We Need a New World Order and a World Government

Post Reply New Topic

"They lost, lol". So, someone else managing to beat you makes your viewpoint worthless? Strange idea...

Besides, why *do* we need a federal government? Here in Europe (I'm actually typing this in America, but I live in the UK), we managed to get by fine without one with countries of about the same size range of the US states. Sure, there were wars, but you could say much the same about the early united states.

What is wrong with a global confederacy? If a group of countries decide that they're going to adopt an open border policy among themselves and share a currency, there would be nothing stopping them, but why should they be compelled to adopt such policies?

I don't agree with the idea of a world government, but I believe in the pursuit of the best state of global politics possible. My idea of an ideal political system is one that balances three components: authority, democracy, and anarchy. A society is at its best when the influence of its authorities, communities, and individuals are all in balance with one another. The U.S. has done relatively well at achieving this, but it still has some issues.

Despite the negative connotations that the term 'anarchy' has, every one participates in it on a regular basis, whether they like it or not. Every time someone makes a personal decision, whether legal or illegal, that they didn't have authorities make for them, or have their community vote on, is anarchy. Anarchy isn't equivalent to illegalism, but I consider the ability to do things that are illegal to be an important part of the balance of power. The decisions of individuals to commit civil disobedience aren't always ethical, but neither are the decisions of authority or democracy.

If humans were perfect, the world could be a utopia with a world government, with many governments, or with no governments. The real reason that the world can't be a utopia isn't because its governments aren't structured enough, it's because the chaotic, ongoing reaction, that is humanity, has been unsuccessfully at containing itself by creating balance on all sides. In order for a utopia to form, not just political systems would need to improve, but also communities and individuals. There's not much we can do to improve the world at large except hope that there will be improvement with time. Everyone is capable of improving themselves, and also their community, if they try hard enough though. This is the only shot that anyone really has at making a difference, excluding authorities.

Last edited by Mike1 on 11 Jul 2013, 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No thanks on the world government.

I agree. With World Government there is no place left to hide or move away to.

ruveyn

And if the UN is even a sample of what world government would be like.............

I can't just [edit: judge] worthless. I can judge defeated. As I say in my classes, if the old white American South attempts to rise again, they will get what they expect. lol.



The capitalist world system is collapsing. World leaders know it. That is the reason for all the surveillance, etc. Many average people are clueless, or they think that there is some conspiracy.

Something needs to replace the capitalist world system when it is gone. I have high hopes.

Last edited by nominalist on 12 Jul 2013, 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Without collective security, the world will remain in its present disintegrating state. Look at Syria. No one can do anything. The United Nations isn't powerful enough to do more than issue "resolutions."

I find that hard to believe. Source?

The problem is that the sources are on a closed library server (at the college where I work).

Well, if you can access this article I found using ProQuest. It is one of the more accessible ones:

"Gold conspiracy theory denied"
O'Connor, Gillian. Financial Times [London (UK)] 07 May 2001: 16. {U.S. edition)

The article begins:



Edit: Part of the article is here.

BS. You can't simply assert that into existence, especially given that "the world capitalist system" has always had a business cycle with ups and downs, and especially bad given that long-standing recession is hardly the same as "collapsing", the system has actually faced much worse and still managed to get by.

Even further, the alternatives DO NOT exist. You can talk about how economists have debunked the Federal Reserve conspiracies, and they have, but economists have also generally undermined most cases for non-capitalist economies that we've conceived at this point in time, so central planning is often explicitly discounted in the textbooks.(Not to say that economists are against all government intervention) They don't remove the possibility outright, but capitalism through it's structure solves a lot of organizational problems that other systems are not likely to fare nearly as well as, or even to collapse upon dealing with. The failure of our efforts to innovate non-capitalist systems isn't even outside of memory.

Finally, for all talk about political instability, this has ALSO always existed, and unfortunately for the "capitalist world system" is the problem theory, a lot of times these geopolitical problems actually happen on the margins where the system has the least influence or concern, rather than the areas where the system is well-implanted. Even further, wars have also always existed, so citing "conflicts are happening" is a terrible argument. The problem ends up being that the capitalist world is actually a world of peace and one where violence has been declining for a very long-time. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_ ... lence.html


And... you know this because you're talking to them? Are you even talking to their advisors, because it's not even likely that their advisors believe this. If you read mainstream political intellectuals of influence, the unstated assumption is that the current system or some variant of it will last as far as the eyes can see. So, I am not sure where you're getting this assumption.

Even further, given that almost all of your evidences aren't even evidence of a catastrophic situation, it's hard to imagine these leaders would be persuaded when any person with a good knowledge of history would just recognize this as the status quo.


And you know this because you've talked to them?

Because they're not doing this out of a real concern about violence, as that's been going down. They aren't very likely to be able to organize a systematic hidden perspective on the world, because the degree to which figures would have to hide their worldview(not just facts) would be rather extreme. Even large #s of academics would have to be in on this.

You know what I think is the reason for the surveillance?
1) The ratchet effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_effect Every time that a problem emerges, people scream out for a solution, and politicians try to give them that solution by taking more power. So the Patriot Act was passed following 9/11 to give politicians more power to deal with terroristic threats because taking action was popular. Even though it is no longer 9/11, we will have difficulty removing the patriot act. If we did it, bureaucracies would have to be reorganized significantly, status quo biases come into account, countervailing forces just don't organize themselves as effectively as the passage did, and nobody wants to actually be blamed for any future terrorism in any possible way.
2) Agents always want to enhance their power. So, surveillance gives agencies and people more power. They want this power as it enhances their ability to achieve their objectives in a complicated world by giving them strategically useful information, or even the possibility of it. And the drive to have surveillance systems and massive information gathering is really pretty old at this point.
3) Even if all of this surveillance was not actually effective, the agents would be cognitively predisposed to want it anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatio ... psychology) So, our agents in this situation will want this data, even if it really IS useless.


I'm not so sure about the death of the capitalist system. Even if you're right on it dying, your solution is undoubtedly wrong.

So, if our nation-states all collapse, we're just going to form small petty tribes, build up to larger tribes, and just restart the entire system from that angle. A world government idea is really going to have to economize a LOT on trust, and LARGER EXISTING groups helps that, but so does the non-existence of a collapse. If the system collapses, people will respond with cynicism, conspiracies, and all of the rest as places to blame will be sought. And if we're starting from scratch, we won't have the kinds of institutionalized knowledge that we needed to get to our current successful state, as this sort of knowledge and incentive structures and all of the rest is ESSENTIAL for any real talk about how society works. If all that was required was collapse then any collapsed state would magic itself back to perfect functioning, but rather institutions have had to be built with time, to get the right alliances and power-groups together and the trust to exist, thought had to be applied and so on and so forth.

(Even further, regardless of whether you like libertarians or not, your counter-example of Syria isn't fair at all. Libertarians generally support the existence of order-providing government and order-providing norms undergirding society, not the kind of situation that Syria was ever in. To criticize the idea, you have to conceive of a 1st world nation radically cutting down it's infrastructure, not a failed 3rd world state as there ARE a lot of fundamental differences. 3rd world nations struggle massively with buy-in to the power structure and often lack the kinds of norms and folkways that aid them having success. This is seen with much higher incidences of corruption(duty to kin often takes precedence over duty to one's formal obligations), less efficient legal systems outright, lower rule of law, lower incorporation of existing property relations into the legal system, etc. There are good criticisms, but this isn't one of them *at* all, and only shows tone-deafness, unless some much much deeper elaborations are made on the matter.)

So, I'm skeptical that a world government is possible. I don't think Chinese officials, US officials and all of the rest will have incentives to ever cooperate deeper on that level, as there is distrust and by doing this they would likely give up power, which is not in their incentives, even further incompatible local identities are also expected to persist for a very very long time. And I don't think any other model of world government forming is plausible as we do need intermediate stages. I don't think the kind of alternative nominalist is talking about is plausible, as non-capitalist systems are either failed or so theoretical that we can't just throw ourselves at their mercy. I don't even think his identification of failures reflects actual failures, in fact, his entire argument seems more of a projection of his personal ideology than a good analysis of how the world actually works.

That doesn't seem to counter the facts in the video I posted.
Earlier you said you'd watch a bit of it, so it sounds like you're more interested in trying to be right and having other people think you're right, than actually knowing and spreading the truth.



And there you have it. You've been made to believe that more security can only be a good thing. Despite the fact that it is constantly chipping away at our freedom. There comes a time when there is too much security and it becomes a world more like the one in V for Vendetta, where curfews exist on every citizen. Oh but it's all for our protection, of course.
What justification do they have for the NDAA? Anyone in America can be imprisoned indefinitely. No Trial. No charge. Legally, you can be locked away for the rest of your life, without having done anything wrong.
Fear is the ultimate weapon. And people generally fear the unknown. So present some sort of danger, especially one with a bit of mystery thrown in (even if it's just not knowing where a safe place is) and then people cry out for and accept this so-called security. When really it's just another way to trick your mind into thinking your safe and secure and to ignore the real threat.

As I said, that was only part of the original article. My sources are on a college library server, so there is not much for me to post. The reference I did post was the most accessible.

Anyone who has taken even a basic economic course knows how the Federal Reserve System works. It is not a conspiracy or a Ponzi scheme. The "Federal Reserve" is exactly what it sounds like. It is a private network of banks which is reserved for use by the federal government. The Federal Reserve System has kept banking in private hands. The alternative would have been for the federal government to run a public banking system. Personally, I would like to see a public banking system, but I doubt whether most people in the U.S. would agree with me.



After I watched the first two minutes of it, I realized that I had seen the whole video in the past. That particular video has gone viral. It is all over YouTube.



There are two major definitions of freedom: individual freedom (liberty) and collective freedom (social justice and liberation). IMO, individual freedom always needs to take a back seat to social justice. I am a leftist (a state and democratic socialist).



The NDAA is is nothing more than a budget. A new NDAA is approved every year. As far as surveillance goes, we live in a dangerous world - and one that is getting more dangerous all the time.



There is no "they." There is only "us."

I think you underestimate the war cause. So croatia has entered a week ago the EU, and there are as well discussion with other ex-yugoslavian countries. PEople in croatia were asked, if they think it is good to enter EU while there is right no so much financial trouble. One of the reasons that was mentioned most often, that being part of the EU might bring them financial trouble...but they have all the deep hope, that the more catastrophic threat of war will be banned by doing so forever. So they dont fear the financial troubles, they fear that they must again face a war as they had to endure 15 years ago. Financial trouble might be sh***y - but it is nothing against the catastrophes a war brings, being chased away by armies, threatened by bombs, being forced to see your relatives killed before your eyes, and your children kidnapped without you knowing whats happening with them.

Since the civil war and the forced unity of south and north of the USA there has been no war on US territory itself, threatening the citizens itself. (Beside the terror attacks, that sure were devastating, but still are much less trouble against a real war in your neighborhood.) The part the USA had for so a long time, for being an economical big player is in my oppinion deeply based on that safety of the own homeland, and the security it provides its citizens to be able to create companies, build houses, found families, without the deep fear of it being all destroyed by a war on your own territory.

There might be financial troubles, there might be political, but people in ex-yugoslavia, that were forced to see their family members killed before their eyes will laugh about these kind of troubles. All they want is the knowledge that maybe their children will be spared from a war on own territory forever.

You watched the video and still refuse to believe the facts? Can't you see how all these things are connected?

There is a "they". I'm not the one sending people to war or corrupting our justice system. They are. Who are they? I've been trying to tell you but you don't want to listen.
I mean, if you're going to read about people being able to be legally imprisoned for no reason and practically ignore it and talk about it as nothing more than a budget (which it isn't, since it does say what I said it does, I didn't just make it up for s**ts and giggles), than you are clearly choosing ignorance.
You say you debunk conspiracy theories.... sounds more like you flat out ignore anything you don't want to hear and use the excuse that "It's just a conspiracy."

The clearest evidence for conspiracy is the lack of credible evidence for the existence of the conspiracy.

ruveyn

According to this, my cat must plan a conspiracy to conquer the USA. I have no found of them doing so, so it must be the true.