@ZupaSC Most countries have no right of appeal beyond their national supreme court. To argue against a world government, one might as well argue against the existence of the United States (many did that - of course). But in any case, it is the inevitable next step in our societal evolution. Anyone who has studied history can see this natural progression. Or shall we live in village-states or city-states, or perhaps in nomadic tribal groups? The World Government will be democratic.
Globalization and a world government is ultimately the only hope for humanity. The most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: global warming, a global financial crisis and a global war on terror.
Ultimately it will take the combined efforts of humanity to work towards a better future. (The greatest good for the greatest number)
Anyone who disagrees with this concept is simply selfish and looking out for their own interests.
Let me explain why this wouldnt work. You said quite idiotically "We could outlaw war!". What if the outlaws decided to wage war? We would have to fight them then guess what!!! a bigger war. 1 government is exactly what hitler wanted amercans believe in local government we dont want some queen telling us what to do from across the sea.
@t2darlantan2 Disarmament is not a good idea UNLESS there is a world government with a World Force that can enforce the World Constitution. To say a world government is impossible is like saying the United States is impossible or saying human beings can only function within city-states. Ridiculous. A world government would not work of course, without collective security. So an international Force is necessary to enforce world peace.
World government is inevitable. Hitler's order was forged by conquest, where as a democratic global government would be forged by consent.
It may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. Humanity has the natural tendency to come together. In the past race and religion restricted this attribute, but those inhibitors are dissolving quickly.
@Fritzer73 Indeed, Hitler wanted a GERMAN government ruling other nations. That doesn't even resemble a world government, by any chance. Such empires have never succeeded and never will. The true human spirit tends towards greater advancement, democracy and development. The natural next step is a world government.
@t2darlantan2 I don't think Hitler would even agree with a European government, let alone a World Government. The only thing he believed in was a German Empire or Third Reich that would rule subject nations. He would never have supported the idea of a world federal government or world peace. He believed that war was beneficial to humankind. I could give you a list of people who would believe in and support a World Government though, starting with Jesus Christ, the Biblical prophets, etc.
Yes - the internet is porn for some, but it is also the precursor to a global conscience - a world mind - as in Teilhard de Chardin's "noosphere". When real-time videoconferencing becomes ubiquitous (Google Chat, Cisco's telepresencing system, Skype)- the world's populations will continue the shrink to a global village - one world, a diverse yet interdependent mind. I'm very excited about the prospects for the future of a world at peace, a world that does not resort to wars to settle disputes.
" Consider that In 2004 YouTube didn't even exist, while in 2008, it dominated the US election."
YouTube certainly had an effect on presidential elections, but "dominated" it? I think a bit too much is claimed.
As for the idea of Global Governance(At least one that will not turn into a nightmare), I'm afraid this is not something we will see in your lifetime, and neither on mine, I'm afraid :-/
I don't know where you got your news, but myself and millions of Americans used YT. The Sarah Palin prank clocked up over a million views within a few days of release, and there were hundreds of similar videos during the campaign. It's not a terribly important point, but we certainly disagree ... and are you threatening me!!! ;-)
Shared humanity is something we presently experience, regardless of governance.
I like the ideology, but bank on the unpredictability of human nature. I hesitate to place trust in any system, regardless of its best intentions. That being said, I admire your zeal and positivity. Hopefully, we can evolve and move towards cooperation and integration, but education across the board is imperative for understanding of WHY we need these things in this ever-changing world.
I think this is a wonderful concept, in a perfect world. Well never have a perfect world & the 'powers that be' already have globalization in mind, which I doubt includes humanitarian efforts at the forefront. If people concerned themselves with utopian goals, each country would have less division from within. Division is inevitable, due to human nature. Im sure it would still exist if we had a global system. An across the board educational system would take decades/centuries to implement.
It's not about perfection, or utopia it's about a system to regulate our differences, just like the systems we have at every other level of governance. The US just had a bruiseing election, yet despite very deep differences, the handover of power is peaceful. By the end of world war II, 40 million Europeans had killed each other. Yet, now former enemies coexist peacefully within the EU. Did people change? No the INSTITUTIONS DID. Thats all I'm sayin':-)
Institutions historically change through many venues coercion, threat of force, lack of economic stability and capitulation, etc. Peace in this tumultuous world is a welcoming idea, but governance generally entails a fist full of people who hold ultimate power. Acceptance of diversity would have to be encouraged. Generations pass down their biases & there would be great resistance to embrace homogenous governance. Each country has their patriotism, cultures, social structures.
All of the above is true, with regard to the EU!! Global Governance is just a layer that deals with issues of global scope. Look up the principle of subsidiarity, it'll clarify my point. In 1945, 500 million Europeans, 27 nation states living peacefully within a federation seemed a pipe dream too. Our shared humanity is enough of a start.
Democracies, even large ones generally don't abuse their own populace. The abuse is all outward, to whatever them the hidden and secret institutions of the nation state can manufacture. In a global democracy, there would be no them only us, and no case to be made for any secrecy at all. I beleive you've made my point:-)
My mom is quite positive that she will live to see a global dictatorship. I am quite positive this is impossible. Infact I am quite sure an anti-christ dictator figure is only possible in a world where we refuse to partcipate in a global democratic process. A world with democratized power and free flow/ easy access to information is the greatest safe guard against tyranny there is.
I have been involved with this initiative for about 16 months, and am impressed that there is a roadmap to get from point A to point B. If anyone is interested into delving further into the plan - please read "Rescue Plan for Planet Earth: Democratic World Government through a Global Referendum". It became available last month. Google it on Amazon. Be a part of something larger than all of us - whether you agree or disagree. Keep questioning, keep hoping...
Good idea sameulmichaud. This message is important and needs to be spread far and wide. I for one have been fascinated with the future of the planet and its inhabitants for many years. To see the forest instead of the trees - I see political evolution going to a larger sphere as inevitable. Two basic ways can emerge - however - top down or bottom up. I vote for bottom up and dedicate my life to these democracratic principles. GREAT VIDEO!
It's not a question of larger government for the fun of it, but rather to co-ordinate issue of global importance. Subsidiarity is the key, and it works for 500 million Europeans and can work for 6.7 billion humans given the technology already available and on the way.
This is chicken and egg stuff. You are arguing none of our political systems are perfect thus we should abandon them all. The logical fallacy of the argument is that it runs both up AND down the scale. You are principle proposing that we all stand naked and co-operate on nothing, for fear the co-operation isn't perfect. This is just not going to work in a world 6.7 billion +. Every society has a framework and context, the one we have at a global level sucks, this hardly bears observing.
The best political systems we've muddled our way to thus far, are parlimentary democracies with broad participation. Representative democracy is already in place (with varying levels of depth, participation and transparency) for roughly 3.5 billion people. Dude, it's all there IS. The alternative, is just waiting for our luck to run out. It's not perfect, but if perfection is what you are waiting for ... well take a number, it's going to be a long wait.
It is going to happen. It's happening already. We can either make sure it's people powered, or we can let the unelected, the affluent and those in the right place and time assume power unapposed. Nation states that have functioning democracies did not simply drift there.
My only objection is that the board is dominated by (white) Europeans and North Americans. I think more balance is needed before the idea can become more accepted. You should have at least one member from each continent, no?
In essence the idea of a global democratic government isn't bad. But religion will always stand in the way. As long as people believe that theirs is the only right way, and a sixth of the world's population are theoretically willing that the other five-sixths should die for believing in the wrong god, no global peace will be possible.
I'm not sure. Anarchy would be ideal...but it's only an idea. It can't happen because of a major flaw. The advantagist factor.
Anything that makes decisions based on more than just one division between yes or no. Democracy has been painted in happy colors, but all it seems to do is divide people. Since when has 51-49 even been fair? Especially when the masses are so easily influenced to make bad decision. Lets face it, Democracy is the only way to easily control without being fired at too much.
You focus too much on American (or 18th century) winner takes all systems. There are hundreds of variations of democracy that transmit the wishes of the electorate far more subtly than first past the post.
Anarchy is completely unworkable, because it dissolves as soon as you have a framework, and human relations MUST WORK WITHIN A FRAMEWORK. The real pipe dream is imagining that human nature will suddenly change. Have Europeans become more peaceful, sensible or "humane" in the last 70 years? Not a bit of it. The structures have changed, not the people, and we need the same process to occur globally.
Alright, well we're on a par with anarchy...but Democracy? Give me an example of what you're talking about. I'm interested in seeing these other types of democracy and where they are applied. I checked wiki for a second....which one is it?
Check out proportional representation on wikipedia. This is a system that allows votes to be transferred as candidates drop out of the race. Celebrated American example. Gore, Bush. Nader in Florida. Instead of simply disappearing, Naders votes TRANSFER to a second choice candidate, once it's clear he can't win. Overwhelmingly, that 2nd choice candidate would have been Gore. Thus voting for your real choice no longer risks undermining your 2nd preferences.
In Ireland the choices sometimes run to 4th, 5th or 6th preferences. Thus ensuring EVERY VOTE REALLY COUNTS. Even if your preferred candidate doesn't win, at least you don't merely facilitate some asshole you truly abhor. This is the eternal prisoners dilemma of first past the post systems, and why they suck the donkeys balls.
It's like having runoffs automatically triggered and built in. There are also a whole plethora of versions of this system too. The US first past the post, coupled with the electoral college merely amplifies the wishes of a proportion, and often a minority of the electorate. State of the art for 1795, today, not so much.
That's fucking retarded. Sorry about the language but it fucking is. And so is the electoral college. Yeah ok no vote is lost. But what i was talking about was more along the lines of population needs. Bills. Propositions. Like the late hate mongering prop.8 in Calif.
Woe! I'm not sure what specifically you think is retarded? Proportional representation? The current US electoral system? As regards propositions that are binary in nature, do X or Y, there is little that can be done to make that kind of thing more palatable, other than to introduce multiple options and graded outcomes? Tends to get complicated I suppose.
This is an interesting comment, & I beleive I understand what you mean. However, it is precisely the kind of incoherent global governance, driven by the narrow and suspicious agenda of nation states, that has us in the pickle we are in. We NEED an elected layer of government at the top, even without any power other than it's legitimacy, to push the issues of global concern. We have elected representatives, and laws at every level of society but the one that could get us all killed. It's crazy.
Its A Trap :/
KingOfOneselfTV 1 year ago
Lets say we have one world government (OWG). And now lets say that I feel I'm mistreated by this OWG. I'd be opressed with no option of escape.
Nations may have their shortfalls, but at least if the shit hits the fan theres a chance to escape.
Complete waffle. As I said on another on your vids;
OVER MY COLD DEAD BODY.
ZupaSC 2 years ago
@ZupaSC Most countries have no right of appeal beyond their national supreme court. To argue against a world government, one might as well argue against the existence of the United States (many did that - of course). But in any case, it is the inevitable next step in our societal evolution. Anyone who has studied history can see this natural progression. Or shall we live in village-states or city-states, or perhaps in nomadic tribal groups? The World Government will be democratic.
DarthMaul8065 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Globalization and a world government is ultimately the only hope for humanity. The most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: global warming, a global financial crisis and a global war on terror.
Ultimately it will take the combined efforts of humanity to work towards a better future. (The greatest good for the greatest number)
Anyone who disagrees with this concept is simply selfish and looking out for their own interests.
aceofspades25 3 years ago
Hey hitler would agree with a world government good job idiot.
t2darlantan2 3 years ago
ROTFL ... you are a hoot:-)
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Let me explain why this wouldnt work. You said quite idiotically "We could outlaw war!". What if the outlaws decided to wage war? We would have to fight them then guess what!!! a bigger war. 1 government is exactly what hitler wanted amercans believe in local government we dont want some queen telling us what to do from across the sea.
t2darlantan2 3 years ago
We can't you plant landmines in your garden? If you can understand that, you've got it.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
@t2darlantan2 Disarmament is not a good idea UNLESS there is a world government with a World Force that can enforce the World Constitution. To say a world government is impossible is like saying the United States is impossible or saying human beings can only function within city-states. Ridiculous. A world government would not work of course, without collective security. So an international Force is necessary to enforce world peace.
DarthMaul8065 1 year ago
World government is inevitable. Hitler's order was forged by conquest, where as a democratic global government would be forged by consent.
It may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. Humanity has the natural tendency to come together. In the past race and religion restricted this attribute, but those inhibitors are dissolving quickly.
Great work on these videos, TheModestAgnostic.
Fritzer73 3 years ago
@Fritzer73 Indeed, Hitler wanted a GERMAN government ruling other nations. That doesn't even resemble a world government, by any chance. Such empires have never succeeded and never will. The true human spirit tends towards greater advancement, democracy and development. The natural next step is a world government.
DarthMaul8065 1 year ago
@t2darlantan2 I don't think Hitler would even agree with a European government, let alone a World Government. The only thing he believed in was a German Empire or Third Reich that would rule subject nations. He would never have supported the idea of a world federal government or world peace. He believed that war was beneficial to humankind. I could give you a list of people who would believe in and support a World Government though, starting with Jesus Christ, the Biblical prophets, etc.
DarthMaul8065 1 year ago
Yes - the internet is porn for some, but it is also the precursor to a global conscience - a world mind - as in Teilhard de Chardin's "noosphere". When real-time videoconferencing becomes ubiquitous (Google Chat, Cisco's telepresencing system, Skype)- the world's populations will continue the shrink to a global village - one world, a diverse yet interdependent mind. I'm very excited about the prospects for the future of a world at peace, a world that does not resort to wars to settle disputes.
worldawakened 3 years ago 2
the internet is for porn!
exfalsoquodlibet 3 years ago
Who said it wasn't?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
" Consider that In 2004 YouTube didn't even exist, while in 2008, it dominated the US election."
YouTube certainly had an effect on presidential elections, but "dominated" it? I think a bit too much is claimed.
As for the idea of Global Governance(At least one that will not turn into a nightmare), I'm afraid this is not something we will see in your lifetime, and neither on mine, I'm afraid :-/
Akatam0t0ma 3 years ago
I don't know where you got your news, but myself and millions of Americans used YT. The Sarah Palin prank clocked up over a million views within a few days of release, and there were hundreds of similar videos during the campaign. It's not a terribly important point, but we certainly disagree ... and are you threatening me!!! ;-)
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
I relied on you tube this election... Countered the shit on CNN very well. Print still deserves the most praise, however.
Fritzer73 3 years ago
Shared humanity is something we presently experience, regardless of governance.
I like the ideology, but bank on the unpredictability of human nature. I hesitate to place trust in any system, regardless of its best intentions. That being said, I admire your zeal and positivity. Hopefully, we can evolve and move towards cooperation and integration, but education across the board is imperative for understanding of WHY we need these things in this ever-changing world.
Rhonda9 3 years ago
Amen to that:-) Appreciate the feedback.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
I think this is a wonderful concept, in a perfect world. Well never have a perfect world & the 'powers that be' already have globalization in mind, which I doubt includes humanitarian efforts at the forefront. If people concerned themselves with utopian goals, each country would have less division from within. Division is inevitable, due to human nature. Im sure it would still exist if we had a global system. An across the board educational system would take decades/centuries to implement.
Rhonda9 3 years ago
It's not about perfection, or utopia it's about a system to regulate our differences, just like the systems we have at every other level of governance. The US just had a bruiseing election, yet despite very deep differences, the handover of power is peaceful. By the end of world war II, 40 million Europeans had killed each other. Yet, now former enemies coexist peacefully within the EU. Did people change? No the INSTITUTIONS DID. Thats all I'm sayin':-)
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Institutions historically change through many venues coercion, threat of force, lack of economic stability and capitulation, etc. Peace in this tumultuous world is a welcoming idea, but governance generally entails a fist full of people who hold ultimate power. Acceptance of diversity would have to be encouraged. Generations pass down their biases & there would be great resistance to embrace homogenous governance. Each country has their patriotism, cultures, social structures.
Rhonda9 3 years ago
All of the above is true, with regard to the EU!! Global Governance is just a layer that deals with issues of global scope. Look up the principle of subsidiarity, it'll clarify my point. In 1945, 500 million Europeans, 27 nation states living peacefully within a federation seemed a pipe dream too. Our shared humanity is enough of a start.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Versus the unworkable idiocy of every man for himself? C'mon. Think.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Democracies, even large ones generally don't abuse their own populace. The abuse is all outward, to whatever them the hidden and secret institutions of the nation state can manufacture. In a global democracy, there would be no them only us, and no case to be made for any secrecy at all. I beleive you've made my point:-)
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
My mom is quite positive that she will live to see a global dictatorship. I am quite positive this is impossible. Infact I am quite sure an anti-christ dictator figure is only possible in a world where we refuse to partcipate in a global democratic process. A world with democratized power and free flow/ easy access to information is the greatest safe guard against tyranny there is.
lanc4268 3 years ago
I'm with you. Ask your mom, what military would a global dictator use to "occupy" the world?
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
LOL. pervweb is a good nickname for the internet.
Brianswers 3 years ago
I thought so:-)
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
Perhaps you should also give a link to the UNPA campaign as well.
Perhaps make a reply to this on IRV and other voting issues:
watch?v=bTghrRqiYxk
Keep up the good fight MA
federali84 3 years ago
Will do, thanks for the encouragement. I trust you voted?
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
yea, though I think I may of voted before
en. unpacampaign . o r g
w w w. wfm .o r g
federali84 3 years ago
I featured this video on my channel
psychomessiahs 3 years ago 2
thanks man:-)
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
BTW sorry about all the messages but would there be a specific place where one could debate this with the leaders of the org itself?
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
There is an online forum, you can find it from the site. The more messages the merrier as far as I am concerned:-)
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
This is my alternate account by the way.
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
Well then, you're at least having the conversation. Thats not apathy:-)
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
I have been involved with this initiative for about 16 months, and am impressed that there is a roadmap to get from point A to point B. If anyone is interested into delving further into the plan - please read "Rescue Plan for Planet Earth: Democratic World Government through a Global Referendum". It became available last month. Google it on Amazon. Be a part of something larger than all of us - whether you agree or disagree. Keep questioning, keep hoping...
Virtualted 3 years ago 2
are you the only one promoting this website? This thing.
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
No, I'm actually a fairly minor player and late to the game. Jim Stark is the founder and driving force behind the idea.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Good idea sameulmichaud. This message is important and needs to be spread far and wide. I for one have been fascinated with the future of the planet and its inhabitants for many years. To see the forest instead of the trees - I see political evolution going to a larger sphere as inevitable. Two basic ways can emerge - however - top down or bottom up. I vote for bottom up and dedicate my life to these democracratic principles. GREAT VIDEO!
Virtualted 3 years ago 2
make this a video reply to a popular and relevant video. Or one that has a favorable audience.
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
That is not as easy as it used to be, and it is of limited value. I've got the vid in a pending box ... who knows:-) Thanks for the suggestion.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Well it's the first step. I assume you're talking about it with everyone you can reach.
Some powerful allies are needed...that's all.
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
Indeed, you are quite right:-)
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
It's not a question of larger government for the fun of it, but rather to co-ordinate issue of global importance. Subsidiarity is the key, and it works for 500 million Europeans and can work for 6.7 billion humans given the technology already available and on the way.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This is chicken and egg stuff. You are arguing none of our political systems are perfect thus we should abandon them all. The logical fallacy of the argument is that it runs both up AND down the scale. You are principle proposing that we all stand naked and co-operate on nothing, for fear the co-operation isn't perfect. This is just not going to work in a world 6.7 billion +. Every society has a framework and context, the one we have at a global level sucks, this hardly bears observing.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
The best political systems we've muddled our way to thus far, are parlimentary democracies with broad participation. Representative democracy is already in place (with varying levels of depth, participation and transparency) for roughly 3.5 billion people. Dude, it's all there IS. The alternative, is just waiting for our luck to run out. It's not perfect, but if perfection is what you are waiting for ... well take a number, it's going to be a long wait.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
It is going to happen. It's happening already. We can either make sure it's people powered, or we can let the unelected, the affluent and those in the right place and time assume power unapposed. Nation states that have functioning democracies did not simply drift there.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
I couldn't agree more. So do something.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Then vote against it:-)
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
My only objection is that the board is dominated by (white) Europeans and North Americans. I think more balance is needed before the idea can become more accepted. You should have at least one member from each continent, no?
TheRealEda 3 years ago
There are Indians and Africans in there. No in the numbers we'd like perhaps, but that is a function of the current internet.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
YAY! porn addicted men on the internets are healthy for Democracy! LMAO!
VampiressOnDaProwl 3 years ago 2
There always a ... silver lining?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
In essence the idea of a global democratic government isn't bad. But religion will always stand in the way. As long as people believe that theirs is the only right way, and a sixth of the world's population are theoretically willing that the other five-sixths should die for believing in the wrong god, no global peace will be possible.
Largo64 3 years ago 2
The people that really believe that stuff are a miniority, thats why must nation states function despite these differences.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
You also have to convince people like me who don't believe democracy is the preferable system. Only a simple minded one.
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
What system of governance would you propose?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
I'm not sure. Anarchy would be ideal...but it's only an idea. It can't happen because of a major flaw. The advantagist factor.
Anything that makes decisions based on more than just one division between yes or no. Democracy has been painted in happy colors, but all it seems to do is divide people. Since when has 51-49 even been fair? Especially when the masses are so easily influenced to make bad decision. Lets face it, Democracy is the only way to easily control without being fired at too much.
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
You focus too much on American (or 18th century) winner takes all systems. There are hundreds of variations of democracy that transmit the wishes of the electorate far more subtly than first past the post.
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
Anarchy is completely unworkable, because it dissolves as soon as you have a framework, and human relations MUST WORK WITHIN A FRAMEWORK. The real pipe dream is imagining that human nature will suddenly change. Have Europeans become more peaceful, sensible or "humane" in the last 70 years? Not a bit of it. The structures have changed, not the people, and we need the same process to occur globally.
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
Alright, well we're on a par with anarchy...but Democracy? Give me an example of what you're talking about. I'm interested in seeing these other types of democracy and where they are applied. I checked wiki for a second....which one is it?
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
Check out proportional representation on wikipedia. This is a system that allows votes to be transferred as candidates drop out of the race. Celebrated American example. Gore, Bush. Nader in Florida. Instead of simply disappearing, Naders votes TRANSFER to a second choice candidate, once it's clear he can't win. Overwhelmingly, that 2nd choice candidate would have been Gore. Thus voting for your real choice no longer risks undermining your 2nd preferences.
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
In Ireland the choices sometimes run to 4th, 5th or 6th preferences. Thus ensuring EVERY VOTE REALLY COUNTS. Even if your preferred candidate doesn't win, at least you don't merely facilitate some asshole you truly abhor. This is the eternal prisoners dilemma of first past the post systems, and why they suck the donkeys balls.
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
It's like having runoffs automatically triggered and built in. There are also a whole plethora of versions of this system too. The US first past the post, coupled with the electoral college merely amplifies the wishes of a proportion, and often a minority of the electorate. State of the art for 1795, today, not so much.
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
That's fucking retarded. Sorry about the language but it fucking is. And so is the electoral college. Yeah ok no vote is lost. But what i was talking about was more along the lines of population needs. Bills. Propositions. Like the late hate mongering prop.8 in Calif.
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
Woe! I'm not sure what specifically you think is retarded? Proportional representation? The current US electoral system? As regards propositions that are binary in nature, do X or Y, there is little that can be done to make that kind of thing more palatable, other than to introduce multiple options and graded outcomes? Tends to get complicated I suppose.
Iamasockpuppet 3 years ago
I don't mind the idea of global governance, but I mind the idea of global government. Please stop conflating the two.
jetmanisme 3 years ago
This is an interesting comment, & I beleive I understand what you mean. However, it is precisely the kind of incoherent global governance, driven by the narrow and suspicious agenda of nation states, that has us in the pickle we are in. We NEED an elected layer of government at the top, even without any power other than it's legitimacy, to push the issues of global concern. We have elected representatives, and laws at every level of society but the one that could get us all killed. It's crazy.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
well pointed
samuelmichaud 3 years ago
I flux, indeed!
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
Your video is 4:20. Is this a marijuana conspiracy to dominate the world with your hippy liberal ways?
Kidding aside, will check the link.
Kaszely 3 years ago
You have me pegged! Thanks for checking it out:-)
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Wait, I'm confused.. the existing global shadow government is having elections?
sy1234 3 years ago
No, we are just having a referen ... DOH! You tricked me into admitting the conspiracy! Clever.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Humans already have the technology to destroy themselves. This century can be 'make or break' for humanity.
tacoguy1988 3 years ago
5/5
tacoguy1988 3 years ago