What are your thoughts on global governance?

Do you think we need more global bureaucracies and closer knit regulations and standards, currencies? Do you think that the UN/NATO/US should police the world? Do you think that the 22,000-page GATT agreement is necessary and really established free trade?

The New World Order is such a loony conspiracy theory! The last thing you would want people to think is that you believe in loony theories! So, talk about the New Global Governance that already exists.

If you think that global corporations do not play a major role in global governance, you are very mistaken. If you think that any candidate other than Ron Paul opposes more international entanglements and global governance, you are mistaken.

 

On first thought, impossible to maintain without deteriorating into totalitarianism and the folks most in favor of it are statists without apology. Terrible idea.

 

Agreed. I've been amazed to see how many people do not recognize the danger of global governance and how it has already affected America.

 

The intent of global governance was fine. In practice the concept is tyrannical. As James Madison argued in Federalist No.58, when a faction (in his day, the majority; in ours, a multitude of groups, but in this case global government organization) causes tyranny, there are two options. First, eliminate liberty. No rational person wants to see that. Second, control the effects of the faction. You do not eliminate the concept of international organization. What you can do is limit such organizations from negatively effecting sovereign national governments. Ensure that the United Nations acts based upon its most important goal, to maintain peace and to uphold the sovereignty of all nations.

 

I agree with your points here, but I like the statement that "no one watches the watchers." Seems that the higher the authority goes, the more totalitarian and less democratic it becomes.

If you look at how much power the largest corporations, especially banks, have on the American government, then it seems that would carry over into global governance. I just don't see how an all-encompassing world authority could be held in check by the people.

 

I think it's kind of inevitable. The question is, what form do we want global government to take?

 

Only those on the inside have the power to check what is unchecked in global government organization. You need a handful of committed leaders to the original intent of the organization on paper and in practice. I am sure there are members of large banking institutions that do not have an authoritarian mentality. I am sure there are corporate leaders that do not have an authoritarian mentality. These people, who I would call the disinterested are the kinds of leaders we need in global government.

 

Yes, that would be nice but it doesn't even seem that we can accomplish this in our own nation, does it?


I think that just the enormous scope of global governance makes it undemocratic, so you basically must agree to some sort of technocratic rule by those who supposedly know what they're doing, and it opens the door for inescapable tyranny. It goes against the fears of the power of centralized government expressed by many of our founding fathers, who designed the US to limit the federal government. I wonder what they would say about global governance?

 

It's not inevitable or even necessary, but the corpobalists would have you believe that.

The best argument is to maintain peace, which means disarmament, which means no nations exist.

 

World government would have to be forced by some form of totalitarianism and some form of totalitarianism would have to be enforced by sending people from one country to tyrannize over another since Americans would be less likely to oppress fellow Americans and Europeans would be less likely to oppress fellow Europeans, etc.

There for, I imagine, were this to come about, our American gestapo would be made up of Chinese or Africans who have no emotional connection to Americans and vice versa. Everything about world government is a nightmare scenario.

 

The old trick of changing names, they do the same thing with UN Agenda 21, which is all about global government.

Most people don't understand, the people behind the global government movement who bemoan the need of global government to "stop wars" and "gain peace"...are the very ones who created WWI, WWII and all the wars we face. They are also the ones who funded Communist Russia, China, Cuba as well as Hitler and most evil in the world.

Do people want a world controlled under the very same powers who empowered Hitler and their solution to Hitler the UN.

It's called the "Hegelian dialectic" CREATE THE CRISIS, ALERT THE PEOPLE, OFFER SOLUTION...to the problem you created in the first place.

The trick is so evil and wicked, most people can't bring it to their mind. But it is the staple of the evil ruling elite...who want the world for themselves and most of mankind dead and the ones left in their hardy chains.

 

How do you tell someone they aren't allowed to take over the world?

 

I agree that many of these one-worlders are loathsome characters, but I was trying to take a calmer approach to discussing the problems/their perceived benefits of global governance. People seem to have trouble believing that there are indeed evil villains in the world who want to rule/destroy humanity.

 

All we have is the vote. You vote for the man who has talked down the idea of global governance and talked up our constitution and liberty for his entire career. The guy who the corporatist/globalist media networks are absolutely trying to destroy. The guy who wants to put an end to the international banking scheme that controls the very foundation of our economy.

Or...revolution.

 

I disagree, arm everyone. And armed society is a polite society.

I would be for disarming, if we could get rid of the ruling elites. But until they are disarmed, how are you going to do that.

The evil elite will never give in, after all they think they are gods on earth. They are the backers of most all wars. And until they are removed (might take God himself to do it) there will never be peace. The out of control self worshiping elite will never back down, till they are taken down. They don't think like most people who just want to live their lives in peace like us. They are out of control murderers and will continue to murder and make death on earth. Because remember, these evil elites think they are gods on earth, and demand we are less than human and should be their slaves.

While the whole time their power has been gained via EVIL ways.
Evil isn't going to go softly into the night.

 

If you think a powerful country in today's age can exist in isolationism you are very mistaken. The world is a global community and there is simply nothing you can do about it. Its a natural progression with technology.

Given that however there is no reason to adhere to a world governance policy. You can see the problem just Europe is having with the Euro which is a microcosm of what would happen on a global scale. We shouldn't be the world police but we should have our hand in as many cookie jars as we can. Its far easier to keep an eye on any possible threats to our interests and head them off either through diplomatic or military means before they become a bigger problem.

 

There are other ways besides global authoritarianism to engage with other nations. True free trade. Strong diplomatic relations. Competitive international economic development. Overreaching global governance is unnecessary and tyrannical.

 

You seem so smart, you know about global governance, so let me ask you - who is controlling the media which is the stage on which Ron Paul is allowed to participate? how much would we know about Ron Paul today if he was NOT allowed to participate on that media? what if people in USSR, or Egyptians or Libyans would continnue to rely on state run (establishment) media for cues on revolutionary overthrow events? did I just speak out against Ron Paul?

 

I agree and am not speaking of isolationism, as I think nations should definitely interact, trade and cooperate to ensure that there is no tyrannical regime about to wreak havoc on their people or another nation.

I'm speaking of international laws/bureaucracies that deal with trade, war, monetary policy, social policies, environmental regulations, etc. There are already international organizations dealing with these issues and it seems to be a trend to keep pushing it further. Obama denied Congress the opportunity to vote on the Libyan "kinetic action" specifically because he wanted to give the UN more legitimacy.

Globalization is undoubtedly driven by corporate interests, and they are also the ones setting up the global bureaucracies. Like you said, look at the EU. They're appointing bankers as the leaders of sovereign nations. So, it is definitely a threat to sovereignty and democracy.

 

I absolutely agree with you but diplomatic relations are far more successful from a position of strength which not only includes economic strength but military strength. Many countries would be more willing to negotiate knowing that any agreement they enter into with us can be defended by our military.

A negotiation may go like this: "We are willing to have free trade with America but we got this issue with this county over here. If you can promise us that you will keep them off our back we can conclude this agreement."

 

Good points but I would disagree that corporate globalization is a threat to sovereignty and democracy. Corporations are about making money and have very little interests in the other issues that are required when running a nation. They will lobby of course and try to get favorable status from nations but they will never try to do more than that.

Historically, powerful economic forces have not even interfered with ideology changes within nations. They adjust their business models to maximize their profits with whatever is coming next. You could see this during French and English revolutions as well as in Russia.

There are exceptions of course such as Hearst and his newspaper empire directly leading us into the Spanish-American war but that is not the norm. Our major corporate empires today are looking at any changes and figuring out how to stay ahead of the game. They aren't looking to change the game on a national level.

 

Here's how it will happen

 

opps, sorry for the interruption

 

Federal
State
County
City
Homeowners' Assn.


That's enough fencing for my liking already! No to the NGG (New Global Governance). Robodoon is actually telling the truth in this thread. They want us as slaves and/or dead.

 

This is the archetypical foreign policy doctrine:

The United States can obviously not avoid alliances in the modern age, but it can ensure that we are open to long-term relationships with all nations, including with our enemies.