The UN, a basis for a NWO or "worthless organization and should be abolished."

**USSWisconsin** · 11 Apr 11,, 00:19

Doktor

US is still a federation, right?

Yes, I meant to refer to the idea of a coordinating agency for global efforts as a confederation, not to say the US would change its government.

**Chunder** · 11 Apr 11,, 01:29

We've already absorbed New Zealand... bloody doll bludgers.

**DOR** · 11 Apr 11,, 02:55

No, Shek, I’d rather you didn’t assume anything that isn’t explicitly stated in my own words.

Col, the legal authority to impost lethal force is a very important aspect of government power. It is not the sole definition, in my opinion, of a legitimate authority. If it was, we’d have to recognize the Mafia, the Crips, the Bloods, the Taliban and a whole host of other non-governmental players.

Let’s stick to governments.

Doktor,

Some places do control internal migration. Hong Kong and Macau, for example, do not have to deal with floods of Mainlanders coming over the boundary (we don’t call it a border) because Beijing sets a quota. Same with Tibet and Tianjin – there’s are rules. Same with Shanghai and Sanya: you can’t live there just because you’re a citizen.

**Parihaka** · 11 Apr 11,, 03:40

Originally Posted by Chunder

We've already absorbed New Zealand... bloody doll bludgers.

That's what we want you to think: in fact we're taking over Australia

S2 · 11 Apr 11,, 04:11

"...the legal authority to impost lethal force is a very important aspect of government power. It is not the sole definition, in my opinion, of a legitimate authority. If it was, we’d have to recognize the Mafia, the Crips, the Bloods, the Taliban and a whole host of other non-governmental players..."

There's a considerable distinction drawn between the ability to use lethal force and the authority to use lethal force. None of those aforementioned entities carry any authorization to use any measure of force extending beyond the end of the gun barrels they wield.

More accurately, the state's authority to use lethal force is commonly expressed as a monopoly ameliorated only by the authority to deputize along with any existing laws of self-defense.

**Hallow** · 11 Apr 11,, 05:36

Hello, sorry to post without having read the entire thread, but this is a topic that i've given quite a bit of thought to- ultimately i've come to the conclusion that the first step in any sort of attempt at world government (or indeed, any attempt at building authority of regulations over countries unbound by narrow treaties, alliances, and agreements) would be to give an international body (the U.N could certainly work, though perhaps a better organized body would be called for) the ability to regulate international trade and enforce certain mandates.

My line of thinking goes back to the infant years of my own nation, where one of the first things claimed by the federal government was the regulation of trade between the states. This laid the foundation for the regulation of other systems and slowly melded the states into more of a single entity than a loose alliance.

More importantly than that analysis of the past (as the situation differs considerably) is what it could potentially mean for the world if such regulation came into play: Trade could be stabilized with a body capable of monitoring and taking action if needed against trans-national corporations, through this vehicle international labor laws could eventually be instituted- probably improving living conditions in much of the world, and most tantalizingly of all, the body could potentially use such trade to manipulate development- with luck, stimulating development in impovershed and under developed areas.

How such regulations could be enforced however, is a stickier proposition, part of the agreement a country makes by gaining the benefits of U.N membership with usaul strictures coming into play for those who break the bylaws? A military force funded by taxing such international trade? The backing of powerful and interested countries? all of them have their own little problems.

In fact i'm sure this proposition has many such issues, and i apologize for any oversights or logical fallacies (or outright stupidity) contained within.

**Chunder** · 11 Apr 11,, 06:00

Originally Posted by Parihaka

That's what we want you to think: in fact we're taking over Australia

-OT-

That reminded me of something - I actually thought of you specifically this week driving home from work. On the Victor Road there is a big sign which says "PARRI ESTATE". If I had a phone I would have taken a picture.

**gunnut** · 11 Apr 11,, 08:58

Originally Posted by DOR

Doktor,
Given the differences in, say, the minimum wage in various US states, and in various parts of Canada; and the variations in a host of laws in Australia . . . well, there's no shortage of decentralized governments.

There's a federal minimum wage. States can go above that, but cannot go below. Would you like that minimum wage imposed upon Hong Kong?

**gunnut** · 11 Apr 11,, 09:09

Originally Posted by bigross86

Let me ask a hypothetical question/raise a different scenario:

Does anybody see one country grow so strong that it literally absorbs all other countries into it, legally or otherwise? Thus there would be a world government, but not of the kind you guys are envisioning. The first example that jumps to mind is the USA, what with states being allowed to join the Union and with territories all over the world. The advantage to this scenario and a government of this kind is that you do not need a new layer of government, and we're accepting the premise that whoever is in this Supercountry is either there willingly, or was forced to submit and become part of the Supercountry, thereby negating all the issues of War, religion, etc...

JAD already addressed this point. The larger the empire, the more likely regions will demand autonomy.

The reason US grew to be so big yet with minimal demand for autonomy is because we killed most of the original inhabitants. Whoever was left were herded to "autonomous" regions and pretty much imprisoned there. The current US is pretty much "empty" land settled by the people from the east coast. They share the same heritage and culture, from east to west. Gun Grape nailed it when he said he can drive 3 days in the same direction, speak the same language, eat the same food, and feel the same as he would be back home in Florida (this was a thread about Americans and passports). This won't happen if US or any country "incorporates" other nations and cultures. A single world "culture" will mean the destruction of most other cultures. There will be no single world government without this unified world culture. People are just too different.

**DOR** · 11 Apr 11,, 10:36

gunnut,

As of May 1st, 2011, Hong Kong will have its first minimum wage. The politics, and the implementation, is a royal mess that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

But, why should the US minimum wage be the one imposed on Hong Kong, or anyone? Why not the Swedish or Finnish minimum, and the healthcare provisions, and the paternity leave provisions, and the paid holidays (very nice, by the way) and all the rest?

If the highest level of government passes a law that says, "This amount of pay, and no less," then what's wrong with some sub-national jurisdiction having a slightly higher -- or, much higher -- minimum wage? Nothing wrong with that at all.

Of course, that top-level minimum would have to be set at a rate that didn't cause massive unemployment, or it would be self-defeating, right? No point in having a $30 minimum wage in NYC, because all the folks who can't add enough value to justify that wage would just lose their jobs, right?

So, set the global minimum at $0.10, or $0.50 or $1.00 or $3.60 an hour -- Hong Kong's new minimum wage -- and let other economies decide what suits them best.

Bottom line: a global government is not the same as a global economy.

**bigross86** · 11 Apr 11,, 11:06

Originally Posted by gunnut

JAD already addressed this point. The larger the empire, the more likely regions will demand autonomy.

The reason US grew to be so big yet with minimal demand for autonomy is because we killed most of the original inhabitants. Whoever was left were herded to "autonomous" regions and pretty much imprisoned there. The current US is pretty much "empty" land settled by the people from the east coast. They share the same heritage and culture, from east to west. Gun Grape nailed it when he said he can drive 3 days in the same direction, speak the same language, eat the same food, and feel the same as he would be back home in Florida (this was a thread about Americans and passports). This won't happen if US or any country "incorporates" other nations and cultures. A single world "culture" will mean the destruction of most other cultures. There will be no single world government without this unified world culture. People are just too different.

And yet in the US you now have many groups, you have the Mexicans, the Cubans, the Irish, etc... The majority of them fall under and abide by American law because they want to.

In a world where one country ends up ruling the world, is is either because they want in, with Hawaii being a perfect example, willing to abandon a culture that once had a king and are willing to accept limits and caps upon themselves to reach that goal; or are absorbed into the country by power of force, in which case who gives a shit about their culture.

Now, I'm talking about a process that can take hundreds of years until fruition, not something that will happen overnight or even in a short period of a couple of years or decades. stretching out the changes over a very long period of time makes the change that much easier to accept. I wouldn't ever dare say that by the year 2100 we'll have some sort of super country and world government, but I definitely think that by the year 3000 there could be one country that is strong enough to rule the world under one flag and one banner, though not a unified government of many nations

**Doktor** · 11 Apr 11,, 12:03

Originally Posted by DOR

Col, the legal authority to impost lethal force is a very important aspect of government power. t is not the sole definition, in my opinion, of a legitimate authority. If it was, we’d have to recognize the Mafia, the Crips, the Bloods, the Taliban and a whole host of other non-governmental players.

Let’s stick to governments.

And why we didn't? Because the governments still have a way more people and means to fight them. The only thing is the will.

Mafia in Sicily in since mid 80's de facto ruled the island. They were putting the politicians in power, they were taking them down. Had the power to kill someone and the only repercussion was vendetta.
The gangs, I don't recall some of them showed a will to become legitimate authority.
Talibans internationally were recognized as authority in A-stan when US asked them to hand Osama.

But you are right, the point is on the governments.

Doktor,

Some places do control internal migration. Hong Kong and Macau, for example, do not have to deal with floods of Mainlanders coming over the boundary (we don’t call it a border) because Beijing sets a quota. Same with Tibet and Tianjin – there’s are rules. Same with Shanghai and Sanya: you can’t live there just because you’re a citizen.

A lot of places control migration. You have an experience from the most populated country in the world, I will share one from Slovenia, 2 mil ppl strong country, EU member.

If you are Slovenian nationality and live outside Ljubljana (the capital) there is no way you can settle there. If you want a citizenship for the city you need a proof you own a property there. If you want to buy a property the local citizens are first served. If you want to work in Ljubljana, you need citizenship and so on. And it goes like that in circles. Now imagine all that plus being a foreigner

The only way to buy a flat in Ljubljana is to buy a house (ranch) to some elderly couple to live on the country and then buy their apartment.

Back to the topic.

If you have migration controlled how will you have United World? If I am the best man for the job (when someone is hiring you, by definition that's the reason), why should migration authorities stop me for working in Beijing, Hong Kong, Ljubljana or NYC?

If it is for setting social benefits and other rights, you have to fight for them and eventually win them. If you live in a democracy they can be acquired sooner, if you live in a totalitarian regime, you will have to make an uprisisng

**Shek** · 11 Apr 11,, 14:07

Originally Posted by DOR

No, Shek, I’d rather you didn’t assume anything that isn’t explicitly stated in my own words.

Well then, why did you state that dhimmi wasn't radical? What are we to infer from that statement?

**gunnut** · 11 Apr 11,, 18:36

Originally Posted by DOR

gunnut,

As of May 1st, 2011, Hong Kong will have its first minimum wage. The politics, and the implementation, is a royal mess that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Yes, minimum wage is bad. A US federal minimum wage was imposed on Samoa (the US territory, not the other one), by some do-gooder politician backed by unions, hoping to improve the lives of the islanders. It killed the job market there.

Originally Posted by DOR

But, why should the US minimum wage be the one imposed on Hong Kong, or anyone? Why not the Swedish or Finnish minimum, and the healthcare provisions, and the paternity leave provisions, and the paid holidays (very nice, by the way) and all the rest?

It shouldn't. Different regions in this world have different standards, cultural backgrounds, climate, food, and just about everything else. The locals set the price on their goods and services and what they need to get by with their daily lives. The US federal minimum wage of $7.15/hr would be an astronomical sum in Sub-Saharan Africa or Bangledash or Bolivia. If the world sets a standard minimum wage of $1/hr, and the western world have their own, and within those districts, even more different standards, then what kind of world government is this that it has no standards?

Originally Posted by DOR

If the highest level of government passes a law that says, "This amount of pay, and no less," then what's wrong with some sub-national jurisdiction having a slightly higher -- or, much higher -- minimum wage? Nothing wrong with that at all.

Not at all, except the standard has to be the "minimum." Right now, the world minimum is something like $1/day. Set that as a standard and most of the world would have local standards higher than that. Well, nothing has changed with this world standard.

Originally Posted by DOR

Of course, that top-level minimum would have to be set at a rate that didn't cause massive unemployment, or it would be self-defeating, right? No point in having a $30 minimum wage in NYC, because all the folks who can't add enough value to justify that wage would just lose their jobs, right?

Why not? The so-called "living wage" laws passed in various socialist cities in the US already approach $15/hr. Guess what? Things are extremely expensive in those areas.

Originally Posted by DOR

So, set the global minimum at $0.10, or $0.50 or $1.00 or $3.60 an hour -- Hong Kong's new minimum wage -- and let other economies decide what suits them best.

In other words, nothing has changed. This global government doesn't do anything at all.

Originally Posted by DOR

Bottom line: a global government is not the same as a global economy.

Government and economy are tied together. There are various standards imposed by the government upon the economy. For one thing, it needs taxes to feed the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy justifies itself by imposing more standards in the name of "consumer safety." This adds cost to businesses. There will be unemployment. Government likes to pretend to do something about it by adding more cost to businesses. And so on and so forth.

This is only the economical aspect of a global government. We will have many other things that busybodies like to regulate under this global government.

For example, education. What will be the global minimal standard? Do girls have the right to go to a public school? How much schooling do children get? Would it be better for children to go to 9 years of public school instead of working in the fields to help feeding the family? Who's paying for the lost productivity, and school?

How about medical care? What is the minimun standard? Why should the Swedes get cradle to grave care while Americans pay much more for the same care? Why not have a European standard and a North American standard?

How about retirement?

If we have different standards under the new world government for different regions, how is that any different than what we have now? What does this world government offer? What if this world government says region A should have this standard, but that region refuses? What are the consequences? Sanctions? How is that any different than now?

**gunnut** · 11 Apr 11,, 19:02

Originally Posted by bigross86

And yet in the US you now have many groups, you have the Mexicans, the Cubans, the Irish, etc... The majority of them fall under and abide by American law because they want to.

The difference is America was set up first and then the Irish, Germans, Cubans, and Mexicans showed up.

Originally Posted by bigross86

In a world where one country ends up ruling the world, is is either because they want in, with Hawaii being a perfect example, willing to abandon a culture that once had a king and are willing to accept limits and caps upon themselves to reach that goal; or are absorbed into the country by power of force, in which case who gives a shit about their culture.

You are wrong about Hawaii. It was forced, cajoled, dragged kicking and screaming to join the union. The native Hawaiians, to this day, doesn't want to be part of the US. The mainlanders destroyed their autonomy and their culture. But I guess they should still count themselves lucky. They weren't exterminated like many of the original inhabitants of the continent.

Originally Posted by bigross86

Now, I'm talking about a process that can take hundreds of years until fruition, not something that will happen overnight or even in a short period of a couple of years or decades. stretching out the changes over a very long period of time makes the change that much easier to accept. I wouldn't ever dare say that by the year 2100 we'll have some sort of super country and world government, but I definitely think that by the year 3000 there could be one country that is strong enough to rule the world under one flag and one banner, though not a unified government of many nations

Eventually, maybe. Then again, notice Czechoslovakia is now the Czech Republic and Slovakia. How many nations came out of Yugoslavia? We have more examples of regions within nations that want autonomy, if not outright independence, than we have nations that want to merge together these days. Why is that?