Can we be one nation?

1. 70

   Jomine Joseposted 9 years ago

   Anarchy, they say, is the best form of government. As it is possible only in Utopia, can't we try for a single universal nation with a single government (the second best) instead of the separate nations we are now. That can at least sort some of the problems world is facing now.  America's negative approach to middle east is partly because it consider only its interest while ignoring the middle east's. A universal government will have to be impartial to all. We have our examples of India and European Union in front of us where people of different religion, ethnicity, language or culture live together.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      This American government can work if we the people care enough to make it work. The average American has no idea of the workings of their government and cares very little as to it's operation. Just look at the poor voting turn out to prove that. Big business directs the comings and goings through the donation kitty and the lobbyists poring out of our retired or defeated civil servants is what makes the whole thing operate as a money generating enterprise for our politicians and not a public service as they imply.
      
      Government is not the problem, we are as it is a reflection of our commitment and vigil over they way we are governed.
      
      Publicly financed campaigns, term limits and lobby reform is our only hope. Those who don't agree with this are a part of the problem and don't want to relinquish any control they think they have.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Jomine Joseposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         My question was whether we can bring the entire world under one government? Will that be beneficial?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            We can bring the world under one government if we slaughter a sufficient number of the opposition, install a vast security state - think Stasi on steroids and make sure that every person depends on that one world government for every possible means of survival. If only one person gets the idea that government is unnecessary in any aspect of his life he poses a threat to the whole thing.
            
            You need to re-read George Orwell, see the film "The Lives of Others," and contemplate the nature of virtue and government.
            
            "More states have perished because they have violated morals than have perished for violating laws"
            Montesquieu.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Jomine Joseposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Globalization has already made world into a single village. Majority nations are democracy.  We can be one world democracy.
               EU, America,  india all survive without much problems. A central government and multiple state governments.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Germany before the consolidation of power by Hitler - democracy
                  Japan before the war - democracy
                  Italy before the war - democracy
                  
                  The US may be a democratic republic but, apparently, that is not insulation from bad actions in the Middle East. What special species will run this special government? Corruption still exists in the EU, US, India - why does anyone ever buy the idea that government is perfect.

                  replyreport
         2. 71

            rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I think that trying to bring the world under one form of government is almost if not an impossible task. Cultural and in many cases religious difference cannot be accommodated with one system. Cultural problems arise when allowing certain segments of the population the vote such as in the Arab culture. Religious limits on candidates also pose a threat for those who wish to throw their hat in the ring. You also have the economic influence such as in Western Countries where the vote is manipulated through campaign donations (bribes) whereby it creates an elitist class who rule in autonomy.
            
            Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it. "A  Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
            
            Pretty relevant stuff huh?
            
            Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...","We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."
            
            These guys studied Greek and Roman history and that guided their hands in crafting the American "experiment in self government". Unfortunately the money has corrupted the experiment and the deception our "civil servants" display is complete when they enrich themselves on the backs of the taxpayer and our freedoms.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Jomine Joseposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Grudgingly I have to agree.
               But still consider that though democracy is a bad form of government all others are worse.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  It seems to be a good idea until it is perverted by the greed. Many say that our democracy is tied too closely to capitalism for it to function properly. Greed usually overtakes the fairness as the goals of capitalism is to increase wealth through business practices and not necessarily with fairness or morality as a tenants to achieve it. Is democracy the best form of government? Our democratic/republic is an effort to see if that is true. With the lack of participation of the electorate I think it is doomed to fail.

                  replyreport
   2. 57

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Who is they? One, all powerful government, isn't that what Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin were all striving for? If a small government can be brutal and murderous, e.g. North Korea, than how much more dangerous is a massive all encompassing global government?
      
      India for example?
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor … le4439651/
      
      or EU?
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … ttack.html
      
      and it isn't just the Middle East that is the problem and it certainly isn't America.
      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32844076/ns/w … AyXZvldWyo
      
      ISIS wants a one world government, also, as commanded in the Quran.
      How wonderful that we all live in a fantasy world of rainbows and unicorns, just like in the EU.
      
      http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/newsprop … 1328223319
      
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruto … rrectness/
      
      All the world's problems will finally be solved when there is one world under Islam.  The world is comprised of two spheres, the sphere of Islam and the sphere of Jihad. If one is not in the sphere of Islam, then one is in the sphere of Jihad.
      
      The world has a problem and it isn't the United States, though that may prove, yet again, to be the solution, as the rest of the world has willingly disarmed. But what about the United States? It is being disarmed as we speak by a President who also believes in Utopian fairy stories, the culpability of the US and the virtue of Islam.
      
      The end of Pax Americana is at hand, tremble.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         ...what we have already is a one world economic system. The power will not be political in nature
         and it is already economic.
         What is its check?
         I think it is beyond the scope of what the framers of our govt. could have possibly imagined… although Madison did mistrust the power of the banks…
         - to cut to the chase:
         The check is this:
         Respect for countries.
         We can see countries as very good vegetables in the soup of the world.
         Those with money and power need to respect the rights of every individual to find his own happiness as whatever vegetable he chooses or finds himself to be. The wealthy can sip the broth without gobbling up the vegetables.  Something like that.
         LOL!

         replyreport
         1. 57

            retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            There has been a one world economy for 500 years, that isn't the problem.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               - well Good!
               "More states have perished because they have violated morals than have perished for violating laws"
               Montesquieu.
               Like

               replyreport
      2. 70

         Jomine Joseposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Can we be a world wide democracy?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            No
            
            1 - there are 1.2 - 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world
            2 - there is no such thing as 100% voter participation in a free society
            3 - majority rule is a disaster
            4- one man one vote one time is the history of democracy in the world

            replyreport
            1. 71

               rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Oh yes, yes the evil Muslims! I forgot the evil Muslims. They must be the problem.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Name a Muslim country that is not a basket case.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh yes, yes! The Muslim countries must be rated by us. The evil Islam is the culprit. It must be because we have judged it to be so. Quickly we must destroy Islam to show them how to live in a free society. Yes, yes that is the solution!

                     replyreport
2. 72

   lone77starposted 9 years ago

   Jomine Jose, "anarchy, they say?..." Who are "they?"
   
   Coming together as one is exactly where we're headed. But the forces of evil have co-opted this natural and beneficent urge for their own selfish purposes.
   
   A one-world democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy is full of self-concern -- individuals clamoring for their own self interests. One-world based on self-concern is tyranny -- not democracy. There is no freedom of choice in such a world based on Ego. Just look at the UN's Agenda 21 -- the end of national sovereignty, personal liberties, freedom of movement, personal possessions and more tyranny. Possessions are only for the rich psychopaths who claim the right of ownership at the expense of the rest of humanity.
   
   Nick Rockefeller once explained it to the late Aaron Russo. He said that their plan is for everyone to be microchipped (RFID) so that each individual can be controlled or eliminated, and those in the elite (psychopath) families will have a KMA attached to their microchips (KMA = Kiss My Ass), so police and other authorities will leave them alone, because they are the only ones to be allowed freedom of movement, freedom of possessions and freedom to control the lives of others. This is slavery run amok.
   
   The forces of evil could bring us together by destroying the image of America as they so near-completely have done already. They have also shredded the American Constitution and Bill of Rights making it possible for even Americans to hate what America has become. America was the only major impediment to their take over of the world.
   
   Who are "they?" The Rockefellers, Rothschilds and their ilk. These are the kind of people who thrive on war, destruction and wholesale genocide. They have become experts at financing both sides of every war for the last 200+ years. They own the central banks of 98% of the world's nations.
   
   But when we are One World, the powerful psychopaths will merely eliminate 6 billion or so as unnecessary, "surplus population" -- "useless eaters."
   
   "America's" actions in the Middle East are not those of Americans, per se, but those of the psychopaths who own the government and the corporations.
   
   The fiction you seem to be alluding to is like the Star Trek Federation -- a melting pot of wonderful people working together toward a common good. I love this idea. But it won't work so long as self-concern is the chief guiding force.
   
   The only way we will achieve this is to change ourselves, first. We need to eliminate self-concern in our selves. We need to love others as our selves and to desire for them all that they want, even for our enemies. Only then can we heal the world and bring it together in peace and freedom. This is the message of Christ.
   
   When we react to the atrocities created by the powerful psychopaths (atrocities which are then blamed on others), we are contributing to the suffering of the world. When we fight against the sock puppets of these psychopaths -- with things like the War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Government Abuses, War on This and War on That, we only add to the suffering and prolong its existence. We are throwing more fuel into the flame of self-concern.
   
   I would love to have a One World, but it would likely be run by God and His representatives. And since God is Love, this would be the best of all possible worlds. But it would not be a democracy, because of the self-concern inherent in that form of government.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If men were angels govt. would not even be necessary.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You are echoing James Madison in -
         
         "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
         
         Federalist 51
         James Madison, 1788
         
         It is the conceit or ignorance of the contemporary that leads people to re-examine notions of government that have long since been settled. A large and distant government is dangerous to liberty. A small and proximate one is easier to control, though still posing a danger.
         
         "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
         
         George Washington
         
         Why would one conclude that a greater conflagration engulfing the whole world would be preferable to many, isolated small fires.

         replyreport