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

If humans were a sharing, caring, educated, well fed, comfortably housed, medically covered, environmentally conscious ,FORWARD LOOKING species, it would work. Since that's not to be allowed in favor of everyone for themselves--then when a one world government happens--it will reflect what we have now. An ignorant clusterfuck with death, destruction, starvation, haves and have nots and a few powerful at the "top".

Mother nature is starting to shrug her shoulders at the destruction we are directing at her---so she may obviate our choices anyway.

 

Hmm yeah, too bad it could never happen through government; It starts with the individual- we must work toward a better world instead of begging government to do everything, and going back to sleep. The truth is, we don't need government for this; free market drives the prices down, and charities help plenty of people in need. More people would be on healthcare today if the government wasn't in the business the past 40 years.

 

Charities are great, but they don't come close to meeting demand.

In the case of healthcare there's a much more complicated reason why prices are rising besides the statement that government being involved in healthcare is the reason prices have risen.

But I'll continue this dialogue with you in my healthcare thread.

 

That too is quite complicated. As population increases the available supply of workers exceeds the jobs requiring them. Everyone seems to complain about government subsidies, but what about the population subsidy? The consequences of the 60's "Make Love Not War" seems to have just created another problem. Private charities work toward reducing the need for their services while government welfare programs are much more susceptible to corruption, vote buying, employing, retaining and growing government jobs, and increasing the acceptance of depending on government.

You brought it up here, why not answer it here?

 

So how are you gona DO that other than thru your Government? What other democratic means are there? How are you gona achieve a concept & reality of a truelly democratic world government if you deny responsibility for the state of your own? As Citizens you do not Beg YOUR government to do anything , you participate in it,you gota be 'in it to win it'!

The 'free market' exists purely for profit,for the few. Are you seriously claiming that allowing your poor to depend upon charity for basic care is in any way responsible or compassionate in a civilised first world country? We have a National Health Service that we used to be proud of. It was in privatising that has & continues to be its downfall. Lower wages,fewer & poorly trained staff,loss of accountability,list goes on. Patient care suffers.

Public Ownership,thru a democraticly accountable government IS the answer but it doesnt happen by sitting on your arse moaning about it,you gota get involved.

Its your Democracy too,or constitutional republic-call it what you like-but if you can't reclaim it,or don't see the point in trying,don't talk about 'World Government' .

 

If you're happy with the current government, speak for yourself. But placing an arbitrary vote, isn't "getting involved," with government. Barrack Obama was elected due to his anti-war stances at first. Did he follow the policies he told America he believed in? No he's kept the War machine rolling, worse than Bush. He also pretended to hate lobbyists, and said he'd be a 'whistleblowers best friend' He's prosecuted more whistleblowers, and had more lobbyist in his white house, than any other president in history.

Like most Liberal Americans, it seems like you hate all business owners. Capitalism was a system where a poor man can have a good idea, and die a wealthy man. What has happened though, is demand for government involvement, has made it much more difficult for small business. Government manipulating the market and currency, also creates things like price instability, and the reason a 1$ silver coin is now worth about 40$ in melt value. So although you may feel like the wealth is getting around more, the price increases hurt everyone. If we we're still on a silver/gold standard- a gallon of gas would cost 1 silver dime. How's that for inflation?

Ha! That's a joke! These people don't see us as voters anymore, but as sheep they can lead. Their promises are just "a pocket full of mumbles;" they mean nothing. Obama and Romney were virtually the same thing politically. Obama says he doesn't want war, but he doesn't want the publicity of war. Still everyday they bomb people overseas with absolutely no oversight, and no way for citizens to know what their true plans/intentions are. They are also spying on us/ kicking in peoples doors for looking up "pessure cookers/backpacks."

You sound just like a Government sympathizer. However, the government is bound by the Constitution. They're trying throw away our Constitution, not only could we keep the Constitutional Republic, we have the Right to (Declaration of Independence,) and the people are most likely going to at some point, as they lose more freedoms. Since the expansion of our Military-industrial Complex, yeah we have wealth (mostly from our productive years,) but we are living over our means. if you don't see the fallacy in have children into a 20,000 $ debt to a government which has done nothing for him.

 

Yes, I hate business owners. That's why I own a business. So I can hate myself.

There's a reason for government and it follows that there's a reason for representitive government. Each person elected is supposed to represent a faction and their ideals/ideas from where they reside. Individuals can do nothing much to affect anything,except their job, their home and their family. When you have 300 million citizens, (or any large #) it's only logical to have individuals elected to represent a certain amount of the population from each area, at the seat of government. That they don't represent MANY, MANY of us --is a differant problem. As we've seen over the last 10 years, there are plenty of people that NEED WATCHING very closely, or they'll break enough laws, run enough scams, to ruin the world economy. I can't watch them. You can't watch them. Who, then WILL watch them? Who will watch to see that certain companies will not put out bad products or harmfull food? That big Pharma will test their drugs adequately? Me ? No. You? No. In a perfect government---the money fuckers never would have gotten away with what they did. There wouldn't be outbreaks of food poisoning, people losing their houses and jobs, and jobs going overseas with no regard for the middle class here. So it comes back to getting proper government --not no government.

Term limits, reversal of the supremne court ruling concerning corporations & unlimited $$ to begin with. There are plenty of other areas to tend to, but I can't do anything about them. Can you???

 

That was an impressive reply! First off I'm English but a lot of what you say applies to the British Government too. Nope, I do not hate all Business Owners,they have their part to play in society too but it should not be theirs to provide welfare. Welfare of the people,of all classes, is 'Our' responsibility via Our government,yours & mine.

Free enterprise has to be controlled by a responsible Government that reprsents everyones interests. That is Governments aim,both they (capital) and we,the people, have vested interests & are mutually dependent. If one interest group has a disproportionate amount of influence or power then it is our duty to do whatever is necessary to correct the imbalence .

Whether we are believers in a Constitutional Republic or in Democracy the point I make is the same. Our only means of fixing the problem is via the Ballot Box,by getting involved in the political process,at whatever level one can,and working for change.

If our Government has become unbalenced then we are at fault too-because we allowed it to become so. This is the basis of democracy &,If I understand correctly, your Constitution too.

 

"Capitalism was a system where a poor man can have a good idea and die a wealthy man."

Capitalism is also an idea where millions of people in vast ghettoes for decades deserve exactly what they get. Completely ignored while jobs go overseas.

 

Sounds more like free market competition to me, and it makes more sense than sending aid to their government since it puts more money directly into the hands of the people who fill those jobs sent abroad, who may then become able to purchase items imported from the countries who brought them higher paying jobs.

 

Sounds more like neglect. I want OUR citizens to have jobs. Your logic is rather convoluted to me. Your basic political ideas fit perfectly with the ideas of the 1%. I'm trying to figure out what in the hell is wrong with you, to live and do well for yourself, but at the same time, have no regard for those with nothing, be against organizations that workers form to protect themselves from management excesses ( Yes--unions) and critisize THE IDEA--the VERY IDEA of government being of any use whatsoever. We need GOOD government. The kind of government that cares for and serves the vast amount of people--otherwise known as the middle class. A well oiled machine that doesn't shift from way left to way right with every change of representitives from the fringes, like we have now. Free market competition, my ass. It's selling out this country for the few.

 

Actually Stp brought it up first, and I had already started a thread about the US healthcare issue.

I this thread is so broad in it's conversation, it's dialogue is a bit messy. I'm just trying to sort and place some boundaries so we don't get off topic too much.

 

I've never implied that government is of no use whatsoever, and agree totally that good government is what we need, but your political views seem to be that government should be a surrogate mother. Have you thought about putting yourself up for adoption? "Willing consumer available to wealthy parent(s)" To use the term neglect sounds like you really do substitute government for parentage.

Our country, the U.S.A., has seen the government gradually shifting Left for over a century now, with abrupt and large shifts at each opportune moment. Was it Rahm Emanuel who said, "Never let a crisis go to waste"? We're so far Left of Center now, that it will probably require the collapse of one or more of the even more Left 'democratic' governments to open peoples eyes.

Competitve free markets have resulted in the creation of an enormous number of goods and services available to a larger consumer base at an much more affordable price than ever before in history.

The option remains to refuse purchasing foreign made products if you're willing to pay U.S. for the costs of U.S. Labor. If two products, identical except for the price and source of manufacture existed that you had a want or need of, which would you choose, the foreign made or the local made if the only difference was the price of the local made being 10 times or greater than that of the foreign made?

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

By the way, what's the opposite of 'greed'?

 

Aren't they all? The threads, that is. No matter what the thread title is, it appears they each boil down to being Left vs Right, and when talking about Centralized national government there is no middle.

 

Well I disagree, it does boil over, but even if it has left VS right overtones, we have addressed some middle ground perspectives.

Libertarians are mentioned a lot heavily here, which I find refreshing because at least they don't argue certain issues that matter a lot to Republicans (because republican's cater to Christian demographic voting blocks), so they won't argue gay marriage issue and most don't argue the women's right to healthcare procedures.


If you haven't noticed, I always get into specifics when I start a conversation.

 

I guess it would depend on how you define middle.

And who do the democrats and independents cater to?

 

I would go so far as to say that the label of a democrat or republican is only a indicator of what a politician MIGHT be for. A more accurate measure of a politician's leaning to the political spectrum and to what degree, will be the rhetoric that comes out of their mouth, their voting record or executive action record at whatever level of government they are at (local, state, federal), and last but most importantly the actual legislation itself.

Typically though, Stp is right, that in the USA, Democrats are the political left (more gov.) and Republicans are the political right (less gov.) .

However I feel, while technically right, it's a bit inaccurate because it ignores the middle ground where there's a lot of party in-fighting where 2 Democrats aren't on the same page despite being in the same party. The same goes with Republicans, John McCain is a good example of someone who is a Republican but breaks from party ranks from time to time.

During the healthcare debate, Obamacare did not get Democratic votes from States that tend to be swing states, alternating between having a Republican or Democrat as their House Member or State Senator(s), and despite being a Democrat they voted against the first few drafts of Obamacare.

As for independents, there's usually only 1 or 2 of them and they tend to swing, but usually the Independents are Libertarians in what they believe. The term independent is a vague umbrella term. They are also expected to caucus with one party or the other.

 

Indie

So again I will ask – what would be your alternative to democracy?

Hell man we have been through this many, many, many times - only through regulation and distributive measures can those things benefited people more equitably.

As pointed out to you thousands of times – there never has been and never will be a ‘free market’ and many of the ‘creations’ were helped along by governed society’s benefits, either through direct research or infrastructural assistance.

Just think of the thing we are communicating on and across.

Problem here is that I’m not sure that you have read the posts?

Can you quote specific text that you have disagreed with and give your counter argument, because I don’t think you can?

 

The problem is that we have globalisation you may not like it or want it but sticking your head in the ground and hoping it goes away is not going to work and crossing your fingers and hoping it will not become more established is I think a forlorn hope.

To me there are two ways this can go to one degree or another we can have a global governance that is ‘democratic’ and ‘accountable’ or we continue to allow the rather undemocratic and unaccountable global forces and institutions to dictate how globalisation is organised and who gains from it the most.

There are those that argue for ‘localism’ that political institutions only really work at a local level, don’t seem to understand that -politics doesn’t stop at the local level, in a dispute between local governments who arbitrates, what about economic factors, the environment etc etc.

So many things happen beyond the local that affect the local. So wouldn’t it be best if regional affairs be dealt with by regional governance? And if regional government is not going to be democratic what is it going to be? And then politics does not end at the regional so what then?

A lot of what governance is about is economic, so it seems to me that the only way to keep governance local would be to restrict the economic, the market to local, and I’m not sure how you’d bring either of them about?

 

On that I can agree with both you and Stp, with one caveat, and that being as applied to the general voting population, but not with those who govern or most who seek office.