Would a global government and a New World Order be a bad thing?

Nor do/did I.

And I agree, societies are built by people, not government.

 

I think society does well with the right balance of government, private sector, non-profits, private charities, and individual effort.


While Stp, obviously is a successful case using charity to pull himself up, he is only 1 example out of thousands. I could easily negate his argument with an example of someone I know who used a government program to get out of poverty using food stamps for a while, and later the Department of Rehabilitation to get a job.

(Note: Remember Stp, said earlier in this thread and in others that government doesn't do anything right)

 

Hmm.. that's what we allegedly have isn't it? Still we're 18 trillion dollars in debt, and we have a war based economy which is why politicians are building up our enemies because they need someone to scare the shit out of us, so we conform. It's no secret government has become a racket for the elite; The secret is, they take shitloads of our money, and we get very little back in comparison. Yes, they government can run a half way decent program and "cement the hole in the dam," but that doesn't cover structural problems. In other words, our checks and balances are not working. The Obama administration FORCED the NDAA into law, after a Federa; Judge Declared it was Unconstitutional; He just went through a different judge who had his same corperate sponsers. There is no freedom in this world- even the food/drugs we ingest are no safer than countries without regulation; We don't even have caution labels on GMOs, but that because the CEO of monsanto became head of the FDA and changed all the rules in their favor.

I mean, just wake up! To anyone who thinks government is the be all end all- wake up! We're adult citizens, we don't need a nanny government watching us, and keeping us away from drugs and telling us what foods we can/can't eat.

The other thing is, let's say we abolished the TSA; not only would alot less people be felt up by government agents, the Airline companies would spend a little more money and have sufficient security on board with a gun. That's security. Those new Scanners don't even work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_IUwwGq-A

 

25

It seems to me you are blaming ‘government’ (an elected government) for being ‘bad’ when the true problem is a dysfunctional political system that allows ‘bad’ representatives into power, who you think make ‘bad’ laws and ‘bad’ decisions - it would seem then to me that the solution would be to try and fix the political system so elections get ‘good’ representatives into power.

That of course is harder than just blaming ‘government’ because it means taking a long look at your whole political system and society to work out why it isn't working.

Can you do that?

 

25

Tell all the stories you want, but…

Charity (posted just above but 25 seems to have missed it)

It should be remembered that private assistance was never capable on its own, it was always backed up or ran alongside public assistance. In the US this was based originally on the English Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists had brought with them when they came to Americas.

Now even in upturns such private assistance as was given however genuine and heartfelt as it could be, could be inadequate, but during downturns that system was often overwhelmed (and giving could even drop in times of greatest need as people looked to their own needs).

“While the genuine warmth emanating from these volunteer institutions produced a true sense of community with revitalising effects in depressed urban neighbourhoods, participants quickly realised that private charity was not enough. Charity Organisation Societies modelled on those of London and Berlin had emerged in the early 1880’s to be succeeded by Associated Charities designed to prevent duplication of effort among the score of secular and church philanthropies, but relief measures possible under a system of private endeavour, no matter how earnest or how efficiently organised, could not handle the problems arising in periods of economic distress.

Public institutions to care for indigents, the ill, the widows and orphans, the aged and the insane never had money enough during boom times, and when hard times set in and the burden increased, city welfare budgets lagged still further behind the amounts needed.”
The Rise of Urban America by Constance Mclaughlin Green

Also on the forum such things as sewage works and housing amongst other things have been discussed where public money and government legislation did a lot to help to improve the lives of poor and middle class people.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s....php?p=7470925

 

monkir

Your preaching to the converted here brother – the thing is that I find a lot of right wing thought still seems to be based on some Social Darwinist thinking –
Indie and I touch on this in a number of thread but try this if you want to get a feel -

Effort or Luck
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=400136

 

Indie

then I’d say that you were lying –

I mean come on Indie this is me you know I can quote you (and have done many times) saying you would let people die through no fault of their own from need and that you are a supporter of what you call “Spenceristic” thinking (Social Darwinism).

Your views have been criticized in depth and in detail but you have so far been unable to address those criticisms.

 

Indie

More silly slogans –

OK once again - I ask what ‘people’ are you talking about?

Given that you have suggested that wealth be given extra voting power to block the majority and that nearly everything you propose would most likely vastly increase the power and influence of wealth to the detriment of everyone else.

*

And again can you name me a society of people that had no form of governance?

 

The problem is that we have globalisation you may not like it or want it but sticking your head in the ground and hoping it goes away is not going to work and crossing your fingers and hoping it will not become more established is I think a forlorn hope.

To me there are two ways this can go to one degree or another we can have a global governance that is ‘democratic’ and ‘accountable’ that at least tries to manage the globalisation for the benefit of all or we can continue to allow the rather undemocratic and unaccountable global forces and institutions to dictate how globalisation is organised and who gains from it the most.

 

No, because the Government is inherently bad, and I will not go back on that, because it's fact.

http://rt.com/usa/suspects-court-boston-bombings-418/


Most of us here in the US can see the abuse/corruption in Government, first hand.

 

Well I think this thread is coming to a conclusion. We've covered pretty much all the conversation and debate points and I think everybody understands what the other is saying now.

Can we give this thread 5 stars and archive it?



@Stp, I believe that the stop and frisk policy in NY was just found unconstitutional by our current form of government. (I agree with this ruling)

I also thought that bans on certain size soft drinks was unconstitutional

And I do agree with you on this specific is that the problem why private sector (like monsanto) and government agencies like the FDA are failing is because the PEOPLE who sit in both the high private sector (note: Not all the private sector but certain big players in it) and the governmental regulatory positions are simply playing a game of musical chairs. We agree they're bought, and this world is more of an oligopoly-aristocracy than a democracy at this point.

I think Colorado and Washington, are on the right track with legalizing marijuana, but I do not agree with legalizing selling or producing crystal meth or cocaine.

For instance under libertarian values, wouldn't it be totally okay for someone to make those latter two drugs in their home which is built next to say my apartment/house/living quarters? If someone screws up and that hypothetical meth lab blows up damaging or destroying my property, and or causing permanent hearing loss from the blast, who am I as an individual gonna hold accountable?

1. the individual (who most likely lost everything of value and their life in the explosion, so I'd be like getting blood from a stone).

2. the city government/state government/federal government that allows the freedom (under libertarian values) for the individual to do that sorta thing/action that is potentially damaging to the values and rights of life, and property?

 

No,I don't think that this thread has reached its conclusion yet (actually I think its the best thread Ive seen since joining this site). Surely we are closing on the idea that Government,in all its forms,is a social necessity & that Democracy is the most evolved ideal we have developed so far.

The discussion now is how functional/dysfunctional they are & for whom. As I write a bunch of Firms are being invited into my country to exploritary drill with a view to Fracking for shale gas. An energy crisis looms in the UK & our Polititians are gleefully anticipating the answer to all our problems-trillions of cubic metres of free gas at little or no cost-its Boom time again!
In a rather brief inclusion in a TV news report on this great opportunity a Rep from Greenpeace got to say;"It doesnt matter if the UK has got Trillions of cubic feet of Gas accessable & ready to draw. Nor does it make any difference how many millions of newly detected Barrels of Oil the Americans find,we cannot use them. If we use all of the Fossil fuel resources that we already know of,we will in emitting all THAT carbon, do irreparable damage to the climate which will send global warming spiralling out of our control"! We are closing on the tipping point of no return.

Governments know this as of course do the Corporations but right now its the answer to all our short term problems. Like the rest of us, Polititians are subject to self deception & capitalism has no conscience for anyone other than the few. The stark scientific reality is there,who's gona protect our real interests?

The 'Free' market certainly won't,nor will Constitutional Republicans,coz it ain't local enough & they uphold free enterprise even to the death!

So, its down to US to get involved,protest & participate & even given all the (often justifable cynisism) I have no doubt we will win,because we've got to. We have no choice but to reclaim Democracy because the above issue is only one of several , that if we neglect to take some control, World Government will become irrelivant in a very real sense!

 

If someone in the free market seizes on this post, part of the solution/answer to this overabundance of carbon dioxide in the air is to produce giant graphine supercapacitors which can be made from Carbon Dioxide in the air.

Those device if innovated enough will make electricity portable and potentially a great and better alternative to conventional lithium ion batteries, and can also be used during disaster emergencies.

Not to mention graphine, is environmentally friendly.

---^ok enough of my technie suggestions for now.

Also I agree with you about getting away from fossil fuels.

Ironically graphine can also be used as a water filter, and perhaps could be applied to make better filters on oil refineries...

 

monkir

Oh come on man it hasn’t descended into a bitch fight yet…

You may be interested by the thread – Rightwing libertarians and drugs
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871

**

Then it might be a good idea to hammer out what the points seem to be in a re-cap?

To me as far as I can tell the main, if only, argument of the main opposition to global governance seems to rest on a dislike of ‘government’ although they don’t seem to have any viable alternative that would not likely make a bad situation worse.

Or do you see things differently?

 

Summerhill

I think a global energy policy and counter climate change measures (and preparation) would be one of the major priorities for any global governance. The problem in the past to such agreements is that national priorities and attitudes often got in the way, I mean if you had climate change sceptics in control of the US government they can pretty much scupper any worthwhile measures even if a majority of other nations want it.

*

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7727884&postcount=10

As I explain at the linked thread -the framing of the argument in terms of productions is a bit of a capitalist con game Its not production that needs to be addressed first - it is consumption; it should be about saving energy.

The first time I heard about ‘fracking’ alarm bells rang and not for the obvious environmental impacts but because it sounded so much like ‘scrapping the bottom of the barrel’ the good easy stuffs been used up so now it’s time to scrap out the slug at the bottom of the barrel to extract what we can.

Talk is of energy prices coming down, but all that means is that more energy can be wasted while we use up finite resources.

As an example of what was to me criminal waste was the last boom in north sea oil, which was basically pissed up against the wall in hiding the seriously adverse side effect to the UK economy caused at the time by the policies of that neo-liberal experiment called Thatcherism.

“Just across the North Sea, the Norwegians took a different path. They chose to save the proceeds of oil drilling for future generations. The result is a sovereign wealth fund worth around $750 billion (£485 billion), which should comfortably top $1 trillion within this generation. It currently owns an estimated 1p in every £1 of world equity, which is a colossal stake in the global economy from such a small base, and is reckoned to be the largest owner of stock in Europe” The Telegraph We wasted North Sea oil – let’s not do the same with shale gas
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...-oil-lets-not-do-the-same-with-shale-gas.html

*

To me it would seem like a good idea to do what the Norwegians did, globally. The fund created could be used to curtail energy wasting.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4"]The Road to World War 3 - YouTube


You guys seem to love this game the government plays.

 

So that video proves that the NWO elite are trying to keep the dollar in power....this is a direct contradiction with devaluing the dollar with inflation which ends in the same result...so which is it?

 

In the same TV report I mentioned Carbon capture technology was briefly discussed. In a nutshell,both the Greenpeace guy & the TV Journalists summary said that carbon capture is nowhere close to to being a feasible solution to Fossil energy station emissions. In anycase the best feasible target for carbon capture is 90% of emissions per station site.

I'm no energy expert nor am I an environmentalist,Ive got Grandkids & I know that enoughs enough! My point is that this is only one of many 'one world' crisis we are gona face,stuff that belittles Nationalism or capitalist interest. I too have concerns about a One World Government,believe me, but the future we humans have created for ourselves makes it inevitable.

The only question that remains is are we gona demand our place in a OWG or are we gona leave it to the OWG thats already forming ? Its as simple as that.

 

Thanks for that Video,certainly food for thought.

 

Balbus

Mid 1970s up & down the North Sea coast of England a massive ,costly,effort was underway, hundreds of feet below ground , to bore several 20 foot diameter tunnels through miles of stone to get to an extremely rich coal field beyond. At the other side of that 'subterraiian wall' seams of pure coal were said to be 12 feet high,billions of tons ,there for the taking.

The National Coal Board had developed a massive drilling machine,sold it & the patent rights to it ,I was told, to a German firm then hired them to use their manpower,as well as the Borer, to win access to the said coalfield. All the northern coastal Collieries were involved in this drive. I was a young Miner then , employed at one of them.

I left the industry in 76 when the project was still on-going. The effort must have cost many millions but the gains would have vastly out wieghed the investment turning every viable coastal colliery into a Superpit! And these were the days long before any worries about Global warming.

All I know is that that coal remains,largely untouched. Thatcher closed the Pits that would have provided coal to warm our homes & fuel the Power Stations for decades & at reduced costs. We began importing coal from Australia!

Its akin to the madness StpL describes. In the 70s we expected a right-wing backlash but I'd have never have believed it'd last so long or be so far reaching. Thatchers greatest 'achievment' was to begin the depoliticalisation of the working class. Blair & co completed the task.

The Global challenges we have are very real & its common sense that we have to meet them globally via a OWG but I question how feasible such a prospect is considering how disempowered people have become internationally.