World government

Post Reply New Topic

They need to sell special brownies to the Saudis for money. I hate that they keep hitting the US and the land of the rising sun for money.

I tend to agree. It's a scary thing. It's one thing to open your eyes to the tyranny and fascism grasping ever stronger at America. It's another thing to stand against it. It's a completely different thing when it grasps the whole planet. Impossible to fight. It's almost like a point of no return. Once a world government is formed (as it will inevitably), it can never be dismantled ever again, or I guarantee there won't be many humans left.

The NWO will find quite an opponent with me.....

As has been said, the UN is more or less a toothless tiger. I believe this is because it has been left to the member nations to enforce International law, especially the members of the security council. The problem is that the countries meant to enforce the law are often the ones who are breaking it. The UN as it currently works was first imagined by Roosevelt (I think). His idea was admirable, but unrealistic imo.

One possibility for an international government:
I think that the current UN needs to be disbanded with a new one taking its' place. The new UN would be obliged to uphold international law and have it's own dedicated armed force to avoid the problem of needing to source forces from member countries. It would need to have a constitution agreed to by all member nations. It would essentially be a new level of government with all countries having a representative voted into office by their people. There would need to be a worldwide election for a president. I could go on forever about this idea, but there's one huge problem I see with it. All countries put their own interests ahead of the world's and would not allow a plan like this to go ahead. This is why the UN as it currently stands is so weak and why a world government can probably only be dreamed of for the foreseeable future.

Let's see...

Oh, it won't be the UN. That's too obvious. The WTO may play a big part though.

UN, a patsy? Maybe, that does explain how extremely "hostile" nations band together though.

What you really need is one extremely powerful nation to take over the rest. Strategic nuclear weapons probably won't be used because of MAD, but tactical nukes might be.

the 'world gov' conspiracy theories seem to assume the following:

1. There are no conflicts or rivalries within, or between, the world's elites. There is no competition for the world's finite wealth (power too is finite). There is no conflict between the interests of, say, Microsoft and Apple, General Motors and Toyota, AT&T and Carlos Slim, Vietnamese coffee growers and Colombian coffee growers, Airbus and Boeing, etc.

2. The elite is infalible. It wouldn't, say, make losses because it made made bad loans or bought overpriced stocks.

3. The world is not too chaotic to be effectively managed all the time.

4. Central banks, because they can theoretically print infinite amounts of money, are all-powerful. Real-world cases of what happens when you print too much money (Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany, post-WWII Hungary, Yugoslavia, the Confederacy during the US Civil War, etc) are ignored, as is the obvious fact that no government would bother with taxation if it could just print wealth into existence.

To me, it seems obvious the world is too complex, unpredictable and chaotic, and humans too emotional and prone to error, for anyone, whether a secret junta or an open, democratic government, to truly rule the world.

1. Just because they have conflicts of interests, doesn't mean they can't band together in an elite circle, and that they don't have shared interests besides these conflicts. And not all the elites are in on it, either. This is an elite club of people who want to control others and suppress dissent.

2. These people are extremely rich because they're not only ruthless, but also very skilled business people. They have interests in many companies, and nearly inexhaustible supplies of cash. They've often been trained from childhood to run corporate and political dynasties. Rothchilds, for example. Yes, they are not infallible, but at the same time they know what they're doing and it doesn't really matter if they lose £100 million. They'd probably be very pissed off, though.

3. You can't control everything, but you can gradually unite it using various means. Also, the vast majority of the world's population don't suspect such a thing.

Ignorance, blinds the masses and aids the few.

4. Ah, but this was before they banded together in such a manner.

NWO or not, there are groups out there who want to control what you and me think.

1. They sometimes band together to defend common interests, but the bottom line is still that it is in a company's interests to ultimately bankrupt or purchase its competitors. By government, I understand a coherent entity with a common leadership, not ad hoc agreements on specific common interests between people who are otherwise enemies.

2. The medieval European nobility was also trained in war from childhood and was completely ruthless, yet their heads sometimes ended on pikes. Being trained from childhood does not guarantee competence (look at Louis XVI or Nicholas II... or Bush II for that matter)

3. I'm not saying that people love freedom so much that they would really resist such a world government, just that events are too unpredictable. Yes, there are many powerful clans like the Bhuttos and Kennedys and Bushes and Clintons, but there are also upstarts (Bill Gates and Carlos Slim both being richer than any of the 'aristocrats'). Plus, even within a family there can be infighting (WWI, for example).

4. It has been tried before. Even in command economies, where the people printing money are exactly the same as the ones setting the prices of everything and running the secret police, banks, etc, recklessly printing money is a failure. Printing money does not create wealth out of thin air (and banding together does not change that fundamental fact), and massively doing so is one the most effective ways of running an economy into the ground (and in the case of Yugoslavia, destroying the country itself. )

I am also worried about the increasing powers of the transnational elites, just like yourself.
As for your assertion that we are moving towards a consensus that immigration is bad, I would say, “if only that were the case”.
I’m sure more and more ordinary people are moving towards that understanding, but the situation with the elites who wield power is quite the opposite. Immigration is, for them, their biggest tool for the abolition of nations.

They don't print money, that would definitely be economic suicide. They favour "free" trade and globalisation. They might have opposing companies, but their interests are also shared in a sense that they want to remain on top, etc. So they form an elite club in self-interest, though they can still have conflicting views and interests. Just like any organisation where people have something in common, but also different views and interests.
I'm saying that though people have different interests in one sense, they can also have shared interests in another sense, and can band together over those shared views and interests. In this case, they are very powerful people.

I always hope when I see these "world government" threads, that they will be positive. Oh well. I am a committed world federalist.

Global government sounds like my idea of hell.

I don't think anything short of an extraterrestrial attack would bring the world into one government. That being said, a highly individualistic world government may be possible in the future, where the government's only major function is to settle disputes between people. It's even more likely now that, as I believe, the role of the nation-state is declining, and the city is becoming more important.

I'll use my current residence, Washington, as an example. From its founding up until very recently, DC was strictly the US capital. DC didn't even have its own civil government until the 1970s, but one appointed by Congress (Congress still has ultimate control of the district, though they don't exercise it as forcefully as they used to). But since the Metro opened in 1976, and the suburbs have become business and tech hubs, the area has more to offer. Increasingly, DC itself is becoming a city to serve these people, with regional businesses and nightlife that used to never exist. I think our story is what will happen to cities as a whole: they will gain more character, and eventually more political clout.

Those are very similar to the reasons philosopher Karl Popper, who I agree with very much, rejected what he called the "conspiracy-based theory of society" in his famous political work written during WW2 The Open Society and It's Enemies. The world is to complex to be controlled by a conspiracy of elites, and any such conspiracy that is attempted fails because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Such conspiracy theories are popular because it is more emotionally pleasing to the downtrodden to blame a person or cabal then an impersonal institution or negitive consequences of bad policy. These emotions allow various ideologues use conspiracy theories to get support. A good example is Marxism. Marxism itself is not based on a conspiracy theory of society but popular varieties of the ideology are full of conspiracy theories.