Topic: Bill Gates Calls for ‘Global Government’ - page 3. (Read 3910 times)

Hopefully, the global currency of this global government (IF at all it happens) will be Bitcoin.

It's not about intelligence, it's a lack of an ability to root out qualities that are innate to human beings. Europe can't even unite itself for economic gain. They tried, and there are still all the individuals countries bickering over which group of deadbeats is sinking the Euro. Tribalism is inherent to humanity, and people you don't identify with will always be outsiders and a threat to your "tribe." You will never defeat this, and therefore will never unify under one government, because it would require people to sacrifice their tribal/national identities to some sense of a greater cause, and people are reluctant to do this on a small scale. Forget the global scale.

How we can make elections? All officials will be chinese and indian ? If you really OK with a one world govt, then just take a look at EU. A bunch of elected but powerless parasites and a few unelected leaders to represent those whom appointed them. We can call this system by many names but this surely not a democracy. Actually pretty similar to the soviet political system. Do you really want this?

I agree in some respects but conspiracy theorists will just find a conspiracy or reason to moan in anything.


But Hitler was a tyrant. I can't see what would be wrong if the world was governed by a decent philanthropist human being but there's just too many problems and differing people and nations with differing ideologies that cannot be fixed in such a way.

Well the idea is that since it's the 21st century and with improved transportation and communications, we no longer really need nation states that are more or less concepts out of the late middle-ages when people were less intelligent, much more religious, etc. The original American state was intended to be more of a service provider and record-keeper instead of a deity like the British crown and its empire. It gets into the question of what do you really need from a service provider today compared to pre-internet, pre-industrialization, etc.

So part of the problem is that most of the world is not as culturally developed as other parts of the world. It's really difficult for people to think beyond the idea of nation states at this point. Nation states are permitted to collect taxes with the threat of violence, and this is very much an old-world concept, for example. And with that you get greedy people stealing money, squandering funds, and so on. If you can get people to view the state as just a service provider and not a false god to worship then this would be progress.

Radical leftists groups, and other groups like the Club of Rome have tried to discuss efforts to set up global management structures. And some already exist. There's a global currency which exists called SDRs (Special Drawing Rights), but it hasn't yet been implemented. The fact is, like Bill Gates barely being able to keep Windows from being bug-free on release, is that a national or international economy is impossible to manage since it is so complex. The prospect usually attracts some pretty dumb-headed people who can't recognize this fact or think that someone could pull it off. But it can't - every socialist state has failed in the past and all you have today are Cuba and North Korea which speak for themselves. The Bretton Woods system, which was a currency value-pegging scheme set up after WWII to manage European debt with the USD, is also now not really being recognized by Russia, Brazil, and China. So all of these efforts to "share and manage" wealth and debt aren't really working now since the world is getting so damn more complex. But the flipside of it is that nobody really wants to start a war for real anymore now. The US still has the largest military in the world be a huge margin, so you can't deny that. But the EU is BARELY working as we can see with its debt problems. In my opinion even if an Anglo-American alliance, or an American-EU alliance were to be set up it would be a resource draining nightmare and the world is just better off with a coherent and stable payments system that is neutral to any single nation state for those who want to participate in civil society. Cooperation and markets will form at a more micro level and things will still get done - but more slowly. For the rest like ISIS who simply don't want to participate, leave the door open if they ever decide they want to behave again, but otherwise just abandon any efforts to appease them or even interact with them. I see no reason why they still get internet service at this point.

ISIS, North Korea, bits of trouble in Europe, Israel/Palestine, there's not much else to worry over. Africa is developing and so is South America. You can probably have missles pointed at these hotspots should anything flare up, but I think civil society will be able to manage otherwise.

Global government has been going on and developing for thousands of years.  As long as there has been an alliance there has been a sense of global government where heads of state collaborate in the best interest of their realm.  It's like saying evolution has been occurring.  We know that already.

Adolf Hitler had a similar vision

I've never understood the opposition to a global government. It always seems to come from conspiracy theorists that lack critical thinking skills. What are we suppose to do? Never become united? Remain separate entities constantly vying and warring for territory and power? Does that really sound like the intelligent thing to do?

I don't live in the United States so I can testify to this. Where I'm from, even among professionals, there is a shared understanding that to secure a certain standard of living one must align themselves with the big banks, the government, big phone companies, the media, the hospitals, the energy companies, or whatever. Outside of the United States there are fewer individuals per capita that have established themselves so that they are not tied to cartels - so to speak. If a larger state structure gets proposed, fewer people in other countries actually have the freedom built up to oppose it.

It's because the majority of government on the planet has corruption as a central tenet of its existence that it is possible, nay probable. They will claim they have the consent of the governed, when really people just have a self-preservation instinct, not willing to roll the dice in a global guerrilla war or get moved to the front of the line to the ovens.

If you have trouble making a stable version of Windows you're in for bigger problems with a global government!

I know Gates is incredibly successful, but what makes him think that his success in business and computers makes him qualified to be the authority on what type of world government the planet needs? America is a pretty diverse place, with 300 million citizens, and look at the level of disagreement and political vitriol that exists here. How much more dysfunctional do you think a world government representing 7 billion people would be, where the majority of government on the planet has corruption as a central tenet of its existence? I think it's so unworkable that not only will it never be possible in our lifetime, but it will never be possible PERIOD.

I think that the predictions of armageddon and doom that comes with one world government is legit
A world language would be useful kind of what english is
Anyways kind of strange Bill wants to make the NWO wouldn't get to see much of it lol.

I bet he puts Linux and Android on all his devices so he can actually be productive and not get BSODs all the time.

The buck stops with Bill Gates for the torture of billions of direct and indirect users of Microsoft programming. If there's a hell, he should burn in it.

He is wrong about bitcoin, but might be right on this one.

Yeah it sounds like an impossible task, no government right now is perfect so who do you model the global one on... 

This pig wants to start shilling cryptocurrencies to then release his own closed source currency and control the world.

A local government cannot fully satisfy a local community, national leaders cannot solve domestic problems. How can we expect a global government to solve problems for mankind? A global governmental body is powerless and resourceless without the support of great powerful nations. So a global government would be an extention of dominant nations' power and have no interests in solving global problems.