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

They are trying to keep the dollar in power. They want more time of total control. But, that also implies they know the dollar is crashing (as I've said.) But they are mearly avoiding it cause no political figure wants the publicity of total economic crash. However, when our economy does finally crash, (and it will, can be tomo or 50 years, but it's coming) it will be much much worse than the Great Depression, and people would submit to World Currency/World Governance with little resistence (that's what they think anyway)

 

The direction of discussion seems to be that Global crisis,of various kinds (those of Energy & Global warming are just 2 egs) hence the need for Global governance,a unified cooperative response. Have to say that I'm sceptical of the OWG idea if simply because human nature isnt sufficiently evolved enough.

Conspiracy theories are fine,Ive seriously considered a few myself, but we get lost in a maze of contradictory misinformation & speculation. This has become a part of the same disempowering propaganda (intended or not) as that pushed by the biased media & the spin doctors,ect. The end result is a sense of hopelessness & disenfranchisement,people see the problems as too big for them,are alienated and don't participate in trying to effect change leaving it all to the professional polititions who're just fine with that !

If participation is what we would encourage care has to be taken as to the effects of how thats attempted,is all.

 

I hardly am a conspiracy theorist, however, looking at what the UN calls "diplomacy" (wars, drone strikes and, killing democratically elected leaders.) I would say they are being controlled by America's wealthy special interests, which would make a OWG very dangerous if every citizen were to give up their Rights and accept UN Rights; As the UN in Article 29 of their Human Rights, leaves room for Government to be above your Rights. That is immoral and wrong.

 

^ I think that's spam. I see nothing about NWO/OWG

 

This thread is stalling for lack of contributers & it shouldnt because its subject effects us all whether you're pro or anti OWG. Part of the problem is that its become about bloody America again ! Granted, the USA is the most influential nation on Earth & theres an undeniable link to all our fates. I'd hate to see this thread go nowhere because of any one nations national politics dominated & deadend discussion.

 

I agree with Summerhill that this is important subject so maybe a recap is in order –

Everyone seems to agree that economic globalisation exists.

Most seem to agree that there are global problems.

Most seem to realise that at the moment there are institutions and influences guiding economic (and to some extent political) globalisation.

There are those who just want to do nothing about this situation.

There are those that think something needs to be done to manage globalisation.

 

Way to paint the world black and white, Balbus!

What about people who believe Global Governance has caused more problems than it fixed!?

 

Oh 25 but that’s the whole point (do you actually read the posts?) we don’t have global governance as such we have a global financial and trading system, we have global capitalism, BUT where many of the government regulations that keep such things in check and working for society are national.

The political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism).

People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, decent wages etc (1). The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. In many nations that movement reached its zenith in the 60’s.

From the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.

The problem is that we now have a global 21st century version of exploitative capitalism and the only way to counter it is by fighting for a global distributive system.

Many national governments went along with globalisation out of short term self interest or ignorance but many are now waking up to what has happened when they discovered that money has gone global and their tax systems are national. And there is talk of some type of global tax system in the air – it would be a good start but…

I think we need to go further; we need democratic international institutions that can enforce globally the same type of regulations that curtailed the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism.

 

Well, I still think it's caused more problems than it has fixed. I also believe the UN is in the pocket of Filthy Rich Capitalist, who seek to use the worlds resources for personal gain.


However, I have a Doctor appointment in like an hour, so I will explain later on today, why I feel this way...

 

25


Could you also explain your alternative to seeking democratic governance? As I’ve said -



Everyone seems to agree that economic globalisation exists.


Most seem to agree that there are global problems.


Most seem to realise that at the moment there are institutions and influences guiding economic (and to some extent political) globalisation.

 

It's exactly what we have now. It's been here since Raygun.

 

It won't happen EVER.

The problem the world has right now is replacing our fossil fuel energy with something else. And this is a major problem that no one has the answers or financial resources to address.

Fossil fuels are cheap and portable and give the most bang for your buck in terms of potential energy use. whereas all of the alternative/sustainable/renewable energy technologies just can't do the same job. Therefore anything that requires the transportation of great distances is going to become a thing of the past, including government.

Oil runs our transportation machinery, builds our toys and keeps governments in power and communication. 150 years ago we got high grade crude with very little effort. In energy terms it cost us 1 single barrel of oil to get back 100 barrels of oil. But today in layman's terms for each single barrel of oil we need to use to get oil out of the ground we're lucky to get 13 to 15 barrels. And sadly that oil is of very poor quality, meaning it does less work than the oil of 150 years ago.

In the next 5 to 10 years this world is going to become very large once again. Unfortunately food, water, livestock and topsoil are going to become the currencies of the future. There will be no more transporting produce across the country and forget shipping it over seas. The prime energy resource is once again going to be muscle power and in a world powered by muscles the only government that rules is the big guy standing next to you.

 

If you have money squirting out of your ass then a one world government will be great, but if your just a working schmuck like 99% of us are, then it will be more slavery than we already have with our present overbearing national governments.

 

I don't think we should be involved in "world" affairs. I think our government, as well as the UN, has alternative motives; They may say these attacks are for "humanitarian" reasons, but at the same time, they hand select western dictators to replace democratically elected leaders.

So what would be better than that? What about Diplomacy and conversing. The thing is, Assad is not as bad as or media makes him look, nor was Gaddafi. There's obviously other motives the people don't know about.

Well Who gave the UN the authority to hand-select who is a dictator, and who's a good leader?

The UN did something good taking out Hitler- then, they became an oligarch version of his policies. Starting with, a few years later, helping Israel occupy a land that was 99% inhabited.

But if you're saying, a world government that's not the UN-I don't think a Global Government is good, because it is much too powerful.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."~John Action~

 

The UN wasn't even formed yet when Hitler shot himself in spring of 1945 - the UN was formed in the autumn of 1945, and had nothing to do with the pounding the US and Russia gave the Nazis.

 

futile

I think this discussion would be better placed in the – energy policy thread at –
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=474721&page=2

 

25

This does not answer the question Again - Could you also explain your alternative to seeking democratic governance?

This is not about Assad it is about world governance.

Again not answering the question.

The UN didn’t even exist before or during WWII as it is presently set up there was an alliance of 'United Nations' as an alternative to calling themselves 'the allies' (against the Axis powers) but that was an wartime alliance not an organization as such, to me the present UN was set up on October 24, 1945, with the ratifications of the Charter of the United Nations.

Again you are not addressing whats been raised to repeat – Most seem to realise that at the moment there are institutions and influences guiding economic (and to some extent political) globalisation.

There are those who just want to do nothing about this situation.

There are those that think something needs to be done to manage globalisation.

You seem to be saying you want those already in control to stay in control.

The quote is attributed to John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, a rich and powerful nobleman (a Baron) who was a supporter of the Confederacy (and presumably the slave system) in the American civil war.

The thing is that if someone has power they may wish to preserve it, a member of a ruling class may fear something that might limit its power such as a more powerful person or a more powerful group. So they can misdirect people from their own power by warning of the absolute power of say a tyranny of one - or of the people.

In a society there are competing interests and powers, in a monetary based system power can pool within wealth and wealth can use that power and influence to promote its own interests over that of other groups, in a democracy that influence is countered (is supposedly countered) by the voting power of the majority.

The problem here is that many with right wing views seem to want to give greater power and influence to wealth or at least not oppose it.

Try reading -

Free Market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

 

Worldwide, or locally?

Tell me fully what the question is. Global Government, NOT controlled by the UN?

Where the hell did I ever say that? Look, you have a skewed view on Libertarianism (NeoLibalism as you call it.) Corperations are already in change, and work through Governments. They get special favors from government; money, EPA over-looks etc. The Biggest, baddest corperations own our world, because they run our governments. Take that power from Government, and spread it among local goverments (At First) and mankind should strive for no Government in a peaceful and voluntary society. That is what I believe

The Queen was also on the Confederate Side, afterall, it was Brittian selling the south their slaves- they didn't want to lose that business!

But it's not. A majority of Americans want Marijauna Legal-it's not. The Majority don't support wars- government says "Fuck em!"

Seriously, you say I support something you actually support. If you "kick" this government out, the next government will be just as corrupt, as long as they have power! That's why we take the Power away from the Almighty federal government. Then, coperations wouldn't be able to have a racket-economy, based on debt slavery.

Quite the contrary. We want NO government special "benefits" corperations receive. We want the free market to run the economy NOT government. Taking power away from government IS taking power away from the elite!

 

Okay, well. Then, the UN has done NOTHING good, and is bent on World Domination, just like Hitler; Instead, as I said, a Hitler, Oligarch version!

 

25

So you haven’t read the posts?
Sorry this just smacks of evasion - so once again (3rd time) - Could you explain your alternative to seeking democratic governance?

So again yet more evidence that you haven’t read the posts, or is it simply evasion?

You seem to be saying that you want those already in control to stay in control because that seems to be what you are proposing, you may claim differently but looking at the things you actually say that claim seems to be false.

We have been through this many times –
I’ve put down my criticisms of right wing libertarianism many times why not address them rather than evade them?

The problem is that while right wing libertarians claim they want to lessen the power and influence of wealth the policies they would enact would actually increase the power and influence of wealth –

As explained in - Free Market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

The British Slavery Abolition Act was passed in 1833 the American Civil War was in 1861-5.

But there never has been and never can be a ‘free market’ for the reason set out here – Free Market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36