tlmorg02
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 1,078
- Location
- Louisville, Ky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I realize that there is much fear of such a unification occurring. But with the millions of disagreements countries have, and with the difficulty the EU has everyday, I would say there is no real significance for these fears. I do not find such a situation disireable, and would venture to say that many do not. The diversity makes the world rich and I think it will be preserved.
point 1: public opinion is shaped by the media which if the globalists don't already own they can always buy.
point 2: who says the people have any say in this ? politicians in public statements will say whatever will make people happy then will vote for whatever they have been paid to vote for.
think Iraq - when there is a will there is a way. will on the part of the globalists that is.
Capitalism will conquere the globe, national boundaries will be obliterated, and communism will arise from the development of the have's and the have nots.
yeah and somewhere in between a couple billion people may die in concentration camps for trying to have a revolution.
as it is being pushed onto us - what do you think about it ?
Again someone comes out with this stuff.:roflIf it's in the form of a pluralist liberal democratic government then yes I see it as being a huge and necessary step for humanity to make the leap from Type 0 to Type 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale.
* Type I — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet — has approximately 1016 or 1017 W available.[2] Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74 × 1017 W (174 petawatts, see Earth's energy budget). Kardashev's original definition was 4 × 1012 W — a "technological level close to the level presently attained on earth" (presently meaning 1964).[3]
* Type II — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 4 × 1026 W.[2] Again, this figure is variable; the Sun outputs approximately 3.86 × 1026 W. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 × 1026 W.[3]
* Type III — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 4 × 1037 W.[2] This figure is extremely variable, since galaxies vary widely in size; the stated figure is the approximate power output of the Milky Way. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 × 1037 W.[3]
Kardashev scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again someone comes out with this stuff.:rofl
What about the federation and Star fleet, we'll need them first surely.:lol:
I'm not sure why you mock and dismiss the next step in human evolution as a joke.
Again someone comes out with this stuff.:rofl
What about the federation and Star fleet, we'll need them first surely.:lol:
Anyway democratic gov't of billions is mostly meaningless and liberal gov't even more so. The individual would be virtually nothing compared to the mass, he'd have basically no oversight to make the gov't accountable. Personally I'd rather have smaller than larger governing units with only co-ordination taking place at any level above the nation, or even region. And I certainly do not share the technocratic, gigantist wet dream of that scale. I prefer the human scale.
Rather childish selections, so - no vote.
A "one-world" government is many years, probably centuries ahead.
Right now, we do not begin to the the quality of people for this.... and we may never have these people...
after WW3 or a super pandemic and the deaths of 4 to 5 billions in the "developing" countries to the extent that only "civil" and educated peoples are left, maybe such a government could be formed....
Until then, why even try? It is an impossible task.:2wave:
Billion may be too large a number. People are much more sheep than wolf.
Sorry for just jutting in, but maybe independent systems, with just one overarching system? Like the USA inside the U.N.?
Meh the American Republic proved that wrong, as long as you have states within unions population size doesn't matter.
I disagree completely, the American republic has tried its hardest to fight against this, and partially succeeded, but it has still succumbed. The federal gov't has grown massively in power at the expense of locales and states and accountability and restraints have decreased. The American republic is an admirable example that safeguards can have some effects but can't hold the inevitable tide for ever.
Why? :mrgreen:Remember to take off the tin foil hat when going outside in a thunderstorm.
Well okay I agree I did go a little too far; democracy would be meaningless, whether the society would be liberal and in what sense and for how long is not certain but I would think its liberality would be no better than ours at the best and be very precarious at the best. As a decentralist I do think therefore it would be in a worse position than a more decentralised society in this sense and in several others like the economy, society, culture and such.The power of the government has increased, however, we have still maintained a liberal democracy. You asserted that with such a high population under a world government democracy and liberalism would essentially be meaningless, however, if anything as population size in the American Republic increased so too have the rights of the individual IE total incorporation plus of the Federal Bill of Rights into the states through the SCOTUS's interpretations of the due process clause of the 14 amendment.
Well okay I agree I did go a little too far; democracy would be meaningless, whether the society would be liberal and in what sense and for how long is not certain but I would think its liberality would be no better than ours at the best and be very precarious at the best.
I disagree, the state is larger and more intrusive than ever and it hardly looks likely to become less so in the near-future.Our liberality is greater than it's ever been.
A knowledge of hunanity and history. Germany went to war 14 times, if memory serves, in about 800 years before it unified, it produced a flourishing culture and civilisation. After unification it embarked on three massive wars in a less than a century.On what basis do you make the claim that increased population size has a causal relationship on diminished liberalness?
I don't see that at all. Ever since the EU keeps getting involved more and more in British affairs our liberties are becoming more and more restricted. You can't even smoke in a private bar any more.Within the structures of existing liberal societies it appears to me that the exact inverse is true. That's not to say that there is a causal relationship between increased population size and increased liberalism, however, there does appear to be a correlation.
I support it.
Somebody's read 1984 too many times.
Sorry for just jutting in, but maybe independent systems, with just one overarching system? Like the USA inside the U.N.?
I disagree, the state is larger and more intrusive than ever and it hardly looks likely to become less so in the near-future.
A knowledge of hunanity and history. Germany went to war 14 times, if memory serves, in about 800 years before it unified, it produced a flourishing culture and civilisation. After unification it embarked on three massive wars in a less than a century.
When gov't is small it is easier for the individual to check, he has a voice, he can maintain some oversight of it and have a hope of keeping it accountable.
I don't see that at all. Ever since the EU keeps getting involved more and more in British affairs our liberties are becoming more and more restricted. You can't even smoke in a private bar any more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?