An evolutionary progress toward world government

[Frontier]

I know from a subjective point of view that many fellow human beings resent the term "world government". On the other hand, democracy as an ideal grasps well for most people, even though we have our dichotomies when we talk of it as an actuality.

I find it better to coin the term "international democracy". Already, this imposes many obstacles that are difficult to solve in our contemporary society. One example for instance , should the government be federal, uniteral, or a confederate? Would small countries and large countries be political equal in an international government. It's not hard to under stand the cost of operating a wolrdwide bureaucracy would be heavy. To support this magnitude of bureacracy, our economic theories must be conditioned. We cannot achieve a high level of effectiveness without making our transportation, information flow and other technologies quicker. I truely believe new invention of technology will be the birth of an international democracy.

And is this even possible to achieve without having a common enemy? What kind of measures can we take to attain a world democracy? What kind of cultural, economic, political and other societal challenges would we face?

 

[Leweman]

It would take a 30 page paper to begin to answer those questions.

 

[Ringel05]

It would take a 30 page paper to begin to answer those questions.

Begin being the key word.

 

[Frontier]

I know from a subjective point of view that many fellow human beings resent the term "world government". On the other hand, democracy as an ideal grasps well for most people, even though we have our dichotomies when we talk of it as an actuality.

I find it better to coin the term "international democracy". Already, this imposes many obstacles that are difficult to solve in our contemporary society. One example for instance , should the government be federal, uniteral, or a confederate? Would small countries and large countries be political equal in an international government. It's not hard to under stand the cost of operating a wolrdwide bureaucracy would be heavy. To support this magnitude of bureacracy, our economic theories must be conditioned. We cannot achieve a high level of effectiveness without making our transportation, information flow and other technologies quicker. I truely believe new invention of technology will be the birth of an international democracy.

And is this even possible to achieve without having a common enemy? What kind of measures can we take to attain a world democracy? What kind of cultural, economic, political and other societal challenges would we face?

Top 10-15 families at the very top of global power pyramid already announced their turn towards creating world's DISTRIBUTION economy. It means that everything, including resources and information will be re-distributed among the global population with creation of "white zones", "buffer zones" and "black zones" (has nothing to do with skin colour). The first zones will accommodate the elites themselves and the most useful population; the buffer zones will exist to serve the white zones and to protect them from the black zones that will be the most numerous, yet will receive minimum resources and information (current day Somalia can be an example: piss poor, lawless, ungoverned and hopeless).

One problem, though: global elites can't control current masses of humans. During the meeting of Bilderberg Club three years ago this problem was discussed along with a solution: world's population should be decreased by 80%. Pandemics were recognised as not very suitable since diseases do not differentiate between elites and mortals; instead local wars and famine in "third world" countries were considered, while in more developed states the promotion of homosexuality and destruction of traditional families will continue.

You want to discuss "international democracy"? Whom with? With mortals who have no say in anything or with the top of global elites who already decided what they want for themselves?

I find it difficult to understand how dividing the world into three zones, where buffer and black zones primary task is to subordinate the white zone, could actually be set in motion. This would require extensive and strict border control to insure no immigration from the other buffer zones. In an international democracy, border laws will be lax and serve nothing more than to facilitate the traffic and register the flow of incoming information. This, of course, would require each citizen of the world to carry or implant a device containing adequate information of the carrier's identity.

I do agree that the world's economy is getting more centralized by causing more debt among the world's countries. We are seeing certain banks in Europe taking a superior position in the economic sector. I do not like the idea of one epicenter, but we must rather create 5 distribution centers in America, Europe, Africa, Eurasia, and Oceania.

What an preposterous post! Moreover, it is funny that you argue that homosexuality is used as a weapon to kill people and accelerate the decline of first-world population. Homosexuality is a condition which only those who are predisposed would get. It's just an accident at birth.

 

[Frontier]

This, of course, would require each citizen of the world to carry or implant a device containing adequate information of the carrier's identity.

we must rather create 5 distribution centers in America, Europe, Africa, Eurasia, and Oceania.

it is funny that you argue that homosexuality is used as a weapon to kill people and accelerate the decline of first-world population. Homosexuality is a condition which only those who are predisposed would get. It's just an accident at birth.

Hollywood is resting... Would you want to live in a world like that?

Why?

Homosexuality is a perversion or a psychological disorder the treatment of which is forbidden in US. And since homosexuals do not breed, the promotion of it as well as destruction of families ALREADY lead to decrease in indigenous populations of Western world.

Why not live in such a world? Take a look at our history and see how far we've come. As society advances and population increases rapidly in the next hundred years, do you really think our dying constitution would work? NO, we need lax borders and updated methods on how to register the flow of information. You cannot stop globalization, why not try to balance the distrubution so that each region does'nt get highly populated and out of control.


In respects to homosexuality, you have to realize that this not substantial enough to tak into consideration. It would not affect the population overall.

 

[Ringel05]

This, of course, would require each citizen of the world to carry or implant a device containing adequate information of the carrier's identity.

we must rather create 5 distribution centers in America, Europe, Africa, Eurasia, and Oceania.

it is funny that you argue that homosexuality is used as a weapon to kill people and accelerate the decline of first-world population. Homosexuality is a condition which only those who are predisposed would get. It's just an accident at birth.

Hollywood is resting... Would you want to live in a world like that?

Why?

Homosexuality is a perversion or a psychological disorder the treatment of which is forbidden in US. And since homosexuals do not breed, the promotion of it as well as destruction of families ALREADY lead to decrease in indigenous populations of Western world.

Why not live in such a world? Take a look at our history and see how far we've come. As society advances and population increases rapidly in the next hundred years, do you really think our dying constitution would work? NO, we need lax borders and updated methods on how to register the flow of information. You cannot stop globalization, why not try to balance the distrubution so that each region does'nt get highly populated and out of control.


In respects to homosexuality, you have to realize that this not substantial enough to tak into consideration. It would not affect the population overall.

You're arguing with a Stalin/Soviet apologist which is appropriate given the ideological approach you're taking sans any concept of the real human condition.

 

[editec]

I know from a subjective point of view that many fellow human beings resent the term "world government". On the other hand, democracy as an ideal grasps well for most people, even though we have our dichotomies when we talk of it as an actuality.

I find it better to coin the term "international democracy". Already, this imposes many obstacles that are difficult to solve in our contemporary society. One example for instance , should the government be federal, uniteral, or a confederate? Would small countries and large countries be political equal in an international government. It's not hard to under stand the cost of operating a wolrdwide bureaucracy would be heavy. To support this magnitude of bureacracy, our economic theories must be conditioned. We cannot achieve a high level of effectiveness without making our transportation, information flow and other technologies quicker. I truely believe new invention of technology will be the birth of an international democracy.

And is this even possible to achieve without having a common enemy? What kind of measures can we take to attain a world democracy? What kind of cultural, economic, political and other societal challenges would we face?

We cannot even keep our democracy viable at a national level.

Expecting that a ONE WORLD government will be a viable democracy is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Frontier]

You're arguing with a Stalin/Soviet apologist which is appropriate given the ideological approach you're taking sans any concept of the real human condition.

Interesting, your labeling me as a commie to discredit my viewpoints. In regards to economic order-- I'm talking about the core, the surface will be ascribed the characteristics of market-capitalism.

Editec:

What do you think UN and EU represents? ...an expanding in the domain of democratic decisions.

 

[Ringel05]

Interesting, your labeling me as a commie to discredit my viewpoints. In regards to economic order-- I'm talking about the core, the surface will be ascribed the characteristics of market-capitalism.

Editec:

What do you think UN and EU represents? ...an expanding in the domain of democratic decisions.

I labeled you a commie? Well I guess a two dimensional thinker might see it that way. It still doesn't address your lack of appreciation concerning the vast range of human personal and interpersonal motivations in relation to your edenesque construct.

 

[Frontier]

I labeled you a commie? Well I guess a two dimensional thinker might see it that way. It still doesn't address your lack of appreciation concerning the vast range of human personal and interpersonal motivations in relation to your edenesque construct.

There is a high probability that the population would increment to that 20 billion people on earth. And your talking about interpersonal relations? Do you really think the nation state would survive without being inclusive in a strong collaboration amongst the worlds country?

Yes, nationalism have always been strong in certain individuals, this may be indoctrinated or chosen by their own will, but this is increasingly diminishing as globalization is pushing forward to the next stage. People are dynamic, and thus do not tend to hold on to the same interpersonal relations.