Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A lowercase new world order

Posted 1 year ago on March 29, 2013, 10:19 p.m. EST by occupyoccupy (10)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Seriously. George H.W. Bush was right. Except he didn't go far enough. He co-founded the conservative international. But to prevent "the law of the jungle" political internationals are not enough. A world government is needed. And it starts with a parliamentary assembly. The easiest way to create one is by demanding countries' missions to the UN propose at the UNGA the creation of a parliamentary assembly by means of Article 22 of the UN charter, which allows the UNGA to create subsidiary bodies. Without the goal of creating a world parliament, all talk of world revolution is nonsense.

37 Comments

37 Comments


Read the Rules

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

Which decision-making body are you talking about? The UNGA? The problem with the UNGA is that it's undemocratic. It promotes national interests, not people's interests.

Regarding the bank fraud, that is exactly what a parliamentary assembly would be there to prevent, because a parliamentary assembly would supervise the financial system.

Is Günter Grass a Republican? Is George Monbiot a Republican? Now that is really news.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

Which is the obvious hole though? Even if at the beginning the UNPA representatives came from national parliaments, they would be closer to people than UNGA diplomats, who are appointed instead of elected.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

How should the international financial system be overseen?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

Is there a global Occupy assembly, or the equivalent thereof?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (23964) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The revolution continues worldwide!

Then of course - there is :

Avaaz - The World in Action www.avaaz.org/ Avaaz is the campaigning community bringing people-powered politics to decision making worldwide.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

A government made up of the elite of the elite. OMG NO!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23964) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH - HELL - NO. The elite of the elite would assign that to their slaves/dogs - they would not dirty their hands by doing it them-self.

In case you were wondering Boner and cronies are the dogs.

[-] -2 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

They're in favor of democracy, human rights, sustainability, fair trade, transparency. If that's elitist, then elitism is good.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

One more layer of government will bring one more layer of corruption. No thanks! We need fewer layers of government, not more.

[-] -1 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

It wouldn't be one more layer of government. You know why? Because the global layer of government already exists. Except it's not democratic, because national governments are making decisions behind people's backs. And that's precisely the problem.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Yes, the problem is our national governments aren't elected by the people, but by a few wealthy individuals. What makes you think world representatives elected by the people won't be hijacked the same way?

[-] -1 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

There is no absolute guarantee that they won't be hijacked, but it would be better than the current situation.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Based on what? Give me some hard facts.

[-] 1 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

Based on prior evidence. Take the EU for example. Would the EU be better off without the European parliament? Probably not. Or take the U.S. for example. Would the U.S. be better off with the Senate but without the House of Representatives? Probably not.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 1 year ago

Having a senate in addition to the House of Representatives is an unnecessary compromise due to states with smaller populations and therefore fewer representatives having wanted a means of equal federal representation.

In 1934, due in part to the budgetary pressure of the Great Depression, Nebraska citizens ran a state initiative to vote on a constitutional amendment creating a unicameral legislature, which was approved. In effect, the House of Representatives (the lower house) was abolished; today's Nebraska state legislators are commonly referred to as "Senators". Nebraska's Legislature is also the only state legislature in the United States that is nonpartisan. The senators are elected with no party affiliation next to their names on the ballot, and the speaker and committee chairs are chosen at large, so that members of any party can be chosen for these positions.

Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, also have unicameral legislatures.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 1 year ago

That's not the problem with the UN. Like the League of Nations before it, the UN was designed by the US to ultimately serve US interests. Its undemocratic nature is a product of intentional design, not as a natural result of being unicameral. That's why there's a security council with five permanent members with veto power. If the UN had been designed to be only composed of national initiative democratic governments (like Switzerland) that put forth representatives according to a standard unit of population, its unicameral general assembly would be democratic. But as Switzerland is the only national initiative democratic government and the US government had no intention of becoming one, much less promoting such a thing to the other nations of the world along with requiring representation based on a standard unit of population, such a democratic design had been out of the question. The unicameral legislature of the UNGA is undemocratic by intentional design, not by inherent weakness.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Probably is not a hard fact.

Let's look at the United States. It was once a union in which the states held the majority of power. Now the Federal government holds the majority. That is a hard fact and one which will be applied when a world government is implemented.

[-] 1 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

I think a world federation would be a good thing. What would be bad about it?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23964) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

STINKLE

[-] 1 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

Please give some counterarguments to this:

http://www.kdun.org/faqen/

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Believe in the people ... the people are the government .... anything else ultimately leads to war & bloodshed

[-] 1 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

I believe in the people. That's why I think a world parliament is a good idea. A world parliament would prevent wars. It would represent the global people instead of peoples divided by national interests.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23964) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

FU or in more easily understood language - FUCK YOU!!!!

One world government - are you INSANE????

[-] -2 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

If I'm insane, it's in a good way. What's wrong with one world government? It would be democratic, not totalitarian.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (23964) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Someday perhaps - but humanity has a long ways to grow/mature/evolve before a one world government is anything more then a joke.

[-] -2 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

Don't you think that's condescending, to say that people are not ready to make decisions about themselves on their own? You think it's better to have diplomats deciding for them?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23964) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Don't try to put words in my mouth. The people need to start making decisions about how society is. But it will be a state by state country by country growth/maturity. Direct Democracy must be implemented and mature.

[-] 1 points by occupyoccupy (10) 1 year ago

What about the global level? Don't you think national interests interfere with people's interests?

[Removed]