Do you WANT to dump America for globalism?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

You are them. Only 5 countries have veto power in the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) that is less representation than the US has on its supreme court and all it takes is one vote against to keep from going through.

So it isn't you "the people" but it is your representative. "You" are not going to pull out because a few of you think it's best.

a reply to: daskakik

... What does that have to do with what I wrote?

A govt on the othside of the country can barely pass laws that avoid wrecking things totally from unintended consequences.

So why should I expect a govt on another continent can do a better job?

a reply to: daskakik

Trump does as well.
Guess we'll see.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

It will happen one day If you like it or not.
I think when we realise we are not alone we will come together.
For us to progress we will have to stop all the petty # we do so well.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Whos in charge?
Jesus could do it, but I know of no world leader.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I don't think we could have just one person in charge, It would still have to be democratic but don't worry we will be dead and gone it will be when we have grown up a little in maybe a hundred years.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

You know. I hear this side of the debate a lot and generally agree.

Devil's advocate moment...

Without competitiveness friendly or hostile, do you think we would slow down our advances? I mean the military has innovated so much and without that where would we be?

a reply to: thesungod

NOT if we effective shifted all in to space travel.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I want a very specific type of "One World Government".

I want every single human on the planet to be able to vote for their local, state/provincial, country/federal, and international representatives.

I want every single human on the planet to have access to the same bare minimum in regards to civil rights, education, healthcare/access to medical treatments, and access to other necessities like housing, food supply, clean water/sewage systems, and stable power grids.

I even envision a weekly voting system where anyone in the world can log into an "ATM-like" voting machine (w/a fingerprint and PIN). Once they've accessed their account, a list of issues and basic measures related to their registered district show up. Then the person just taps in their votes for those specific issues, and at the end of the weekly voting period, the measures with the most votes get enacted. I don't think this would cover every issue or decision, but it would drastically reduce the need for elected and appointed officials.

Personally, I think many aspects of nationalism are simply foolish. The idea that some humans are inferior, untrustworthy, or are evil "enemies" simply because they were born on a different part of a map is foolish. Deciding that some humans are allies and trustworthy simply because of what part of a map they reside in is also foolish. But apparently the world's powerbrokers can convince many of you that it's a sound decision to fight, kill, and be killed by strangers you've never even seen, simply because they live in a different "box" on a map.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: Bleeeeep

As we have seen time and again, segregation, of any kind, along any lines, breed suspicion.

Suspicions breed fears, fears breed anger,

And anger leads to violence and destruction.

"Segregation" implies a forced action. An imposition. A willing understanding and acceptance of different views and the right to self-determinism for differing peoples is completely different than segregation.

A world gov't is equally an enforcement. A forced 'sameness'. A homogenization. Both breed anger and resentment. Rightly so.

Enforcement would be the first and foremost flaw in a world gov't which dooms it in the long run.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I have noticed statement from some people who are in favor of a world government.
I don't understand how they haven't figured out that at this stage of Human development we are incapable of doing so at this time.
I DO agree it will come,but NOT with the current leaders we have developed at ALL.
I know OF NO one ,not one human being who I could trust with such authority.
I decided we need a thread to state our case as I've stated mine.

If we were at, as you call it, at 'that stage of human development' which one could say was 'racial sanity', one likely wouldn't NEED a world gov't. In fact, a 'world gov't' epitomizes that insanity.

By definition a world gov't is an enforcement and, therefore, inherently insane.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Until corporations have no power, and regular citizens hold all of it, and must work in concert to achieve goals they all agree on, rather than leaving the hard choices to those whose loyalties lay with the corporations rather than the people, there will be no place for a one world governance. The governance of the world, should be the job of every person in it, together, no one group of corrupt glory seekers, "noble families" or a minority of individuals with financial power.

Till the freedom loving people of the world are the only ones who can make choices which affect their future, governing even nations is near to unworkable.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You think this is how the real world works?

a reply to: tikbalang

Be specific.

What part of my post are you taking issue with?

a reply to: TrueBrit

All of it, i see so much dreams.. So much ideals.. Lets say it was to happen..
What will change? Will the world become a better place? Will it put food on your table?

a reply to: tikbalang

It would put food on EVERY table. Even the ones which have nothing on them normally. Taking the corruption of corporate interests out of politics would see a vastly preferable scenario, where the people have the power to withhold labour until they are justly paid a living rather than scraping by. Lots of things would change for the better, including the way different types of labour are valued.

But of course, that would only be beneficial for the great mass of the people, not a small few nations who, for some reason that I have never been able to understand, believe they are entitled to certain things at the expense of other people, other nations resources. I would have thought that the largest major change, would be that people would vote in vast droves, to create a law which prevents anyone becoming rich at the expense of the hard work of others, that no one may earn luxury by any means save the sweat of their own brows.

That would basically end poverty amongst the hardest working, and force the bloated shirkers at the top to become useful citizens, rather than gluttonous parasites.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

For one thing a Global system has to harmonize all economies into one system.

It means trying to take lots of places where people live on less than $10 or $20 per week with countries like our own where you are lucky if that gets you through a day.

There are many more of those countries than there are of ours. If you even get simplisitic and just average those out. Our Western economies are going to take huge hits in quality of life and cost of living, but if you think that's going to be a graceful, managed decline, you've got another thing coming. Look around you.

How graceful or managed has it been so far? And the Globalists don't care. THEY live safe and secure inside their walled compounds with armed security ... arms and walls YOU and I won't have. We'll be looted and brutalized by neighbors and others who are left with nothing as the economy continues to erode and people are left without any means of supporting themselves or their families. After all, the Globalists own the banks too. Do you think they'll forgive the debts just because they're busy crashing your local economy to bring you into line with the rest of the world's poorer states?

Of course not.

Somehow, I would rather we wait until everyone is capable of joining us rather than be forced back into the box the rest of the world is stuck in.

You need world peace before a world government. Neither of which is possible. Nukes will fly long before many countries would concede to one world government.
We would destroy ourselves in the wars that would ensue when it comes to decide who is running things...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

No, he says he does. At what point are people going to stop believing in election promises?