Come the revolution we shall all have cake, nothing else but plenty of cake .

PS. we are all equal but some are more equal than others.

Global govenance is an extension of what we have already, central government. It already exists to a large degree. You only have to witness the current paranoia in order to appreciate that the fiancial system that governs our labour is gobal.

The big problem with it is that it does not work, well not as most would like it to.

There is a reason why centralised government will not work and that is because it inversely opposed to the human system. The human system works best based on the number involved. The ideal is roughly 150. The reason is that that is roughly the number that people can interact with on a personal basis. That is why military companies are never bigger than 220 people. There are many studies on the number of folk it takes to achieve things. Look at F1 pit crew. The ideal team for maintenance on military aircraft is between four and seven.

The larger we organise the worse it gets. Ask anyone who has been in the military where the cock ups start occuring and why exemplary leadership is required to pull people together.

So when you get to centralisation of anything, Telstra, government, whatever, the system breaks down and becomes very susceptable to corruption and inefficiency.

I listen to ABC News Radio a lot and subsequently proceedings in Canberra. Even Senator Bob is going on about a new world order. What a farking frightening concept to think that he may become globally influential.

There will be a day when the human race makes decisions globally, when we come to realise that in relation to the globe we are a part of it and reliant on it's health globally. We will then have come to terms with the fact that putting poor countries in debt or going to war against them for their resources is barbaric and counter productive.

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a New World Order — can emerge..." - George H.W. Bush, 9 /11 / 1991


meaning...out of this contrived financial collapse,our 5th objective--a one world government--can be implemented.

did hear Paul Keating on 60 minutes once mention the New World Order,something like ''Russia can become part of it.''

like he himself and Russia is not part of it already.

Toots said...
Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, then try Pythagoras. Time is not Linear, its spherical with abitrary normals and prone to Boolean operations, when the time machine dudes work that one out we shoudl get time travel, so start writing down those Lotto numbers.

I understand what you're saying, but I prefer to equate time to a fractal and not a sphere; and a such there are similarities but they differ.

Plato's idea was a Utopian communism (similar to Jacque and Peter's zeitgeist movement) with 3 classes rulers, warriors and farmers ... sharing of everything even wives... this translates to the disintegration of the family unit. We ascribe a lot of Plato's ideas to Socrates who also had the similar ideals.

But Aristotle argued that humans don't behave in a way that would sustain such a society. Humans excel only when they have an interest, and common property would soon fall in disrepair.

Plato: But with private property and self interest comes aggression.

So from a philosophical point of view we have disrepair or war.

But global governance could embrace either philosophy, so I again argue against it, as it limits your choice... no where to run to if you don't like it.

Toots said...

To some other guy, My post is quite legible, a bit cramped and in one paragraph however I conceed there are many abstract concepts you most likely cant fathom.

To flysurfer, Indeed, I read so many years ago about the fundamentals of civilisation, and the early thinkers and Socrates being the Voice of Plato as their are actually no written records of Plato apparently. or was it the other way around? doesnt mattewr which, their philosophies are carved in stone

As for your fractal theory, Im sure the spheres can work into that, As the Spheres connect they form a bubble matrix or Boolean each other to co-incide as per the fibonacci sequence.

There's plenty written by both... Plato's Republic??? The Christians did burn a lot of the originals in the library of Alexandria... but lots of it was copied and available in other learning centres.

Dude, I'm not sure about bools with Fibonacci sequence... 1 + 1 = 2; 1 + 2 = 3... let's stick with fractal geometry.

FlySurfer said...

Toots said...
Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, then try Pythagoras. Time is not Linear, its spherical with abitrary normals and prone to Boolean operations, when the time machine dudes work that one out we shoudl get time travel, so start writing down those Lotto numbers.

I understand what you're saying, but I prefer to equate time to a fractal and not a sphere; and a such there are similarities but they differ.

Plato's idea was a Utopian communism (similar to Jacque and Peter's zeitgeist movement) with 3 classes rulers, warriors and farmers ... sharing of everything even wives... this translates to the disintegration of the family unit. We ascribe a lot of Plato's ideas to Socrates who also had the similar ideals.

But Aristotle argued that humans don't behave in a way that would sustain such a society. Humans excel only when they have an interest, and common property would soon fall in disrepair.

Plato: But with private property and self interest comes aggression.

So from a philosophical point of view we have disrepair or war.

But global governance could embrace either philosophy, so I again argue against it, as it limits your choice... no where to run to if you don't like it.

One world government, so then there wouldnt be any war or famine, is that right?
Because one government can fight against its self, and the gov has to look after their people, dont they?!?

Its not something I want personally, but they are things to think about I guess

We should really be looking at it from a perspective of how much we have actually acheived as an uncivilised race and I spose its only human to want for better, the utopian ideal, thats how far we've come we can think abstract thought and act on it with help from others, (co-operation) we speed up the process.
My personal take on the whole thing is that we are all connected like an organism, we are merely something akin to a bunch of atoms making up a Nephron unit in a Kidney of a goat and our universe is that goat, Bloody hell who mentioned Goats this morning, Im obessed now. goat blowers ;)
EDIT: I just realised Im a Capricorn

SomeOtherGuy said...

theDoctor said...

Australia is already the most over governed most over taxed place on earth

Why? Because you say so? FAIL. Sweden is the obvious example... nice place, lots of people live there, lots want to live there, does quite well globally. Heaps higher tax rates than here.

Leprechaun said...

Global Governance probably couldnt be addressed at a state or feral level my friend .

The Global Governance puppeteers would be the American Federal Reserve , the IMF and the World Bank and subsidiaries with the G8 as the puppets that implement the whole agenda.

Hey someguy take it easy go and take bex and have a lie down . Who do you think rules our world ? Those who own the monetary system . In the 17th century people with gold would put it with a safekeeper who would then give the depositor of the gold some form of currency .

It didn't take these greedy primitive bankers long to realize that they could start lending more currency on the gold reserves as long as everybody didn't want to redeem their gold all in the same week.

Today banks can lend more than 90 percent of money than they actually hold in reserve in bonds or gold . It's a Ponzi scheme through and through . And these peoples agenda is too get the people to fund this new world governance or new world order is a price on carbon.




Why? Because you say so? You make sweeping pronouncements without a shred of argument as to how this would work or why it would be so. If you can't provide such explanations my friend then all I can say to you is .. BbbaaaaaAAaaa

FlySurfer said...

I think societies need founding basic principals like:
Preservation of all life.
Your body is your own to do as you will with it.
Wilfully causing harm to another results in expulsion from the society (sent to the desert with no clothes )
...
And then goals like:
To discover new worlds.
To progress our species.

Careful there, Flyboy. Go any further and cisco will call you a socialist.

SomeOtherGuy said...

Who knows, somewhere there may be an island of Flysurfers who never join.

Oh yeah, you can keep your one world government as long as I can be king of my island!

SomeOtherGuy said...
Don't think it can happen? I think it is happening - look back a few hundred years. MOST of the nations that exist now didn't exist then. Instead there were zillions of city states. THESE all banded together over time to form nations because of the advantages that brought.

Prussia, Ottoman empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, British empire, Russian empire... WTF you talking about Willis?

@sog: It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.

Mobydisc said...

However it is likely the one world government would wage war against individuals and groups who disagree with the government and want to be independent of the government.

That's an unfounded assertion on your part. Give one concrete example of a modern, democratic government where that has happened. Or justify why a world government necessarily would not be a modern democratic government.

I never said Victoria and NSW were going to declare war. On the contrary, that was an example of why such a thing wouldn't happen - you don't declare war on yourself.

SomeOtherGuy said...

Mobydisc said...

However it is likely the one world government would wage war against individuals and groups who disagree with the government and want to be independent of the government.

That's an unfounded assertion on your part. Give one concrete example of a modern, democratic government where that has happened. Or justify why a world government necessarily would not be a modern democratic government.

I never said Victoria and NSW were going to declare war. On the contrary, that was an example of why such a thing wouldn't happen - you don't declare war on yourself.

I'll answer this. There are many historic examples where a democratic government uses famine as a weapon against its enemies. I can think of four committed by a 'democratic' government. The United States government used famine against native American Indians in order to subjugate them. Secondly the United States government used famine against American citizens who were in the confederate states, they also ordered their army to conduct a scorched earth, total war policy against the confederacy. Third and fourthly the British government used famine against both the Irish in the nineteenth century and the Indians in the 20th century as weapons against their independence movements. As a side note the British government often used famine as a weapon against class and national enemies such as the the Scots and the working classes with policies such as the corn laws.

I'd consider these examples to be modern as all were committed by governments working under the same constitutions as what are in place today.

There are bound to be many other examples too where famine is used as a weapon against the enemies of the state. Based on history why wouldn't we expect a world government to use whatever means necessary to maintain power?

All examples of global organisations that have been instituted so far are thoroughly undemocratic. The UN is non democratic. The IMF is non democratic. The World Bank is non democratic. No transnational corporation is democratic. NGOs are not democratic. Centralising power is by its nature an undemocratic process.

It would be very unlikely a world government could be instituted voluntarily. Hell we can't even agree on whether asylum seekers turning up in Australia should be processed in Australia or overseas. Would the people of Australia accept a couple of million Sri Lankans and four or five million Pakistanis turning up in Australia and the people of what was Australia accepting this?

Decentralising power, limiting the scope of government and giving people more of a say in their lives is by its nature more democratic.

SomeOtherGuy said...

doggie said...

One world government, so then there wouldnt be any war or famine, is that right?
Because one government can fight against its self, and the gov has to look after their people, dont they?!?

Correct, doggie. Go to the top of the class. As my previous example (studiously ignored by all those who said I believe in fairies) pointed out:

SomeOtherGuy said...

How could be not a good thing? Competition? Meh! Australia used to be a number of separate states before federation. Are you saying we were better off that way? The USA likewise. Would they have been better off staying that way instead of centralising their government?

What are the benefits?

Well... for one thing, you don't see NSW declaring war on Victoria do you? Why? Because we consider ourselves ONE country, not lots of little ones competing for the same space. Europe is just learning that lesson. Do you think either of the world wars would have happened if there were ONE government governing Germany, France, Britain etc? I think not. SO it'd be an end to wars for a start.

...

There's a few benefits with just 5 minutes thought. There's bound to be more.

Eventually, some of the others may also understand this simple concept.

Toots said...

To some other guy, My post is quite legible, a bit cramped and in one paragraph however I conceed there are many abstract concepts you most likely cant fathom.

Stringing together a list of ancient Greek philosophers is not a concept Toots. It's a list. A concept requires that you string together sentences which explain ideas in a coherent way so as to explain your concept. Also Boolean logic contains no concept of addition or subtraction Toots. Maybe you should learn what it is about before bandying the word around?

Ad hom, Ad hom, ad hom ad hom ad hom, and very ho hum. (Ad hominem, go look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls)

I put down ancient philosophers as a list for you to read so you could gain a simple understanding and grasp the nature of the conversation. I realise these concepts are lost on some people because ego gets in the way. By the way, a list is not a concept; a list is simply a list. And quite obviously the post contained concepts you have yet to approach; hence your deliberate attempt at concentrating only on the list I mentioned and ignoring the rest of the post (which its quite obvious you didnt otherwise I wouldnt have recieved such a response) Dont worry no one is accusing you of lateral thinking!

On Planet Earth Boolean operations are all about addition, subtraction and coincidence, and the end result.

Just a wiki snippet:
"The operations are usually taken to be conjunction ∧, disjunction ∨, and negation ¬, with constants 0 and 1.
Conjunction x∧y behaves on 0 and 1 exactly as multiplication does for ordinary algebra: if either x or y is 0 then x∧y is 0, but if both are 1 then x∧y is 1.

Disjunction x∨y works almost like addition, with 0∨0 = 0 and 1∨0 = 1 and 0∨1 = 1. However there is a difference: 1∨1 is not 2 but 1.

Complement resembles ordinary negation in that it exchanges values. But whereas in ordinary algebra negation interchanges 1 and −1, 2 and −2, etc. while leaving 0 fixed, in Boolean algebra complement interchanges 0 and 1. One can think of ordinary negation as reflecting about 0, and Boolean complement as reflecting about the midpoint of 0 and 1. Complement can be defined arithmetically as ¬x = 1−x because the latter maps 0 to 1 and vice versa, the behavior of ¬x."


Yield Gulliver from the bindings of your Lilliputian nature ;)

Mark _australia said...

Could we seriously get everyone to agree on who, and where it is based and all the resource allocation / monetary stuff etc etc - I doubt it very much. Even less likely when you see all the doomsayers have been preaching against it for many years.

The question that was posed was is it a good idea. I answered yes and gave some supporting arguments for why and how it could be done. I never said it was possible, Mark.

laceys lane said...

what makes people think there wouldn't be a world 'civil' war

For there to be a world civil war there has to be first a world government.

No argument, civil wars could be a possibility. For example Flysurfer Island could join the world government then some time later decide to drop out, triggering a civil war similar to the US civil war. So a world government doesn't guarantee no war, but it does reduce the likelihood. Eg - how many civil wars has the US had since the first one?