I asked questions on a very short answer of yours.
I'll ask another one then:
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by that - practically - and how it would be applicable to today's world?
this is from 1950
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
-James Paul Warburg
James Paul Warburg (August 18, 1896 – June 3, 1969) was a German-born American banker. He was well known for being the financial adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt. His father was banker Paul Warburg, member of the Warburg family and "father" of the Federal Reserve system.
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
-James Paul Warburg
James Paul Warburg (August 18, 1896 – June 3, 1969) was a German-born American banker. He was well known for being the financial adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt. His father was banker Paul Warburg, member of the Warburg family and "father" of the Federal Reserve system.
Is the idea that people will "advance" and unite and abolish wars etc.?
Never, not unless those in power are removed and that is nearly impossible at the moment, power is too great for those who own and control so much and so many.
"Bad People" and "Wars" are the Evils that are necessary for the rich to harvest amazing amounts of money and energy from the population....It is also a form of fear mongering that keeps a level of control....which also divides countries, much like the two party political system(which is just a construct that divides population to keep from having a consensus and keeps us at each others throats)
Never, not unless those in power are removed and that is nearly impossible at the moment, power is too great for those who own and control so much and so many.
"Bad People" and "Wars" are the Evils that are necessary for the rich to harvest amazing amounts of money and energy from the population....It is also a form of fear mongering that keeps a level of control....which also divides countries, much like the two party political system(which is just a construct that divides population to keep from having a consensus and keeps us at each others throats)
I've always said it would take something cataclysmic to change the imbalance of wealth and power we have currently.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
You first gave all the answers for me...then argued points against them. That's my main issue.
I disagree with every example you gave, I think.
Well there's a lot out there now, so I dunno where to begin. The original topic was mostly two fold and was about one world government (my assumption about the word 'uniting') and humans uniting to abolish War. There's obviously a lot to say about those open questions so maybe we talk specifics as I was just jumping into zeph's mirrored thread.
Human nature does what's right for that person and those they know and identify with.
No level of government bureaucracy or borders or otherwise will ever change that. Build a One World Government and think people are united and you'll see a civil war come of it regardless.
War won't end for the sake of ending war. Uniting by label won't bring peace. War will end because war is against the self-interest and incentives of all those involved.
As long as the war benefits somebody there will be war.
"Uniting" is not an inherent human trait. Humans do not wake up and think Food Water Shelter and need to unite with those that I don't know. At most there is a fairly apathetic hope for those other billions. And that isn't a very strong force.
That is not simply fear. Blaming everything on fear it's just a tactic to blanket opposition policies with that word. It's not always right. Fear is but one single incentive.
Creating incentives to not have war is how you bring peace. And that is a dirty complex topic. But there's nothing in a global government that has that inherent to it. Things like interwoven trade is a core modern survival mechanism that inhibits war. Democratic governments tend to inhibit war. It was once an axiom, but depending on your view of Russia at the time, South Ossetia makes for an exception.
Plenty of various incentives on how to prevent war but they must appeal to Human nature. And I see increasing centralizing government as leading to as much war as it would prevent.
Regarding the idea of fear and one world government.
I have no fear of Canada or Canadians. I don't want the borders between us weakened and I'm on the stronger side of such an equation. I don't want another centralized government over the one I have, and for which I already view as needing to redistribute it's powers more locally. So I don't think or view this as fear. I simply hope to maintain sovereignty of both nations.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Alien Invasion would do it.
Then we are all on one side aligned with mankind....to war against the aliens.
Fucking, lol.
Libertarianism is inherently centrist rather than being left or right leaning.
How do you close that circle since trickle down economics is essentially free market principles which are a core tenant of libertarinism?
Yes, but we don't believe that giving something(i.e tax cuts, subsidies, etc.) to Group A will somehow trickle down and benefit Group B. No economist believes giving to the rich will help the poor. Wealth creation with ideas in an unhampered market is how you help the poor.
But wouldn't you have not even had those taxes in the first place to cut?
Shouldnt you be out protesting by spraying old people with Pepperspray or hitting unsuspecting people wit locks because they are the facist?
M
member 3289
Guest
Don't label me bro
I'm not sure I fully understand the question. A belief in no taxes would fall under anarchism.
Us vs. Them is hardcoded into us somewhat, yeah. But we can channel that. Europe was war-torn forever, now, not anymore. Instead we humiliate our British friends in football.
You won't see civil war if there is nothing to fight about and no big envy about stuff.
Agreed, of course there has to be the will behind it. See most of Europe after WW2. Or you and Canada.
A little to simple, but you have a point. But how do you see that changing under right-wing policies? That is what we are asking and want to know. Defending the status quo is one thing, what is pro-actively good for the globe?
Humans are social animals and certainly search out a group more often than not. The more interconnected the world becomes, it changes people too. Who is to say that in 500 years it wont be normal for a human to be connected to millions around the world at the same time and feel 'at home'?
A nation is nothing more than an arbitrary group too. Why do you feel connected to Americans you never met before? Just for the fact they are Americans.. Well, its the culture, its a familiarity. That can be achieved via other methods as well. The principles are already there. Its not that far away.
I'll give you that point. Its a big one nonetheless. However, eliminating greed and envy somehow has to be the goal, because without that, nobody is really gonna give up their womd.
No, but it could help and speed up the process. I'm not saying abolish nations outright, and how a world government would look like in practice is a very diverse topic anyway.
But it is kinda ironic how citizens of the largest conglomeration of states, that are proud as fuck to be just that, argue against a larger conglomeration of states. I really believe its more a fear of change that drives that, honestly. Fear of change, fear of losing status, fear of losing importance.
I don't see why you would make that a general conclusion. It depends how you do it certainly, you can't just conquer or annex everything, of course.
That is but simply a question of how it works in practice. You don't want to abolish the central government, do you?
Do you want Texas to have their own army? Or your county?
We would have achieved that too!