World government

Post Reply New Topic

Change that to "world confederation" and I would agree with you. IMO the world is not culturally similar enough for a US-style or Germany-style federation to work, though an EU-like confederation (minus the Eurocrat paternalism and Byzantine bureaucratic stupidity the EU is infamous for) including only democracies may work. The global government's job should be mainly limited to regulating the economy to promote healthy markets, worker's rights, and economic fairness; protecting the environment; promoting scientific research, and doing big-budget space exploration in concert with the various national space programs. The regulating would consist of fairly broad mandates, not inane EU-type "regulating the shape of cucumbers and condom size" micromanaging. I want a world government but I don't want there to be loopholes that allow the global government to grab more power (a common, very reasonable criticism of the world government concept) without the consent of 66% of the popular vote and 2/3 of the member states. I do think a true global state will arise, but I want it to be by popular consent, not a EU-type power-grab by paternalistic bureaucrats.

What I would like to see is an actual world government, not simply a global version of the EU.

I'm not saying that they control everything. What I am saying is that there are groups of high-powered elites and many, many highly ignorant sheep who are too blind and lacking in foresight to suspect any such conspiracies. It is definitely possible if they have links to intelligence agencies. The rules of mass psychology still apply. Or have people not learned the lesson of Nazi Germany and the USSR?

Excellent observation. I can see this happening with local cities too.

Who'se gonna check their power? People with a fraction of that power (ie one little country) often can't refrain from letting it go to their heads. Look at how big business has made a fortune off of the oppressions of the masses. And you support this on a global scale, and have stated that if it got bad enough you'd support a world dictator. Well sir, once big business interests have created the conditions by throwing us into a depression, you'll be lining up for the world dictator, going right along with the "lets stop global warming" con.

Who checked the power of Bush when, in violation of the United Nations, he and Blair invaded Iraq? Checks can be built into any system, but they are only as good as the people running it.



Where did I ever support "big business [making] a fortune off of the oppression of the masses"? As I have said here numerous times, I support global socialism, not global capitalism.



Economically, the U.S. is already a world dictator. Hopefully, from my standpoint, people will recognize the problems in global capitalism before we get to the point of an actual despot.



If so, then virtually all scientists are in on the "con." I don't buy such conspiratorial views.

1. you asked:
"Who checked the power of Bush when, in violation of the United Nations, he and Blair invaded Iraq? Checks can be built into any system, but they are only as good as the people running it."
answer: And you wanna give these people even more power? Bush is but a puppet of the UN.
2. Big businesses are the main proponents behind alot of this, big business runs our political organizations (including the UN). Politics is a business, after all. No matter how you wanna spin it, socialism always ends up in dictators. A nation is but a big corporation here, any nation pick one, but the UN is the glue that ties them all together. It's a political front for big business. Look at this "european union" and now they want a north american union.
3. The same people who set up capitalism also set up communism. US is just the muscle of it. I do not see a violent dictatorship as a solution here. I see it more as the problem at hand.
4. Scientists work for these same big business interests headed by these "global elites". Your denial doesn't change the facts. These scientists you seem to worship so highly have historically pushed eugenic theories too. Just like the military, they take orders briefed only on what those working higher than them need them to know, no more.

You're paranoid and delusional, go see a shrink.

I agree with the above points 1 and 2, but disagree with the other two. I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy behind green activism. If anything, businesses and elites are mostly reluctant to accept the evidence, due to the economic implications. They might somehow partially benefit from it it by instilling worry and selling more eco-friendly things, creating a whole new market, but at the same time, the oil barons will suffer considerably in terms of income. Yes, many scientists work in a biased manner for big business interests, most notably mobile phone companies, pharmaceutical companies, dieting companies and the use of obesity as a scapegoat, many used to work for cigarette companies, and of course global warming naysayers and other companies with something to hide. Yes, they all rely on the work of science to further their products, but also employ scientists to create biased evidence for whatever reason, whether it be exaggerating the health risks from being "overweight", making dangerous products appear safe, or declaring that mobile phones cannot cause cancer. Not all scientists work for the benefit of mankind.

If Bush is "a puppet of the UN," quite a remarkable claim IMO, then why did he ignore the Security Council? You made a statement without providing any supporting evidence.

I am not sure who you mean by "these people." There is no such thing as "these people." There are only people. In terms of social polity, I would prefer to see power concentrated on the local level, with higher levels only intervening in cases of abuse.



Incorrect. Big businesses are not the main proponent behind what I am advocating, which would collectivize their wealth and turn it over to workers. Once again, you are reading me through the eye of your own preconceptions, not focusing on what I am saying.



As I said, I do not accept the bogeyman (illuminati) factor as more than a conspiratorial metanarrative.



Hardly. Most researchers work for universities which are run by boards of regents or trustees. Your postulate that they are connected with a supposed illuminati is pure speculation and selective perception.

You know... I've been thinking more and more about how the actual formation of the World Government will happen. (As I think most of us are in agreement, it'll happen one way or another)

It's pretty obvious to most of us that we are, through many different ways, being pacified against our friend the government (as our protector from the TERRORists, etc.). We are also being stupified by a horribly broken education system, TV, etc. There are a few of us that would go so far as to call this change in society "the steps toward mind control", but I won't go that far today.

As we(society) slowly become more numb to the world around us, I can imagine a new disaster. Something really bad. Perhaps an American city getting nuked, that would piss alot of people off. Maybe something even worse than that, but one way or another, there is going to be a disaster. Then, just like the joke that 9\11 was, we'll stare at the news for weeks while we watch it over and over. We'll listen to "experts" on how this happened, why it happened, and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.

No one will put together the pieces of how much larger our gov't's getting, how much more restricted we are, and how much worse our domestic disasters are getting.

Next thing you know, the UN's getting abolished because it fails to protect some BS or fails to stop this and that, and a new institution is formed.

Disclaimer: I honor ALL the men and women who died on September 11th, 2001. That said, 9\11 was orchestrated by the national or world powers. I don't care if was a commercial jet, if there were actually arabs\persians that highjacked it, I don't really care. The fact is, this was a direct cause of what we did before in the middle east, and I think it was provoked, if not wanted. Bush got the best gift from Osama he could have ever gotten, an opportunity to take our freedom away, and expand the executive branch even further. Osama got the best gift from Bush, more fresh recruits after invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Something is not right with that whole situation. I don't care if you live in NYC or have pride in the USA or w/e, that does not excuse you from willing ignorance.

Yes.

1. Given how ridiculous the UN looked after Bush ignored it, it's blatantly ridiculous to assume they control him. The UN has a long history of failure and thinking that an organisation with no armed forces and entirely at the tender mercies of a few donors somehow runs the world is completely delusional.
2. Who exactly wants a 'North American Union'? I'm aware of the conspiracy theories, but not of any EVIDENCE (and rantings on some website are not evidence) that anybody in North America with any real influence outside some ivory tower actually wants it.
3. yeah, that's why the capitalists lavishly funded rabidly anti-Communist leaders all over the world, from Hitler to Pinochet to Somoza to Mussolini, that's why after the Bolsheviks seized power they got many of their governments to send troops to Russia to try and overthrow them, etc. Yep, businessmen just love people that want to confiscate their entire wealth.
4. Some scientists work for big business, but not all. I'm sure big oil, coal and gas, and car manufacturers just love it when their, according to you, puppets blame global warming on man-made pollution.

One world govt. is a BAD idea. Abrogating all borders will cause numerous conflicts worldwide. The UN is inflexible and bureaucratic, I'm certain any world govt. would be some kind of dictatorship.

Yes, at least for the foreseeable future. When people everywhere are as willing to compromise, and as democratic as the Swiss, then we can have a world Switzerland. It is very revealing that ultrademocratic, multilingual Switzerland remains outside of the post-democratic* EU by choice, while Belgium, at the heart of the EU, faces the eventual prospect of secession.

*Anybody who thinks the EU is democratic needs to see a shrink.

I think we're headed toward a one world government. Here's what I think will happen:

1. There are gonna be some major terrorist attacks like 9/11 or worse that will instill fear in everyone.

2. The people will call on the government to keep them safe.

3. The governments will introduce more laws, regulations, security measures that will take away our freedom and make government more powerful

4. Cooperation and agreements between countries to prevent international terrorist attacks. National ID cards. World passports. They cracked down on financial transactions after 9/11. With all the fear, they will introduce a world banking system with a world electronic currency so the government can monitor all financial transactions (so people can't fund terrorist organizations).

We'd still have US, Canada, Mexico, Europe, China and other countries but we'd all be more like states of the world government. I think it will be more of an American Empire or an expansion of the European Union and not a United Nations government. The US already has power over much of the world.

I think this can all happen faster than most people think. In the US, I think the laws have already been passed to allow the President to become a dictator and rule with the military under martial law in the event of a terrorist attack, bird flu epidemic, or other threat to national security. I imagine other countries are the same.

What evidence do you have to base any of these predictions?