Do the elite crave or fear a global government?

*waits for response*

 

*response*

 

*Still no response*

 

To Shane

I said - “The fact is that the wealthy elite who have been making a great deal of money out of economic globalisation would not want a democratic global government that would very likely limit its power and be more able to tax their wealth” and “democratically elected global institution could go a long way to right many of the wrongs of economic globalisation”

I didn’t mention centralisation once.
.
You replied – “Give me 3 examples in history of increased centralized power being a disadvantage to elitists”

As I’ve said I had not mentioned centralisation once only democracy, so presuming you where somehow associating democracy with centralisation I relied – “I can give many examples from history where increased democracy has improved the quality of life and liberty of the people. Or are you saying that most people were better off under feudalism or absolute monarchy?

You replied “You know i'm not, so stop twisting shit around!”

I had not meant twist your shit, I genuinely thought you where using ‘centralised power’ in place of democratic government.

Then you said “So you tell me, how does the economic and political dissolvement of "a disunited world" and the creation of "global government" not constitute a centralization of power and resources? Democratic, Autocratic, Theocratic, doesn't matter, it's still one State claiming to be sovereign over all”

Which makes it clear that Balbus you did associate the democratic government I was theorising about with centralisation.

So when I said – “I can give many examples from history where increased democracy has improved the quality of life and liberty of the people. Or are you saying that most people were better off under feudalism or absolute monarchy?”

It was correct, I wasn’t trying to twist anything as you claimed.

It was a misunderstanding I theorise about a democratic governments you see any type of government as ‘wrong’ and as ‘centralisation’ and so attack it.

Do you still wish me to name three examples from history where increased democracy has improved the quality of life and liberty of the people?

**

By the way I did ask – “So you seem to agree that increased democracy has improved the quality of life and liberty of the people in the past. All I’m saying is that it could do it again in the future?”

 

Topolm

“If I were a Chinese citizen I would be accepted as a Chinese person just as if I was an American citizen I’d be accepted as an American person.”

“No. You wouldnt.”

Are you saying that you don’t accept people that have received American citizenship as being Americans? Then who do you accept as American and if the others are not Americans what are they?

**

“A nation is different from a state. A state is a geo-political entity whereas a nation is a collection of people that are racially, culturally, linguistically, religiously similar. The lines are fuzzy, but they are there. Jews are a nation no matter where they are on the planet. They have peculiar ingroup and outgroup loyalties. A nation does not required a nation state”

But nations can be made up of many ethic groups that differ culturally, linguistically or religiously from each other.

You talk of India and China but the Beijing government recognises some 55 ethnic groups and the Indian government recognises 22 official languages (although there are many unofficial ones) in fact the major linking language between these groups is English. India also has the second largest population of Muslims in the world and the majority of the worlds Zoroastrians as well as Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists.

**

“Common sense dictates that you always have peripheral mixing. This does not change the fact that a critical mass of racially unlike groups WILL NOT MIX”.

But that’s the point, when one group is in contact with another group they do mix.

You are basically saying that when they meet they mix but when they don’t meet they don’t mix, but that implies that when the ones that haven’t met do meet they will mix.

So you seem to be contradicting a lot of your own argument.

**


Sometimes through conquest and migration sometimes by peaceful migration, but when peoples have come together they usually end up mixing. There maybe resistance but it is never rationally based and usually disappears over time.

“Multiculturalism by conquest IS NOT SPONTANEOUS. It is forced, it is compelled. I am not arguing this at all. Anything that is forced is not natural. Peaceful migration of one race to the territory of another race leads to violence”

In history conquest is one way that two groups get to meet each other and as you agree when they meet they mix. The Norman’s conquered England and treated the Anglo-Saxons brutally but within a relatively short time the two groups were mixing.

These days migrations and mixings are usually more peaceful.

**

“Remember, you as a human ARE NOT ABOVE the laws of nature”

But I’m still unsure what you mean when you say ‘natural law ‘ or ‘laws of nature’ I mean what ‘law’ is someone breaking by mixing when you already admit it is natural (you claim common sense dictates it).

A law in scientific terms is something that always happens so for example if A and B is mixed it produces C or if X happens the response is always Y.

“Your capacity to emotionally respond to certain stimuli is hardwired into your genetic code.”

What stimuli? I mean some people emotionally respond to some things that others find boring or repulsive. It therefore seems that emotional responses are not constant, they are not the same in every case, so it cannot be fixed within a scientific law.

**

“Emotions are behaviour modifying mechanisms that facilitate survival”

You mean like the fear of dying? But while it is true that many people shy away from risky or dangerous things it is also true that others seek them out or are whiling to face the possibility of death for entertainment or ideological reasons. So once again there is no constant in all cases and therefore no law.

It seem to me that many of the things you believe are ‘emotionally hardwired’ are in fact just learnt, taught responses instilled by other mechanisms than nature and therefore open to change.

**

“To argue that survival mechanisms are irrational is silly since you are, by extension saying that "human nature" is silly.”

I’m not saying survival mechanisms are irrational I’m saying that if you put two (or more) groups of the same species together they are likely to mix and have offspring, and you even seem to agree.

**

In the UK a Policy Studies Institute (PSI) survey in 1997 found that – "half of black men and a third of black women in relationships had a white partner" and revealed that "a fifth of Asian men and 10% of Asian women opting for a white partner". It is believed that these figures have gone up in the last few years.

**

 

what the corporate mafia fear, is a world government being truely democratic. that's why instead they are making war to create a dictatorial one with themselves in charge.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Exactly.
Are you claiming that your global government would be not be a more centralized governing body than the "disunited world" we currently have?

Democracy, republic, monarchy and the like are forms government take. What interested in is the amount of power that government will wield.

The U.S. is considered a democracy and yet has been the terror of innocent people both within and outside of it's borders.

Too much power in too few hands.

No.

Not that i believe, as rat apparently does, that democracy is "one of the worst forms of government".
But by it's very existense government strives to control.
We have recently seen the rollback of democracatic safeguards in Russia, and the U.S., the "orange revolution" has already been negated, and no one seems to care about the mockery mexico makes of it's democratic process.

Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble.

These are concepts written directly into our constitution, but that hasn't fazed the state. It will do what it thinks best.

What makes you so certain that a global government, democratic or otherwise, will be better and not worse?

 

topolm, just admit it.


Your white nationalism is a shoddy mask thrown on so you don't have to admit to yourself that what you really are is a white supremacist.

 

themnax

As I’ve said there are many vested interests that would oppose a global democratic government, one is the wealthy elite others are certain political elite’s (sometimes the same people). Remember rich countries like the US have a political influence that is much greater than their demographic profile and the political elite of such countries believe that they would loose influence within such a global democracy.

 

The problem here Shane is as I’ve already said you dislike all forms of government so you are going to attack the idea of a theoretical global democracy, full stop.

I mean it wouldn’t matter if it were more ‘centralised’ or even if it was less ‘centralised’ it is still a government and so you would attack it.

“What makes you so certain that a global government, democratic or otherwise, will be better and not worse?”

Well to be better it would have to be democratic and not ‘otherwise’. I hope that it would be better just as democracy in many other places has improved people’s lives and been better than the types of systems they had before. We could carry on the way we are but it doesn’t seem very satisfactory so I’m musing about other ways.

And honestly I think it a lot better than your idea of arming everyone and letting them fight it out.

 

Ooohh, smells like a dodge to me...

Casting out your net so to speak....

Let me voice my opinion in a way it might make more sense.

The founders of the U.S.A. were tired of waiting for a good king.
They were tired of being at the beck and call of a tyrant who did not have their best interests in mind.
They were tired of answering to a sovereign who could be good, bad, or other but in the end is sovereign so almost unquestionable.

That's how I feel about government.

Whether a king happens to be good or bad is secondary to the fact that he is king and we must obey(unless there is a revolution of course).

To me, whether a government is good(in your case that would be a democracy) or bad(such a N.Korea) is secondary to the fact that it is State and we must obey (short of a revolution).

And so in that regard, the form it takes and the people who hold the reigns make no difference, currently, we must obey...

 

“Ooohh, smells like a dodge to me...”

Yes it does, it wasn’t meant to be, but it does.

OK I’ll try and make myself clearer.

It wouldn’t matter if I was talking about a perfect democratic state, in which there was no hunger or poverty and the people were happy healthy and content, you would still be against it because it had a ‘government’. It wouldn’t mind if this perfect state involved 600 people, 600,000 people or 6 billion you would still be against it.

I don’t like the way things are and muse on what could be done to make things better, you want to give everyone a gun and let them fight it out.

Which I think is not actually an improvement.

As to the centralisation of power it actually depends on your definition, under monarch or oligarchy the power is definitely concentrated in the hands of a few, under a fair and functioning democracy, the power is supposedly with the people. What we have in the world today is a imbalance of power away from the people and into the hands of the rich, where multinational corporations, global institutions and rich governments have been able to manipulate power in their own favour. It is an oligarchy (G8, permanent Security Council members, IMF and World Bank appointees, etc).

I’ve theorised a global democratic government where the influence of these forces would be overseen and balanced by the representatives of the world’s people.

Power is already concentrated in the oligarchy by making the system democratic would defuse and widen the power to include the people at large.

I know this does not suit you but then I find your idea of giving everyone a gun and telling them to look after themselves as just madness.

 

That's an oversimplification of my arguement and you know it, why else bring it up twice in one post?

To put me on the defensive.

I don't like guns, i hate guns.
That said, as long as the only practical defense against firepower is firepower, I have no problem with an armed individual trying to protect himself and his family from an outside threat.

i also hate cars, but as long i still live on the other side of town from my job(because of financial reason i'll have to renew my lease for another 3-6 months) i will use a car.

if technology comes about that can create a protective forcefield of somekind when a bullet is headed my way, i'll give up my gun, until then it's seems awfully foolish to keep myself unarmed and leave the police force, the military, and the criminals armed.

Where would be the balance in that.

A personal policy of mutually assured destruction is as decent a deterrent as i can think of.

You aim at me and i'll aim at you. Pretty simple.

but thats a discussion for another thread, how about we focus on the main topic of this one.

i'll have a response for you shortly.

 

Hey Shane old mate

Is 14 days short enough for you?

 

Oh shit, i forgot.


Give me a minute, and i'll have something.

 

But you have no way of being certain that your global government will be any better than the fucked up system we have now.

The way the world is moving is not toward global democracy but only percieved democracy (the senate enjoys 90% incumbancy rate, the house hit a record breaking 99% rate in 2000).

The more complex the Industrial-Technological system becomes and the more dependant we are on it the less freedom we enjoy.

Even the the monarchism and fuedalism that oppressed people hundreds of years ago allowed for more personal autonomy than we have in the "most free nation on earth, ever".

Though the type of government might be a better model, the fact remains that those in power today enjoy a far greater amount of oversight and coersion than the most totalitarian of rulers three centuries ago could have imagined.

Do not be fooled, we are far more oppressed in the 20th and 21st centuries than any other time in human history.

And don't see how a democratic global government with the same dependence on the expanding system could be any different and maintain it's existence.

That's why i don't believe it truely matters if it is a monarch, a democracy, or a communist republic. They are all realizations of the same pathology and eventually one will not be distinguishable from another, because the system moves on regardless of political affiliation.

 

"the elite" crave a world government THEY control. the people NEED a world government to control THEM ("the elite"). (or some other way to pull the teeth of abusive national soverignties, especialy the most powerful and dominent of them, which now seem to have become the most subservient to organized crime in the form corporatocracy).

by elite i presume you mean the mechanism of conscousless economic interests. while there are an appearantly priveledge few who amass unimaginabe symbolic austentation by riding this tiger, i am seriously dubious that any realy controls it or is capable of doing so. and while it may be staunchly supported by those who see themselves as bennifiting from it, even potentialy, it has also become, observably, a menace to all.

yes a gobal economy is risky bussiness, but a global society is a reality. not an homoginous one. and lets hope we can keep it from ever becoming protuscanly imposed as an homogionous one. yet we are already tightrope walking the blade of democlies sword and i see little real alternative to the reality that we are all on this planet togather and all share it togather and that it is in the interest of all of us togather and up to all of us togather and will likely take all of us togather, to curb these excessess and enequities of these international robber barrons that hold soverign governments on the end of their puppet strings.

=^^=
.../\...