World Government?
Posted on: December 18, 2008 - 8:46am
Offline
World Government?
I really haven't been a big fan of conspiracy theories but some of the information these days is getting pretty compelling. With sites like http://www.prisonplanet.com/ and others, they make for an interesting debate.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html
I would be curious to know what some of your opinions might be on a potential world government.
- Login to post comments
Well, my first opinion would be on your sources. Mainly you have one and that is known to be about as reliable as the trashy newspapers that we all chuckle at when we are waiting to check out at the supermarket.
If you believe anything that Alex Jones, infowars, prison planet and those other web sites have to say, then you are required to hold that George W. Bush is so incompetent that he cannot take a piss without having someone standing behind him to hold his dick and aim. While believing that you are simultaneously required to hold in your head that G.W.B. Is so staggeringly intelligent that he could perpetrate the whole 9/11 conspiracy, which in the bizarre mind of Alex Jones is the biggest hoax since NASA faked the moon landings.
=
I don't think I would mind, per say. Of course it would depend the type of government, but suppose we would get a democratic, federal "global nation", that would be just spiffy.
But first people will need to see themselves as "citizens of planet Earth" first and as belonging to a specific region second- and looking at how hard it is proving to be to introduce even something as simple as "a European identity", I don't think we or our children and even grandchildren will see the people of all nations unite behind one flag
Alex Jones is pretty extreme, no argument here. 9/11 is a completely different topic and I will refrain my opinions on that subject. I just wonder what the chances for a world govt might be. The attempt for a constitutional convention in Ohio was a pretty interesting situation. Just makes you wonder.
I have to admit that I didn't look at either of the links, nor do I have an opinion on the the several conspiracies floating around that mention a new world order. However, when I do hear such conspiracy theories they point to a global government like it's a bad thing. Am I missing something? Are we not all homo sapiens? Shouldn't we all be able to come up with a set of laws that everyone should abide by? I haven't discussed this issue with many people, but I have yet to hear a point against it.
Anyway, that's just my $0.02 I would be curious to hear some of the counter arguments against a global government.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
World Government = Good
I am disappointed by anti-globalisation opinions by some who also have environmental concerns (as one small example). I think the only way to manage our effect on the planet environmentally is via enforced world government. I acknowledge that anti-globalisation includes a broad spectrum, many concerned with buisness and their interactions with global "regulatory" bodies, rather than making comment on a world government concept.
As far as I am concerned the more empowered a World Governement would be, and the less nationalist we become, the better it will be for all of us.
I am a global citizen, not a patriot. They are contrary, but you can try to be both.
Imagine coordinated efforts by the whole of mankind, specifically in the fields of science.
Personally I would love to see highly restrictive global gun control laws imposed across the boad by global enforcement. Hands up being a cop in the US during this time, but it would be f$%king worth it.
Global laws actually enforced on human rights. World law. About time you thugs. Bring on Judge Dredd and the boys. (No, I am perfectly sane thank you.)
Come to terms with the fact that we need a "President", "Chairperson", "Premier", or "Emperor" of the world over a system of government. Stop fearing government and start using it as the tool the Greeks designed it for. (Yes I know it wasn't just the Greeks. I was just being dramatic.)
It is time for single mindedness focus for human survival to take the lead before it is too late.
We only have 1 billion years left of habitable earth before the sun swells out, and I want medical science to make us pseudo-immortal before I die, so bl*&dy put down the guns and pick up a test tube. Vote 1 Global Government you petty little twats. Big brother is a good thing.
Don't quote me though.
Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?
According to global law, or from what I've read about it. There would be no individual rights or freedom. I think Global government might be a good thing for trusting individuals. For people who would rather be told what to do rather then choose for themselves and make there own decisions, it might be pretty suitable. Frankly I don't trust anyone, people on this world have time and time again proven me wrong. The majority of the people in this world are selfish and oblivious to other peoples struggles. Especially when we talk about politicians, why the hell would you trust a group of people who would have complete control over your life. They wouldn't care weather you lived or died. There politicians! All they care about is who can I screw over, and how much money will i make from it. I'm sorry I just don't like the fact of someone else having control over whether i live or die. I would like to hear more elaboration or the "true" ideas of a global government.
Only thing I despise more than religion is nationalism/patriotism. If we ever get a world where most the countries that it consists of exist as liberal democracies based on reason not religion then I'm all for world government.
But even before we get to that point sharing soverignty on issues where it benefits all it a must, environment trade not bombing each other etc
(@ #6) Dunno, seems to me that that goes for any government, whether local or global.
The disadvantage of having many local governments, like we have now, is that they do not look much further then the interests of their own country or region. And sure, the same would remain true for politicians in a global government, and maybe everything would collapse eventually- but that would only result in the world reverting back to multiple governments.
Luminon? Where are you buddy?
His Taurat Reading doesnt end till 12 *giggle*
What Would Kharn Do?
Why do you suppose everyone who imagines a world government imagines a horrible fascist totalitarian state?
That just occurred to me as I was reading this thread. World Government Conspiracies always take as a given that it would be a bad thing.
Personally, I think such conspiracy theorists should take a lesson from all the previous conquerers who tried to hold diverse territories. Sure, you can conquer huge swaths of land with big enough armies, but good luck trying to hold them. I sometimes wonder if any of these theorists have ever been out of the U.S. The world is a really fucking big place.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The problem I see with global government is that the bigger the government the bigger the budget. We have enough corruption in local government and the depth seems to only get worse as the pot of money gets deeper.
The town I live in was basically scammed out of 500,000 dollars to build a new civic center we just didn't need. As you go up in levels, the politicians just can't keep themselves clean. Adding another level of govt beyond nations probably will just make corruption and scandal worse. We just need to increase the level of cooperation among nations within the UN and organizations such as the WTO and IMF.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Because... theoretically speaking a "Horrible Fascist Totatlitarian State" is the most likely form of government to actually accomplish such a task
NO! dont get me started >.< argh
Holding lands is only difficult if you have morals AND a military.... but some people play to win >.>
What Would Kharn Do?
Btw, Doomed Soul, that's a lovely new avatar.
So, as for the global government, we've got the two trends. Let's call them Fear and Love. The global government of Fear is what you know from a conspiracy theories, a global police state with total control over citizens. I can imagine that the most powerful governments of the world considered this fearsome vision and even made some minor preparations towards it. Fortunately, they've run out of juice already. The contemporary financial crisis effectively disarms them, it kills the old system and clears the way to a new. Even a global police needs to get paid. Long live the crisis!
It seems like the idea of Fear is, what is supposed to hinder our seeing the truth, of what the concept of a global government really should be. The state of human beings, the citizens of Earth and the Universe.
As Diagoras23, Hambydammit, mrjonno and others noticed, there might be another way, which I'd call Love, for it's general cultural properties. It means an egalitarian global government, where all states has an equal voting power. On the practical level, there must be no war going on with one state or states against other state(s). This war or occupation must not be open, but also not unofficial, economic, cultural, medial, or any other form of interstate violence. There must be an official borders and legislative restrictions against a global commercialism and uncontrolled "free" market, which is more dangerous than atomic bomb. There must be estabilished a system of sharing of resources, which will help the poorer and weaker states to achieve their dignity. This will also help to create a confidence and dialogue between the states. This plan is very well outlined by multiple independent visionaries and I wait if some experts will introduce these ideas to the world through a major media. They're experts, they should have figured it out.
What we had until today, was America raiding the world in all possible ways since WW2. Maybe some Americans believes that some of these raids didn't happen, or that some of them were justified, but I don't remember if it ever made the world better, quite oppositely. The system of one (America) or several (G7) states superior enough to dominate the rest of the world is unsustainable and leads inevitably to a destruction by several means at once.
If I should summarize my philosophy:
The good for all human beings is the only way how to ensure the good for YOU.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Ya, i just noticed it myself o_O
Ty ty, i was being poked at to much for having an Undead Death Robot from beyond the Stars whos sole mission is to harvest the living to feed to their hungry gods...
So i decided to go with the Inhuman supersoldier from the future, whos been corrupted by the chaos god of war, violence, and death (KHORNE) whos sole mission is to spill blood and collect skulls in his name!
... people are so hard to please... -_-
I have a feeling this discussion will pick up durring the weekend, monday should be interesting for me
What Would Kharn Do?
Globalization is a wonderful thing. It's led us into the most peaceful era we've ever known, and was crucial in ending the Cold War without the Earth being irradiated.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
If global government could have benefits for all man kind then I think great. We should really move in that direction. This is virtually impossible as long as the people we are currently governed by still hold power. Corruption doesn't lead to a better way of life, it only leads to more corruption. Why should a huge merger between people of the same interest's bring about cause for a better world. Its a self perpetuating system.
I support long term the concept of world government but need to be clear this is a federal structure. Only global issues would be determined at this level everything else would be far more local to the people effected (ie national, sub national government). National and international governments are compatible (not always perfectly but it does work).
Well I'm one of the 3 people in the UK who actually thinks the EU is a extremely good thing so what would I know
Money can be produced out of nothing by speculation and interest. If I produce money out of nothing, and then demand a real goods for it, then it's a robbery. Globalization gives this robbery a wings. But that is now coming to the end, and we have to express our will, for it to be a 'wings' for sharing, for understanding of our fellow men. We can use globalization to give every state a voice and to give them a resources which they lack, and which we have in abundance.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Are you being ironical? I can't tell. So you figure corporate rule is better somehow than elected rule? Not that we'd get rid of elitism, mind you, but I have to side with voting over sudden-takeover-by-company. Examples include ... oh, I don't know, pretty much all the poor countries of the world. Which would be most of them.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Are you a florist or work for Hallmark or something? It's just that I've never seen someone so ardently identify with ridiculousness, and for so long. I can't even imagine the waves of insincere pink bunny happiness that have been thrown at you to drive you to this wild extreme.
Mind you, my friend showed me that Warhammer video game, and it's pretty badass.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I would and will always mind merely because of the inherent cooruption of humans combind with the alpha male mentality. In a utopian world it would be nice if we would all get along. But even if the entire population fell under the same political or religious lable there would still be division.
The key is not to make a one world government, but a world of governments that seek overlap while maintaining independence. Just like atheist wont take over the world anymore than Christians or Muslims, humans must recognize that while we flock in groups, in that competition between groups, does not have to involve a suicide mission where if one group does not get what it wants, like a jilted lover, takes all others out to save face.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Uh. I was referring to the 'soft power' excercized by global trade & commerce that has, by and large, been a welcome benign and stabilizing influence in recent history. No, I'm hardly about to argue that Wal Mart is a better governing agency than an elected house of representatives; I'm simply stating that opening borders to the free exchange of goods and ideas has been, well, a good idea.
Globalization, in my perspective, is a label for the burgeoning awareness of oneself being a citizen of planet Earth, rather than a citizen of nation 'X'. Singer calls this 'the expanding circle'.
For example, the 'export' of Western cultural ideals to places like China and India has had, in my opinion, a rather positive effect (...until the gas runs out. But that's for another thread), and the same can be said of many developing nations.
Some people are opposed to the idea of every country becoming a 'carbn copy' of, say, the United States. I'm really not, given that the worst of the problems of industrialized civilization tend to pale in comparison to even te least of problems in places like the Sudan.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
No, there is nothing soft about the force of global market. The bigger nations are on the top of a food chain, so it probably escaped your attention, but it also means that everyone else below suffers. I have in lively memory how with an import of cheap vegetables from EU (Poland, in particular) destroyed a lot of this nation's agronomy. And now, having a heavy industry spread all across EU makes our local industry facilities unable to face a more centralized industry abroad, when this economic crisis came. This is why a lot of my co-workers lost their jobs and thousands in this small region...
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
A world government (if it were a liberal democracy) would be just awesome. I suppose they look at a world government like a dictatorship or a harsh communist regime. It would mean and end to nationalist hatred, but wouldn't end all the hate between cultures. I would also like to see a unified world culture and one world currency. The only problem with a world government is that it would be incredibly hard to enforce and it would be just as hard to unify the people. It's similar to the Roman empire in ancient times. They simply couldn't keep everyone in control with their huge size. I don't think it'll come any time soon, but maybe in the next 200 years, just to give a ballpark estimate. In order to make such a government, we would have to stop caring for countries and instead begin to care for the planet as a whole. That would require an end to nationalism and patriotism. Maybe in the future....
Evolution cannot be debated. 'Tis real.