Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (124067)	2/3/2004 6:26:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A world government wouldn't necessarily be a 1984 type government but it would IMO be unlikely to be as limited as the American government. Even if it is limited to certain areas it could exert more control and be less responsive then current national governments. It could be a "UN on steroids" rather then a real government but would it escape the waste and fraud of the current UN? and would people in general or specifically those in classically liberal developed democracies be more free or less because of it? If it isn't a "UN on steroids" but is rather a real world government sovereign over current nations (with each current country become a state or province or part of one, or multiple states) then I think it even less likely to stay limited. If it is sovereign it is likely to expand its power over time. You mention the US and its states as an example, so I'll go with that one. Over time the federal government has taken powers from the states even though it was supposed to be limited to doing far less then it does now. Tim