27 Mar 22
@vivify saidYou won't get places such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China to sign up to any such arrangement. It's not about issues (abortion, gay marriage, gun control, etc.). It's about authority. Iran won't recognise any higher authority than Allah; China would dismiss it as a blatant attempt to impose capitalism (yes, I know, the Chinese are already capitalists, but they won't admit it); dictators such as Kim and Assad wouldn't submit to any international tribunal or oversight. Trump won't even submit to national oversight or accountability; it is not reasonable to expect that tyrants like Putin would either. The USA won't even submit to the International Criminal Court. World govt is a pipe dream. No chance a world government is going to be implemented which is anything but an impotent farce.
Again, look at the US: the entire country obviously doesn't think the same way on any of the issues you brought up. Each state has their own laws and ways of doing things, right? Yet it's still one country under one government.
The same could apply to an actual United Nations government.
Not unless something happens like Day The Earth Stood Still ...
27 Mar 22
@moonbus saidCulture problems, like I said.
You won't get places such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China to sign up to any such arrangement. It's not about issues (abortion, gay marriage, gun control, etc.). It's about authority. Iran won't recognise any higher authority than Allah; China would dismiss it as a blatant attempt to impose capitalism (yes, I know, the Chinese are already capitalists, but they won't adm ...[text shortened]... anything but an impotent farce.
Not unless something happens like Day The Earth Stood Still ...
Next Subject!!!!!!
28 Mar 22
@wildgrass saidYes. They are opt in.
The UN and EU are opt-in organization. There are limitations when you are including countries that don't want to participate.
It was just an example of international decision making.
But, take Europe’s GDPR, to further the example (that’s the privacy law). It dictates what EU countries are legally bound to do with respect to privacy.
It’s got far reaching consequences for the rest of the world too.
For example: European companies and governments can’t use cloud applications with servers in the US. Because the CIA (I kid you not) had the right to access all data stored in the US.
So, Schrems II, the compliance protocol between the US and EU is scrapped and has to be redefined.
US companies must set up servers in the EU and sign guarantees they adhere to the GDPR.
So, basically, the EU is as a political entity, is limiting the power of US intelligence services.
And this leads to other countries and companies wanting to use servers based in the EU, to protect their privacy data.
28 Mar 22
@averagejoe1 saidThere's no one like you, Joe. You're a one-off.
RHP limits letters for People Like Me!
28 Mar 22
1 edit
@shavixmir saidThe US unilaterally imposes similar restrictions on other countries, for example regarding banking. If foreign banks don't divulge holdings by US citizens, then the US govt won't let those banks do business with the US. It's a kind of extortion, but because the US is the world's biggest market, most countries cow down and divulge the information.
Yes. They are opt in.
It was just an example of international decision making.
But, take Europe’s GDPR, to further the example (that’s the privacy law). It dictates what EU countries are legally bound to do with respect to privacy.
It’s got far reaching consequences for the rest of the world too.
For example: European companies and governments can’t use cloud appli ...[text shortened]... other countries and companies wanting to use servers based in the EU, to protect their privacy data.
28 Mar 22
@vivify saidWould it have to be one person?
When people talk about a one world government it's usually in a sinister context, like a globe dominated by some villain, or in an apocalyptic Biblical sense where Satan rules.
But could a one world government actually be beneficial? Imagine a world that doesn't need nukes because it's all one country, and the world votes for a president/PM/Council, etc. Anyone can emig ...[text shortened]... nment be a good idea? Or is that just far too much power for any person or entity to ever be given?
Where would that person come from, it seems like something that could work if people were not still viewing themselves as belonging to a particular nationality or ethnic / religious grouping.
Not sure why it would mean people could just migrate where they want, at least not until all the regions of the earth are experiencing more or less the same gdp. Otherwise the poorer areas would be abandoned for the most prosperous ones.
It’s a good idea and it probably is our future if we survive that long but there are a lot of ‘chicken and egg’ questions to solve.
28 Mar 22
@moonbus saidNo, there are many of me!!! Secret Society. Patriot types. Constitution and such. Independence, Freedom, Liberty (liberty is freedom of restrictions by authority..(there's that Freedom word again!!)
There's no one like you, Joe. You're a one-off.
Note that none of you fellers ever use such nefarious words, they go against the grain! You chew your pillows,, all the while mumbling your mantra, 'I want liberty, but I don't want to be free!" I know, I know, a kerfuffle.
28 Mar 22
@moonbus saidIf a US bank, for any reason, makes a board decision to not let 'those' or any banks do business with them, it is a business decision. They can do business with who they want to, as long as it is within the law.
The US unilaterally imposes similar restrictions on other countries, for example regarding banking. If foreign banks don't divulge holdings by US citizens, then the US govt won't let those banks do business with the US. It's a kind of extortion, but because the US is the world's biggest market, most countries cow down and divulge the information.
If those banks don't want to be in a position of kow-towing, they need to improve their own dam business and compete with the world's biggest market and become the world's biggest market.
Geez.
29 Mar 22
@averagejoe1 saidIndependence, freedom and liberty, eh?
No, there are many of me!!! Secret Society. Patriot types. Constitution and such. Independence, Freedom, Liberty (liberty is freedom of restrictions by authority..(there's that Freedom word again!!)
Note that none of you fellers ever use such nefarious words, they go against the grain! You chew your pillows,, all the while mumbling your mantra, 'I want liberty, but I don't want to be free!" I know, I know, a kerfuffle.
For companies. For people not so much.
There’s such a discrepancy between what you say, what you mean and the actual reality, I can only imagine you are deliberate in your communications on the matter.