Globalization and the Possibility of a Global Government
Globalization is the term used when discussing the phenomenon that has been occurring all through time. Global government may be interchanged with World government but not with global governance.
My collaborator and I both think that a global government is possible but only if there has been a global crisis for instance a global pandemic involving 2/3 of the worlds population (2,175,056,754 (July 2006 est.)) or an extraterrestrial invasion.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Please don't say this too loud. I imagine that the current U.S. administration might get a stiffy thinking about the possibility of ruling the world!
Sandi
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
The little green guys are really coming:-3
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
I think it would only work if every country held a poll or referendum were the outcome must be over 80% YES and if there was a Constitution that had to be signed stateing that they forfit all tresury and military power to the Goverment and that rebellion is not tried that they cannot go back on there desicion and that they will still have some power but will not be able to have an army or a dictatorship.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
MOTime wrote: Globalization and the Possibility of a Global Government
Globalization is the term used when discussing the phenomenon that has been occurring all through time. Global government may be interchanged with World government but not with global governance.
My collaborator and I both think that a global government is possible but only if there has been a global crisis for instance a global pandemic involving 2/3 of the worlds population (2,175,056,754 (July 2006 est.)) or an extraterrestrial invasion.
Our government are soon going to give control of our laws and legal system to europe we will no longer have control of our own country because for the last 35 years parliament have betrayed us. Europe as far as I am concerned are the ungodly.
Globalization is the term used when discussing the phenomenon that has been occurring all through time. Global government may be interchanged with World government but not with global governance.
My collaborator and I both think that a global government is possible but only if there has been a global crisis for instance a global pandemic involving 2/3 of the worlds population (2,175,056,754 (July 2006 est.)) or an extraterrestrial invasion.
Our government are soon going to give control of our laws and legal system to europe we will no longer have control of our own country because for the last 35 years parliament have betrayed us. Europe as far as I am concerned are the ungodly.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Sounds "good," if YOU are the one writing the rules! Want to try governing the world?
India, for example, has several hundred recognized languages and (I believe) 11 "official" ones. It's a struggle to get anything through the government.
Let's think again about "globalization." :-5
India, for example, has several hundred recognized languages and (I believe) 11 "official" ones. It's a struggle to get anything through the government.
Let's think again about "globalization." :-5
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
I think the EEU is trying to give it a good go.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
An incredibly bad idea, imo. Nothing works better than small governments governing small areas. Lincoln and Roosevelt ruined the US in their short-sightedness by growing the centralized fed.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Accountable wrote: An incredibly bad idea, imo. Nothing works better than small governments governing small areas. Lincoln and Roosevelt ruined the US in their short-sightedness by growing the centralized fed.
Unfortunatley wars tend to do that...
Unfortunatley wars tend to do that...
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
SuperPowerChina
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:41 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
I agree, but the capital must be in china
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
SuperPowerChina;458746 wrote: I agree, but the capital must be in china
ROFL! What a wise interjection! That's stopped *that* global government, then!
ROFL! What a wise interjection! That's stopped *that* global government, then!
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
:wah: Bill....
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Your original post was correct, except that only an alien invasion would ever prompt such a thing, even then it would be over as soon as we somehow managed to defeat a civilization that can travel faster than light, and move through time (hmmm?), perhaps we could send Will Smith up in an F-16 
. In short don't worry, its never going to happen.
. In short don't worry, its never going to happen."We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
A global government is needed desperately!
If we had a government whose duty was the welfare of all the world's citizens then poverty would soon be eliminated.
Wars would also stop, except that nationalist and religious terrorists would see a rise in popularity in the short term.
It seems at the moment that the USA is also intent on a one world, one culture government. By inundating other nations with American films, music, TV shows, and chains of shops/restaurants they want to convert the world into Americans!
They have already seen considerable success. I am British and am sad to see that youngsters in my country no longer speak or write English, but the American version of the language.
In cases of countries which fail to adopt the American culture the old method of military invasion is used, as we see in Iraq, Afaghanistan, Vietnam etc.. (whose next on the list)?
Western countries are unwilling to give away their unwarranted share of power in relation to population size.
It is to be hoped that the EU can unite to form a new super power to balance the USA and prevent it from riding rough-shod over the nations of the earth.
One day I am sure that there will be a world government, but it remains to be seen what form it will take.
If we had a government whose duty was the welfare of all the world's citizens then poverty would soon be eliminated.
Wars would also stop, except that nationalist and religious terrorists would see a rise in popularity in the short term.
It seems at the moment that the USA is also intent on a one world, one culture government. By inundating other nations with American films, music, TV shows, and chains of shops/restaurants they want to convert the world into Americans!
They have already seen considerable success. I am British and am sad to see that youngsters in my country no longer speak or write English, but the American version of the language.
In cases of countries which fail to adopt the American culture the old method of military invasion is used, as we see in Iraq, Afaghanistan, Vietnam etc.. (whose next on the list)?
Western countries are unwilling to give away their unwarranted share of power in relation to population size.
It is to be hoped that the EU can unite to form a new super power to balance the USA and prevent it from riding rough-shod over the nations of the earth.
One day I am sure that there will be a world government, but it remains to be seen what form it will take.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;482480 wrote: If we had a government whose duty was the welfare of all the world's citizens then poverty would soon be eliminated.Thank you Caesar. Surely we already have such a body already active and in place, based in the Vatican City.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;482480 wrote: A global government is needed desperately!
If we had a government whose duty was the welfare of all the world's citizens then poverty would soon be eliminated.
Wars would also stop, except that nationalist and religious terrorists would see a rise in popularity in the short term.
It seems at the moment that the USA is also intent on a one world, one culture government. By inundating other nations with American films, music, TV shows, and chains of shops/restaurants they want to convert the world into Americans!
They have already seen considerable success. I am British and am sad to see that youngsters in my country no longer speak or write English, but the American version of the language.
In cases of countries which fail to adopt the American culture the old method of military invasion is used, as we see in Iraq, Afaghanistan, Vietnam etc.. (whose next on the list)?
Western countries are unwilling to give away their unwarranted share of power in relation to population size.
It is to be hoped that the EU can unite to form a new super power to balance the USA and prevent it from riding rough-shod over the nations of the earth.
One day I am sure that there will be a world government, but it remains to be seen what form it will take.
Not that I agree with you in the least - Oh, WELCOME, by the way :-6 - but your post .... you say we need a global government, then lament that the US is trying to do just that, and hope that the EU will balance against the US, resulting in 2 big governments.
I think huge governments (US included) are phenominally bad for the globe. There's no way a single bureaucracy can hope to do the things you wish for. Not evenly balanced worldwide.
If we had a government whose duty was the welfare of all the world's citizens then poverty would soon be eliminated.
Wars would also stop, except that nationalist and religious terrorists would see a rise in popularity in the short term.
It seems at the moment that the USA is also intent on a one world, one culture government. By inundating other nations with American films, music, TV shows, and chains of shops/restaurants they want to convert the world into Americans!
They have already seen considerable success. I am British and am sad to see that youngsters in my country no longer speak or write English, but the American version of the language.
In cases of countries which fail to adopt the American culture the old method of military invasion is used, as we see in Iraq, Afaghanistan, Vietnam etc.. (whose next on the list)?
Western countries are unwilling to give away their unwarranted share of power in relation to population size.
It is to be hoped that the EU can unite to form a new super power to balance the USA and prevent it from riding rough-shod over the nations of the earth.
One day I am sure that there will be a world government, but it remains to be seen what form it will take.
Not that I agree with you in the least - Oh, WELCOME, by the way :-6 - but your post .... you say we need a global government, then lament that the US is trying to do just that, and hope that the EU will balance against the US, resulting in 2 big governments.
I think huge governments (US included) are phenominally bad for the globe. There's no way a single bureaucracy can hope to do the things you wish for. Not evenly balanced worldwide.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Accountable;483210 wrote: Not that I agree with you in the least - Oh, WELCOME, by the way :-6 - but your post .... you say we need a global government, then lament that the US is trying to do just that, and hope that the EU will balance against the US, resulting in 2 big governments.
I think huge governments (US included) are phenominally bad for the globe. There's no way a single bureaucracy can hope to do the things you wish for. Not evenly balanced worldwide.I'd be delighted to see the US succeeding in becoming the World Government and eliminating the entire concept of national sovereignty. It's a laudable solution to a lot of the world's ills. There's no reason why it should end up as a monoculture and it seems to me that multicultural regions, right down to a small scale, would continue indefinitely as they have for the last thousand years in England. The US replacing national governance with a World government isn't a threat to native culture.
I think huge governments (US included) are phenominally bad for the globe. There's no way a single bureaucracy can hope to do the things you wish for. Not evenly balanced worldwide.I'd be delighted to see the US succeeding in becoming the World Government and eliminating the entire concept of national sovereignty. It's a laudable solution to a lot of the world's ills. There's no reason why it should end up as a monoculture and it seems to me that multicultural regions, right down to a small scale, would continue indefinitely as they have for the last thousand years in England. The US replacing national governance with a World government isn't a threat to native culture.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Accountable;483210 wrote: Not that I agree with you in the least - Oh, WELCOME, by the way :-6 - but your post .... you say we need a global government, then lament that the US is trying to do just that, and hope that the EU will balance against the US, resulting in 2 big governments.
I think huge governments (US included) are phenominally bad for the globe. There's no way a single bureaucracy can hope to do the things you wish for. Not evenly balanced worldwide.
I lament that the USA is trying to dominate the world. I hope that the EU will balance the USA to prevent their domination. The EU is a union of different cultures working together whilst the USA is one culture trying to dominate.
I would like to see the UN become more like the EU leading one day to a world government of different cultures, rather than a world governed by Americans for Americans.
I think huge governments (US included) are phenominally bad for the globe. There's no way a single bureaucracy can hope to do the things you wish for. Not evenly balanced worldwide.
I lament that the USA is trying to dominate the world. I hope that the EU will balance the USA to prevent their domination. The EU is a union of different cultures working together whilst the USA is one culture trying to dominate.
I would like to see the UN become more like the EU leading one day to a world government of different cultures, rather than a world governed by Americans for Americans.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
I don't think that's possible, and don't want to take the risk to find out. Frankly, I'd be more comfortable if the US were less, um, involved. But along the same lines, I don't want the UN, EU, or any other pair of foreign letters making presumptions over me & my ways, either.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
It is unfortunately true that most of the world thinks like you. Here in Britain the EU is portrayed by the press as some kind of monster that wishes to eat away at our rights and our Britishness. The reality is much different.
If only people could see that if we all worked together it would be to the benefit of all. With all the money we waste on fighting each other we could tackle almost any problem thrown at us. Sadly the rich nations want to keep their position of privilage and the poor are powerless to help themselves.
If only people could see that if we all worked together it would be to the benefit of all. With all the money we waste on fighting each other we could tackle almost any problem thrown at us. Sadly the rich nations want to keep their position of privilage and the poor are powerless to help themselves.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Diuretic;483558 wrote: I'll vote for anarchy. Real anarchy, not yob behaviour and bomb-throwing. It won't happen of course but it's nice to think about when it all gets a bit too much.
Mmm. Ideal anarchy. Great!
Mmm. Ideal anarchy. Great!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;483644 wrote: It is unfortunately true that most of the world thinks like you. Here in Britain the EU is portrayed by the press as some kind of monster that wishes to eat away at our rights and our Britishness. The reality is much different.
If only people could see that if we all worked together it would be to the benefit of all. With all the money we waste on fighting each other we could tackle almost any problem thrown at us. Sadly the rich nations want to keep their position of privilage and the poor are powerless to help themselves.
Please explain how a single global government does not "eat away at" a national identity & culture.
If only people could see that if we all worked together it would be to the benefit of all. With all the money we waste on fighting each other we could tackle almost any problem thrown at us. Sadly the rich nations want to keep their position of privilage and the poor are powerless to help themselves.
Please explain how a single global government does not "eat away at" a national identity & culture.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Accountable;483653 wrote: Please explain how a single global government does not "eat away at" a national identity & culture.
Does the parallel between the different regions of the United Kingdom and their distinct identities, retained for centuries already under a single governing constitution and parliament, have no relevance in forming your opinion?
Does the parallel between the different regions of the United Kingdom and their distinct identities, retained for centuries already under a single governing constitution and parliament, have no relevance in forming your opinion?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Accountable;483653 wrote: Please explain how a single global government does not "eat away at" a national identity & culture.
Thank you Spot.
The UK is divided into England, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each has its own sports teams, assembly or parliament, culture and in some cases language. Yet they are all united by one government.
I hope this clears things up for you Accountable.
Thank you Spot.
The UK is divided into England, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each has its own sports teams, assembly or parliament, culture and in some cases language. Yet they are all united by one government.
I hope this clears things up for you Accountable.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;482480 wrote: A global government is needed desperately!
If we had a government whose duty was the welfare of all the world's citizens then poverty would soon be eliminated.
Wars would also stop, except that nationalist and religious terrorists would see a rise in popularity in the short term.
It seems at the moment that the USA is also intent on a one world, one culture government. By inundating other nations with American films, music, TV shows, and chains of shops/restaurants they want to convert the world into Americans!
They have already seen considerable success. I am British and am sad to see that youngsters in my country no longer speak or write English, but the American version of the language.
In cases of countries which fail to adopt the American culture the old method of military invasion is used, as we see in Iraq, Afaghanistan, Vietnam etc.. (whose next on the list)?
Western countries are unwilling to give away their unwarranted share of power in relation to population size.
It is to be hoped that the EU can unite to form a new super power to balance the USA and prevent it from riding rough-shod over the nations of the earth.
One day I am sure that there will be a world government, but it remains to be seen what form it will take.
How wrong can you be? any global government would not treat every one fairly the Russians had a large number of countries under there sway yet did not treat them as anything but slave states to be used for the benefit of Russia. Do thje Americans treat south America fairly of course not. Did Napolean treat the countries he controlled fairly did Hitlers Germany of course not which ever country gets the control of a world government will look after itself and stuff every one else. Unless it is England of course we controlled 25% of the worlds land mass and ran it fairly and with justice we had a bigger Empire than any other country in the history of the world, and every one in the Empire benefitted. As for the EU we were taken in by Heath and an assorted group of traitors who set out to destroy this country and it's constituion and they are succeeding we have been sold to europe heath got £60,000 we have yet to find out how much the others got. Of one thing we can be certain we can not trust our own parliament to stop it.
If we had a government whose duty was the welfare of all the world's citizens then poverty would soon be eliminated.
Wars would also stop, except that nationalist and religious terrorists would see a rise in popularity in the short term.
It seems at the moment that the USA is also intent on a one world, one culture government. By inundating other nations with American films, music, TV shows, and chains of shops/restaurants they want to convert the world into Americans!
They have already seen considerable success. I am British and am sad to see that youngsters in my country no longer speak or write English, but the American version of the language.
In cases of countries which fail to adopt the American culture the old method of military invasion is used, as we see in Iraq, Afaghanistan, Vietnam etc.. (whose next on the list)?
Western countries are unwilling to give away their unwarranted share of power in relation to population size.
It is to be hoped that the EU can unite to form a new super power to balance the USA and prevent it from riding rough-shod over the nations of the earth.
One day I am sure that there will be a world government, but it remains to be seen what form it will take.
How wrong can you be? any global government would not treat every one fairly the Russians had a large number of countries under there sway yet did not treat them as anything but slave states to be used for the benefit of Russia. Do thje Americans treat south America fairly of course not. Did Napolean treat the countries he controlled fairly did Hitlers Germany of course not which ever country gets the control of a world government will look after itself and stuff every one else. Unless it is England of course we controlled 25% of the worlds land mass and ran it fairly and with justice we had a bigger Empire than any other country in the history of the world, and every one in the Empire benefitted. As for the EU we were taken in by Heath and an assorted group of traitors who set out to destroy this country and it's constituion and they are succeeding we have been sold to europe heath got £60,000 we have yet to find out how much the others got. Of one thing we can be certain we can not trust our own parliament to stop it.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;483644 wrote: It is unfortunately true that most of the world thinks like you. Here in Britain the EU is portrayed by the press as some kind of monster that wishes to eat away at our rights and our Britishness. The reality is much different.
If only people could see that if we all worked together it would be to the benefit of all. With all the money we waste on fighting each other we could tackle almost any problem thrown at us. Sadly the rich nations want to keep their position of privilage and the poor are powerless to help themselves.
Unlike you ceaser I AM NOT BRITISH I AM ENGLISH and untill bliar arrived England had never attacked another country unless and untill they started the fight. We on the other hand have not lost a fight for a thousand years. Marshell Ney said he would rather fight a 100 fully fit and fully equiped prussians than 10 hungry sick and exhausted English men. Why are you prepared to betray your country to join up with europe people have had their heads removed for that still maybe you dont like your head.
If only people could see that if we all worked together it would be to the benefit of all. With all the money we waste on fighting each other we could tackle almost any problem thrown at us. Sadly the rich nations want to keep their position of privilage and the poor are powerless to help themselves.
Unlike you ceaser I AM NOT BRITISH I AM ENGLISH and untill bliar arrived England had never attacked another country unless and untill they started the fight. We on the other hand have not lost a fight for a thousand years. Marshell Ney said he would rather fight a 100 fully fit and fully equiped prussians than 10 hungry sick and exhausted English men. Why are you prepared to betray your country to join up with europe people have had their heads removed for that still maybe you dont like your head.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
spot;483725 wrote: Does the parallel between the different regions of the United Kingdom and their distinct identities, retained for centuries already under a single governing constitution and parliament, have no relevance in forming your opinion?
Yes it does unlike europe who could not work together if their lives depended on it the differant counties in England while accepting their differances know that we are one country and we intigrate in our armed forces to make an unbeatable country, then having beaten the crap out of europe we go back to our own counties and carry on as before. WE ARE ALL ENGLISH AND PROUD OF THAT FACT.
Yes it does unlike europe who could not work together if their lives depended on it the differant counties in England while accepting their differances know that we are one country and we intigrate in our armed forces to make an unbeatable country, then having beaten the crap out of europe we go back to our own counties and carry on as before. WE ARE ALL ENGLISH AND PROUD OF THAT FACT.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;483810 wrote: Thank you Spot.
The UK is divided into England, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each has its own sports teams, assembly or parliament, culture and in some cases language. Yet they are all united by one government.
I hope this clears things up for you Accountable.
I'm not convinced the cultures are so very different, or unchanged by the controlling government, though I'm definitely out of my depth here. I was thinking more along the lines of the very different culture of India. Did Great Britain leave that culture untouched?
The UK is divided into England, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each has its own sports teams, assembly or parliament, culture and in some cases language. Yet they are all united by one government.
I hope this clears things up for you Accountable.
I'm not convinced the cultures are so very different, or unchanged by the controlling government, though I'm definitely out of my depth here. I was thinking more along the lines of the very different culture of India. Did Great Britain leave that culture untouched?
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
HEY!!!!! BTS and I just got CHEAP airfare tickets for US travel through a place in England.......everything quoted in Euros. It was about $200.00 + cheaper than we could get in the US. Does this count? Called Last minute.com
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Yes, the idea of a world of happy cultures, united under one government is POSSIBLY attractive, until you actually contemplate the nature of human beings.
Tribalism exists deeply embedded in all of us--always has--always will be. We LOVE to set ourselves apart, whether it's in religion, clothing, language or diet. The idea of ONE GOVERNMENT serving all those cultures makes about as much sense as the idea of dissolving borders!
Communism proved that the "from each according to his abilities/to each according to his needs" concept cannot and will not ever work with human nature. We are what we are.
Global government would collapse under the burden of multi-cultural interests, religious differences, human greed and prejudice.
Take a look at the U.N.
Tribalism exists deeply embedded in all of us--always has--always will be. We LOVE to set ourselves apart, whether it's in religion, clothing, language or diet. The idea of ONE GOVERNMENT serving all those cultures makes about as much sense as the idea of dissolving borders!
Communism proved that the "from each according to his abilities/to each according to his needs" concept cannot and will not ever work with human nature. We are what we are.
Global government would collapse under the burden of multi-cultural interests, religious differences, human greed and prejudice.
Take a look at the U.N.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
twizzel;484168 wrote: How wrong can you be? any global government would not treat every one fairly the Russians had a large number of countries under there sway yet did not treat them as anything but slave states to be used for the benefit of Russia. Do thje Americans treat south America fairly of course not. Did Napolean treat the countries he controlled fairly did Hitlers Germany of course not which ever country gets the control of a world government will look after itself and stuff every one else. Unless it is England of course we controlled 25% of the worlds land mass and ran it fairly and with justice we had a bigger Empire than any other country in the history of the world, and every one in the Empire benefitted. As for the EU we were taken in by Heath and an assorted group of traitors who set out to destroy this country and it's constituion and they are succeeding we have been sold to europe heath got £60,000 we have yet to find out how much the others got. Of one thing we can be certain we can not trust our own parliament to stop it.
The examples you give of Russia, America, Nazi Germany and Napoleonic France are all cases of one country dominating others, which I have already said is WRONG!
I want to see all countries represented in a world parliament, with equal reprisentation for each person.
Your view of the British (or English as you mistakenly insist on calling it) empire as a benificent power, ruling for the benefit of all its subjects is ludicrous. I doubt that you would have thought this if you were a native of one of our dominions at the time.
As for the EU, europe is on course for unification and will be the dominant power in the world within 100 years, with the highest standard of living. As one of the largest nations in europe we have a choice; to shape the EU and its laws or to leave and diminish into a second rate, small and isolated country. I know which I would rather be, a citizen of europe, not a subject of that once powerful, 3rd world country called England (Scotland and Wales will no doubt take the sensible option and leave England to its fate).
The examples you give of Russia, America, Nazi Germany and Napoleonic France are all cases of one country dominating others, which I have already said is WRONG!
I want to see all countries represented in a world parliament, with equal reprisentation for each person.
Your view of the British (or English as you mistakenly insist on calling it) empire as a benificent power, ruling for the benefit of all its subjects is ludicrous. I doubt that you would have thought this if you were a native of one of our dominions at the time.
As for the EU, europe is on course for unification and will be the dominant power in the world within 100 years, with the highest standard of living. As one of the largest nations in europe we have a choice; to shape the EU and its laws or to leave and diminish into a second rate, small and isolated country. I know which I would rather be, a citizen of europe, not a subject of that once powerful, 3rd world country called England (Scotland and Wales will no doubt take the sensible option and leave England to its fate).
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
twizzel;484179 wrote: Unlike you ceaser I AM NOT BRITISH I AM ENGLISH and untill bliar arrived England had never attacked another country unless and untill they started the fight. We on the other hand have not lost a fight for a thousand years. Marshell Ney said he would rather fight a 100 fully fit and fully equiped prussians than 10 hungry sick and exhausted English men. Why are you prepared to betray your country to join up with europe people have had their heads removed for that still maybe you dont like your head.
I am Human 1st, European 2nd, British 3rd and English 4th.
You need to check your history; England has attacked many countries as an aggressor, Wales in the 12th century, Scotland in the 13th and 14th (which we LOST!), France in the 15th and 16th, Spanish colonies in the 17th, and technologically inferior natives around the globe in the 15th-20th centuries.
We have also lost many times, to Scotland as I said, to France in the reigns of king John and Henry VI to the American revolutionaries etc...
I think it would be a betrayal to lead my country down a path which leads to isolation and diminishing living standards as you wish to.
As for losing my head; thankfully we have rights nowadays.
I do like my head, it's full of good ideas but I think that you could lose yours with no loss to your intelligence.
I am Human 1st, European 2nd, British 3rd and English 4th.
You need to check your history; England has attacked many countries as an aggressor, Wales in the 12th century, Scotland in the 13th and 14th (which we LOST!), France in the 15th and 16th, Spanish colonies in the 17th, and technologically inferior natives around the globe in the 15th-20th centuries.
We have also lost many times, to Scotland as I said, to France in the reigns of king John and Henry VI to the American revolutionaries etc...
I think it would be a betrayal to lead my country down a path which leads to isolation and diminishing living standards as you wish to.
As for losing my head; thankfully we have rights nowadays.
I do like my head, it's full of good ideas but I think that you could lose yours with no loss to your intelligence.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
twizzel;484202 wrote: Yes it does unlike europe who could not work together if their lives depended on it the differant counties in England while accepting their differances know that we are one country and we intigrate in our armed forces to make an unbeatable country, then having beaten the crap out of europe we go back to our own counties and carry on as before. WE ARE ALL ENGLISH AND PROUD OF THAT FACT.
I am ashamed to come from the same country as you. You give yourself away with talk of "beating the crap out of europe".
I think a more suitable place for your opinions would be 1930's Germany, you would have been in your element.
I am ashamed to come from the same country as you. You give yourself away with talk of "beating the crap out of europe".
I think a more suitable place for your opinions would be 1930's Germany, you would have been in your element.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;484571 wrote: I am ashamed to come from the same country as you. You give yourself away with talk of "beating the crap out of europe".
I think a more suitable place for your opinions would be 1930's Germany, you would have been in your element.Caesar, meet Twizzel. Twizzel's our resident supremacist xenophobe. You were supposed to like the idea that the UK (or England, as it's known to some people) succeeded in holding onto the Thirteen Colonies by force in the eighteenth century, that's one of the better gems we've seen.
I think a more suitable place for your opinions would be 1930's Germany, you would have been in your element.Caesar, meet Twizzel. Twizzel's our resident supremacist xenophobe. You were supposed to like the idea that the UK (or England, as it's known to some people) succeeded in holding onto the Thirteen Colonies by force in the eighteenth century, that's one of the better gems we've seen.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Thank you Diuretic, it's good to know I'm not alone.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
I dunno, "onions" seems pretty accurate. Many-layered, adds spice, some can bring tears to the eyes. Yup, we are a garden of many onions. 
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;484569 wrote: I am Human 1st, European 2nd, British 3rd and English 4th.
I can understand this sentiment, since we do much the same here in the US. But it stops at the national border. When I call myself an American, I in no way claim a kinship with Canada or Mexico.
Your language interests me, Caesar. When you use the term "dominant" for instance, in what way do you see the EU dominating? It's not a peaceful word, but a competitive one.
Also, earlier you said something about having a single world government would mean eliminating poverty or something like that. I don't get that at all. No national government has eliminated poverty in their own nation. How is it supposed to work globally?
I can understand this sentiment, since we do much the same here in the US. But it stops at the national border. When I call myself an American, I in no way claim a kinship with Canada or Mexico.
Your language interests me, Caesar. When you use the term "dominant" for instance, in what way do you see the EU dominating? It's not a peaceful word, but a competitive one.
Also, earlier you said something about having a single world government would mean eliminating poverty or something like that. I don't get that at all. No national government has eliminated poverty in their own nation. How is it supposed to work globally?
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Accountable;484659 wrote:
Your language interests me, Caesar. When you use the term "dominant" for instance, in what way do you see the EU dominating? It's not a peaceful word, but a competitive one.
Also, earlier you said something about having a single world government would mean eliminating poverty or something like that. I don't get that at all. No national government has eliminated poverty in their own nation. How is it supposed to work globally?
I use the word dominant, perhaps unwisely, to refer to the richest nation in the world.
I am refering to two different time scales. Firstly, a united Europe would balance the USA which is at present dominating the world. I see a dominant Europe as the first step to a united world. If USA was no longer dominant then its citizens would be more likely to unite with other nations as they would wish to be as privilaged as europeans would have become.
No nation has eliminated poverty, but no-one in europe or the USA is starving as a huge portion of the world is. This is what I meant by poverty. The poor in USA are wealthy in comparison to most in Africa.
Your language interests me, Caesar. When you use the term "dominant" for instance, in what way do you see the EU dominating? It's not a peaceful word, but a competitive one.
Also, earlier you said something about having a single world government would mean eliminating poverty or something like that. I don't get that at all. No national government has eliminated poverty in their own nation. How is it supposed to work globally?
I use the word dominant, perhaps unwisely, to refer to the richest nation in the world.
I am refering to two different time scales. Firstly, a united Europe would balance the USA which is at present dominating the world. I see a dominant Europe as the first step to a united world. If USA was no longer dominant then its citizens would be more likely to unite with other nations as they would wish to be as privilaged as europeans would have become.
No nation has eliminated poverty, but no-one in europe or the USA is starving as a huge portion of the world is. This is what I meant by poverty. The poor in USA are wealthy in comparison to most in Africa.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;484662 wrote: I use the word dominant, perhaps unwisely, to refer to the richest nation in the world.
I am refering to two different time scales. Firstly, a united Europe would balance the USA which is at present dominating the world. I see a dominant Europe as the first step to a united world. If USA was no longer dominant then its citizens would be more likely to unite with other nations as they would wish to be as privilaged as europeans would have become.I'm going out on a limb and guess that you haven't visited the US.
caesar777 wrote: No nation has eliminated poverty, but no-one in europe or the USA is starving as a huge portion of the world is. This is what I meant by poverty. The poor in USA are wealthy in comparison to most in Africa.We're in complete agreement there! I get really frustrated hearing about the poor welfare recipients only being able to afford basic cable. :yh_frustr
I am refering to two different time scales. Firstly, a united Europe would balance the USA which is at present dominating the world. I see a dominant Europe as the first step to a united world. If USA was no longer dominant then its citizens would be more likely to unite with other nations as they would wish to be as privilaged as europeans would have become.I'm going out on a limb and guess that you haven't visited the US.
caesar777 wrote: No nation has eliminated poverty, but no-one in europe or the USA is starving as a huge portion of the world is. This is what I meant by poverty. The poor in USA are wealthy in comparison to most in Africa.We're in complete agreement there! I get really frustrated hearing about the poor welfare recipients only being able to afford basic cable. :yh_frustr
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
No-one in Europe is starving, and as far as I know no-one in the usa is either.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
No, I haven't visited the US. Not sure I'd be allowed!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;484696 wrote: No, I haven't visited the US. Not sure I'd be allowed!
:wah:
:yh_eyebro Yew ain't frum 'round these here parts, are ye?
:wah:
:yh_eyebro Yew ain't frum 'round these here parts, are ye?
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
[QUOTE=Accountable;484667]I'm going out on a limb and guess that you haven't visited the US.
Have you ever visited Europe? Or anywhere outside usa?
Have you ever visited Europe? Or anywhere outside usa?
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
TWIZZEL "Unless it is England of course we controlled 25% of the worlds land mass and ran it fairly and with justice we had a bigger Empire than any other country in the history of the world, and every one in the Empire benefitted. "
+++++++++++ I just saw this sentence and had to read it several times to really believe you WROTE it SERIOUSLY!
"Ran it with justice?"
Have you never heard of the way Indians, Egyptians, Kenyans and others were treated during your "just" domination?
Please!
If everything was so "fair and just" why did countries under the yoke of the British empire chafe and struggle to be free?
Wait! Did I miss something? Were you writing that sarcastically? :rolleyes:
+++++++++++ I just saw this sentence and had to read it several times to really believe you WROTE it SERIOUSLY!
"Ran it with justice?"
Have you never heard of the way Indians, Egyptians, Kenyans and others were treated during your "just" domination?
Please!
If everything was so "fair and just" why did countries under the yoke of the British empire chafe and struggle to be free?
Wait! Did I miss something? Were you writing that sarcastically? :rolleyes:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
caesar777;484732 wrote: [quote=Accountable;484667]I'm going out on a limb and guess that you haven't visited the US.
Have you ever visited Europe? Or anywhere outside usa?
Yes. Japan, Korea, the Phillipines, England, France, and Germany.
Have you ever visited Europe? Or anywhere outside usa?
Yes. Japan, Korea, the Phillipines, England, France, and Germany.
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Accountable;485643 wrote: [quote=caesar777;484732]
Yes. Japan, Korea, the Phillipines, England, France, and Germany.
Good for you, obviously one of the beneficiaries of America's riches. I wonder how many Phillipinos are so well travelled?
Yes. Japan, Korea, the Phillipines, England, France, and Germany.
Good for you, obviously one of the beneficiaries of America's riches. I wonder how many Phillipinos are so well travelled?
Globalism and the Possibility of a Global Goverment
Like Lulu 2, I have to point out that the idea of an actual functioing "global" government in our era is not a realistic idea. How would the soverignty for such a governemnt be decided upon, what system of law would it use, how would it enforce its soverignty upon the people of the world, would it be a constitutional world republic? What about people who don't like republics or constitional governemnt, shall we enforce it upon them?
Many people seem to be looking at it from an entirely western perspective, that (somehow) the political dispensation that we have in Europe or in North America, or Australia is what everyone else wants, (this is whats known as Western Universalism oustide of the West) where is the evidence for that idea? Do you really think that the Arabs want the same government as us, the Chinese, the Thais, The Nigerians? Even from our own viewpoint an idea like having a combined U.S./EU/Canadian/Australian Single Western Government would be completely unworkable, and unwise. Firstly people would absolutely not accept it, it would be far too unwieldy to run, and its not needed anyway, as both the Nation States of the U.S.A. and Canada, the Australian nation, and the international organization of the EU are already capable of regulating trade, promoting the rule of law, and ensuring the prosperity of the citizens of both of the Northern Hemisphere continents and their antipodean cousins in an allied and peaceful way (OK sometimes there are fights over trade etc, but its all fairly civilized as all are civilized kinda entities). All this is done without going through the rigmarole of trying to unite into some political entity that wouldn't be able to fairly represent the wishes or political identity of some 800 million Europeans, Australians, and North Americans, so what would its use be?
Now try imagine a government that had to be responsible for all of the people, nations, agendas, regions, aspirations, cultures, civilizations, religions of the world as it is, there is no common consensus on which such a government could be founded at all, the world is too diverse and too conflictual, maybe in the far, far future such a thing would become desirable, but even then, would not a one world over-arching government for the whole planet be an extremely dangerous idea? What if such a governemnt was a coercive one, who would stand against it? Its orwellian, people are diverse and different, hence the multiplicity of nations, lanuguages, and cultures etc etc. The EU is an example of how nation states can work together and pool their soveriegnty, but Europe despite its diversity is one civilization, European Civilization, and even for countries that share the same basic civilizational values, actual political union is far from an simple idea to carry out in practice. What about North America, the U.S. and Canada are perfectly happy to get on with each other, and be different, while also very close friends, why change it, if it ain't broke and all that.
What is required at the present time, is a far better discourse between actual different civilizations, such as the West and the Islamic world, or China, or the Orthodox countries of Russia and Eurasia, that doesn't require everyone to get into a big brother government, just that international institutions are made to work more effectively, and that the large powerful states, the U.S. the EU (which is not a state I know), Russia, China, India, Japan, and the other large emerging nations such as Brazil all play a responsible role in promoting and maintaining a respect and accommodation between all civilizations, thats a more desirable and achievable goal, but world government, no thank you. I am very much in favour of the EU, but just because such a model works for the nations of Europe, doesn't mean by extension that it will work for every region or every state.
Many people seem to be looking at it from an entirely western perspective, that (somehow) the political dispensation that we have in Europe or in North America, or Australia is what everyone else wants, (this is whats known as Western Universalism oustide of the West) where is the evidence for that idea? Do you really think that the Arabs want the same government as us, the Chinese, the Thais, The Nigerians? Even from our own viewpoint an idea like having a combined U.S./EU/Canadian/Australian Single Western Government would be completely unworkable, and unwise. Firstly people would absolutely not accept it, it would be far too unwieldy to run, and its not needed anyway, as both the Nation States of the U.S.A. and Canada, the Australian nation, and the international organization of the EU are already capable of regulating trade, promoting the rule of law, and ensuring the prosperity of the citizens of both of the Northern Hemisphere continents and their antipodean cousins in an allied and peaceful way (OK sometimes there are fights over trade etc, but its all fairly civilized as all are civilized kinda entities). All this is done without going through the rigmarole of trying to unite into some political entity that wouldn't be able to fairly represent the wishes or political identity of some 800 million Europeans, Australians, and North Americans, so what would its use be?
Now try imagine a government that had to be responsible for all of the people, nations, agendas, regions, aspirations, cultures, civilizations, religions of the world as it is, there is no common consensus on which such a government could be founded at all, the world is too diverse and too conflictual, maybe in the far, far future such a thing would become desirable, but even then, would not a one world over-arching government for the whole planet be an extremely dangerous idea? What if such a governemnt was a coercive one, who would stand against it? Its orwellian, people are diverse and different, hence the multiplicity of nations, lanuguages, and cultures etc etc. The EU is an example of how nation states can work together and pool their soveriegnty, but Europe despite its diversity is one civilization, European Civilization, and even for countries that share the same basic civilizational values, actual political union is far from an simple idea to carry out in practice. What about North America, the U.S. and Canada are perfectly happy to get on with each other, and be different, while also very close friends, why change it, if it ain't broke and all that.
What is required at the present time, is a far better discourse between actual different civilizations, such as the West and the Islamic world, or China, or the Orthodox countries of Russia and Eurasia, that doesn't require everyone to get into a big brother government, just that international institutions are made to work more effectively, and that the large powerful states, the U.S. the EU (which is not a state I know), Russia, China, India, Japan, and the other large emerging nations such as Brazil all play a responsible role in promoting and maintaining a respect and accommodation between all civilizations, thats a more desirable and achievable goal, but world government, no thank you. I am very much in favour of the EU, but just because such a model works for the nations of Europe, doesn't mean by extension that it will work for every region or every state.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.