What IF... A One World Government is a step Forward?

a reply to: Akragon

Yeah , No More Wars , You Will Own NOTHING and be Happy for Some Really Odd Reason . Ah , No Thanks ....

Considering even state level goverments have trouble remembering to do their job, why on earth should I think a govt based in another country would look out for my little corner of the world better than what we have currently?

US was formed over the failures of a far away govt, doubt its going to go over well now, maybe at some point in the future if we are to colonize other planets it will be a necessity we just arent there yet.

Why does a One World Government need to include homogeneity between all regions of the globe?

Taking the US as a model; the US has one federal government but each individual state does get to govern in the best way that suits it. The EU is another model that shows both a centralized Government and district nation states can coexist.

Ofcourse a United Countries of the World would be much more problematic than a United States of America; but I don't understand the arguments that say a One World Government is impossible because some of us have constusions and others have theocracies.

Even greed or power hungry elites are no real argument against a One World Government; as all the current governments have these in abundance and happen to manage along just fine.



I in fact do see a One World Government in our future; but it won't be because the current countryies of the world unit against war and conflict. Instead it will be corporations that bring about this one world government. Removing barriers to work forces and markets.

After that it will be cities in which groups of people will identify as their place of origin and have a "nationalist" tie too. You will see Corporate wars between New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong, and Tokyo as each city tries to balance the needs of the citizens (food, shelter, work) and the needs of the corporations.

a reply to: YouSir

a reply to: HilterDayon


Ummm…


This means creating cooperatives large enough to stand independently apart from the established “wealth” generating platforms and their stooges.

This would only work if the cooperatives were small community sized…and they included guilds…

Yes, that's right. I don't know what you mean by "small community sized" in terms of number of members.

I was recently reading some exceptional comments on youtube to a video by Russell Brand titled: "WHAT?! The Great Reset Is NOT a Conspiracy!" I won't link to it for the sake of staying within the context of the O.P. Anyway in the comments someone suggested that a community could be created if people contributed $10,000 each. Anyway there was a very bright spark calls himself Eugene who elaborated on the suggestion by replying:

"You'll also need a local real estate attorney, experienced handymen...it's not just people with 10 grand you need for ten acres, it's experienced and educated people in different applicable fields...you'll need to headhunt and interview the right fit type of experienced people from gardening to that areas zoning laws to canning etc....group up with a lot more like minded and discuss how to make this work...I've heard but I don't know for sure that having 200 plus in a community can make and create their own laws within that society....don't take my word, but if true that's a good thing until the federal government decides it's not a good thing...you'll also need experienced security..."

So yes, you are right concerning Guilds etc.

As far as population of such communities, I have heard it suggested that the smallest commune manageable can be of five thousand people, and the biggest commune can be of fifty thousand people. From five thousand to fifty thousand – more than that will become unmanageable.


The more relevant question is: What is the purpose of life? Human life. Your life.

This is an easy question to answer…life is an expression of consciousness…and is best expressed through species evolving the requisite capacity to experience awareness of self and surrounding…

In short…life’s purpose is to find expression and to experience…and to express that experiential awareness through creativity…and ultimately realize that it’s potentiality brings it full circle as it too begets consciousness…and becomes that which was causal to it’s initial expressive experience as life…

Oh yes, quite so. Alternatively it is not to be a bio-bot to serve corporate interests: "my eyes shall be your eyes."

a reply to: Bluntone22

Every time I watch Star Trek or Next Generation, I think of how great that would be. But I know human nature, and as you said, it wouldn't play out that way. It stinks.

This is another version of the Freedom versus security argument. Youll be very secure in your cage you can never leave.

a reply to: Akragon

What Socialist a Utopia kool ade flavor is this today ? Lemon with a dash of high fructose corn syrup ? And by the way, our works leaders are doing so great, we are on the brink of WWIII!
Good going with the logic.

Hmm I gave a thought about it, and here is what I came to a conclusion;

There is a possibility of a planet-based government, but it won't be a peaceful one. The closest to a peaceful government would be like a benevolent dictatorship or something like a council of powerful individuals who run the show.

We, humans, are very driven, mostly from an emotional source. Thus I guess we would be somewhat of a warlike race or at least aggressive trading partners

however, let me ask you all, What kind of governmental system would fit us, humans, based on what we are today with all those greed, power... etc... if we talk about a one-world government system?

a reply to: Akragon

Pray tell, who do you find more giving, peaceful, and kind? The american populace, or the american government? Insert any government. I only used american as an example.

Once you answer that question honestly (there is only one possible answer) you'll know that they are not trying to achieve the aims you wish they were. I don't blame you for wishing they were trying to achieve those aims. I wish they were, but it's blatantly obvious that they are not.

It is they who steal your money via taxes, that are greedy. It is they who start and join wars, who are violent. It is they who talk down to you and belittle you, who are mean.

a reply to: Akragon

It's not, that's an insane idea.

a reply to: Akragon

Look at the idiots in charge and ask yourself all this again.

Not to mention, you talk about guns as if they are only for war. They are tools of life for rural people. When Ricky the Rabid Raccoon shows up in the country, you are animal control. Without guns, you have little recourse. Rural animal control doesn't exist or is hours to days away.

Centralization always fails. Unintended consequences will always be amplified by optimization. Why are supply chains failing? The smartest people in the room decided that globalization of manufacturing by lowest cost was ideal, until is wasn't.

A single government will also be monumentally corrupt and inefficient because "experts" can never anticipate every possible outcome. A centralized government will only be able to rule through force and favors, requiring a select group to enforce its edicts.

Elections would be meaningless, since the majority is very often wrong, or at best acting with outdated understanding of the core issues at work. That's why you've never been asked to approve a nuclear reactor failsafe engineering design in an election. It wouldn't even end war, just replace it with localized police state violence.

Natural systems self-organize. A queen ant never issues a command, individuals see something that needs to be done and to it. There is still room for selflessness and altruism and yes, violence will exist where it is allowed to exist. It has to be countered by force. One government is one too many. Remember that time Belgium went 18 months without a government AND NO ONE NOTICED! There is no such thing as law, only force.

a reply to: Ellie Sagan

It didn’t even work on Star Trek. How many times did a colony have to be relocated? Or collapsed into chaos like Tasha Yar or Dr. Crusher’s? The Marquis that became separatists from t(e Federation over such a colony dispute to be relocated as part of a treaty.

Colonies had problems on TOS as well, trying to make quotas, miners strikes and so on.

Even Roddenberry was kinda clear that it wasn’t socialism but post-scarcity of resources that changed. If you want socialism look at DS9 and the time Sisko went into the past due to the civil war erupting in the safe zones that “provided for the homeless and immigrants” in the cities. While Dax was treated like royalty.

A one world government only works if I am that government. Just as it only works for you if you are that government. Simplest demonstration is how many people get divorced because they finally realize that they are two different people? Irreconcilable differences?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Akragon

Depends. What system of government and who's running it? Is it me and an epicurean totalitarian state? Then, yes. If not, than no.

like giedi prime?


there has to be some model to follow.

vulcan?

yeah that would work. lol.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Even in Trek it only worked because of hand-waving:

1. Matter replicator guaranteeing plenty for everyone.

2. The idea that with everything available at fingertip, people would still create enough labor for nothing to form a society.

posted on Feb, 22 2022 @ 06:53 AMlink quote reply

Problem: Threat of nuclear war
Solution: NWO One world government or something similar

They're all part of the WEF club, this is an info war, on us.
-You'll own nothing and you'll be happy... Not even the rights to vote.

Seems to be working.


Something I posted a couple of weeks ago on the update thread...
The propaganda seems to be working (STILL)
Only a matter of time and you'll have people crying out for a OWG all over the place.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Ahabstar

Even in Trek it only worked because of hand-waving:

1. Matter replicator guaranteeing plenty for everyone.

2. The idea that with everything available at fingertip, people would still create enough labor for nothing to form a society.

sill has flaws.

even tho there is a gay asian and a russian plus an alien science officer on the bridge. under the command of a white male captain.

they still have a black lady answer the the space phone.

wtf?

a reply to: sarahvital

I would argue the white gal is the most marginalized. She's playing "Hello, Nurse!" down in sickbay.

a reply to: Akragon
I agree with you. Although it makes me a little sad. The more people have power, the worse. Men especially -look at the statistics- are addicted to power and want to subjugate others. And be sure it's not all about testosterone.
10 years ago I wrote a kind of book about what I believe in. I made a website of it (a very simple one because I know very little about how to make a website). ATS gives me the opportunity to promote my website a little bit. I have to pay for my website (for 10 years now - I updated when I got the time, so very few updates). it's not for money I did this. Kind of a hobby :-)
www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: Ahabstar

True. I guess I was just looking at the good parts of it. As in our world, the idea of it is so much better than the way it actually plays out.