1. No
2. No
3. Indifferent

Wait, I'm republican and I support singular world government. Is that not our thing?

"I support singular world government."
Tell me you're kidding.

Someone else said that as well. Looks like you didn't read the previous responses. Please do so.

I've read said comments now, and Jebus Herbert Christ on a plastic cross, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're nothing short of delusional.

Meh. I don't think so. But to each his own.

"But to each his own."
That's exactly what a global government will deny me.

Not the one I have in mind. It would have most of the same freedoms as America has now, and that includes Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.

Everything short of universal self-determination will not do.
Maybe you're okay with living under a yoke, I'm not.

Universal self-determination? Why sugarcoat it? Just say anarchy. I won't judge you.

That's not a sugarcoat, that's a synonym.
I'm not hiding anything and have never made a secret out of it; yeah, I'm an Anarchist and a radical one at that.

I dislike using the term though, as it instantly creates a wrong picture and prejudice of marauding punks and burning cities in people's minds.

I would never presume that that's the universal agenda of all anarchists, because I know it's not. But it is a serious risk among certain individuals within the group, and for that reason, it's a little too dangerous for my taste.

Then stick to your self-imposed tyrants for a false sense of security but leave me out of it.

Tyrants? Where did you get the idea that I was advocating tyranny?

What do you call it when people's lives are dominated by laws and rulers they have never agreed on, then?

Society. And that's not entirely true, because most laws are agreed upon. They're either common sense laws (like don't steal and don't kill) or they get voted on. My idea of a world government wouldn't be any more powerful than America's government is today.

Funny way of spelling tyranny. Or government, for that matter.
I did not vote to be ruled over. I did not agree to be liable to military service. I never agreed to paying taxes or what the state then does with the money that is rightfully mine and their disgusting pretense of "democracy" changes nothing about that.

I disagree. I do not want to be ruled. They do not have my consent.
They are tyrants held in place by nothing but their lies and violence.

Then I suggest you develop your survival skills, procure a boat, a kindly get the fuck out of my country.

It doesn't matter what country you live in because they all have at least some form of government. And you wouldn't be ale to survive without it. That's why humans developed it.

I was not attempting to exercise any form of authority. I was merely making a suggestion. You would obviously be happier if you left, and we would be happier without you. It's a win-win.

First of all, chances are I'm not a resident of your national people-farm so the whole point is moot to begin with.

Second, no. I have the right to live in self-determination everywhere I damn well please, and I intend to make use of it.
I intend to make this world a bit better and less violent than it was before and that is not accomplished by running.

The idea of the "New World Order" came from George H.W. Bush, but in general Republicans oppose strong government power.
That said, there are neoconservatives who support using military force to spread democracy and pursue American (non-security) interests abroad. These people tend to be Republicans.

Ohhh. Well I don't support the use of heavy force, but I do sympathize, to some degree, with those who want all the world's countries to be united in one global super-nation. Seems like it would get rid of a lot of problems.

please tell me you're joking

Semi-serious. As I said in reply to Ruspanic's comment, I don't advocate heavy force or fascism, but the idea of uniting all countries into one global country appeals to me. I don't believe world peace is a realistic goal, but that would at least be a step closer to it.

Oh I agree. Certainly not one person representing it. I don't even like having a president that much. I think Congress is enough by itself. The way I imagine a world government would be like having just that, but on a larger scale.

Why does one global country appeal to you?

I feel that as a species, we shouldn't be divided amongst ourselves. We're the most advanced race on the planet, and we use that quality to kill each other. I'm not saying that a world government would rid us of war and violence, because that's absurd. They would still exist but I just feel as though it would alleviate some of the enmity and competition between nations, as well as unite us in a common sense of nationalism.

So for a general feeling of nationalism? Each country already has that to varying degrees. Also, it wouldn't work. I would guess that a majority of countries wouldn't want that as everyone would lose individualism. Also, imagine how powerful that government would be.

Not just general nationalism, common nationalism. The ability for everyone in the world to salute the same flag. Treat every other human being as a fellow citizen. And the idea is that everyone in the world would live under the same laws and policies, which would give people a better sense of equality. And the government would only have as much power as the average government has over its country currently. The only difference would be the number of governors and the area of its jurisdiction.

Yea maybe. What checks are their on the government? What type of government is it?

Like I said, it would be like Congress, but larger. No front man though. That's too dangerous. What do you mean by checks?

Checks on the government expanding their power. And so the government would only be Congress, with representatives in both houses from all nations?

Again, I don't think the government would need any more power than it already has. This is how I would do it: You go down the list of all the issues (healthcare, welfare, etc.) and find out which country is #1 for each respective issue. Then create a universal government that emulates all of those countries for those issues. Obviously some issues would be eliminated entirely, such as foreign policy, because it would all be the same nation. The military would still exist because we would need someone better than the police to help maintain peace when some people get violent. Not to mention we would need a defense in case our planet gets invaded by a hostile alien race. But overall, there would be no war except small disputes between locally-grown militias. Economic problems would be eased, and without war, the brightest minds from every country could collaborate on solving problems like disease and the energy crisis.

Think how long it takes our Congress to decide things. It would take hundreds of times longer then that if everyone was represented in Congress. What is to stop the government from controlling every aspect of our lives? Currently, if a country does something horrible, like genocide, other countries usually call them out and levy sanctions against them. What if this one universal government decided that Cuba should no longer be populated, and killed everybody on the island.

Why would they feel the need to commit genocide when they could just relocate the to a different part of the world? The entire planet is one territory now.

Cause its easier and more cost effective to kill them. Still, length of deciding things put before Congress.

And as for the second part of your question, yes.

Well I live in America, so I'm kind of an imperialist. My wish is for the rest of the world to become part of America.