violence IS the solution!

[johh550]

It is silly to imagine that a world government would solve wars and all that. People do not fight BECAUSE they are in different nations. If our world was all a single nation, it would still be split into regions that didnt get along and would resort to violence and the world government would be something similar to the UN, just with a different name. Also achieving something like a world government is an absurdly naive idea. You propose a democratic world government? I'm sure China is in.

[mangagdod247]

@TheModestAgnostic

You also need to consider the countries that do not wish for such an allience,what if these are nuclear superpowers? Would you force them to join and what would happen if they opposed you?What would happen then? I assume that a world goverment means a world economy however that would break down quickly due to the reasons I foremention in my last comment. We would all be better if we worked together as structures like the EU ,independent but will step in to prevent war.

[mangagdod247]

@TheModestAgnostic

I must admit your view point is very interesting and a world goverment would be a brilliant thing but there are several things you havent considered mainly the fact that a world goverment would be just as unstable as the M.A.D system. As you probably already know a world goverment would be some what of a communist country, I have nothing against these countries however with this system the resources of richer countries would be dranied and given to poorer ones.

[weirdlightsaber44]

Thumbs up if you came because the thumb nail was Blackadder

[primal114]

oh, it's just like A Modest Proposal. Satire

[neddy97]

Listen smart ass, if war is so good, why dont you join the army, you in your cosy room telling us violence is a solution? Would you like to be shot stabbed blown up or beaten to death? War is abuse of power, it is only done in the interest of the people in charge.. ambitious leaders.. I bet the millions of innocent people who suffer, starve from conflicts would not agree, would rather live a peaceful life in prosperity

And you think its right teachers beat the shit out of kids???

[TheModestAgnostic]

@neddy97 Ummm ... Irony FAIL. Listen to the video again and drop me a line.

[labrat1807]

@TheModestAgnostic As we know, a democratic mandate is not even half what is necessary for governance. A world government could not be sustained without brutal warfare waged against dissenting states. The states most likely to dissent are the pariah nuclear states and their allies. The creation of a world government is as likely to start a nuclear war as anything else.

And if we assume all goes well, what about the seperation of government and people? Its still 'them and us'.

[diffardo]

As much as i think a planetary democratic government would be pretty good because obviously they could solve lots and lots of problems it itself will create a problem because what if the planetary government becomes opressive like many governments are today (even if it isn't obvious) not to mention that there will always be people who will oppose it and we have seen from history empires crumble (which is what it would in theory be)

[chris5a3w]

With a one world government Is it really possible that weapons would no longer be needed or kept? Is it really possible that the needs of all will be satisfied if one small group of people hold all of the power over the entire globe? Or do you mean to replace the present leaders and their minions with some that are selfless, ultimately compassionate, loving, spiritually connected non materialistic beings?

[MrOldskooltillidie]

the second world war was about hitler having ideas of global domination starting with europe if you think putting a global goverment in place you must be nuts thats doing the same thing as hitler wanted if you could show me a goverment thats not corrupt in some way then you might have a footing but till then never. and there will always be a war some where cause people don't get on with their neighbours let alone the country next to them or the next one that just don't like you.

[Tailback]

Nuclear weapons are moot. With the advent of GPS guided FAE (fuel air explosive) bombs, nukes jsut don't matter. Any country can be devastated by 100 conventional 2000lb bombs in the right place.

[DonMeaker]

All I'm saying is give war a chance...

[lewars1912]

@DonMeaker >>> "give war a chance"

A very silly comment,

[SeanMacCloud]

Orgnismis fight over food and reproduction (often sex), becasue they are unwittingly compelled by hunger, greed and envy "modules". These models '--like orgasm for example-- have been selected by the limited energy(food) fact of nature.

Natural selection has also selected "parasitic symbiosis" strategies for achieving the limited food. Ie "coalition" / "multiculturalism" : modules that compel togetherness.

Nations states are a symptom of that not the cause.

[DonMeaker]

And keep in mind that without war, Stalin killed about 60 million in the USSR, and perhaps another 100 million killed by communist china without war.

[lewars1912]

The cause of wars is nationalism.

[DonMeaker]

Actually, there were wars before nation states. Certainly the Crusades were non-nationalist wars.

[lewars1912]

I wasn't really thinking about as far back as that though I should have mentioned religion. No nationalism and no religion: No wars. Internationalism is the answer and also "Treat others as you would wish to them to treat you" should be the golden rule taught in all schools. Mind you for some reason I just can't see this happening--lol

[DonMeaker]

I figure that war has freed more people than all the do-gooders in history.

We are nasty predatory apes. Even Chimps have been seen making war recently. Of course they are not as efficient as we are at it. Our tools are better.

[SeanMacCloud]

@lewars1912

That is wrong.

[lewars1912]

SeanMacCloud >>> No nationalism and No religion: : : No wars. Genuine internationalism and treating others as you would wish them to treat you being the only real answer. Why do you think this is wrong?

[DonMeaker]

Because before that you had brigandage, which is worse.

[hinksey777]

chain is correct .period

[DUUDE101]

Allow me to point out that a world elected democratic government would be about as effective as having countries stay the way they are. War isn't simply caused by simple desire for land and other such things, it is also caused by a clash in ideas. Simply put war and battle are inevitable and if you think about it, the only way to stop that would be to have a totalitarian world leader, who would crush all freedom. But then rebellion will happen if the world ruling sovereign hasn't already.

[ChainsawGutsFuck]

Until money no longer equals power, there'll always be a highest bidder and corrupt people in power.

We need aliens man, the sooner they come down and fuck up our entire history and belief system and make us realise how useless we are the better!

(Or Jesus, but let's not get into religion.... or it might get violent.)

[DonMeaker]

Sure, we will be better off when Power is Money....or perhaps not.

[bhrisvfyapn]

I disagree that nuclear weapons are not effective mutually assured destruction deterrent. People aren't afraid of equally vast armies of enemies. They are afraid of being instantly vaporised and left as ashes in their homeland, totally unhabitable,and useless for many years.

Nuclear wars dont happen becouse here, there is nothing you gain if you win

P.S.

"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" is great movie,but shouldnt be taken too seriously ;-)

[12225red]

how would you be able to do this anyway just cause america or any other country wants to dosnt mean any others do and if america or any other country tryd enfource ing on the woulrd they would just resist and form aliances and terorism bombs would just go up in probility that it will go bang and what makes you think there is a soluion to mans problems theres always been wars and once a civilaisaion gets to big it crumbles and divides when has there ever been a time of complet peace so why now

[heratioalundi]

What is there to keep some regions from becoming a "food basket" for the world (i realize the irony of such regions being present) do you think they will have more or less power to negotiate their position? ie a strike. Because some jurisdictions do a good job of shutting the protesters up. And forcing the given population-protesters to resort to terrorism, since they dont have any army to pose organized resistance. Actually it sounds all to familiar, with a complete WG better or worse?!

[TheModestAgnostic]

How is that handled within democratic nation states? Apply the same principle on a larger scale.

[heratioalundi]

how will having a world gov stop ppl from nuking each other? by "fair" distribution of wealth and natural resources? like Soviet union? by population control, desperate to match our production rate to consumption , through birth control, and increasing eugenics? Please make your point more clear , or direct me to a link/video that explains your views in greater detail then the video above- with movie references and theatrics, common be a bit more serious, its a serious topic!

[TheModestAgnostic]

It's actually very simple, and I do address it several other videos. How do you and your neighbours get along? Your City and the City next door? Your state and the states around you? However peace is maintained at these levels, is how it can be maintained globally.

[san77vb]

What a stupid idea. You want to let muslim countries vote on our civil rights? You do realize it would mean LESS rights for us, right?

[TheModestAgnostic]

The referendum relates to wether or not a global parliament should be created. Go ahead and vote no if you dislike the idea.

[pubcat5]

It is a nice fantasy to think about, but like Communism, when put into practice it does not work.

You fail to recognize that there are people in the world that care little for human life. No matter how much you care for people does not stop their megalomania. They will stop at nothing to make sure that their wishes are met.

WWI was a necessary war, and what I mean by that is Austria-Hungry (The Hapsburg Empire) and Germany were land grabbing.

[pubcat5]

What I mean by this is simply, Austria was trying to save face, after numerous attempts to make themselves appear more capable than they actually were. And Germany saw this as a perfect time to use the momentum of war to grab land in both France and Russia, seeing that Russia was falling apart from the inside with its many Revolutions and the (SR)'s many assassinations on the Tsarist regime.

Austria and Germany both knew that Russia would back Serbia and go to war, they continued simply

[pubcat5]

because they wanted a reason to go to war now when Russia was weak. The Triple Entente had no choice but to protect themselves. It was either protect themselves or suffer invasion, and eventually domination.

[DonMeaker]

Actually, Austria-Hungary was liberalizing, adding Slavs to the Germans and Hungarians as the full members of the empire, That was a threat to the Serbians who wanted to create an union of all balkan slaves (Yugoslavia).

[madjimms]

Then we must erase the people who do not care from the planet, if it gets the job done.

[Dollarisdead09]

watch ENDGAME and OBAMA DECEPTION trust me you dont want world govt

[WarzSchoolchild]

Utopia is a dream, and dystopia is the inevitable consequence of implementing the impractical.

[DogBoyTube]

A very interesting video. I'm going to have to think on this for a while.

[afroschlan]

How about starting with democracy.. the "real" type where you actually vote on every matter that comes up instead of having some tool making the decisions for you, hoping that he has your interests in mind and not just his. Why is it always rich people in governments top jobs? Why isn't the world a better place? Who is making the rules? Marijuana is still illegal!! Governments are doing "scientific research".. My country is bankrupt and I don't trust this system anymore... sorry

[afroschlan]

Global government.. given how we elect people now based on how they look, how they sound and what kind of a car they drive.. come on. I used to believe that government was the only way but the entire financial system has collapsed globally.. who was in control? Global government could be cheaper than every country having their own but still.. does your government listen to you? Imagine if they're not even in your country how will you affect them?

[ruriod]

so, ur an agnostic who wants to sleep with the devil, and, as if that wasn't crazy enough, u want the rest of us to join u?

take a look at the world as it is. 'peace' in the western civilisations does not come free. the price is an increasingly docile, disenfranchised, criminally violent and ignorant populace whose views are fuelled by the lies of the media, which are unashamedly in the hands of very few corporations (and hence very few extraordinarily wealthy individuals).

[ruriod]

even disregarding conspiracy theories do u claim that these few have the interests of the many in mind - or perhaps they are driven by the same urges as the rest of us, only magnified enormously.

beyond our 'peaceful' frontiers we have created a situation even more deplorable. we have systematically decimated, destroyed, starved and weaponised other cultures. we have created a world where a human knows nothing but hunger, hatred and fear from birth to death.

[ruriod]

after visiting genocide on these people (our brothers) and their cultures we now sell them our jobs - and congratulate ourselves on employing the hopeless for less than a dollar a day - at least now they have a future...

when are u, and pseudo know-it-alls like u, men who know little about anything and assume that this validates their opinion on everything, going to realise that we are all brothers.

[ruriod]

it is not 'world governance', but the shared understanding that only the higher emotions - love, appreciation of beauty, joy and understanding - that will save us, both as individuals and as a species.

a ship is not built to rest in the shipyard, but to journey over the oceans of the world and risk all in the process, for the hope of finding its goal, and the human species is not here to trade freedom for your security, but to learn through joy and pain what it really means to be alive.

[ruriod]

i yearn not for your vision of the future - indeed it terrifies me to think that my children may live in such a nightmare. i will gladly resist your dream in the hope that some day future generations might taste true freedom. rather that i die on my feet than live on my knees in slavery

[earthdog7900]

Since World War II you are forgetting about the Million Eastern Europeans who were killed by their own communist governments. That is not even counting Soviet Union. Those people are just as dead as other victims of the Cold War.

A world government would only work if every member body was a democracy. We are from from there. Could you see the EU letting a country run like China join?

[TheModestAgnostic]

You're still thinking United Nations. The chinese people would elect their representatives, just like any democracy. The elections would be conducted on the internet with powerful encryption, and even if identities became known ... even the most authoritarian government is going to have trouble "punishing" 30 or 40% of its entire adult population.

[Argonnosi]

Okay, I know this is nitpicking, but it's been getting on my nerves as I keep running into people who do it. Nuclear is not pronounced "nucular". It does not have a second 'u' in it. Just the one.

[TheModestAgnostic]

I heard that TOO! I guess it was an homage to my favourite president of all time:-)

[mrgrieves9876]

who do you think will run this global government

it will be the most corrupt and evil men in the world

they will have unlimited power and they will still create war, they will blame it rebels or terrorists

the people of the world will be slaves under this global government

what the world needs is more decentralization of government

[TheModestAgnostic]

See my videos on the subject. It does not have to be with way:-)

[earthdog7900]

It does not have to, but most likely will.

[Akulshae]

I think you are making a lot of assumptions that are completely unfounded and unjustified. Just because a government becomes global does NOT mean that, under proper regulations it couldn't be like the UK or the US only a fuckload bigger.... maybe just the UK. The people always get fucked over, yeah, but that's just part of having a government. You're still assuming 1984 is a reality though. It's a book, dude. An entertaining one, but still.

[mrgrieves9876]

absolute power corrupts absolutely

the bigger government gets, the more liberties are lost

governments are only good at doing one thing efficiently and that's killing people

[TheModestAgnostic]

So why have ANY government at all? At what level does it loose it's utility?

[mrgrieves9876]

yep anarchy is the way to go

freedomainradio dot c o m

[MBRHIndustries]

It would be alot easier if everyone cut out the part of their brain that held basic human greed. I think that working together on a global level would be a great, if not the only, stabilizer for our species, but if we leave it to "the powers that be" to govern an entire planet its condemning everyone to bend to the will of government or else. How do you propose a global government would be run in lieu of shocktroops and rfid chips?

[TheModestAgnostic]

"How do you propose a global government would be run in lieu of shocktroops and rfid chips?"

See my comments above about the EU.

[MBRHIndustries]

Oh, woops. hahaha

I see what you're talking about there. Like keeping nation states independent to an extent but having an overall governing body for all the parts to follow?

[TheModestAgnostic]

Yep. More confederation than federation. The key thing is ensuring law is applied to people not states, the latter is just collective punishment, and keeping any significant military build up out of the hands of central authority.

[MBRHIndustries]

Thats my main problem with a one world government, the military build up. If they've got no one else to fight, they'd be put to use rounding up civilians like cattle.

[steve19683]

Interesting, as always. Personally, though, I'm not aware of any countries that were not formed either through extreme, brutal force, or from extreme fear of outside threats. Am I just not searching my memory enough? Creating a world government though force would destroy civilization, and what exactly is it that fear that will unite us all? Overpopulation? Global warming? Nuclear MAD? Rogue biologists creating super-plagues? Or...what do rich nations gain economically by world government?

[TheModestAgnostic]

Monty Python springs to mind.

What have the Romans ever done for us? Brought peace?

A referendum passed by a majority of the planet, followed by democratic elections is hardly force. Unless you are an anarchist of course, and consider mandated chimney sweeping and dropping nuclear weapons as much the same thing. They really do you know:-)

Both the EU and the US are examples of major political unions formed through consent rather than force. Although external factors play a major role.

[TheModestAgnostic]

As you note, there are plenty of powerful reasons to cling together, and rich people want their children to have a future too. No one wins from a planet devestated by wmd, or runaway climate change. The EU is a good role model, absorbing (by agreement) poor countries, ex fascist dictatorships, communist states and producing stable, prosperous, democratic, market economies. Then intertwinining their economic and political fate so completely, that war becomes defacto impossible. No force required.

[steve19683]

A simple majority. So, desperate Africa, India, and part of China get the right to rule over America and Europe? I can see how that could work 50 years after it had been established, but at the start, I don't think Europeans or Americans will accept that.

[steve19683]

Take away force and outside threat and Norway splits from Sweden. Quebec can hardly decide if it wants to remain in Canada past the immediate future. I'm not sure a voluntary trade and labour agreement that can be abandoned with due notice is comparable to world gov't. I imagine the majority of the world already agrees in principle that the world's oceans ought to be ruled by a world body...but you won't see one any time soon.

[steve19683]

Yes, we would all be safer living under a world gov't. Yes, we would be better able to deal with the threats to our civilization. But I'm at a loss as to how we get there, and how we ensure that the leaders don't become corrupt; don't take ancient China's route and stifle all progress simply because they don't feel threatened and already have everything they personally want, despite the plight of their people.

[steve19683]

Iceland took over the control of fishing on its continental shelf, almost starting a war with Britain. One can argue that economic interests and military interests are very close, and yet here we are, over 30 years later, and although 200 mile offshore economic control has been basically accepted, military ships still cruise 12 miles offshore wherever they please. There is a difference between accepting economic restrictions and military restrictions.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Steve why is war between France and Germany now unthinkable? These countries tore lumps out of each other for hundreds of years and then suddenly stopped. Did French and Germans suddenly become incredibly reasonable people? Understand that, and you have the whole package. The magical pixie dust that locked ancient enemies down as profoundly integrated political and economic partners, is what we need to sprinkle on the world. Ideally without the crucible of WWII.

[TheModestAgnostic]

It's really not that hard, we have thousands of years of governance to draw on.

1) Relentless Transparency. See my vid "The Naked Politician"

2) Triple locked military deployment, and nothing of substance under central command. See "The Naked Politician" and the Lisbon Treaty.

3) Free Trade

Thats it. Get that in place, and the worlds military industrial complex will atrophy quite naturally.

[TheModestAgnostic]

No. Not a simple majority. At least not for military deployments, but you are getting ahead of the discussion. The first and only question on the table is should we have a democratic global government of ANY kind. Neither democratic or government is defined, those arguments will come later.

[thedynamitekidd]

i'll vote for the craic...btw terminator 2 on dvd? sorry modest, you can have the old vhs version i recorded off the tv ages ago.

[TheModestAgnostic]

erm .. thanks?

[profglavin]

Never mind about Monaco - I'll be shitting myself if Alabama goes nuclear!

Tom Leher aside, I have voted too. It is about time that the UN was sorted out to be made more accountable to the citizens of the world. We owe to each other.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Alabama! Didn't you get the memo!!

[WizardJim]

Well, I gave my "Yes" vote, I always thought global governance was the next logical step to take. Can't have a war if everyone's on the same side, afterall.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Thanks Jim, it's appreciated:-)

[thorungal]

yea you can. it's common place. They even gave it a nick name. I think it's called a civil war.

I too voted a resounding 'yes'. This multi-nation thing is just extended tribalism. I'd still push for something heavily federalized.

[TheModestAgnostic]

" I'd still push for something heavily federalized. "

I'd sound a note of caution here. Federation implies a unified military command, and I'm dead set against that. Even in the EU. Firstly I don't think it's required. Secondly it frightens most people, and for reasons that are not entirely irrational. Thirdly, allow nation states to keep their armies, while triple locking their use (see above), will turn the worlds military into expensive white elephants.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Certainly decades after the emergence of a global government, occasional military engagements will occur. However, we CAN set a virtous circle of falling national military budgets running, by preventing a global military budget from ever emerging, precluding economies of scale, and forcing central authority to appeal to the nation states for resources. The nation states will inevitably bitch about the cost of maintaining increasingly pointless militaries. It's a long term win win.

[TheModestAgnostic]

The only exception is WMD. Everyone has to disarm, and open up for regular inspections.

[thorungal]

Maybe I've got the wrong term. When I say Federalized I mean a system by which power is distributed between different levels of government (in this case countries). Control of world military would perhaps be a joint power where funding could be allocated at the country level but use had to come from consensus between Country, Region and Global levels. I'm more interested in the spinoff benefits like global climate, welfare, cooperate relations and health care policy.

[TheModestAgnostic]

That is a prefectly acceptable understanding of the term, sounds like we are on the same page:-) Now we just need to convince another 4 to 5 billion fellow citizens:-)

[sonderbak]

From my perspectiv, you have One major miscalkulation. War and death, has i much larger skale been at the hands of your own leaders han at the hands of forign powers.

If history teaches os anything, then it is that we must limit the power controlled by any one man.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Nothing will contribute more to that end than

a) Eliminating the 27,000 nuclear weapons that currently threaten the planet.

b) throwing open every military installation on the planet to mutual inspection.

c) Reqiring all military operations to have triple authorisation. National, Regional and Global.

[sonderbak]

Im not saying you all wrong, just that in saying that global govanance is the awnser, the lies a danger.

[greatbroad]

Nice video presentation. But don't you know the World does not appreciate "truth tellers" I mean, look at what happened to Socrates. Didn't want to be bothered with all those questions, questions, questions!!

And everyone knows what happened to Jesus after turning over the money-changer tables in Temple - no, we don't put up with fairness, even in Temple.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Glad you enjoyed it. We press on despite the impossible odds:-)

[greatbroad]

Like those cheery folks singing "always look on the bright side of life," in that Monty Python, while hanging out together? Yes. It is greatly appreciated by m laugh-deprived, cynical self,

[Kevron76]

It seems war is merely another part of human nature. After all there would not be peace unless war existed.Chicken or egg dilemma.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Apologies! The VWG link was delayed. It's there now.

[GirlyVoice]

You mean the invisible link? : )

What world war 2 film was that? Kinda made me in mood for a war, I bet they're quite fun. I certainly wasn't allowed to play with Panzerfausts when I was 11!

[TheModestAgnostic]

Apologies! The VWG link was delayed. It's there now.

The Film was "Der Untergang". "The Downfall" in English.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Panzerfausts are hilarious! It's all fun and games until someone looses a limb, and then it's just fun!

[KasparHauser4]

Where do I sign up at?