ttbn, exactly, and I still cannot find any reason for all this turmoil in schools and the need to hold the queers to a higher level of respect than the rest of the population.
What these fools are demanding falls well within the purview of discrimination.
Discrimination AGAINST the straight community.
They preach equality, but demand preference.
How does that work?
Nah, gather em' up and shove em' all back in the closet, then throw away the key.

Posted by SilverInCanberra, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 9:57:56 AM

Answer- Thanks for your comments. Your views seem to coincide with mine. At least John Avery acknowledges some of the issues with the UN but seems to come to the wrong conclusion. Power needs to be kept low in the hierarchy. Otherwise the population is powerless and hasn't self determination. Sometimes the answer is to say "you stay on your side of the fence I'll stay on mine"- but when countries don't manage themselves such as their population it tends to bleed across borders and create instability- also business interests seek to dismantle borders to increase their markets- they need to be managed- in line with balance between Conservatism vs Libertarianism and Globalism vs Localism. Generally we shouldn't try to improve on nature- and should respect the community structures that have stood the test of time. John Avery seems to be a creature of the academic community that sees that the more minds working on problems of humanity the more chance of coming up with solutions- and the best chance of avoiding arms races. Sadly the academic community suffers from the common issue of assuming that man is naturally good- whether man is good or virtuous is influenced by the principles of their family, their community, their culture, their nation. Democracy is based on the idea that the people know what is best for themselves- but is destroyed when the planet is the electorate. Locke and Hobbes disagreed about the nature of man being naturally good or bad. It is related to the human condition that we have the choice of greatness or depravity. I agree with your comments about the experimental nature of communities and see it as embodied by Raphael Sanzio's masterpiece The School of Athens and the conflict between Rationalism and Empiricism and also Subjectivism. The main reason for conflict is scarcity due to population- there are too many people in the world.

Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 6 December 2018 10:19:27 AM-
Discrimination AGAINST the straight community.
They preach equality, but demand preference.
Nah, gather em' up and shove em' all back in the closet, then throw away the key.

Answer- I tend to agree. Diversity conflates possibility with probability and isn't democratic. Similar to the racist argument tries to paint straight people as gay bashers. The fact is most people aren't gay and don't feel comfortable with gay culture and don't accept gay culture as normal- but most people also understand that there are people that are different in the community and are happy with that so long as they don't proselytize it as normal. Many that use the term racist also seem to paint some as murderers and baby killers. Sadly to admit to supporting your own race is quickly becoming against the law in the West. The capitalists don't want community forces to undermine their efforts to increase the size of their markets. The socialists don't want the community to undermine their class warfare battle-lines. But what of the community- neither of the major parties care. As the Delai Lama says "Europe for the Europeans". We need to dis-empower the word racist- I can see no other way than to admit to it- and to challenge accusers such as socialists as to their racism. Socialists are racist! Every culture deserves their own nation! It is a battle between those that want change and those that don't - between Classical Liberals and Conservatives. Vote Conservative.

I have been buoyed by many on this thread. Thanks. Please keep it up.

There is something utterly half-witted about this thread. World government ? The unity of all countries in the world under one government ? Are you kidding ?

Back in the fifties and sixties, amongst African liberation leaders like Nkrumah (Ghana) and Nyerere (Tanganyika/Tanzania) and Kenyatta (Kenya), there was a major push for the eventual federation and unity of African states. I still have Nkrumah's "Africa Must Unite". How did that go ? Have any two African countries 'united' ? Well, yes, Tanganyika and Zanzibar. Bits of Cameroun and Nigeria, i.e. those bits currently suffering uprisings and massacres. For a while, Mali and other west African countries formed an uneasy alliance before it collapsed.

If anything, Africa 'disunited': South Sudan broke away from Sudan, then has had its own bitter civil war ever since, mainly it seems, Nuer vs Dinka. Maybe Nuer vsDinka vs Shilluk vsNuba, etc. Civil war is the current fashion in Uganda, the CAR, Chad, Somalia (should Somalia be the test-case for successful world government?). South Africa can't even 'absorb' Lesotho or Swaziland. So African unity, one African government, is a long way off then.

If not African unity, then what about Asia ? China and India (and Pakistan) (and Afghanistan) under one government ? China and Vietnam ? Burma and Burma ? Bits of Sri Lanka with the other bits ? Japan and Korea and China ? China and Taiwan ? One Asian government ?

Central Asia ? Maybe. The Middle East - Saudi and Iran, under one government ? Maybe under Turkey, with Erdogan as the new caliph ? What, Turks, Arabs and Persians under one government ? ILTST.

Europe ? Russia, Ukraine and the rest of Europe under one government ? Even the EU and Scandinavia ?

Canada and the US ? The US and Mexico ? ILTST.

Brazil and the rest of South America ? A united Caribbean, at least just to field a decent cricket team again ?

And the most unlikely: Australia and NZ under one government ?

When any two countries anywhere form a single government, get back to us.

Joe

Joe,

The article, and the concept outlined, are not about establishment of a 'World Government', but an altogether different fish - a 'World Federation', established by a major overhaul and reformation of the UN, to make it truly effective and give it the best possible chance of realizing its foundational charter of objectives: including world peace, economic harmony and stability, and fair developmental opportunity for all nations.
The proposition includes changed UN voting arrangements - with banding of small nations, so that each UN vote would be representing around the same number of citizens, and perhaps approximating that of the US, say - and with no veto powers, either in the congress thereof or, and perhaps most particularly, in the high-and-mighty Security Council.
The Federation might operate somewhat similarly to the EU, as far as Law and Business Regulation, and such, but each world state would still operate as a sovereign nation, but with its powers and laws being constrained under the broad 'umbrella' of the agreed powers and legal authority of The Federation.

Since the UN has operated very much like a limp squid and toothless tiger in recent times - slow to act and mediocre in action - and being easily manipulated by large powers coercing or 'bribing' small nations (who all have one(1) equal vote (an absurdity in itself) to vote 'their way'. (Viz 'Whaling Commission' manipulation as a similar example.)

Where's the downside to such a Federation? I mean, how much worse could it be to the way the UN and UN Security Council operate now? And, potentially so much better - if, and a big if, it would be possible to get all UN states to agree, particularly the 'big' ones (including of course, the likes of 'The Frump')!