One World Goverment

[Disgustipated]

The flaw in Hawking's thinking is our "logic and reason" doesn't lead us to world government. Some of the biggest social disasters inflicted on society in the last 100 years have been cooked up in the social laboratories of the intelligentsia.

Leave Trumpcare outta this

 

[Rightguide]

Leave Trumpcare outta this

We can definitely leave Obamacare in and Trumpcare doesn't exist yet.

 

[Maidboy]

We can definitely leave Obamacare in and Trumpcare doesn't exist yet.

Trumpcare is an oxymoron.

 

[Rightguide]

Trumpcare is an oxymoron.

It's also nonexistent.

 

[Maidboy]

It's also nonexistent.

And hopefully will stay that way.

 

[Disgustipated]

It's also nonexistent.

I see you read your marching orders. #45 told his minions to make to not call it Trumpcare.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I think a One World Gov't is highly unlikely. Even if I thought it were feasible, there would always be pockets of resistance somewhere on the globe. Humans just aren't that good at getting along. The USA can't even agree on what's best for our country right now, let alone the world. And who gets to be in charge? You think England will give up it's monarchy? What about Israel? Too many conflicting beliefs.

It would take a catastrophic event to unite the world. Even then, it wouldn't last. We're selfish, greedy bastards for the most part.

 

[Maidboy]

The apparatus for the formation of a world government already exists in the form of the UN, although it would have to undergo major organizational changes for it to become effective. I believe a sort of "world federation" could be feasible, but there are major obstacles in the way. In no particular order of obstructiveness...

Islamic Fundamentalism; Christo-Fascism; Chinese Militarism; Russian Oligarchy; Hindu Fundamentalism; and last but not least, Unrestrained Cowboy Capitalism.

 

[Ishmael]

The apparatus for the formation of a world government already exists in the form of the UN, although it would have to undergo major organizational changes for it to become effective. I believe a sort of "world federation" could be feasible, but there are major obstacles in the way. In no particular order of obstructiveness...

Islamic Fundamentalism; Christo-Fascism; Chinese Militarism; Russian Oligarchy; Hindu Fundamentalism; and last but not least, Unrestrained Cowboy Capitalism.

I would certainly like to hear what your definition of "Cowboy Capitalism" is.

I would further like to hear what you envision as the optimal socioeconomic structure would be?

While you ponder your answer let me point out that 80% of the world is a shit-hole with the various states ruled over by tyrants more intent on filling their Swiss bank accounts than building their nations. In other words welfare states. This includes great swaths of China and Russia too.

Ishmael

 

[Maidboy]

I would certainly like to hear what your definition of "Cowboy Capitalism" is.

I would further like to hear what you envision as the optimal socioeconomic structure would be?

While you ponder your answer let me point out that 80% of the world is a shit-hole with the various states ruled over by tyrants more intent on filling their Swiss bank accounts than building their nations. In other words welfare states. This includes great swaths of China and Russia too.

Ishmael

Second question first: Something modeled on the industrial democracies of Western Europe, Scandinavia in particular, as these nations enjoy the world's highest living standards by most objective criteria. Note that while the US is still near the top, it's currently on the decline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

While allowances should be made for regional differences, I think a sort of hybrid of socialism and capitalism is the best way to go, which brings me to the second question...

I used the term "cowboy" rhetorically, while you omitted the "unrestrained" part,
which is really the crux of the matter. The recklessness of unregulated, or at best, loosely regulated financial institutions that led to the near collapse of the global economy is a perfect example of the dangers of unrestrained capitalism. I would also point to global environmental degradation as a dangerous consequence of unrestrained free market capitalism. And obscene inequality of wealth & income distribution can lead to massive social upheaval, as history has demonstrated.

Finally, the notion that "shit-hole tyrannies" are welfare states, is utterly absurd. Welfare states are the polar opposites of tyrannies, almost by definition. Norway is a welfare state, the Congo is not. While this is an extreme comparison, I think you get the general idea.

 

[Ishmael]

Second question first: Something modeled on the industrial democracies of Western Europe, Scandinavia in particular, as these nations enjoy the world's highest living standards by most objective criteria. Note that while the US is still near the top, it's currently on the decline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

While allowances should be made for regional differences, I think a sort of hybrid of socialism and capitalism is the best way to go, which brings me to the second question...

I used the term "cowboy" rhetorically, while you omitted the "unrestrained" part,
which is really the crux of the matter. The recklessness of unregulated, or at best, loosely regulated financial institutions that led to the near collapse of the global economy is a perfect example of the dangers of unrestrained capitalism. I would also point to global environmental degradation as a dangerous consequence of unrestrained free market capitalism. And obscene inequality of wealth & income distribution can lead to massive social upheaval, as history has demonstrated.

Finally, the notion that "shit-hole tyrannies" are welfare states, is utterly absurd. Welfare states are the polar opposites of tyrannies, almost by definition. Norway is a welfare state, the Congo is not. While this is an extreme comparison, I think you get the general idea.

Fair enough.

First of all those Scandinavian states you speak of are dying. Actually EVERY nation that has adopted socialism is dying. That is the problem with socialism documented all the way back to the Roman Empire. And the math is quite simple, it takes X number of workers to support the social welfare/retirement systems. You need to also keep in mind that the magic number for zero population growth is a fertility rate of 2.1. That is every woman must have 2.1 children. In reality some will have more, some less, but the national avg. MUST be 2.1.

Now back to X. Considering that a productive working career spans 40 years, or two generations, then a stable social welfare system has to be based on X equaling 4 assuming that the fertility rate is 2.1. The higher the value of X, the higher number required for the fertility rate. The same ratio holds true for a value of X less than 4.

Virtually ALL of the modern social welfare states require a value of 4 or higher. Now comes the rub, all of their fertility rates are well below 2.1. Their only solution is to either increase taxes or import labor. Most have done both. But they've reached the point where they can no longer increase taxes so they are all relying on imported labor, primarily from the middle east. So much so that in 40 years virtually ALL of the Western European nations will be primarily Muslim. All of the attributes that made them the unique nations they are will disappear. They will have committed cultural suicide.

How does the Roman Empire tie in to all of this? The Romans, being the great record keepers that they were, noted that the more you provided the people from cradle to grave, the less children they had. In other words the fertility rate is inversely proportional to the amount of shit the government gives away. As it was true then, so it is true today. Socialism is a Ponzi scheme writ large.

My comment re. welfare nations is simply based on the fact that in a world government those are the nations whose populations are going to have to receive the most shit from the industrialized nations. You would see a HUGE outflow of wealth from the more advanced nation states to the shit holes that represent 80% of the rest of the world. The entire notion of "social justice" is based on the premise of impoverishing the producers to the benefit of the non-producers turning the entire planet into a semi-impoverished population. Except for the leaders of course, they always seem to find a way to live well.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well said.

 

[Rightguide]

Fair enough.

First of all those Scandinavian states you speak of are dying. Actually EVERY nation that has adopted socialism is dying. That is the problem with socialism documented all the way back to the Roman Empire. And the math is quite simple, it takes X number of workers to support the social welfare/retirement systems. You need to also keep in mind that the magic number for zero population growth is a fertility rate of 2.1. That is every woman must have 2.1 children. In reality some will have more, some less, but the national avg. MUST be 2.1.

Now back to X. Considering that a productive working career spans 40 years, or two generations, then a stable social welfare system has to be based on X equaling 4 assuming that the fertility rate is 2.1. The higher the value of X, the higher number required for the fertility rate. The same ratio holds true for a value of X less than 4.

Virtually ALL of the modern social welfare states require a value of 4 or higher. Now comes the rub, all of their fertility rates are well below 2.1. Their only solution is to either increase taxes or import labor. Most have done both. But they've reached the point where they can no longer increase taxes so they are all relying on imported labor, primarily from the middle east. So much so that in 40 years virtually ALL of the Western European nations will be primarily Muslim. All of the attributes that made them the unique nations they are will disappear. They will have committed cultural suicide.

How does the Roman Empire tie in to all of this? The Romans, being the great record keepers that they were, noted that the more you provided the people from cradle to grave, the less children they had. In other words the fertility rate is inversely proportional to the amount of shit the government gives away. As it was true then, so it is true today. Socialism is a Ponzi scheme writ large.

My comment re. welfare nations is simply based on the fact that in a world government those are the nations whose populations are going to have to receive the most shit from the industrialized nations. You would see a HUGE outflow of wealth from the more advanced nation states to the shit holes that represent 80% of the rest of the world. The entire notion of "social justice" is based on the premise of impoverishing the producers to the benefit of the non-producers turning the entire planet into a semi-impoverished population. Except for the leaders of course, they always seem to find a way to live well.

Ishmael

I'd say you summed it up quite nicely.

 

[Maidboy]

First of all those Scandinavian states you speak of are dying. Actually EVERY nation that has adopted socialism is dying. That is the problem with socialism documented all the way back to the Roman Empire. And the math is quite simple...l

First of all, you make a blanket assertion that Scandinavian and other Western European states are dying despite evidence to the contrary that they've maintained their position as having the world's highest standard of living, and that it's the US who's in decline (in relative terms anyway). You then go back to the Roman Empire as an example of a doomed welfare state, with made up stats about how welfare reduces fertility rates. Where the hell to begin?

The Roman Empire survived for four centuries, a millennium if you count the Republic, and their "bread & circuses" may be credited with maintaining social order during times of economic crisis. "Welfare dependency" as you may disparagingly call it. Would you care to enlighten us with a citation of these "records" the Romans kept that showed a link between welfare and low birth rates? Because in modern times, it's quite the opposite: minority welfare recipients have far higher birth rates than the "self-reliant" white middle class.

Historians have long debated the question of what caused the decline & fall of the Roman Empire. But a better question would be how it lasted as long as it did? The Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantine) survived over a thousand years after the split with West in 312 AD, as the West succumbed to the invading Germanic hordes from the North. So much for ancient history...

Unbridled free market capitalism is dependent on perpetual population growth for it to continue flourishing in it's current form. This is simply unsustainable, and the free market Ponzi scheme will collapse sooner or later. You go on to once again cite a made up statistical analysis of how European socialist states depend on immigrant labor to sustain itself. Then you decry the importation of workers from the Middle East (Muslims! ) as "cultural suicide" punctuated by the fear that Europe will become primarily Muslim in 40 years. This may be your real bugaboo, as you conflate Socialism with the incoming Muslim hordes. Get a grip, dude.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Unbridled free market capitalism is dependent on perpetual population growth for it to continue flourishing in it's current form. This is simply unsustainable, and the free market Ponzi scheme will collapse sooner or later. .

What insane made up fantasy land definition of capitalism are you using? LOL

 

[Hard_Rom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDFUYfaacSw

 

[KingOrfeo]

Fair enough.

First of all those Scandinavian states you speak of are dying.

They sure don't look like they are.

 

[Sean]

First of all, you make a blanket assertion that Scandinavian and other Western European states are dying despite evidence to the contrary that they've maintained their position as having the world's highest standard of living, and that it's the US who's in decline (in relative terms anyway). You then go back to the Roman Empire as an example of a doomed welfare state, with made up stats about how welfare reduces fertility rates. Where the hell to begin?

The Roman Empire survived for four centuries, a millennium if you count the Republic, and their "bread & circuses" may be credited with maintaining social order during times of economic crisis. "Welfare dependency" as you may disparagingly call it. Would you care to enlighten us with a citation of these "records" the Romans kept that showed a link between welfare and low birth rates? Because in modern times, it's quite the opposite: minority welfare recipients have far higher birth rates than the "self-reliant" white middle class.

Historians have long debated the question of what caused the decline & fall of the Roman Empire. But a better question would be how it lasted as long as it did? The Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantine) survived over a thousand years after the split with West in 312 AD, as the West succumbed to the invading Germanic hordes from the North. So much for ancient history...

Unbridled free market capitalism is dependent on perpetual population growth for it to continue flourishing in it's current form. This is simply unsustainable, and the free market Ponzi scheme will collapse sooner or later. You go on to once again cite a made up statistical analysis of how European socialist states depend on immigrant labor to sustain itself. Then you decry the importation of workers from the Middle East (Muslims! ) as "cultural suicide" punctuated by the fear that Europe will become primarily Muslim in 40 years. This may be your real bugaboo, as you conflate Socialism with the incoming Muslim hordes. Get a grip, dude.

Don't be disagreeing with Ish! Ish knows stuff!

 

[Not Normal]

The planet is too large and diverse for a central government. Hell the U.S.is too large, which is a big part of why we're suck a completely and totally fucked up nation.

 

[TwinkleStars]

The planet is too large and diverse for a central government. Hell the U.S.is too large, which is a big part of why we're suck a completely and totally fucked up nation.

*stalk*

 

[Hard_Rom]

The planet is too large and diverse for a central government. Hell the U.S.is too large, which is a big part of why we're suck a completely and totally fucked up nation.

Corporations have been known to split off different business divisions. Maybe it is time for the US to split apart.

Maybe the red state federal welfare cases can apply to the OWG for relief.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The planet is too large and diverse for a central government. Hell the U.S.is too large, which is a big part of why we're suck a completely and totally fucked up nation.

If only we had different places where the people in the local areas could manage their own bullshit and not have to worry about fucking with everyone elses bullshit.

We could even have like .....50 of them.

Oh wait....limited government and states rights, that's crazy RWCJ talk!!

Corporations have been known to split off different business divisions. Maybe it is time for the US to split apart.

Maybe the red state federal welfare cases can apply to the OWG for relief.

The US doesn't need to split apart, it just needs to take a look at the Constitution and quit using DC as a place for everyone to shove their own political agendas down the throats of other states.

 

[Ishmael]

First of all, you make a blanket assertion that Scandinavian and other Western European states are dying despite evidence to the contrary that they've maintained their position as having the world's highest standard of living, and that it's the US who's in decline (in relative terms anyway). You then go back to the Roman Empire as an example of a doomed welfare state, with made up stats about how welfare reduces fertility rates. Where the hell to begin?

The Roman Empire survived for four centuries, a millennium if you count the Republic, and their "bread & circuses" may be credited with maintaining social order during times of economic crisis. "Welfare dependency" as you may disparagingly call it. Would you care to enlighten us with a citation of these "records" the Romans kept that showed a link between welfare and low birth rates? Because in modern times, it's quite the opposite: minority welfare recipients have far higher birth rates than the "self-reliant" white middle class.

Historians have long debated the question of what caused the decline & fall of the Roman Empire. But a better question would be how it lasted as long as it did? The Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantine) survived over a thousand years after the split with West in 312 AD, as the West succumbed to the invading Germanic hordes from the North. So much for ancient history...

Unbridled free market capitalism is dependent on perpetual population growth for it to continue flourishing in it's current form. This is simply unsustainable, and the free market Ponzi scheme will collapse sooner or later. You go on to once again cite a made up statistical analysis of how European socialist states depend on immigrant labor to sustain itself. Then you decry the importation of workers from the Middle East (Muslims! ) as "cultural suicide" punctuated by the fear that Europe will become primarily Muslim in 40 years. This may be your real bugaboo, as you conflate Socialism with the incoming Muslim hordes. Get a grip, dude.

A considerable factor there was organized brute force while the rest of the world was tribal.

Back to demographics. A fertility rate of 2.1 is the magic number.

Austria 1.47
Denmark 1.73
France 2.07*
Germany 1.73
Italy 1.43
Netherlands 1.78
Norway 1.86
Spain 1.49
Sweden 1.88

They are ALL dying. If you are in negative population growth you are dying, city, county, state, or nation. Makes no difference.

*France has now reached a population concentration of 10% Muslim. They are taking up the slack for the Roman Catholics. 10 years ago the fertility rate for France was approx. 1.5 (+/-)

Ishmael

 

[cleaver]

Yea, a 1 size fits all nanny state, that will go over well LOL

I wonder what kind of atrocity it's going to take to make that happen.

1 visitor

 

[Sean]

A considerable factor there was organized brute force while the rest of the world was tribal.

Back to demographics. A fertility rate of 2.1 is the magic number.

Austria 1.47
Denmark 1.73
France 2.07*
Germany 1.73
Italy 1.43
Netherlands 1.78
Norway 1.86
Spain 1.49
Sweden 1.88

They are ALL dying. If you are in negative population growth you are dying, city, county, state, or nation. Makes no difference.

*France has now reached a population concentration of 10% Muslim. They are taking up the slack for the Roman Catholics. 10 years ago the fertility rate for France was approx. 1.5 (+/-)

Ishmael

The US rate is 1.89. Just an fyi. So the US must be dying too.