11 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieA world wide civil war would be bad for the slaves as we would just be killing each other off. Doing the job of population reduction for them without the possibility of a victory. There will eventually be more controlls placed on internet communications to where even if there was an uprising, the rest of the world police would kill it before it could spread. Free speech will be another casualty. The concept is not in my oppinion stupid in and of itself. It is stupid with these masters. I have wondered why the smaller countries don't form larger unions so that they will have energy, raw materials, and food. The larger countries do not need a larger union. I think this would be a better plan. The only trade that would be desireable in that kind of world would be tourism and small gift items. Get the giant bankers out of politics once and for all and we may see a peacefull world.
By your definition, having a government at all is a loss of freedom. Ever heard of civil war?
Oh, and you didn't answer my question. Would it still be considered a stupid concept (in your view) if
the world government were to support a "free market".
12 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyfreedom for who?
I talked to a guy the other day who had an interesting perspecitve on world events. Specifically, he viewed the world as moving to a one world order of sorts. It was his view that the global move towards statism/progressivism/socialism etc, (however you would like to describe it), is what we see in most countries around the world. However, those that do no ...[text shortened]... hey the last bastions of freedom in a world moving toward collectivism and a herd mentality?
12 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyISTR Bush was pretty reckless with Harken Energy and other business ventures of his -- but then again, he knew he could count on his father's Saudi buddies to bail him out.
I just wonder if GWB was as reckless with spending his own money as he was spending ours. The same question goes to Obama. My guess is a resounding NO!!
12 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserI don't see it that way at all. The way I see it, a tiny elite already rule this world, but from outside
A world wide civil war would be bad for the slaves as we would just be killing each other off. Doing the job of population reduction for them without the possibility of a victory. There will eventually be more controlls placed on internet communications to where even if there was an uprising, the rest of the world police would kill it before it could spre ...[text shortened]... items. Get the giant bankers out of politics once and for all and we may see a peacefull world.
the boundaries of any given government and/or legal system. With lots of nations there are
options to move capital around (if you have capital to begin with), and capital is the means by
which to control government officials whom in turn control military forces. You're a slave already,
and you don't even realise it. With a single world government, a truly democratically* elected one,
we'd be making it harder for the real "masters" to control us. There would be nowhere to go for
cheaper labour. There would be no wasting taxpayers money on meaningless warfare. Already
there's a lot of money to be saved for the people doing the actual work of keeping things together
and moving things forward, the workers.
* To run campaigns, all you need is an Internet connection, time and descent arguments. As an
elected politician you won't gain power to do anything but what you've campaigned to do. That
kind of democracy, where we don't simply choose a leader for a party, but every single politician
is elected by the people based on their ideas rather than their means of capital.
12 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieThere is so much there I agree with. I do feel somewhat as a slave. We do have some freedoms that would go bye bye with a world government run by the elite. This same elite will always be in control regardless of democratically elected officials. Its the money part of it that gives them so much power. I believe that the purpose for all the cameras on the streets in the UK and US as well as wire tapping and cyber spying is to make sure no resistance can get large enough to get out of hand. Of course they do it under the terrorism pretense and now are getting to where just about anyone can be labeled terrorist. If this whole idea came about in a different manner, I would be a lot more for it. As it is though I do not trust those that brought us the wars of last century as well as genocide, real terrorism....etc.
I don't see it that way at all. The way I see it, a tiny elite already rule this world, but from outside
the boundaries of any given government and/or legal system. With lots of nations there are
options to move capital around (if you have capital to begin with), and capital is the means by
which to control government officials whom in turn control mili ...[text shortened]... an
is elected by the people based on their ideas rather than their means of capital.
12 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieWhat I mean by being less efficient is having more checks and balances within the system to prevent corruption. Of course, no matter the checks and balances put into place it is only a matter of time before ways are found to counter them as we see today with the US system. To correct this, perhaps make it mandantory to reform any and all pieces of legislation put on the books every so often.
Depends on what you mean by efficient. In my view, an efficient government is good at finding
compromises that satisfies the needs of the majority of working citizens (if not all). It's not
necessarily a government that is fast and furious. There are certainly benefits to a world
government, such as no money being wasted on military and wars. Have you considered that?