Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
iyaelsorai iyaelsorai
@TheEllenShow http://twitpic.com/3zv6ef - Children are full of love and when they forget it, consider your role in the plot.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
a one world government..
Many people are afraid of the idea of a One World Government, and I know why. We've seen, whether directly or unconsciously, the damage that too much power in too few hands tends to cause. For these people, the idea of a One World Government is something like rolling the die and hoping you get a benevolent dictator, every time, or something like that.
The way I see it, having a One World Government isn't much worse than what we have now, in that respect -- the reason being that the dangers of governing even a single nation (and there are only about 243 of them, last I checked) are evinced in the nations we do have which have 'functional' governments. Even more, this proves that we can take the most 'prosperous' government (not measured by economy, God no, but maybe by civilian surveys..) and ascribe its characteristics to the new One World Government.
If you can gamble with authority within your own nation, why not gamble with authority for the whole world? It's not that different really, especially not if you're a civilian of the world's most popular nation..
For *example*, the new One World Government *could* have a House, Senate and presidency. Just don't think that I'm a nationalist for even suggesting it, nor that I think a One World Government should probably be effected by the United States taking over the whole world (which I doubt they would anyway.. the Russians didn't understand).
So that was the speech about why a One World Government doesn't have to be *worse*; here's why it should be *better*.
Have you ever seen a war (the *one* civil war notwithstanding) between, say, Nebraska and Kentucky? I mean the closest thing we have to war there is football (I accidentally typed footbull, for some strange reason). Basically, the states pretty much live in harmony. There may be beggings for federal help, and some states must be more wealthy than others, but it's like at least we don't have war amongst them.
Why? Because they're all under the rule of the same government; war is simply silly..and when they do desperately need help, they probably get it.. at least a little bit, and unlike the way we do it between countries, it's not a borrow. More importantly though, there isn't war.
Now that brings me to the second thing, which is that we would, and could, no longer have the economical picture in which one country consumes 80% of the world's resources, while others are either catching up via a totalitarian, beehive mentality and the rest are exploited.. because the difference between, say, The U.S. and Japan, or hopefully even the US and North Korea, would be much like the difference between Nebraska and Kentucky.
Of course, wealth imbalances could and probably would still exist, but not like what we have now.. Kentucky wouldn't be fishing in trash heaps looking for food while Nebraska formulates immigration policies, for example. And yes, this implies a lower tone of economic activity, for us, as the wealth balances out and we help stop killing Nature at a rising pace.
I always say, economy isn't everything -- in fact, a lower economy is a good thing for everybody involved, even to the point of its collapsing. Yes, we need tools for our garden and basic necessities, and a few things that just look really fun for us, but not all this cornucopia of useless shit we chase after to fulfill our spiritual emptiness incurred by the same system by which we produce shit, while we measure our success as a nation by how much of this shit we can produce this year.
The way I see it, having a One World Government isn't much worse than what we have now, in that respect -- the reason being that the dangers of governing even a single nation (and there are only about 243 of them, last I checked) are evinced in the nations we do have which have 'functional' governments. Even more, this proves that we can take the most 'prosperous' government (not measured by economy, God no, but maybe by civilian surveys..) and ascribe its characteristics to the new One World Government.
If you can gamble with authority within your own nation, why not gamble with authority for the whole world? It's not that different really, especially not if you're a civilian of the world's most popular nation..
For *example*, the new One World Government *could* have a House, Senate and presidency. Just don't think that I'm a nationalist for even suggesting it, nor that I think a One World Government should probably be effected by the United States taking over the whole world (which I doubt they would anyway.. the Russians didn't understand).
So that was the speech about why a One World Government doesn't have to be *worse*; here's why it should be *better*.
Have you ever seen a war (the *one* civil war notwithstanding) between, say, Nebraska and Kentucky? I mean the closest thing we have to war there is football (I accidentally typed footbull, for some strange reason). Basically, the states pretty much live in harmony. There may be beggings for federal help, and some states must be more wealthy than others, but it's like at least we don't have war amongst them.
Why? Because they're all under the rule of the same government; war is simply silly..and when they do desperately need help, they probably get it.. at least a little bit, and unlike the way we do it between countries, it's not a borrow. More importantly though, there isn't war.
Now that brings me to the second thing, which is that we would, and could, no longer have the economical picture in which one country consumes 80% of the world's resources, while others are either catching up via a totalitarian, beehive mentality and the rest are exploited.. because the difference between, say, The U.S. and Japan, or hopefully even the US and North Korea, would be much like the difference between Nebraska and Kentucky.
Of course, wealth imbalances could and probably would still exist, but not like what we have now.. Kentucky wouldn't be fishing in trash heaps looking for food while Nebraska formulates immigration policies, for example. And yes, this implies a lower tone of economic activity, for us, as the wealth balances out and we help stop killing Nature at a rising pace.
I always say, economy isn't everything -- in fact, a lower economy is a good thing for everybody involved, even to the point of its collapsing. Yes, we need tools for our garden and basic necessities, and a few things that just look really fun for us, but not all this cornucopia of useless shit we chase after to fulfill our spiritual emptiness incurred by the same system by which we produce shit, while we measure our success as a nation by how much of this shit we can produce this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)