Why does the left support World Government?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

my belief on why it would be bad is rooted in how bad they are working now, representing a much smaller slice of the world.

When you expand it to a larger landmass and a larger population the problems will just multiply.

Basically I have not seen a thing from any govt in the world that makes me think it could work on a world wide scale and allow me to keep the freedoms I hold dear.

ETA: as for the Dystopian books, I read those when I find a well written one and they are not really much more than a niche market, when compared to say the Star Trek universe.

Well, that's what I mentioned earlier, can it be effective and how does one prevent tyranny with a global government? Those are the best counterpoints by conservatives.

However, one must also weigh benefits versus risks. Outside of the tyranny issue, it's really just a question of scale and construction. The US is just a collection of states, which is a temporal, relatively large construction. There's nothing inherent nor eternal about these nations.

There are also issues that are global in scale (environmental problems, wars, food and water security) and maybe even one day, larger than the globe (asteroid, trans planet colonization, aliens, etc) that are hard to address with the current state of international disarray.

This is the argument that has merit for the stronger international governance side. Such debates must engage both sides.
a reply to: Irishhaf

a reply to: Irishhaf

I've yet to see someone offer a better solution. The way I see things, governments are a necessary evil, because without them things would be MUCH MUCH worse for everyone. If you can suggest a way people can create a society without a governing body then I'm all ears, but that sounds like a fantasy proposal to me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not suggesting no govt, just that to reach the utopia ideal of say the Federation we have to figure out how to make it work small scale before having a hope of making it work for the entire world.

I am not against the idea of it, just seeing the sample size we have I do not think its viable.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I'd say that the US and the UN are good starts by balancing the power structure allowing for local governance for local issues to remain while world changing issues are handled at higher levels of government. Most of what I see hindering governments today are pessimists ranting on and on about how government never works so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy and sabotage government activities like voting to remove funding for welfare benefits while simultaneously complaining that it is a waste of money because the service sucks. Well yeah, if you cut funding there isn't any money to improve worker morale.

Not that government is perfect and I want everyone worshiping government, but there is WAAAAAY too much paranoia towards governing bodies these days. Politicians may be known to be corrupt, but they are humans too. Humans are both decent and terrible. So it reasons that politicians are the same.

To reflect krazyshot's response, yes.

I've seen a lot of anti globalist, anti UN, anti global government rhetoric. Many right wing leaders and authors talk about this extensively, as well as a smaller percentage of liberal ones.

I've also seen the opposite.

a reply to: Irishhaf

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Problem is to many people on the right and the left focus on family names or party line rather than is the candidate a good option for the people.

Until the people start paying attention to the candidates and start throwing the crooked ones out I doubt we will see the improvement needed to actually look at the idea of a world govt.

Well apparently you guys don't respond to me because I don't fit until the stereotypical dem/republican talking points. That's unfortunate.

It's almost as if many on here and in society hate anti establishment, independents more than the opposing party members who restrict the convo to party doctrine. Comfort.

a reply to: Irishhaf

a reply to: amfirst1

We already have a world government, not the UN but the banks and big corporations and giant financial institutions. That's who rules the world. they own the united states government.

So it's a shadow government governing by bribery and money. The question is do we like it this way or would it be better if we had at least a chance to elect someone to rule over them?

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

How is war considered center right??? The Democrats started all wars in American history outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. The left is the war side.

Wait, what?

If you're talking about large scale wars w/official declarations of war, then you're forgetting wars like the Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), the Spanish-American War, the 1st & 2nd Barbary Wars, etc. And if you're talking about unofficial wars, then virtually all Presidents have launched military interventions, coups, or other smaller scale attacks on others. And a lot of people feel that Lincoln started the Civil War by refusing to allow the seceding states to leave. But he was a Republican...

And don't forget that the 2 parties largely switched sides during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Remember, it was the pre-Civil Rights Movement right wing Democrats who formed the Confederacy, then started the KKK, then implemented the forced racial segregation Jim Crow laws, then widely promoted the "1 Drop Rule" policies in various states like Virginia & Tennessee. (Check out 1924 HERE to see that Democrats completely controlled Virginia's state govt when they wrote and passed the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", which is literally the law that made the "One Drop Rule" the law in Virginia.)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

WW1, WW2, Korean War, Serbian War, Vietnam War, just to name a few were all wars started by Democrats.

The party did not switch sides. Then u should easily name 5 Democrats that switched Republicans or Republicans switching to Democrats. I bet you can't. Blacks started voting Democrats in the 1920s even though FDR was appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court. Now, why did most blacks voted for FDR during this time?? Yea it's called the New Deal. A socialist economic idea FDR took from Hitler's economics. Remember during this time populism was consider Socialism with the rise of Stalin, Hitler, and Mousilini in the 1920s, everyone flock to this ideology of socialism due to them being able to bring their countries out of the depression. It was known as the workers' movement and a phenomenon that people were just learning to understand.

Democrats at this time abandoned Americanism the belief to limited government and individualism and officially adopted Socialism into their platform. They saw what socialism did for Germany a country a few years back was in ruins, so they jumped on the bandwagon. Blacks left the Abolitionist party of Republicans to vote for Socialism. Now you just opened a can of worms. I am a history buff.

a reply to: amfirst1

who organized and profited from the assassination of kennedy?

a reply to: Harpua

WHy of course the Deep State... that was easy.

a reply to: Harpua

The Deep State was organized during FDR tenure if you read the "Pentagon Papers". The United States realized that Colonialism was not working and countries were resisting every effort of a foreign nation takeover. So they came up with the idea of merging the Intelligence Agencies with the Banking Elites. The CIA would co-opt nations and the Central Banking elites will take them over financially and voluntarily. This would be much more effective means of taking over a country without them even knowing what had happened. The called it at the time, "internationalism". Today we call it "globalism", which is why they hate Trump because Trump is anti Globalists and consistently wail against it. I knew they were going to go after him after I heard him bring the topic up. And what do you know.... non stop globalists project mockingbird attack on him...

P.S. There was many reasons why the deep state wanted Kennedy gone, but one of it was that he was against the Vietnam War. They also took down Nixon because he ended the Vietnam War, although he was guilty of other things which didn't help his cause.

a reply to: amfirst1

You're a "history buff" that literally said all wars except Iraq and Afghanistan were started by Democrats. So you'll have to excuse me for finding your knowledge of history lacking. LOL You can't claim to be an expert after making such a ridiculous & easily refutable claim.

Oh and since you said I couldn't name 5 who switched, here's 10 Democratic politicians from the early 1960's who switched to the Republican Party. LOL Since I don't trust your history researching skills, I'll give you some wikipedia articles to help.

Sen. Strom Thurmond

Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican.

Sen. Albert Watson

Albert William Watson (August 30, 1922 – September 25, 1994) was a Democrat-turned-Republican state and U.S. representative from South Carolina.

Like Thurmond, Watson was an open and unashamed segregationist. Both supported Barry Goldwater's campaign for President. While Watson headed the South Carolina "Democrats for Goldwater" organization, Thurmond went as far as switching parties and becoming a Republican on September 17, 1964. Partly because of his support for Goldwater, Watson was reelected without opposition as Goldwater carried South Carolina, the first Republican to have done so since Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. The House Democratic Caucus stripped Watson of his seniority for supporting Goldwater. Another Deep South congressman, John Bell Williams of Mississippi, lost his seniority for supporting Goldwater as well. Declaring he would "not sit around and be bullied by northern liberals," Watson resigned from Congress on February 1, 1965.[7] He then announced that he would run in the special election for his old seat on June 15, 1965—as a Republican.

Rep. Iris Faircloth Blitch

A staunch segregationist, in 1956, Blitch was among the 101 Southern politicians to sign the Southern Manifesto.[1] She won re-election to three additional terms in that seat before choosing not to seek reelection in 1962 due to severe arthritis.[4] In 1964, Mrs. Blitch left the Democratic Party and endorsed Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.

Rep. Bo Callaway

Like most southerners at the time, Callaway grew up as a supporter of the Democratic Party. He switched parties out of frustration with the Democrats' more liberal policies regarding desegregation.[2] In 1964, he ran as a "Goldwater Republican" for a seat in the House of Representatives from Georgia's 3rd congressional district.

State Rep. Alfred Goldthwaite

Alfred Witherspoon Goldthwaite, Sr. (August 12, 1921–May 13, 1997), was an attorney from his native Montgomery, Alabama, who as a member of the Alabama House of Representatives became the first public official in his state to defect in the early 1960s from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

State Sen. Stanford Morse

Stanford Everett Morse, Jr. (May 31, 1926 – February 28, 2002), was a lawyer from Gulfport, Mississippi, and a two-term Democratic member of the Mississippi State Senate. In April 1963, he switched to Republican affiliation to run unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor on the ticket headed by Rubel Phillips. A former Democratic member of the Mississippi Public Service Commission from Corinth, Phillips also changed parties in 1963 in a bid to become his state's first GOP governor since Reconstruction.

Mississippi Gubanatorial candidate Rubel Phillips

Previously, as a Democrat, Phillips was a circuit court clerk in Alcorn County in northeastern Mississippi and a member and chairman of the Mississippi Public Service Commission from 1956 to 1959. By 1963, he had switched parties to become only the third Republican since 1877 to seek his state's governorship.

State Rep. Floyd Spence

Elected for three terms to the South Carolina House of Representatives from Lexington County as a Democrat, in 1962 Spence announced his decision to switch to the Republican Party, as he was unhappy with shifts in the national party.

State Sen. Marshall Parker

He was thereafter elected as a Democrat to the South Carolina State Senate, having represented Oconee County, which includes his hometown of Seneca. He remained in the state Senate from 1957 to 1967, in which capacity he was instrumental in the creation of his state's technical education system. He owned and operated Oconee Daries, a milk processing plant, which serviced the Golden Corner of South Carolina.

In 1966, Parker switched to Republican affiliation to run for the U.S. Senate. The other Senate seat from South Carolina was held at the time by the Democrat-turned-Republican Strom Thurmond, who had been elected as an Independent write-in candidate in 1954 and as a Democrat in 1960 but switched to the GOP in 1964 to support Barry M. Goldwater for the presidency.

State Rep. Joseph O. Rogers Jr.

Joseph Oscar "Joe" Rogers Jr. (October 8, 1921 – April 6, 1999), was a lawyer from Manning, South Carolina, who served as a Democrat in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1955 to 1966, when he switched allegiance to the Republican Party. Rogers was the first serious Republican gubernatorial nominee in South Carolina in ninety years, but he was handily defeated in the 1966 general election by the incumbent Democrat Robert E. McNair.

Just so you don't try to edit your post, I'm replying to the part where you said:

The party did not switch sides. Then u should easily name 5 Democrats that switched Republicans or Republicans switching to Democrats. I bet you can't.

So what do I win, bruh?

Ok u got me there. However, u never listed the Republicans that switched Democrats. If the parties switched it should be a two way street. Not just a few people realizing that their party sucks and switched. By you logic if I can name Democrats today that switch Republicans that means that the Racist Republicans after 1960s switched to Democrats, so now the Democrats are the racist party.

This is based on your logic and reasoning. Just using common sense....

a reply to: amfirst1

I'm not doing any more research for you. You're the self proclaimed history buff, not me. You made 2 easily disprovable statements, then moved the goalposts when they were each proven wrong.

But if you really want to know the enormous scope of the switch, then look at the State legislature rolls from the time period. Look at the members of State executive branches, as well. And then look up things like "The Massive Resistance" & "segregationist Democrats". All of the above will give you a better idea of why you're so wrong on this.

Usually when I deal with someone who spouts the same thing you claimed, they're only looking at specific Dixiecrats at the national level. But it's like they're intentionally trying to pretend that the Democratic Party didn't have nearly complete control over the entire Southeastern US States at the end of the 1950s. Or maybe you're all just getting your history info from the same biased sources that are intentionally leaving out things like this?