 |
Duration: 10:41 minutes Upload Time: 2007-10-14 18:30:49 User: TheModestAgnostic :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: Why Global Governance? |
|
Comments | |
| TheModestAgnostic ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 15:40:45 That said, once there I think nordic socialism is a likely outcome, because all developed societies are either there or heading there. Note the discussion vis a vis health care in the US. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheModestAgnostic ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 15:40:01 There may certainly be an element of wishful thinking in my comments certainly. I base them on an imagined future world free of war, major resource shortages and with a fairly uniform living standard and level of education. That situation requires more coherent global governance however, so it is jumping the gun somewhat. __________________________________________________ | |
| bezvezeceda ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 11:52:45 Problem: It is your will for it to be nordic socialism? Or is it based on analytic reasoning? You would need to prove that largest amount of people agree with or consent to nordic socialism. At least backed up by some figures, if you want to be serious about it, that clearly show such consent. Which as i see it is not happening now. At least the process of constructing the system that drives unification would need to be formed. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheModestAgnostic ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 11:20:07 I disagree, a global government would tend towards nordic socialism. With no external threats, and thus transparency in government corruption would become much harder to hide. With living standards similar across the world, and uniform or at least similar educational and taxation companies would have little incentive to move around, and even less scope to abuse workers. __________________________________________________ | |
| bezvezeceda ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 10:36:06 Deep psychological war would emerge, "are"* we reasonable enough to overcome that? There is big work yet in front of us, let's not rush it if we aren't ready yet. __________________________________________________ | |
| bezvezeceda ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 10:16:52 It is eliminating "Our consent". The procedure would not be democratic, it would be commercially driven by competition in advertisement strengths in mass-media with influence of specific media ownership, ergo putting us back to cold war between privately owned media versus media owned by already by defined governments. Deep psychological war would emerge, our we reasonable enough to overcome that? __________________________________________________ | |
| bezvezeceda ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 10:09:35 Biggest problem 8:52 "Passed by ..." __________________________________________________ | |
| bezvezeceda ::: Favorites 2007-11-11 09:39:35 Video of hope and good wishes. But, i would point out that democracy which you defined in the beginning as rule of people, never existed. It has been used as a term to float on, but never implemented. And i have different view on the process of integration, basically who gets the right to construct the unified government, it will look differently if socialist, or capitalist would construct it. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheModestAgnostic ::: Favorites 2007-11-08 14:18:50 Never say never. You could be right:-) Nonetheless, I'll be impressed if we get to feed, house and provide email for the projected 9 billion or so around in 2050. Then we can start work on the singularity:-) __________________________________________________ | |
| PenguinJin ::: Favorites 2007-11-08 12:14:18 Good observation and good argument. But hey, if you ignore the time frame in which cell phones and the internet were implemented and widely accepted by countries which could handle them, which is a couple of decades, along with the multitude of inventions in the past century, you're right on the money. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheModestAgnostic ::: Favorites 2007-11-07 13:17:50 The singularity right? Nonsense I suspect, at least in the time frame you claim here. It's just the rapture with technology. Religion dressed up in techno speak. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheModestAgnostic ::: Favorites 2007-11-07 13:15:47 This depressing carnard has been refuted time and time again. The most social responsible and incidentially atheist states in the world are the ones that have the highest per capita outlays for development. The EU led by the Nordic countries spanks america in this regard. You are merely spouting jingoistic american propaganda. Just so you know. __________________________________________________ | |
| PenguinJin ::: Favorites 2007-11-07 12:47:31 Your self-absorbed love of yourself and your opinion would make more sense, if the ignorant and uncompassionate Americans didn't give more of their money away to charity and developing nations than any socialist state. There are many more ideas that could be come up with than these several types of government. __________________________________________________ | |
| PenguinJin ::: Favorites 2007-11-07 12:19:57 Like most humans, like me, you've got a narrow view of the world and what's happening in it. The exponential and explosive growth of technology is not once taken into account. Any way of life that can be imagined currently will be impossible in thirty to fifty years due to this growth. Not taking this very near future into account, there is no valid argument that could be made about anything global. __________________________________________________ | |
| davyjames ::: Favorites 2007-11-04 19:58:58 When you borrow money or print money the value of the money goes down which IS inflation. The money is literally worth less and so prices rise. If you award a contract with borrowed or printed money then that new wealth usually goes to the top 1% so they do well, but the value of poor people's money has just gone down. This is an inflation tax on the poor. There are other things going on too, but this is true. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment