The nice thing about world governments, the reason why I once liked that idea is that it is about working together.
However, I don't think something would be stable. If it was it would prevent political advancement and probably be very corrupted, people with lots of powers tend to become great idiots. Besides this it lacks a plan B. Would this require a world-revolution if something goes wrong?
Also if this fails and becomes a dictatorship it would probably lead everyone saying "working together sucks". See what happened to various -isms.
I think it would be better to do the opposite. Shrink governments (maybe ultimately to the size of individuals) and instead use modern technologies to work together in more efficient ways. See Bitcoins.
It would maybe be good to have government research in the form of seasteading to try out new stuff and well, again: Focus on communication. The Internet, probably Esperanto, etc. Make tools that allow people work together efficient, so you can more easily build great stuff, prevent wars, etc.
Maybe one could even combine old, failed ideas with modern technologies. Just like for example Apple revived the tablet. Well, generally more efficient communication would allow people to bring together stuff that together changes the world.
Topic: Correct way to create world government (Read 2717 times)
... we are all in gods image and that everything he has done we will learn to do. Either way, we can solve our own problems.
For the moment (a very short moment in the sense of global history) the majority believes in at most one god. So we can learn how to eliminate each other until there is at most one left. 
If we don't like how Interpol and other international organizations now act as departments in our world government, we can just leave Interpol, right?
The question isn't if we want world government or not. The question is why haven't we been asked to vote in it?
The question isn't if we want world government or not. The question is why haven't we been asked to vote in it?
Umm, if we don't like this world government, we can just leave, right?
There is no way to put it any better!
A one world government is the agenda of the mega wealthy, not individual countries or their populace. When you are mega wealthy it is costing you money to keep track of international laws to ensure your businesses continue to earn without interference or incurring more costs. A one world government would have one set of laws for all, one currency for all, and therefore improve their bottom line. A fascist dictator as a ruler they control to do as they please is their ideal, while an American style republic is anathema to their goals. It is about more control not more freedom.
That's why we have to make sure a majority of people agrees that the people are above government and government only gets to make laws, fight wars, or anything else they do, if we the people approve of it. This is why we need free open source peer to peer (no central authority) secure technology (like Bitcoin, plus some identity hardware) to count votes in anything we want to vote on. We tried letting governments control what we're allowed to vote on, and they constantly abuse the power.
I calculate that number from the return of Jesus Christ, which will occur in 2034'-2036'.
14 years of government before the return, and that leaves 7-10 years from 2012.
14 years of government before the return, and that leaves 7-10 years from 2012.
No prophecies are needed to see whats happening globally.
While I don't know what happened those thousands of years ago, anyone waiting for Jesus to come solve their problems for them should remember that he said (not these exact words but this was the general idea) we are all in gods image and that everything he has done we will learn to do. Either way, we can solve our own problems.
3
Not 7 to 10 years. Maybe 70 to 100 years.
I calculate that number from the return of Jesus Christ, which will occur in 2034'-2036'.
14 years of government before the return, and that leaves 7-10 years from 2012.
David Rockefeller has been planning a single global currency since the 30's, if his father hadn't been before. You wouldn't plan a global currency without a global governance.
IMO, the world government rule will likely be a socialist style dictatorship, an imperial rule, if the likes of David Rockefeller and others of his ilk are successful. They are staunchly anti-christian, in fact, much of your perspective matches their views. Christianity will most likely suffer like it did during the rain of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. 1/3 of the population of the world are christians, so a lot of room to make room.
It is going to occur and we will probably see it materialize within the next 7 to 10 years.
Not 7 to 10 years. Maybe 70 to 100 years.
14 years of government before the return, and that leaves 7-10 years from 2012.
David Rockefeller has been planning a single global currency since the 30's, if his father hadn't been before. You wouldn't plan a global currency without a global governance.
It has it's disadvantages and advantages. Probably the best advantage is near complete elimination of wars. If it was like the U.S., with countries acting like states, it might work.
How does a single ruler or group of rulers from a global government put down insurrection when it occurs on a country wide scale? It will be war. A world governance sending troops to quell the rebellion.IMO, the world government rule will likely be a socialist style dictatorship, an imperial rule, if the likes of David Rockefeller and others of his ilk are successful. They are staunchly anti-christian, in fact, much of your perspective matches their views. Christianity will most likely suffer like it did during the rain of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. 1/3 of the population of the world are christians, so a lot of room to make room.
It is going to occur and we will probably see it materialize within the next 7 to 10 years.
Not 7 to 10 years. Maybe 70 to 100 years.
It has it's disadvantages and advantages. Probably the best advantage is near complete elimination of wars. If it was like the U.S., with countries acting like states, it might work.
It would result in less or no wars between countries but a certainty of a violent revolution from many of the 7 billion enslaved people. For this reason, they will pretend to be separate countries as long as possible, while still creating the same laws regardless of our votes.
A world government is something I wanted when I have still been naive too, but seriously, look at how society works. Usually smaller societies work far better than bigger.
If a small society wants to create big weapons and believe in a god that says all nonbelievers must die, or many other possible motivations to kill people, what must the other small societies do?
The great think about the way bitcoin works is that people have to participate in the process to be rewarded. But those that are rewarded are not guaranteed a reward. They more mining someone does then the higher the probability of that person being compensated with bitcoins. The political process should be the same way. The more work a person puts into the process the more likely they should be chosen to make the decisions for the process.
Lets think about applying that to some processes to see how it would work:
Governments have been taxing everyone for all of recorded history, so they should continue to get to choose how we are taxed instead of, what was that thing... oh yeah, democracy, government by the people.
A stalker is involved very much in the process of someone else's life. That stalker should get to make some of their choices for them.
The central bank system was involved very much in the recent near global economy crashes, so they should continue to get to make choices for the global economy.
Clearly putting in time and work isn't the way it should be measured. Instead, measure it by who improved things the most.
Within the context of the biosphere which supports us, there are plenty of participants who do not understand the complexities of the processes within the biosphere which produce our natural capital. Unfortunately then there are plenty of participants who don't know when to stop, or what all the ramifications are.
Conclusion: Bitcoins do not serve as an applicable model of free markets.
Conclusion: Bitcoins do not serve as an applicable model of free markets.
This gets to the root of the problem with money. It amplifies the motivations in people toward locally and short-term improvements at the cost of long-term and large scale improvements which would be more efficient overall for the Human species if people didn't keep defecting in variations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma in the many ways the world works. This doesn't mean we should or should not get rid of money, just that we should be aware of what it causes so we can better design new ways for the world to work.
Bitcoins are simple. There is a limit on their population. Period. Stupid people can understand that.
Production within the biosphere is not simple. Stupid people don't understand that. Period.
Production within the biosphere is not simple. Stupid people don't understand that. Period.
Let me add to what I said quoted above so you understand that it is not an insult, but a antecedent which leads to a consequent.
Bitcoins don't serve as a model of what happens in the real world because they are simple to understand. No matter the intelligence level of Bitcoin participants, they basically get it and so the process works.
Within the context of the biosphere which supports us, there are plenty of participants who do not understand the complexities of the processes within the biosphere which produce our natural capital. Unfortunately then there are plenty of participants who don't know when to stop, or what all the ramifications are.
Conclusion: Bitcoins do not serve as an applicable model of free markets.
Are you are troll?
I am someone trying to provide you with more information than you currently possess within the context of your decision making process that drives your belief system. Given more information, you will be forced to put your political ideologies to more rigorous tests.
Where do you want to start? The wolf/rancher conflict? Global fish haul? Climate change? Biodiversity? Edge effects? Honeybees? Sumatran rhino horns? Riparian zones? Whaling?
Are you are troll?
Oh and I'm especially not going to waste my time if you can't even see the various regulations and constraints the Bitcoin free market continually places on itself, or are you going to claim that people anonymously offering services for bitcoins somehow aren't regulated or contrained by the free market and can do what ever they like? Is SR unregulated and unconstrained? Can merchants there do what ever the hell they want?
Like I said, some of this is just plain common sense.
Like I said, some of this is just plain common sense.
Bitcoins are simple. There is a limit on their population. Period. Stupid people can understand that.
Production within the biosphere is not simple. Stupid people don't understand that. Period.
Oh and I'm especially not going to waste my time if you can't even see the various regulations and constraints the Bitcoin free market continually places on itself, or are you going to claim that people anonymously offering services for bitcoins somehow aren't regulated or contrained by the free market and can do what ever they like? Is SR unregulated and unconstrained? Can merchants there do what ever the hell they want?
Like I said, some of this is just plain common sense.
Like I said, some of this is just plain common sense.
If you had quoted my whole response to your bullshit statement you'd have already received the explanation. And if you still don't understand, well then, I guess it's you who's going to have to do some reading. I suggest you start here: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=free%20market
Consider me dense. Explain.
So I should consider you dense but waste my time explaining it to you anyway? Do I look like a fool to you? If you are honestly interesting in learning why you are mistaken and why your statement is wrong and why the free market isn't unregulated and unconstrained, some of which btw is just plain common sense, you'll just have to pick up one of the oh so many sources I gave you a link to, and do your own homework.
When you say the free market isn't unregulated and unconstrained, are you saying that free markets, by their very existence, in any and all forms are inherently regulated and constrained? Or are you saying the majority of free markets today are regulated and constrained?
Are you saying there is no such thing as an unregulated and unconstrained market?
Do you believe free markets should be regulated and constrained by overseeing authorities?
Final question - and the most important: Do you believe that a free market magically regulates and constrains itself by virtue of its existence such that natural capital will not be depleted?
As an aside, do you know what natural capital is? If you can, please explain your theories within the context of climate change, the drop in honeybee populations, edge effects, trophic cascades, the war between ranchers and wolves within the context of riparian zone destruction and clean water, biodiversity, and the limiting factors of the global fish haul in the past vs. now.
If you had quoted my whole response to your bullshit statement you'd have already received the explanation. And if you still don't understand, well then, I guess it's you who's going to have to do some reading. I suggest you start here: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=free%20market
Consider me dense. Explain.
So I should consider you dense but waste my time explaining it to you anyway? Do I look like a fool to you? If you are honestly interesting in learning why you are mistaken and why your statement is wrong and why the free market isn't unregulated and unconstrained, some of which btw is just plain common sense, you'll just have to pick up one of the oh so many sources I gave you a link to, and do your own homework.
If you had quoted my whole response to your bullshit statement you'd have already received the explanation. And if you still don't understand, well then, I guess it's you who's going to have to do some reading. I suggest you start here: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=free%20market
Consider me dense. Explain.
If you had quoted my whole response to your bullshit statement you'd have already received the explanation. And if you still don't understand, well then, I guess it's you who's going to have to do some learning. I suggest you start here: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=free%20market
The correct way to create a world government is to not create a government anywhere at all but let the free market provide the services people want or need. No central plan is needed for that.
Unregulated and unconstrained free markets exploit the lowest hanging fruit. It's a guaranteed path to destruction of natural capital, which is ultimately the only thing we have. If you wish to disagree, then you're going to have to take some time to learn some fundamental truths about nature.
Bullshit. Free markets aren't unregulated and unconstrained.
Explain.
The correct way to create a world government is to not create a government anywhere at all but let the free market provide the services people want or need. No central plan is needed for that.
Unregulated and unconstrained free markets exploit the lowest hanging fruit. It's a guaranteed path to destruction of natural capital, which is ultimately the only thing we have. If you wish to disagree, then you're going to have to take some time to learn some fundamental truths about nature.
Bullshit. Free markets aren't unregulated and unconstrained. Try again. What they are though is unregulated and unconstrained by a central authority and monopoly of violence. Which is a big fking difference.
The correct way to create a world government is to not create a government anywhere at all but let the free market provide the services people want or need. No central plan is needed for that.
Unregulated and unconstrained free markets exploit the lowest hanging fruit. It's a guaranteed path to destruction of natural capital, which is ultimately the only thing we have. If you wish to disagree, then you're going to have to take some time to learn some fundamental truths about nature.
Jump to: