The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > One World Government ?

One World Government ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. 16
  14. 17
  15. All
..cont.
Peter,
I don't need to squirm, I have semantics (you're a dab hand yourself) and the epithet "fascist" has been so abused that it means virtually nothing beyond a manifold of pejorative connotations. However, I concede that it was inappropriate to speak of "fascist free marketeers", even though free marketeers do often in my experience exhibit incongruously conservative, religious, chauvinistic and authoritarian sensibilities.

I've said I think the logistics of world government make the idea problematic at best. What we do need I think is a way to regulate peaceful relations between countries and to encourage democratic institutions within them that address questions of self-sufficiency and sustainability. By democratic institutions I mean that every individual should be educated in and concerned about propagating the health and longevity of the society (and not just his own interests), whose ambitions should be consciously tailored to the limitations imposed by natural systems. I do think international trade should virtually cease, or gradually decline while nations develop their own fulsome capacities. I realise of course that there are a thousand objections, the main thing I'm advocating is that humanity can no longer resign itself to the hopeful benevolence of any systematised economics. On a fragile planet we have to learn to be "socially" spontaneous, the way we are individually. We have to learn to adapt to the conditions, rather than thinking we can endlessly alter the conditions, rather than altering them to suit us. Libertarian egoism puts the emphasis on individual fulfilment and (selective) human "rights", but the first ethical consideration should be human "responsibility"!

But it's all academic as it's not going to happen, or at least it might take a generational collapse to make us change our ways.

Peak oil would do it, Bazz, but isn't shale gas etc. buying lots more time?

Belly, what do you say to my criticism of unionisism?
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 17 October 2011 8:21:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just musing on Squeers' thoughts about the epithet "fascist" as meaning virtually nothing (or anything) these days.

When my daughter was teenager, occasionally we'd find ourselves in an argument. If things got a little heated and we seemed to be going around in circles, one of us would simply call the other a "fascist" which immediately rendered the argument superfluous and we'd fall on the floor laughing. It was a good circuit breaker for inflamed emotions.

Slightly off topic, but OLOers do have a penchant for epithets, which are used more to compartmentalise posters and shut down conversation than to provide clarity or fodder for further discussion.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 17 October 2011 9:13:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

With respect, you may not know what you are talking about. Hunter-gatherer societies were not some sort of generalised sharing-and-caring utopias. The hierarchical (an apt word) distribution system went something like this:

* self

* within one's nuclear family (i.e. father, mother, older brother, younger brother, older sister, younger sister);

* within one's extended family (father's and his brothers' families in patriarchal societies, within both father's and mothers's brothers' and sisters' families in more bilineal societies;

* within one's clan group, descent group, skin-group, etc.

* within one's related clans, mother's, and father's mother's.

End.

Perhaps, to paraphrase Tolstoy, almost all societies are equally imperfect (certainly all 'cultures' are), but hopefully, less imperfect future societies will have aspects of near-perfection, each in its own way.

We crave perfection, finished products, no more worries. As Popper pointed out, it's never going to happen. Perfection and completeness, no need for any more development or growth or improvement, are medieval, pre- and anti-Enlightenment (and fascist-Utopian) concepts.

I'm in a group with Sing Australia (100 groups, 5000 singers around the country, one is probably near you) and every few weeks we sing John Lennon's 'Imagine', which drives me nuts: to summarise his infantile brainlessness, he proposes: (a) no more religion, countries, or possessions, and suggests we (b) 'live for today, live life in peace, share all the world', as if (b) would all follow from (a).

No more religion: Stalin's Russia ? Nazi Germany ?

No countries, and therefore no wars ? So no civil wars ? Libya ? Syria ? Burma ?

Sorry, mate, the hard fact is that there will never be completedness, perfection, either in the distant future or in the mythical past.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 17 October 2011 10:19:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
congrats squeers on breeding
you mention what alternative to capitalism
why dear parent capitalisation...[monetising asset or skill]

or position or location
if you have a skill..thats credit worthy
if tyiou got higher educationn [that might be credit worthy
or it might not..much depends on the skill and its application]

say we need plumbers..their skil capitalisation raises
doubles if they take on apprentices

thing is we got plenty of assets
like even a home in israel..has value
in holding value it earns free capitalisation[intrest free]
the assset is the security..for the credit limit..

that in case of default simply transpheres direct to the capitalisation managment..[to wit the king][or queen...in power at the specific time/place]..

as elect-ed by vote and on going quality of service to its people..via the enjoined SOVEREIGN authority of the new un...[ie the sovereigns united nation]..formely called the un[united nations]

[see wikised/wikigeld]
suntreaty and oither written notifications presented
to your leaders way back in 1996...till 2002

further expanded opon here
right here on olo...world freeman society and other sites
Posted by one under god, Monday, 17 October 2011 10:54:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every post from my last is very interesting hope all is well Squeers read one of my two posts above.
Now let us all dream of better, and yes we dream , look at our favorite books plays movies.
NEVER will such a world exist Bazz, or was it Banjo? sorry but one fuel we will never run short of.
The one that drives us, self interest.
My dotage, past work life, is fueled by my new life garden and its reward MARKET DAYS.
I just love those markets we buyers and sellers are, no matter the fair ground mates, like old loved socks we like each other.
But watch, smile no other action will do, as the upwardly mobile, or those pretending to be, shove and push.
Talking on the mobile, about mixing with us country bumpkins, little can be done, get out of the way let them spend big on plants doomed to die but spend.
I under stand, very few want one world government.
But ten thousand or ten billion we have little say little power.
I was not offering hope, but fear and a certainty no other path exists.
A thousand in power total power,once established,could breed the differences out of us in a few generations,with that nationalism, freedom, maybe even the right of some to have children.
Or what? war, mass starvation,rule out humanity caring enough to act on all the above we fail at such human rights, we say stops us, being human.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 17 October 2011 11:18:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

I think we sometimes invest humanity with more smarts than is regularly demonstrated by its behaviour. All our achievements in manipulating our environment, our creations of art science, literature, religion, great metropolises, the obverse is always simultaneously displayed in equal measure.

Of the human qualities most often on display, deception and self-interest, are perhaps the most defining of our prerogatives.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 17 October 2011 11:39:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. 16
  14. 17
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy