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

Post 62 does not answer the question I asked.

Once again I must ask, HOW would global government give LESS power to big companies?

And for the benefit of those who are involving themselves in this thread, it would do no harm to post anew and clearly, for the benefit of others who may not care to revisit old threads.

 

Once again, you evade answering the question asked, therefore I'll ask it once again.

If we had a global government and a New World Order, WHO would wield power? The poor? NOT the same persons who govern us today?

 

Yeah, I find it quite ironic that Balbus is guilty of the exact same thing he accuses others of doing. It's just more of the same utopian, leftist drivel that sounds good on paper but would result in tyranny if played out... which is happening, might I add.

Who would wield power, Balbus? It is a simple question. Don't give us tired platitudes -- explain yourself for a change.

 

Bravo!! The afore mentioned question shows the intellectual inadequacy of the left. Who has the intellectual power to determine what someone's "fair share" would be? Who polices these individuals? eric "with" holder? barry? Introducing NWO into the scenerio only leads to global socialism. Successful nations will succumb to the demands of barbarians.

 

It was meant to jog you memory I mean you seem to have forget so much

Did you read the thread - [FONT=&quot]Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat?[/FONT]
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

You really can’t remember anything of the last two years? It would be the same as doing it on a national level, and we have been through that enough times, tell you what go back and read these threads –

[FONT=&quot]Question About Operation of Small Government[/FONT]
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

[FONT=&quot]Effort or Luck?[/FONT]
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=400136

[FONT=&quot]Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect[/FONT]
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=453435&page=2

Surely you meant lessen as in lessen the influence of companies to exploit, that’s what I took you as meaning?

The distributive ideas I’ve put forward would have a lessening effect as would the regulation of their lobbying.

Come on indie are we constantly going over the same stuff.

LOL – if people want to read stuff they can

But I’m talking to you and you really should know this stuff because we have been through it over and over and over again for over two years – Can you really not remember a thing – please go back read the threads above to start with and I’d be happy to link to some more if you need them to remember.

Can you explain in what way it is evasion? As I’ve told you many many many times in a properly functioning democracy interests should be balanced.

To repeat - Again we have been through this in a lot of our many talks about democracy; can you not honestly remember any of that?

To repeat it should be about balance, the balancing of interests.

And again I’ve many times explained to you that ‘poverty’ is relative, can you not remember the long ‘poverty’ thread we were in?

Come on man did you not read the posts in this thread?

What? Do you think I have a crystal ball or something?

 

Bal,

For the benefit of all, in this thread, it wouldn't hurt for you to post and perhaps more clearly and concisely what ever it is you refer to in an old thread.

So feel free to refresh my memory, while at the same time informing the others involved in this thread.

 

Allow me to rephrase the question, and then perhaps you would honor us all with an answer in this thread.

How would global government lessen the power of big companies?

Again, for the benefit of those subscribed to this thread, could you acquaint us with what those distributive (redistributive?) ideas are/were?

So you're saying it is not your intent to eliminate the power of those "big companies", and I would presume inclusive of those who are just wealthy, but only to reduce the effect of their power as applied to the government?

Can lobbying be effectively regulated in a non-partisan way?

 

Indie

But I’m not talking to all, I’m talking to you. That’s why it’s titled ‘Indie’.

And again if you need your memory refreshed you could start by reading these threads – (if others wish to read them they can)

Question About Operation of Small Government
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

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

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=453435&page=2

And while you read you could try and address all the outstanding questions and criticisms.

 

But there are probably some in this thread who haven't read every old thread, and perhaps you could produce something more in context with the OP which I believe was created by you.

Why bother to create a new thread when you could have just brought an old one to the top of the list by posting a new comment in it?

I'm sorry, but I try not to cram my memory with things I feel unimportant, or of little productive use.

 

Indie

The distributive ideas I’ve put forward would have a lessening effect as would the regulation of their lobbying.

Try reading post 62 of this thread

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7735586&postcount=62

I mean hell its only above

Look man if you really want to benefit subscribers to these forums go back to all those other threads and address the many outstanding criticisms of your views?

Have I ever said eliminate?

Oh man we have been through the lobby thing in a thousand other threads –

I think lobbying should be regulated, I’m unsure exactly what your views are because you normally evade, but I get the impression that you view is that if ‘government’ was small and weak they wouldn’t be lobbying which as has been explained to you by me and many others seems a bit irrational because lobbying would most likely carry on it would be just easier for them to get what they want.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...d.php?t=314393

 

You've yet to answer my question, is that not evasion?
"In a 'functioning democracy' 'interests should be balanced.'"
That means very little without defining what a 'functioning democracy' is, and considering the vast number of issues which face voters in todays world, along with the political agendas of the candidates relative to each issue from which we are given to choose from, more often than not we end up with a minority ruled government regardless of who we vote for.

Like I've said in the past, democracy, like any other form of government, works best on a small scale, where many exist, and people are free to move from those they disagree with and to those they do agree more closely with.

 

Indie

But they can read them if they want to – I often read old threads to make sure of what people said – that why I can so often quote you – when you claim you didn’t say something or claim that it was taken out of context.

I always find it funny that many of those that extol the virtues of work are the ones too lazy to do even a bit of back reading.

LOL - like having answers to all those outstanding criticisms of your views.

 

Indie

In what way have I not answered?

LOL - how do you remember since you seem to have forgotten everything else.

 

Your opinion must be based on something which leads you to believe that global government and a New World Order would provide everyone with better governance. As it is the voters are less knowledgable of politicians who represent them at higher levels of government than those who do so at the local level, and as a result become more isolated from their representation as it moves up the chain of government which results in less representation and more often only greater taxation and/or debt.

In my opinion, more centralization of government is less democratic, and much more socialistic and/or communistic, reducing the very little power the people who are governed even more.

 

I think the problem is that you can’t remember anything anyone says that you don’t like – let’s try an experiment – can you find the ‘something’ - read this thread and you can quote me from any other.

But you’ve argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth should be given greater power so that it could block the vote of the majority.

 

The 'something' I referred to is not to be found in any post of yours which I've read, it is something I presume to be contained within your mind.

I have indeed argued against democracy being put to misuse. Simply having a majority is not the method of acquiring a correct answer to a question or solving all problems.

Try applying reason sometime.

 

Simply put, Republicans and Democrats have been running a two party system, longer than anything. Democrats were the first ones to push big government and war, but that eventually spread to conservatives as well. Politicians play the "I scratch your back, and you scratch mine," game except it's more like "You sign my war bill, and I'll sign your welfare bill." In other words, they expanded the government. They gave government more power, and expanded government influence greatly around the world. This created the Military-Industrial complex, because when we went off the gold standard, we offered oil rich countries "Protection," in exchange for taking our dollars for oil.

Because as I said, Left politically means more government, Right is less government. Full left is total government, no freedom- full right is full freedom, no government. Libertarian is right by Anarchy, but we do believe in some government. Our problem is we're using the government; everything is done worse by government. Here's just a few places the government got involved and drove the price up.

Health Insurance,
The Postal Service,
Schools,
Scholarships,
Etc.

However, when the free market runs these same businesses, they would be turning a profit. Instead, the government drives the price up, then college students spend their life paying off this insane debts, which are only so high, cause colleges KNOW they can drive up the price, and government will still pay.

[quoteOdonII]
Quote:


I disagree with the premise that it's the true right destroying this nation
Again WHY do you disagree? [/quote]
Again, it's because of expansion of government this nation is in peril. That IS leftist ideals. They like Universal Healthcare, welfare, social security etc. Most of you Liberals may claim you don't support war; but yet, Liberal Politicians happily go to war. Why? Cause you can't have the best of both worlds. Liberals tell me I live off of ideologies, but what sounds more ideological; No war, no poverty, no crime (Liberal goals,) people trying their best, as free and equal individuals to better society in a non violent, and voluntary way. Government is peace through force; they harm peaceful people, kill innocents at home and abroad. This is all they know and all they are good at- Terrorizing people, searching people and killing people. That's why people on both ends of the "political isle" essentially have their demands, but nothing truly cuts at the problem; because the problem is government! They get too much of our money, which is hurting the middle class. I don't have anything to show you, but you claim it's the rise of "NeoLiberal" (Libertarian) Ideals of small government, when i contend it was Democrats, Republicans and their overspending and constant increase in government.

Look at the 4 years of Liberal Leader Obama.
http://static4.businessinsider.com

America isn't weak in some ways, and we are weak in others. I just don't think you can ever have enough cops around to keep everyone safe- you'd have to have a cop in everyone's home. Then, the real victim would be the people! But it seems like that's what Liberals support.

Because it's true. We had no debt, and hardly any government through most of our start. I have said many times, society runs itself; we don't need government to get along peacefully. We've given them that spot, and just like any other criminal most of them abuse their power to get rich stealing from the taxpayer.

No, that's not been the case in the recent past, a lot of capitalist in this country have turned a profit, a decide to hire people. But the government even makes that more different as there are already crazy fees for hiring people and for keeping people on. Some states will force small businesses to shut down. Yeah, we still have businesses out there, but if Obama really wanted to get the people jobs, he'd let more taxpayers keep more money because that makes it possible to invest, rather then squeezing by each month, like life is for most of us.

 

Such a strawman. The fact that little girls selling lemonade are breaking regulations is simply a comically tragic outcome of a very seriously useful law. Little girls don't want to poison people, on purpose, but lots of adults do.

Tons of people. It would help people even more if it offered more liquid assets, and also more in the way of education coupons and whatnot.

I agree, let's make education free and universal.

I agree, welfare should be expanded, to allow even employed college students who are barely scraping by on ramen noodles and no heat in the winter to get some money from the government they will be contributing taxes to soon.

THE GOVERNMENT IS PEOPLE

I . . . wait, what?

You just lost all respect from me. You are a complete troll.

 

It's funny you ignored the following post where I posted a video which SHOWED cops busting little girls lemonade stands. (John Stossel 'illegal everything')

As I said, welfare pay some people more than a 12 hour job! Why is it right to take crazy taxes from someone making minimum wage, to give it to someone who wont work?
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"~Thomas jefferson~

Nothingg is free; that money comes off the back of hard working people, like me. It's okay if someone wants to sit on their ass and do drugs their whole life, just don't do it with my money! Also, We already have free education; and if you talking about free pre k, for all 4 yr olds, this is where you lost my respect.

I don't believe ANY government should be expanded. The government has been involved with health insurance for over 40 years, what happened? The price went UP, quality of care went DOWN, and less people are on health insurance today all thanks to Big Brother.

Wrong, the government was built by the people, but immediately starting going at our Constitution (only 30 years later,) and it's been a slow progression to tyranny ever since. I don't need your respect, nor do I care what you think about me. You're the ignorant one who believes more bad government can fix bad governance.

 

Looks like I got on the wrong thread "I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?" posting last night thinking I was posting to this one.

I've yet to see anything posted which would lead me to accepting a "global government and a New World Order" as progress in a positive way. As it is, the UN appears to be the seed out of which such governance will eventually occur.

While those on the Left constantly give lip service to 'democracy', the people who vote and are governed already have very little voice in how they are governed. Democracy in reality is exercised by only a small number of persons who are most beholding to those who provided funding which allowed them to acquire their position of power.

At best, a "global government and a New World Order" would provide those who currently 'pull the strings' controlling those who pose as our 'representatives' in government a much more centralized source in which to exercise their control of government in creating laws, rules and regulations, leaving for the people only the democratic role of selecting 'who' among them will be empowered to apply and exercise the controls upon them.

This would have been an interesting poll question, allowing only a yes or no response.