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

The thing is, you're not looking into the corruption aspect. Sure, there are definitely people who need help, but the idea of government is, "people need help, so we need to steal from every individual, create an extravigant program in which we will pump all leftover money after war, and the people will receive a little bit of their own money back."
We owe 18 trillion dollars; A substandard foodstamp program, welfare or healthcare bill, pushes us in the opposite direction, cause it demands more failing government programs to waste our hard earned money.

I have a hard time believing you're a business owner, with no grasp on basic economic principles. I bust my ass for my money, and I deserve it; All of it! Not 80% as I WORKED for it. (plus our money isn't worth anything) so all this talk about how Obama's trying to make jobs, is bull shit. The government can only make government jobs, it's businesses that create real jobs, that don't cost people an arm and a leg, and treat people like shit (like most government employees on a power trip.)

They would be selling it either way, that is caused by greed. Government is inherently bad, it has been since the start of civilization. Your dream government, I'm sorry, but it's not possible. The reason why corperations are in bed with the government, is because government has power. Sure we have all these "regulations," Liberals love, but companies just lobby our government or go into government, and change the law. How do you plan on acchieving this dream of government you have? More money/voting will make it all go away? Libertarians believe in SOME government too; Police and militia who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. Me and Individual are not advocating people dying on the streets, that's not how it was before government. Prices were much lower, so wages went further than today (the adverage American makes 40% less than 1963.) and people were able to make the American dream reality. The reason why the Middle class, who you claim to be for, are struggling is cause they have this huge welfare/warfare debt perpetuated by so-called Liberals/NeoRepublicans. Help them by letting them keep their money.


I've been poor, homeless, on food stamps and actually HELPED by charities; so if you think charities aren't enough, I could tell you several stories...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuAj2F54bdo"]Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift - YouTube

Interesting, intelligent talk about the future of globalization

 

"money changers" thanks Mr writer for proving my point. He's not talking about those kind of Regulations; He means more regulation on government. Which I'm def not against.

This guy's either stupid or is a total puppet- He wants world government and he doesn't understand the UN/Government is not peace or freedom

 

the problem isn't Countries working together, the problem is how they are doing it- war, murdering leaders and killing people worldwide, isn't the way to peace, it's the way to total government control.

 

Restricting the market to being local or even within one country by restricting investment capital only within 1 country creates the economic problems you see China struggling with.

So that's not a solution either.

My only point of information on this is that in 1963, the USA was using the fiat money, which you dislike so much, back then too. The population in the USA was smaller so there was less money chasing goods, which explains why inflation wasn't as bad is it is today given we have a larger populace now.

Also those decades are during the boom years after WWII, meaning global economic trade environment was different given that the USA economy was really the only game in town so private sector was doing well.

So there's so many other factors here that you failed to mention to explain why those decades were great for the USA compared to now.

 

My little wish list post 101 was no more than that. NEVER HAPPEN. I get it. There's such a paucity of generosity and human spirit in favor of the world wide power grab that it makes absolutely no differance what I or anyone else says about governments. But I can say one thing for sure--I'm not shilling for the 1% as some do.

Reading list= The Best Democracy Money can Buy. Vultures Picnic. Armed Madhouse. All by Greg Palast.
And--Tales of an Economic Hitman.=Perkins.

Shills won't bother to read them. Some of you may want to know how things really work.

 

I'm curious, do a majority of those posting in this thread view the topic question as 'good' or 'bad'?

 

monkir

Ah but I wasn’t suggesting it as a solution, I was pointing out that market places need governance be they local, regional or global, we already have a global market and we already have global governance, I’m saying that we need to decide what kind of global governance we want something that serves the interests of the few or one that serves the interests of everyone.

 

25

I go through your posts and realize you are just repeating slogans that have already been covered a number of times, anyway I’d thought I’d pick up on a couple of things -

Governance most likely goes back a lot further than the early civilizations, tribal elders, chiefs and shaman all constitute governance (and have been noted in all primitive societies). You would probably have to go back to pre-homo sapiens to find hominids without some form of governance, you’d then have to ask - are ‘they’ us.

Then you’d have to define what you mean by ‘bad’? Bad for whom, even you admit that some forms of government favor some individuals or groups, so those forms are not bad form them.

So it’s not black or white – good or bad, there have been autocracies, oligarchies and democracies, some regimes have been stable and relatively benign and others that were far from it.

 

25

There were no streets before government – streets are normally defined as being an urban phenomena, and I can’t think of any urban community that didn’t have some form of government.

And Indie seems ambiguous if not actually supportive of the on the whole ‘people dying on the streets’ thing having admitted that he’d be happy in a system where people through no fault of their own suffered and died from hardship and has already said he'd support a “Spenceristic” system named after that great champion of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer who said –

It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence…the same beneficence that brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the debilitated as the victims of an epidemic. . .

 

It should be remembered that private assistance was never capable on its own, it was always backed up or ran alongside public assistance. In the US this was based originally on the English Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists had brought with them when they came to Americas.

Now even in upturns such private assistance as was given however genuine and heartfelt as it could be, could be inadequate, but during downturns that system was often overwhelmed (and giving could even drop in times of greatest need as people looked to their own needs).

“While the genuine warmth emanating from these volunteer institutions produced a true sense of community with revitalising effects in depressed urban neighbourhoods, participants quickly realised that private charity was not enough. Charity Organisation Societies modelled on those of London and Berlin had emerged in the early 1880’s to be succeeded by Associated Charities designed to prevent duplication of effort among the score of secular and church philanthropies, but relief measures possible under a system of private endeavour, no matter how earnest or how efficiently organised, could not handle the problems arising in periods of economic distress.
Public institutions to care for indigents, the ill, the widows and orphans, the aged and the insane never had money enough during boom times, and when hard times set in and the burden increased, city welfare budgets lagged still further behind the amounts needed.”
The Rise of Urban America by Constance Mclaughlin Green

Also on the forum such things as sewage works and housing amongst other things have been discussed where public money and government legislation did a lot to help to improve the lives of poor and middle class people.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7470925

 

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.

 

Is it the consensus that small, efficient, and very transparent government would be a bad thing?

 

Oh hell man we have been through the whole localism thing hundreds of times can you please address the still outstanding criticisms of your views rather than just repeating stuff you already know has been criticised.

 

Hell man we have been through the whole ‘small’ thing thousands of times….

 

To point out again we already have globalisation that is in many ways inefficient and untransparent do we want that to continue or try and make it accountable and democratic

 

Yes, it is. Let's look at what government in the USA does; They arrested a guy for writing 'anti bank' slogans with chalk, they tazed an 18 y/o graffiti artists and were giving high fives as he convulsed and died on the floor, they arrest people (sometimes for years and years) for victimless crimes and, they murder innocent citizens in places we aren't at war with.

The US government has become too corrupted. We are far far away from makin the changes Liberals want. It's not the 'everyone living in peace' I'm opposed to- it's arresting Citizens who haven't hurt anyone; To me, that isn't Right. Our government treats protesters like dirt, punching girls, pepper spraying innocent people and, they even gave an iraqi vet a concussion by shooting him in the head with a tear gas canister.

The truth is, pumping more money into this broken system, will not help anything.

 

All this violence in other countries in which we're involved or the violence here in our streets is done in service to the 1%.

 

I don't believe in social Darwinism, and want to say that neither would Charles Darwin. His observations were of the natural world, not a artificial one.

 

i don't advocate women/orphan starving to death. I want to tell you a story; I was on foodstamps in NY, but I moved away and didn't have government helps (as they wont help white guys in GA,) but me and my Ex would go to churches every week (no matter what day, you can go to certain churches, and they willl give a weeks worth of food.

There is free housing in NY (where a 2 bedroom appt costs 1,800$ a month) if you can find charity housing there, people would not be struggling without government. Charities give cars to kids,food, housing and, wtvr else. There is no shortage of good people that want to help in this country.