I am opposed to the constant wars myself but having one government is not something that I find appealing.
Who should run this government?
A Single World Government
- Thread starter Dave Lucas
- Start date
I am opposed to the constant wars myself but having one government is not something that I find appealing.
Who should run this government?
Why do you find it not appealing? What are your reasons?
It would be best to be a meritocracy.
History shows that autocracies and oligarchies fail to perform well.
History did. Everyone knows what the bolsheviks represented, and very explicitly as they announced it. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.
Is it a government that you're promoting or a movement of unity? They're not the same.
They were communist only in name. Anyone that lived under the USSR knows they were nothing communist. No one has lived under a communist regime because communism is a Utopian ideal. It cannot function is the real world because people who create a tiny central autocratic government cannot cede control back to the people without being made to.
So no not communist.
I am promoting both. And both are doable. You just have not been exposed to many forms of government. Travel broadens the mind.
It was one. But the Chinese during the Han Dynasty instituted the first civil service exams to evaluate the merit of people to serve. Used that system for many years as it was based on ideals set by Confucius.
The Pendleton act in the US also moved to that, but since has been watered down due to a return to cronyism.
The idea is sound and doable, just have to place checks and balances in place to make sure that it does not become autocratic, nor abused by cronyism.
A voluntary government, which I'm not opposed to, can't be one singular, world government because it suggest an oligarchy at best. Either very localized governments or no governments would promote the essence of free people and even those depend on certain circumstances.
The first is a communist idea. The second is anarchy. Neither of which will work in reality.
You select oligarchy because it has been the standard since civilisation began. So it is all you really know.
Broaden your mind, go out and see the world, meet people and learn as much as you can.
A single world government is doable without needing to be a system of rule by elite cronies or by an autocrat.
The only way to enact change, is to think outside of the box.
I don't want an oligarchy. I oppose oligarchies.
For the most part, I agree.
I don't select oligarchy. I oppose it very strongly in fact. In fact, I'm often alone in opposing it as most people, especially where I live, support a progressive government. I'm often having to explain my criticisms of both parties which ultimately rule under an oligarchic government.
Why do you think I haven't done this? It has lead me to having more of an Austrian school leaning moreso than what we often have, which tends to be Keynesian. With all due respect, the fact that you're telling me to do this is insulting because it seems like you think I haven't even given it much thought. I'm not saying that I'm a martyr, but people tend to get upset with me when I make a defense for civil liberties the way that I do, and it's often because it doesn't align with the standard.
Thinking outside the box won't lead to your conclusion. I've been thinking outside the box for a little while now, which is why I'm often the odd man out, and it seems to have lead me to the opposite conclusion as yours. You promote a singular powerful government and I promote the complete opposite. Most people are somewhere in the middle.
But I don't hold this position to be different or to simply be a contrarian...it's my devotion to Christ that compels me to be this way.
Last edited:
Glomung
Account Closed
For those who have not been paying attention, almost every decision made by any politician in any modern nation is dictated to him by a member of one of the following interconnected groups: Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, Rothchild Bank, etc. These elitists manage the worlds money supply, business cartels, and through them have an immense influence on every activity that any person on the planet does.
I never stated any such thing. It is totalitarian because that is the mindset of those who run it. They feel that the unwashed masses are far too stupid to manage their own affairs, not that they would allow us to in any case.
For a sociopath, the purpose of power is power.
Glomung
Account Closed
What virtue is there in a global government run by corrupt men?
And you will ask "why do they have to be corrupt?"
Becuase only the corrupt (those who wish to enforce their will on others) would ever want the job.
You mention unity, what do you mean/intend by that?
You cannot force artificial unity on those who have nothing in common.
You can put an Inuit and a Fiji native in the same room, but they have no common ground and no common experience,
what would you expect to come of it?
And you will ask "why do they have to be corrupt?"
Becuase only the corrupt (those who wish to enforce their will on others) would ever want the job.
You mention unity, what do you mean/intend by that?
You cannot force artificial unity on those who have nothing in common.
You can put an Inuit and a Fiji native in the same room, but they have no common ground and no common experience,
what would you expect to come of it?
First, the above groups do not rule the world. Influence perhaps on a small scale. But no more than some would say the masons do. This line of reasoning is not better than those that claim of the illuminati and a whole lot of other NWO groups. Fabrications at best.
You mentioned fascism. Fascism was and is a totalitarian centered movement. Autocracy is the best way to use fascism. So by using that term you point at totalitarianism.
So in your tribal government model you do not have corruption? Wonderful we simply kowtow to fear of having corruption to stay the course. Good deal.
What is the difference between an Inuit and a Fijian? Outside of geography, diet and culture nothing. They are still homo sapien sapien. They still listen to music, enjoy art, watch TV, dream, play, love, hope and do all the things that humans do.
In fact they have more in common than not.
And that plays into the unity. The unity of humanity. Perhaps instead of thinking with the US vs THEM mindset how about thinking like humans?
You have any proof that anarchy would do better? Also any verification that ALL the world's ills are solely on the shoulders of government and big business, practically speaking? Practically makes it vague which works when using the broad brush.
All over North America and the islands.
Most of Western Europe.
Australia and New Zealand
Some of Asia and Africa
Is that good enough?
Glomung
Account Closed
You are speaking from ignorance.
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/timeless/the-50-corporations-that-rule-the-world/
There are a hundred more articles out there just like it.
‘An analysis of the relationships between 43,060 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.’
This multi-level and far-reaching ownership by the globe’s top 147 multi-nationals gives them an iron grip on world power and has created one united entity where competition and separation are mistakenly thought to exist.
Commenting on the overlapping corporate ownership of the ‘super-entity of 147’, the report explains, ‘all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth’.
You have forgotten the Golden Rule: he with the gold makes the rules
Glomung
Account Closed
Why do you claim that fear is my motivation? I have not stated anything of the sort. Is fear your motivation?
They enjoy different music, different art, different TV, different food etc. Why do you insist on cramming everyone into the same mold? Why cannot people allow other to live in peace, unpestered by those who demand unity at any cost.
Most could not care less about some useless concept of unity, they want to be able to live in peace as they wish, without some mindless bureaucrat telling them how to go about it.
You are also completely glossing over those who refuse to live in peace, i.e. Islam. There can be no unity amongst those who, due to the religious belief, feel the need to conquer the world on their god's behalf.