Re: WILL WORLD GOVERNMENT SAVE THE PLANET FROM DESTRUCTION?
- -- ro-esp wrote:
> Citeren Bruce P - Yahoo:deeper into it. Who should be in such a government ?
> > WILL WORLD GOVERNMENT SAVE THE PLANET FROM DESTRUCTION?
>R: Not in the next 5 or 10 years probably, but let's get a little
-M: Everybody should have the opportunity to be in the government,
but only the very select few should be decision makers - five
directors with one executive - all presiding over UN style body.
>R: What should it's prerogatives (?) be ?-M: Environmental, labor protections, dispute resolutions, peace-
keeping, and republic formation.
>R: And would they be enough to nullify the power of banks and (big)business ?
-M: If done with SD2, yes. It is difficult to buy votes with my
>R: What language(s) should it speak ? I mean, even if some memberwould by miracle speak english, spanish and chinese, then two-third
or three quarters of the world population would still not know what
the talk is about. And even if you could find translators for 6000
languages, most of those still lack a written form.
-M: The primary operational language would be English, and each
population would have a translator if needed.
>R: So how would people know whom to vote for? groetjes, Ronaldo-M: People would vote for local, regional, national leaders. For
simplicity, they would have a quick pick of among the existing
council of five of the global confederation. They would be provided
with a list of challengers too. Their platforms would translated into
the local language.
-Mark, Seattle WA USA
I agree. I am no economist, but the things I have read indicate that the
distortions resulting from the fractured socio-political system of
nationalism causes a great deal of the poverty and income disparity that
exists in the world today. Things like tarrifs, government protectionism
of non-viable industries, unequal values of currencies, the free movement
of capital while the movement of people is severely restricted...all of
these contribute to the overall problem. It should be our goal as world
unitists, to work toward a world when two people who want to trade with one
another can do so, freely, without any barriers in the way no matter where
they live on the planet Earth. It might take a while, but I firmly believe
that political unification would result in a drastic leveling of income
levels between the peoples of the world, even if there were no government
attempts at income redistribution at all.
Peace and Unity,
At 12:04 AM 3/18/2005 +1100, you wrote:
> > -M: The genie can be put back in the bottle with tarrifs andGary K. Shepherd
> > regulation. This has been done before and can be done again. The USA
> > had its biggest growth periods from 1776-1886, and 1933-1964. This
> > was done under REGULATED NATIONALISTIC capitalism.
>Picking those particular periods proves nothing. You could just as
>easily start a hundred years later, and thirteen years later, with
>1876-1886 and 1946-1964, which surely would show considerably higher
>growth than those longer periods, because they were coming off
>disastrous economic lows. The first being caused by the devastation of
>the war between the states, and the second after the great depression
>(CAUSED by protectionist trade wars choking global trade) and the
>second world war.
>I do not count governments borrowing millions to pay people to go and
>kill people, or to make weapons for others to do so, as economic
>activity, firstly because that is DESTRuction, not PRODuction, and
>secondly, because it ALL has to be repaid by subsequent generations!
>The Keynesian buck stopped in the 1970s, when the economy, asthmatic
>due to the weight of accumulated government deficits, was confronted
>by higher energy costs. The protectionist buck stopped in 1929-1933
>with the great depression, which was greatly prolonged, especially in
>Australia, by the economic voodoo of one John Meynard Keynes, flying
>in the face of classical economic sense. The economy was unable to
>self-correct, or to make good long-term choices, because of distortion
>of the parameters and factors relevant to production and investment
>choices, caused by government spending, which for a generation (until
>continual increase of debt could no longer be tolerated) enabled the
>true economic illnesses to remain untreated.
>Both of the long periods quoted were also fueled by population growth
>through immigration and natural increase, and by governments borrowing
>against the future. Notably, the first long period, beginning at the
>American declaration of independence, and the throwing off of the
>shackles of exploitation from abroad, the American nation grew from
>being a mere outpost of Europe to a nation several times larger,
>spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, shows that it is a
>nonsense to claim this period of growth as being caused by having
>government collecting tariffs against foreign goods being purchased.
>Notwithstanding all of that, SINCE 1964 (seeing as you picked that
>year as the end of your golden age of "regulated nationalistic
>capitalism" (otherwise known as fascism or national socialism) the
>actual productivity and standard of living of the entire planet has
>been multiplied through the gains of TRADE. If we only returned to the
>production capacities of 1964, millions, even billions of people,
>If you had to make everything you use or consume yourself, in your
>home, a kind of autarchy taken to the extreme, you would see how you
>would be reduced to either subsistence or death. Autarchy or any
>degree of protectionism is simply this same effect, but not to the
>same degree. Nations revert to it either in preparation for war, or as
>a result of war, such as in a blockade. Iraq's protection from imports
>has only been blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
>children in the ten years between the wars.
>I need not continue with these self-evident illustrations to prove
>that prohibiting two otherwise free persons on the face of this one
>planet, to trade at a freely established price, or demanding a
>protection fee, is simply a form of organised crime. Forcing producers
>to buy from the more expensive of two suppliers only (or especially)
>penalises the poor in both countries. Just because one person or
>productive unit lives in one country and you in another, does not make
>it right to discriminate against those people in another country, and
>use government, customs officials and police to enforce your
>discrimination. Personal choice is fine. You, go ahead and buy from
>your neighbour who charges double or triple to hand make the item in
>his garage, but don't use your government to protect his business, and
>think "who cares (less)" about the woman in a village on the other
>side of the world.
>"I have believed that the only way peace can be achieved is through world
>government" (Jawaharal Nehru)
>For more information: www.worldservice.org and info@...
>Yahoo! Groups Links
Carbondale, IL 62901