire and/or a lot of the ecosystem will collapse before this happens.
Posted:
Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:28 pmby johnjohn0701
[quote="Machiavelli"]I hope that revolution happens in 10-50 years, so that I can be the one to rule the world!!! Mwuahahaha!!!
Errr...
I mean....
Go democracy! :roll:[/quote]
can i go communism? i mean whats the diff. b/w democracy & communism since i m taking political science classes now and we need to distingulish them so...