Page 5 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The_Q
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 193
Location: The Continuum

01 Mar 2008, 10:36 pm

I rather like nominalist's conception of a world government. Unfortunately, I can't see how it can be achieved in the forseeable future.


_________________
Q: "Humans are such commonplace little creatures."
--"Deja Q"


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Mar 2008, 10:41 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I never said that there was, my phrasing was perhaps a little off. Well, nominalist, what isn't speculation? Yes, they do so out of principle and in regard to whatever theory they have about the functionings of the world.


Yes. My problem is when people make up all of these fantastic and conspiratorial scenarios for what a presently nonexistent world government will look like. They are objecting to the idea of world government, not to an objective social polity.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Mar 2008, 11:52 pm

nominalist wrote:
Yes. My problem is when people make up all of these fantastic and conspiratorial scenarios for what a presently nonexistent world government will look like. They are objecting to the idea of world government, not to an objective social polity.

I definitely can have some agreement with that claim, if only because the Illuminati are watching my every move. Many certainly do not seem to attempt to grapple the arguments of the opposition in a non-crazy way.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

02 Mar 2008, 1:59 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I definitely can have some agreement with that claim, if only because the Illuminati are watching my every move.


Do you seriously believe that an alleged illuminati are watching your every move?


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Mar 2008, 2:04 pm

nominalist wrote:
Do you seriously believe that an alleged illuminati are watching your every move?

No, I was joking. The joke was that I actually did believe in conspiracies but was afraid to say so because of my being watched by an illuminati(which was the tip off for that first point of believing in conspiracies). It was a joke because I don't really care much for conspiracy theories at all.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

02 Mar 2008, 4:56 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
No, I was joking. The joke was that I actually did believe in conspiracies but was afraid to say so because of my being watched by an illuminati(which was the tip off for that first point of believing in conspiracies). It was a joke because I don't really care much for conspiracy theories at all.


Good. They proliferate on the Internet like a diseased meme.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

08 Mar 2008, 4:55 am

I would like to point out that I have not read the whole thread, but only the last page.

Anyway.

World government sounds good enough to me - as long as we are not talking about a world republic; with a president, king or pope against whose decisions vetos may not be issued.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


mirandao
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 49

08 Mar 2008, 6:36 am

I'm going to weigh in...though I have not read the whole thread.

First off, I think we are moving toward or at least have the makings for a global govt. However, it isn't about national borders or actually having something like the "united states of world." Instead it's more like a de facto concentration of economic power into a single global network.

I think the UN argument is a bit of a red herring and leads many to discount the idea of global govt. I think we'll have increasingly close coordination of sovereign nations (especially in the economic sphere), but this will not equal some kind of nightmare scenario that some have envisioned.

Additionally, not every nation on earth will be working closely as a part of an economic union or a military assistance type of arrangement. So, to cast the global govt. argument into a black and argument is bad idea. Better look into those shapes of gray. ;)