Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Would a One-World-Government end WAR ?

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 22, 2013, 10:04 p.m. EST by ProblemSolver (79)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If there was a World Government Wars would cease to exist.

We would not have any invading countries or occupying nations.

We would all belong to the same world government.

We would not drop bombs on our own cities.

Wars would end.

This, my friends, is the solution to ending all War:

A One-World-Government.

EDIT :For those whom feel a 'One World Government' would be ruled by Tyranny or Greed , I would like to explain the fallacy in such thinking.

Tyranny will never rule the World , nor will Greed. There would would be too much rebellion. It would certainly not be be peaceful.

And the World will never be ruled by Force. This has been attempted .. and failed over and over.

The only way for a One World Government to succeed, would be with a fair and equal system .. satisfying 99% of the population.

The people would have to willingly accept such a Government/System.

The people would never willingly accept Tyranny.

A One World Government must be accepted willingly and to do so it must be fair and just for everyone. This can be accomplished.

214 Comments

214 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by TwinkleMe (29) 1 year ago

The dream of world Govt is in all our imaginations, and that is where it is safest. It is destructive to centralize the power in only a few. All of Human history has proven that greed and lust prevails in those who rule. Let us not ignore the sufferings of history by what can be cleansed in our imagination.

We are all witness to our Govt's global ambitions. The greater it's power grows, the more it seeks to undermine the freedom and rights of it's population. If a benevolent and just World Govt is so possible, let our own nation first restore it's Constitution. Let it first stop the dominance of wealth that wreaks injustice over The People. Until that time, let us keep the dream of World Govt where it is safe. In our imaginations.

[-] 4 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

People often confuse “collectivism” with “community”. This is caused by a lack of understanding as well as a lack of experience. Community is a voluntary gathering of individuals for the purpose of mutual aid. Collectivism is the gathering of people by threat of force or loss, for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a few. It is the act of destroying individualism in the name of “protecting the group”. In America today, we have a disappearing sense of real community, while the “advantages” of collectivism are being sung to the rooftops by global elites.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

If 'community' is voluntary; what makes you think it would work at a global level?

Swaraj should be the goal, not socialism.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson, (US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President).

Now that the second, and so many of the people are acting in complicity, in abandoning the Constitution, the legalized criminals freely construct and enforce compelled compliance, license, larceny with impunity - including theft of the noble laborer's fruits, victimless crimes, forced ID/insurance/charity, torture for information, suspension of habeas corpus, suspension of public religious expression, etc., etc., etc.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” - George Washington (American commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (1789-97), 1732-1799)

Swaraj: sanskrit for self rule. Yes, that is what most people would prefer . . .

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

SELF-RULE!!

Nothing else....

I don't a god or a king or a president or a representative ruling me; I want to rule myself and no other.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

We the people MUST become involved in the ISSUES of our day and MAKE our influence count. We MUST question authority and DEMAND that our laws are followed. Most of Congress is likely impeachable.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Is that(questioning authority) not what I am doing?

The goal of a civil resister is to provoke a response. Obscurity is the best way to fail.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

Thank you - and keep up the good work. Civil resistance is "tried and true." Obscurity like apathy do nothing for us.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

for me........

Gandhigiri: Individual Spontaneous Non-violent Civil Disobediance

is the way to go.......

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

A bronze statue of Rosa Parks was recently installed in the Capitol Building along side of Presidents and founders.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Her gandigiri was individual spontaneous non violent and extremely disobedient. She should be the poster child for resistance against injustice.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Though It's a powerful saying, I don't believe Jefferson said that., Can you tell me the document where he said that?

You do realize there are a shit load of fake quotes out there. The radical right seem to be the most notorious at miss quoting our Founders.

Edited: Can't pull the wool over this man's eyes.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/two-enemies-people-are-criminals-and-governmentquotation

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

Well, then read the other quotes posted at your excellent link.

He did, employ the phrase "chains of the Constitution" in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: "...in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution..."

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Yes, the original quote is similar and could be construed to make your case. I'll give you that.

Edit: "...in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution..." Jefferson

But it could also mean government should regulate commerce per the Constitution.

[-] 3 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

I would love to see government regulate commerce by the chains of the Constitution.

The Constitution states that Congress shall coin and regulate our currency. But, today all of our currency initiates as a loan from a private bank. ALL of our problems would be solved by simply obeying our own laws.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

A cap on middle mans mark-up profit would be a good place to start.

The Greed of the middleman has all but stalled the engine of economics.

With their fancy phrase" Supply and Demand" the middle man positions himself where there is highest demand .. and holds out for highest profit.. slowing down commerce to a near halt..

We really need to address this issue at a constituional level. It effects everyone.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

This mark up on commodities - things essential for human life - is already illegal, but our laws are ignored. Matt Taibbi wrote about this in his excellent book "Griftopia."

Since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks create money "out of thin air" via fractional reserve banking and speculate on commodities to make a great profit. The purchase of commodities by "middle men" is highly regulated to ensure that only the producers and the consumers are served - but these laws are ignored.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

If you were an ambitious business owner, and ran your business to achieve its fullest potential .. great right.. you would reap increased profits in line with your ambitions.

If you were management of an equal opportunity employee owned company where all profits of the business were divided equally amongst you and everyone else .. you would still have ambition to run the company to its fullest potential.

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (4899) 1 year ago

There will be a one world government. The only question is whose one world government will it be? From the current looks of things, it will be the western banker's world government. By controling trade through corporate dominated global trade organizations and the international privatization of natural resources, governments can be coerced and manipulated into accepting a common world currency and global tax system while transforming their militaries into the militarized police forces of the global government. International wars will cease to exist only to be replaced by a global tyranny that seeks to eradicate all opposition under the label of counter-terrorism.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

You bring up a frightening scenario, but one that seems well underway

The only thing standing in their way is the people, but

If they do not mobize in time, Your prediction may well come true

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

That is what the bankers hope, and there definitely is that trend in the world today, but their also is a lot of uncertainty. The international banking system is breaking down, so there is a great potential for the bankers to lose their power as well.

It depends on who is forced into bankruptcy. If we passed Glass Steagall, we could bankrupts the bankers, and then start over with a new public banking system, to create money for economic development.

If we don't bankrupt the bankers, they will bankrupt us, by allowing the economic system to collapse, while they maintain a hold on a reduced amount of fictitious capital, which they would use to dominate us. But even if they do that, the results would be chaotic and unpredictable.

I believe a major faction of the oligarchy is even pushing for WW3, since they don't think themselves capable of keeping a hold on the system, and they see that the only way for them to save face is to ruin the world for everybody, while they try to hide in their bunkers until it is over.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

No. They may be attempting to achieve world dominance .. but we all know it will not succeed .. though that will not prevent them from not giving .. they will continue .. and the system will inevitably collapse .. In the end,their greed will bring them down.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

One world government is the phrase that is used these days to speak of "empire", as in the British empire, the Roman empire, etc. None of these entities was particularly humane, in fact, they were outright brutal to the people that they ruled over.

Your ideas are humane, and I believe, well intentioned. But the powerful people who have really tried to advance this idea in the past are individuals such as David Rockefeller, Adolph Hitler, etc. That is, they were mad men who wanted to rule the world.

In order to rule over a large area, its necessary to keep the people in a backwards state of mind, and keeping them in a permanent state of war is the way that empires have always done this historically.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Empire is the correct word.

It'd be the peace of the prison yard. We'd all be Foxxconn slaves.

Desire to follow your own interests, in your own private pursuit of happiness? Forget that, the corpoRAT efficiency principle would rule all.

ProblemSolver is either an incredible fool or an evil mouthpiece. He desires something that never has been and never will be, a world of incredible wealth/power differentials with freedom and justice for the bottom. It ain't gonna happen.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, and there probably wouldn't even be peace. There would be ample irregular wars, like in Mexico, where a drug war is raging.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Or perhaps fake internal terrorist attacks to keep the populace terrorized and begging for protection. . . . Oh, wait, that's happening now.

Further, maybe it's Occupy that would be the named enemy, the disgruntled (didn't Bloomberg say that he didn't understand what Occupy had to protest about?) and thus the terrorists.

[-] -3 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Your comparison is weak. Empires never controlled the entire planet. They were not one world governments. He's talking about a situation where everyone is under the same leadership. I don't think it's a good idea for reasons other than your bad argument, and I have stated why in another comment on this thread. Don't compare apples and oranges. It makes no sense.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

And what do you think was the objective of the empires? Wasn't it to control as much territory as possible, and, if possible, to control the whole world? Of course it was. Perhaps none succeeded in doing it, but these were people who were possessed by unbounded greed, as if they were possessed by the devil.

This class of people has existed for thousands of years, and of course it still exists today. We may not speak of empires much now, but occasionally you hear the idea of a "financial empire", that some mogul has his own financial empire. Actually there are networks of such individually owned financial empires that band together with the intention of controlling the entire world.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

And what do you think was the objective of the empires? Wasn't it to control as much territory as possible, and, if possible, to control the whole world?

That was their objective, but they did not succeed. The OP is talking about a situation where success is achieved. An empire without external countries, one which dominates the whole world, is entirely different than an empire with enemies yet to be conquered. It wouldn't be an empire in the sense of one which wants more territory, more conquests, since there would be no one left to conquer.

There are many organizations which are worldwide, international, which aren't based on evil. We could imagine a world in which there is only one government and which is a good world. There's no reason not to.

A world government could come about in a different way than conquests. It could be that every country in the world decides to work together to create a world organization which acts as a government. This is an old proposition. It has little to do with empires taking over the world by force.

Your comparison of a world government created out of unity and working together and empires taking over the world by force is flawed and essentially useless. You're a conspiracy theorist, so it's normal you would invoke Godwin's Law on your first comment in this thread. Nothing new.

As my good friend James used to say - "Back to the old drawing board."

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Even if an empire is achieved, it still has to be maintained, and empires are generally maintained by keeping their subjects in a primitive, backwards state of mind, and permanent war is a good way to do this.

Sure you could imagine a functionable one world government, but there are indeed reasons why such an organization would be unfeasible. Generally, a government is meant to represent a culture, so how is one government going to represent so many diverse cultures?

That is, unless you want to eliminate national culture, and I don't think anyone really wants to do that. We want to maintain a diversity of culture, just like we want biodiversity.

If there's going to be a "world government" it should be more along the lines that FDR visualized it, which was as a democracy of national governments.

You really need to try to rise above the name calling, it just come across as juvenile. If you disagree about my theories, that's just your opinion, nothing more, you're nothing special, and have no special credibility over the next two bit know it all.

You may wish to worship your personal opinion, but to the rest of us, you're mostly just a boor.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Even if an empire is achieved, it still has to be maintained, and empires are generally maintained by keeping their subjects in a primitive, backwards state of mind, and permanent war is a good way to do this.

"Hello, anybody home?" - The OP is not talking about an empire that mistreats it's subjects. He's talking about a world government that works together with the people. A world organization to govern which means to organize world issues. We already have organizations like the WHO, the UN, etc...

Read some philosophy. This has been discussed ad nauseam. It's nothing new at all.

I personally don't really think it could work, but not because of your bad comparison with empires.

You may wish to worship your personal opinion, but to the rest of us, you're mostly just a boor.

That's fine. People reply to my comments, so that means they read them. There's no need for you to drop ad hominem. Logical fallacies won't make your flawed comparison any better. Use real arguments if you want to get somewhere.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Regardless of what the OP has been talking about, other people have been talking about a one world government for ages along the lines of what I've been saying. He probably picked up this idea from their writings and changed it to suit himself.

You suggestions about what I should read are less than useless, because you've obviously learned nothing of value from your own readings. Your judgement of what a good or bad comparison is, is completely meaningless

People may read your comments, but they swat at pesky mosquitoes also, and that's pretty much all that you are. You learn a couple of fancy words and call that an argument. Nobody is impressed, as you have no idea of what a real argument is.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Regardless of what the OP has been talking about, other people have been talking about a one world government for ages along the lines of what I've been saying.

We don't care about what you have been saying, or what others said before. We care about what the OP is saying. We are discussing his thread.

People may read your comments, but they swat at pesky mosquitoes also, and that's pretty much all that you are. You learn a couple of fancy words and call that an argument. Nobody is impressed, as you have no idea of what a real argument is

Logical fallacy: poisoning the well, a.k.a ad hominem.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

A number of people here care about what I say, they often tell me so in their replies. Can you say the same? I think your minus 245 says it all.

There is no purpose for me to attempt to reason with you logically, since, beyond muttering a few obtuse terms, you've demonstrated no capacity to understand logical concepts.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

A number of people here care about what I say, they often tell me so in their replies. Can you say the same? I think your minus 245 says it all.

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

There is no purpose for me to attempt to reason with you logically, since, beyond muttering a few obtuse terms, you've demonstrated no capacity to understand logical concepts.

Logical fallacy: ad hominem.

Use well formed arguments instead of logical fallacies and perhaps we may get somewhere.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

What a bunch of malarkey! You said "We don't care... blah, blah, blah", which was not a logical assertion in the first place, so why would you expect me to make a logical response?

I did tell you the fact that a small group of people do care about what I say, while the majority of today's highest ranking comments are people suggesting that you go away.

Applying a label to an argument or a person has nothing to do with logic, though its your favorite strategy, its just the last resort of a desperate mind with nothing better to say.

[+] -4 points by oIdJohn (-143) 1 year ago

My argument was that we are on this page to discuss the idea of the OP, and not your idea which is different. That's why we don't care about it. It is unrelated to the post. This page is not about an empire.

The rest of your comment is just more logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

My argument is that there is no "we" here for you to talk about. That is, from what I can see, no one is on your side, so you cannot speak for anybody but yourself. This is clearly evidence by the fact that all of your posts are down voted.

And if you read through the comments here, there are, in fact, a number of people who have brought up the same idea that I mentioned, so I can logically assert that "we" do care about it.

[-] -1 points by oIdJohn (-143) 1 year ago

Figure of speech.

[+] -4 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

100 % of the world's population want peace, and you don't think it will work.. on what grounds may I ask.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

If that were true, there would not be war.

[-] -2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

But it is true , and there is war.

An angry man is capable of doing terrible things. So terrible that even he would not do if it weren't for his anger.. wars are bred on anger.. When the anger subsides , peace returns to every mans heart .. it is the natural order.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

Wars are created to enrich a few at the expense of the many and to gain power.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

..there is that.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

most people do want peace. and we must ever strive to improve our world.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Yes we must.

A World Government will be the ultimate improvement.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (14) 0 minutes ago A one World Government would solve all that. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


No.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Straight to the point no muss no fuss. Good one.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The removal of corporate entities would be a prerequisite of becoming a one World Government.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

[-] -2 points by ProblemSolver (14) 15 minutes ago With multiple governments we have wars sprouting up all over.. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


With one government you have multiple corporations at war. And plenty to be hired to do it.

[-] -2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

A one World Government would solve all that.

The removal of corporate entities would be a prerequisite of becoming a one World Government.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

How is the world to be providid with a self governing system of fairness and equity - when we, Americans, have allowed the deterioration of our own nation by the domination of powerful interests? I think we need to clean our own house.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The whole World is deteriorating by the domination of powerful interests..

To beat this, we as a world community need to beat it together.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

I think we need to control our own government before we try to control the world.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It's not about controlling the world..

It's about providing the world with a self governing system with core principles of fairness and equality.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

I cannot agree with World Government. Look at the US government and how corrupted it has become. The larger the government - the smaller the influence of a single individual. The larger the government - the easier it is for powerful elements to assert their agenda.

[-] -3 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

With multiple governments we have wars sprouting up all over..

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

I think there are too many cultures to find common solutions to all problems. We need a world organization to deal with things like pollution, endangered species, CO2, etc... This is clear. However, I have lived in many countries are there are too many issues that people don't agree on. Religions play a huge part here. Just look at the US, many people have different views. I'd love a world under the same rules where people would be free to marry who they please, where women and men would be equals, where the LGTB community could prosper, etc... etc... But many countries do not want this. Go live in Sudan for a while and you'll find out quite quickly that they don't agree with gay marriage. Hell, just go to some of the states in US.

The solution to stopping wars is simply making sure everyone in the world leads a decent life. You don't need one world government for that.

And really, I don't think you are correct when you state that - "100 % of the world's population want peace". Some want it under very strict guidelines. For example, many muslims would only want peace if everyone follows Islam. Likewise, some people would only want peace if the world treats everyone equally.

[+] -4 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

How do you ensure everyone will live a decent life if you have no power over the regulations of their economy.. A one world government would have Total control over the rules and distribution of wealth.. and if it were a fair and equal system where as you say , everyone lives a decent life.. and prosperity is achieved as a whole and divided equally.. where opportunity exists for everyone in the field of their choice.. where decisions made to prioritize lifes necessities are made by experts which are than voted upon.. where money grows on trees .. and there is enough for everyone willing to pursue opportunities.. This can be accomplished.. The religious part and the zero tolerance towards certain individual lifestyles .. IO will leave that one for you to solve.

have a nice day.

[-] -3 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

You create a world organization that takes care of economic rules that all the countries have to follow. Those rules are in place to ensure that every country has enough resources for it's citizens to lead healthy and prosperous lives.

Such an organization must be formed willingly by all the countries. Countries can't be forced to join.

Eventually, I believe a computer system much like in Asimov's last story in I, Robot will be used to allocate goods and services in an equal manner throughout the world.

[-] -2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I don't need to create the world organization , I just need to show the people how money can been grown from trees .. the people will do the rest from there .. I assure you.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Go ahead and show us. What are you waiting for?

You do realize that making more money will not change anything since it will only bring on inflation. What we need is real resources. Money is just an abstraction for those.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

First we need unlimited money , with that we can create all the jobs in the world.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I would like to continue, but we have gotten of the topic of the post, especially if I start a new thread. If you post something related to the hour coin theory of money again, I will join in there. There is lots to discuss on this.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Okay thanks.

[-] 0 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

I agree true wealth is in our resources.. and our resources are not unlimited. But the currency we use to credit our labors can certainly be with out limit. If I paid you a coin for every hour of work you perform .. I would not have a limit on how many coins .. or computer credits I can supply you .. the true limit is your performance.. with this we can pay the whole worlds population with job creation for everyone using an unlimited currency printing method.. You seem like an intelligent person, why can't you grasp this one small concept .. of unlimited ability to pay for labor.

Take an introductory course in economics at your local college.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

How many more chances would you like ..

[-] 0 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

It's a difficult one to comprehend from a limited resource where you stand. limited in imagination perhaps .. not really sure what prevents someone like yourself from discovery the undiscovered .. I can not more plainly spell this out to you.. Here try this : Imagine a world where we have an ability to pay every man woman and child to either work or educate themself.. equally without prejudice, and without limit. Now list three things wrong with this idea.

  1. It's an idea based on a falsehood, that wealth is unlimited. In truth, wealth needs to be harvested (food, energy resources, etc...) and nature (the whole universe for that matter) is not unlimited in terms of energy. Your solution is thus based on a fantasy which was concocted because the concocter doesn't understand basic concepts of wealth and physics.

  2. Because of number 1, you're idea is useless in practice.

  3. Because of number 2, you're idea is boring beyond belief.


If your idea is to invent some kind of magical fantastic universe where everything is perfect, why not break the laws at their root core? Instead of saying we suddenly have unlimited wealth, just state that we don't need wealth at all. Why pee? Why eat? Why sleep? We could construct human bodies that harvest energy from the Sun. Automatically. We could make it so that we don't need to pee or shit because our bodies could use 98% of the Sun's energy given to us and that other 2% would be lost in heat. That's a more interesting fantasy than yours.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I agree true wealth is in our resources.. and our resources are not unlimited. But the currency we use to credit our labors can certainly be with out limit. If I paid you a coin for every hour of work you perform .. I would not have a limit on how many coins .. or computer credits I can supply you .. the true limit is your performance.. with this we can pay the whole worlds population with job creation for everyone using an unlimited currency printing method..

You seem like an intelligent person, why can't you grasp this one small concept .. of unlimited ability to pay for labor.

[-] 0 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

That makes no sense. Money is just an abstraction for resources.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Exactly, but look at the current system.. 1 Billion out of work .. we could put all those people to work .. with the creation of an unlimited money system .. thats one BILLION people .. capital 'B'

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

There is no such thing, no matter what you call "money". Money requires backing or something that represents the stored value. If you make money limitless, the result is that money would then approach zero in value (re: purchasing power = 0). It is just simple math. What's next: "hour coins"?

[-] 2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

engineer4 (373) 1 hour ago

We discussed this before. But here we are. So if the brain surgeon and the ditch digger work 1 hour, then each has an hour coin? So whose hour coin is worth more? And if one is worth more than the other, then we just have created a different currency than we have and nothing more. If the brain surgeon gets more hour coins, same result.

Neither coin would be worth more. they would have equal value.

keep in mind the brain surgeon would have earned ten years of hour coins leading up to this moment.. paid education my friend.. upon proven abilityof course.. everyone will have the opportunity to pursue an education .. keep in mind we will need the ability to help guide ones career according to ones abilities/ interests .. perhaps the brain surgeon has an interest in the medical field .. perhaps the ditch digger has an interest in the outdoors.. each will be valued professions equally .. although the training won't cost the system nearly as much for the ditch digger as it would the brain surgeon.. now keep in mind the system is paying the students while they study .. and while they are studying they are being supported by the rest of society .. this is an investment by society

I welcome all friendly discussion.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

But money is valued by human effort.. an hour of work is worth an 'hour-coin' this is not baseless. and perhaps you miss the concept of limitless.

here:

The coin is limitless to print in so far as one performs an act of work.

meaning as long as you want to work we can print you a coin for every hour of your work .. this gives the meaning to its limitless.. if you stop working .. we stop printing coins.. now the product you create will have a determined value.. of the hour coins printed to produce .. the said product.. that I am sure you need no explanation .. other than to point out .. the labor of the product will be easy to determine .. but the actual material of the product must also have an added value.. that has yet to be determined/discussed.

thanks for your interest.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Exactly, but look at the current system.. 1 Billion out of work .. we could put all those people to work .. with the creation of an unlimited money system .. thats one BILLION people .. capital 'B'

Take a class in economics when you have the chance.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It's a difficult one to comprehend from a limited resource where you stand. limited in imagination perhaps .. not really sure what prevents someone like yourself from discovery the undiscovered .. I can not more plainly spell this out to you..

Here try this :

Imagine a world where we have an ability to pay every man woman and child to either work or educate themself.. equally without prejudice, and without limit.

Now list three things wrong with this idea.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I am unable to reply to your response below as we have run out of "reply" buttons. But if you say that "money is valued by our human effort", I would answer that with "if only someone desireS it". And if not, then it is worthless. Start a new thread as this one has limits for replies.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Only between governments.

[-] 1 points by WooHoo (15) 1 year ago

Was this from 'The Onion'? I can never tell.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

For those whom feel a 'One World Government' would be ruled by Tyranny or Greed , I would like to explain the fallacy in such thinking.

Tyranny will never rule the World , nor will Greed. There would would be too much rebellion. It would certainly not be be peaceful.

And the World will never be ruled by Force. This has been attempted .. and failed over and over.

The only way for a One World Government to succeed, would be with a fair and equal system .. satisfying 99% of the population.

The people would have to willingly accept such a Government/System.

The people would never willingly accept Tyranny.

A One World Government must be accepted willingly and to do so it must be fair and just for everyone. This can be accomplished.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

It may end war, but it may replace it with something much worse.........

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Consider this:

The only way a one world government would be accepted by the people without revolt , would be for that government to be fair and just. anything else would would not prevail.

So your idea of something worse is a logical fallacy.

A one world government will only take place when it is accepted with open arms by the people of the world. For that to happen it would have to have something great to offer.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Only individuals should rule themselves. No one should rule anyone but themselves.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I agree, and a one world government will have to also agree.. a dictator ship will never succeed ..

Currently we have many countries that are dictator ruled , which were taken controlled of by force. Or monarchy ruled .. which is rulership which stays in a family .. absolutely awful .. trying to discuss human rights and conditions with either of these groups must be like talking to a stone wall .. or even worse.. any one speaking against these forms of governmnents would surely be placing themselves in jeopardy.

And, we have democracy, a fairly new idea where the people actually vote on and elect the ruling government.. this somewhat is an improvement .. gives the ruling parties reason to behave appropriately and fairly with the people .. or they could be ousted in the next election .. and possibly never be reelected .. but democracy has its flaws too .. and has need of consideration.

A one world government.. how would it be run .. how would the world want to be governed .. certainly fair and equal rights for everyone.. opportunities .. and the distribution wealth which is a problem issue in all current government systems .. Yes the problem of a unfair distribution of wealth exists in all forms of current government systems .. This is something a world government would surely need to address appropriately .. and may bee the key .. the solution ..the actual reason for acceptance by the people of the world ..

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Representative democracy is flawed and antiquated. It simply is not the answer.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

..it still has potential.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Representative democracy is a utopian impossiblity. One an individual can represent themselves. How can a single person represent many people(of whom disagree) at the same time?

Representative democracy(US style) was a practical neccesity in the 18th century. Now that it is the 21st century, it is no longer necesary and actually quite old and antiquated.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I am open to suggestions..

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Collegium of the Common Law Republic. Direct government........

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Would the results be any different?

You would have uninformed representaion..

Most voters are under educated in the areas in which they vote.. at least with a representative government we would have someone whom can inform the public with all available knowledge on the subject .. being represented.

What are your thoughts on 'majority rules' ..

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Individuals would only represent themselves. Individuals would have either complete representation or no representation; based on whether they choose to participate in government or not.

Individuals should not be restricted based on thier willingness to learn, just on thier status as a living being capable of thought independent of other 'people'.

Majority rules is nothing but a dictatorship of the majority. As I have said before, consensus protects the individual from the majority and the majority from the minority.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Prior to the American Revolution, The ruler was a monarch king. no one could oppose his rule .. and no one could elect a different ruler.

Following the Declaration of Independence and the revolution .. Democracy was established, where we could now replace the king by vote , and we would use a majority vote to pick the new king / leader.. with this there was no longer absolute rule by a king.. he was not above the power of the vote. This was a huge step for mankind.

Since than Human Rights and conditions have improved immensely.. we still havee a ways to go .. and perhaps another system will be devised.. and implemented that will replace the majority rule system .. I have yet to hear of a better system .. and have tossed many ideas around in my mind.

I like your thoughts individuals representing themselves .. but many would prefer a well educated person to represent them and especially inform them of the finer intricacies of politics, which than can be directly voted upon ..

thanks for your thoughts

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

At least one person would rather do it themselves. ;)

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

What if the one world government looked something like this:

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/governance-and-politics-in-a-post-99-conglomerate-/

What I have there is just on a national level, but the same framework could be used for a one world government.

It's easy to say a one world government is a bad thing, but who says it has to have centralized power? Who says it has to look they way people assume it will. It could look like anything we can imagine... Maybe like the Venus Project? Star Trek? I personally don't imagine it as being controlled by an elite.

I don't envision a money/credit-based system, or one President "at the top". We'll look back on today and see a bunch of primitive cavemen.

[-] 2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It is good to keep an open clear mind. when searching for answers to solutions unknown.

Your conglomerate idea has a strong possibility of winning over the powerful elite .. and with that intentions speak clear and positively.

If you really want it to work and take off like wild fire .. go with my suggestion .. a 'ten-percent' store .. consumers will flock to your shop in droves .. and you will win this overnight.and even if the competiton decides to compete .. than you still win .. because the main idea is to bring profits down.. and consumer standard of living up.

best of luck. I will be standing in line when you have your grand opening.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

That's your Subsidiary! I already have mine!

Are you reading about the imaginary post-Conglomerate world I linked you to?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

well, only trying to help .. as I see it your system won't get off the ground like you hope it will .. it has too many roots in in greed.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Sounds like you're confused. But I do appreciate the comment "conglomerate idea has a strong possibility of winning", that was nice to hear. Thanks anyway!

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

was only confused by your previous statement

"Are you reading about the imaginary post-Conglomerate world I linked you to?"

.. what were you referring to by this ?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Looks like you found it. I'm still confused how you can associate the Conglomerate with greed. What roots in greed?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The Conglomerate at first will be run by entrpreneurs / middlemen.

I associate greed with middlemen.

I just can not sit at the same table with such people.

The middle man simply lacks the ability to understand or even care about fairness.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Hehe, right, you're the one who equates entrepreneurs with evil capitalists. Do you realize how many people you insult? You are calling anyone who has ever provided a service or sold their goods for a profit, you're calling them despicable pieces of shit?!

That's a pretty fuct up thing to say, I've never seen someone take that stance before.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No - it would just change the nature of war.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The 'Nature of War'.

War is a product of multiple complications within civilizations.. it is an overload mechanism triggered by an assortment of reasons.

When we have a wellfunctioning World System , run by the people with full transparency , Equality , and Fairness.. the nature of war will gasp it's last breath.. whither up , and be no more.

Make war no more.

In a society / civilization where everyone has opportunity and are assured they will recieve their fair portion of success, where the world will rise and fall with the pulse of energy .. and with each rise, with each pulse .. ever reaching a higher climax.. war will becoming a trailing thought in a forgotten memory..

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is a matter of growth/maturity in the populations of every society. The strong need to forward peace and health and prosperity to those in need. This is the only way the world will eventually co-exist in peace.

Much growth ( personal - societal ) needs to happen 1st.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

..opens the doors to possibilities.

Eliminate greed and we can achieve peace ,health, and prosperity.

A system of Equality .. will surely be welcomed by the vast majority .. of the 7 Billion people on this planet .. and the others will simply have to follow suit .. step in line and recieve their fair share .. just like everyone else .. no more gouging .. no more taking more than what is rightfully theirs.

A world with a system built on fairness and Equality will one day be the system of the world ..from there we move forward into the new world .. the new world government.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Hence - the birth of OWS and all of the Occupy groups and all other social protests/groups around the world.

End - the cult of Greed

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I claim no credit for the birth of this movement. Only thankful of its existence.. and hopeful that equality and fairness will prevail.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1548) 1 year ago

Yeah, then we will have "One World Police Action" to contend with. Anybody being disruptive, or simply an annoyance to the one in charge will get droned, nuked, or be stripped naked and get beaten by wackos with sticks and biting dogs while standing on a stool with electrodes in his ears.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

If you think one gov running the planet would stop the bombs, you are nuts. We already have one gov, for the most part, running the planet.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The closest thing we have is the united nations.. where countries have come together to discuss concerning issues .. and though not always do things get properly solved , it is a step forward ..and a sign that people do want to come together from all nations ..

[-] 0 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

the un is worthless and corrupt. its anti freedom , anti american and a complet waste of time and money.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

There may corruption , I do not deny .. but the conceptual intentions of the UN were honorable.

[-] -1 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

its one world ( fascist)govt under the guise of the un

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Wow, You give the UN way too much authority. At best, without the will of the whole security council, the UN is nothing more than a court of world opinion.

If any organizations should be deemed to be fascist organisations, it should be the IMF, WTO and the World Bank. Their influence over the world is far greater than the UN.

The UN fascist... That's funny.

[-] 3 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

And in any event the USA/corp 1% oligarchs controls all those organizations.

[-] -1 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

if you think that un being fascist is funny, you have no idea what they are about.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

The problem is getting there. That's what the 99% Conglomerate is for, yet you probably haven't signed up for it. If you don't, then throw your hopes and plans in recycler.

It's great fun picturing the ideal future, but finding a vehicle to arrive at that destination is the trick.

There's no need to get all the answers people expect you to have, like taxation, financial schemes, policies, etc. Leave that to the experts. We are visionaries, we don't have time for the work of specialists.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Democracy is our greatest strength in making change.

Ideas and visions are what we vote on .

Give the people the right idea , the right vision .. and let them decide by vote what our future will be.

I see no other way of getting there.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Twinkle that. First we need democracy though.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Would all people in all countries have the same Social Safety Net, the same Rights, the Same tax Rates, the same Import & Export Duties, ... would they all hve the same cost for gasoline, water, Energy, Electricity, and food. I kind of doubt it. Shipping costs are different. In fact shipping in Alaksa is very high Cost compared to the rest of the USA.

And we have the most expensive Government in the world in the USA. And we have the most expensive health care, hospital costs, medication costs, ... college and universtiy tuition costs. If most things were the same in all countreis ... we would be better off getting education and Health Care in a Foreign Country. We might be better off living in a foregin country if we could get social security and earn US Social Security in another country. Mexico has an agreement with the USA to honor each others Social Security Benefits.

But if the USA is a model for a One World Government Who will pay off our federal budget expenses? Europe is entering a deeper Recession this week & Unemployment in Europe is projected to go higher, Debt in Europe is over the Top. USA has Debt Problem and Retirement/Pension Problems. Third World Countries can't afford the kind of cost we have in the USA for Social Security and Medicare. They can't afford our Defense Budget.

Defense Vendor Payments 1998 = $95.6 Billion
Defense Vendor Payments 2011 = $394 Billion

DOD Federal Outlays 1998 = $256 Billion
DOD Federal Outlays 2011 = $680 Billion

Department of Education outlays 1998 = $43.7 Billion
Department of Education outlays 2011 = $245.6 Billion (500% increase)

Federal Highway Administration 1998 = $19 Billion
Federal Highway Administration 2011 = $44.8 Billion

Health and Human Services Grants (misc) 1998 = $37.7 Billion
Health and Human Services Grants (misc) 2011 = $101.9 Billion
Food and Nutrition Service (misc) 1998 = $ 13.7 Billion
Food and Nutrition Service (misc) 2011 = $ 95.7 Billion
Supple. Nutrition Assist. Program (SNAP) 1998 = $20 Billion
Supple. Nutrition Assist. Program (SNAP) 2011 = $77.6 Billion
Total Food and Nutrician Services 1998 = $33 Billion
Total Food and Nutrician Services 2011 = $102 Billion

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 1998 = $13 Billion
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 2011 = $18.9 Billion
Total Administration for Children and Families (HHS) 1998 = $32.5 Billion
Total Administration for Children and Families (HHS) 2011 = $54 Billion

Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1998 = $23.4 Billion
Unemployment Insurance Benefits 2011 = $117 Billion

Medicare 1998 = $210 Billion
Medicare 2011 = $552 Billion (no price controls)
Medicaid 1998 = $ 100 Billion
Medicaid 2011 = $ 269 Billion
Total Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services 1998 = $380 Billion
Total Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services 2011 = $1.095 Trillion

Federal Salaries (EFT) 1998 = $87.5 Billion
Federal Salaries (EFT) 2011 = $178.4 Billion

https://www.fms.treas.gov/index.html

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Think of it like this.. each country becomes a State. As in United States, the individual States do not declare war on other states , because of the overseeing federal government. A world Government would oversee all the Countries in the world(planet Earth) ..for now..

Of course to reach such a 'World Government' would require each country to agree to an overseeing World Government.

..and questions like you raise would come up .. plus a few more surely.

The one possible way to achieve a World Government would be in the case of preventing a third world war. A solution of economic prosperity for all.

Currently the World is on a slow downward economic spiral .. everyone is deeply in debt.. without a possible chance of recovery using current practices.. It's been a runaway train for a number of years .. decades .. and about to hit the wall .. run aground .. off the tracks.. there will be a big mess .. total economic colapse.. like never seen.. War wiil be on the minds of our leaders ..in all nations .. survival will be top priority. What we see today will be considered petty arguements at would could come in the future.. all out full scale War.. Right now the wars being fought are against underachieved nations.. wait till the big players step in ..

So.. should we be considering a contingency plan ? .. should we be considering .. an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure .. if a full scale war breaks out .. it won't end until all sides have exhausted their arsenal..do we want that .. I certainly do not. and I see no reason to go to war over a failed set of economic policies .. policies which were made by man can be changed / or repaired by mankind .. policies that work .. for everyone .. not just those who have used secrecy to obtain and control the masses .. That system is coming to an end.. We now have ..full scale world wide communication .. things can no longer be conducted in secrecy and expected to survive the interogation of the people .. Future policies will be conducted with FULL transparency. ..and all the questions you ask .. will not be swept under the rug .. they are serious honest questions .. that will need serious solutions.. solutions that are most certainly achievable.

thanks for your comment.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

There are a couple of directions that this post could take:

1) design model of government for third world or other ailing 1st world countries.
2) Explain how IMF and WB and Central banks are not needed in a One World Governement. (why pay interest to banks or pay central banks for interest or obligations from central banks?)
3) Explain how Defense Spending is un-need that way we see it today. The USA is basically at $700 Billion dollars today from a 1998 DOD budget of like $256 Billion Dollars. (at least Double due to a war on Terror, completely over the top increase in spending)
4) Explain how if we stripped the Wealthy of their financial network, financial investment opporutities in the USA & Europe ... they would be marginalized, they would be pushed aside, they would retreat to their compounds like in Paraguay or the Caymans or where ever.
5) Explain how the Wealthy can leave our country. We don't need the rich. The wealthy can leave and we have the ability to create money under our Fiat Currency System. We, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the US Banks create money ... but we don't need greedy corporations blackmailing the state, local, and national governments ... for tax rebates ... for tax loopholes ... for GDP transactions ... for Financial Schemes that make our GDP look like it is growing, ... for Financial Transactions that appear to increase GDP, but which don't.

You can do better to lay out your One World Government. What is you Model? DO you have a Model? Have you done some piece of work in taxes, banking, Fiat Currency, Financial Schemes, Defense Spending, Congressional Gifts, campaign contributions, or receipt of lobby dollars ....?

6) not only does MMT Economic policy say we can increase money supply as population increases, and that we can stimulate or maintain the money supply and money velocity ... to avoid a recession or derpession ... but we can kick out the wealthy, we can stimulate our economy without the stingy bastards that hold back the dollars from new loans, new small business loans, ... just like in the depression ... these bankers ...or investors hold back from investments in the economy and in our small businesses. We don't need them. The government can invest in R&D in critical areas ... waste management, waste disposal, agriculture technology, green house technology, hydroponics, ... alternative energy ... recycling ... farm laboratories ... many many things.

7) There is a conclusion out there about the lack of patriotism of our Wealthy. They don't want to invest in the USA ... not in small businesses ...and small businesses are the core of the USA ... It is more like they deliberately want to scuttle the USA. They don't want to pay taxes, they don't wnat to contribute in the USA, they feel independent, they feel detachted, they feel they should not be paying tax or teaching the people... they feel they are justified to hold back info, hold back history, hold back business practices, hold back science & technology. Information increases competition against their corporation and against their networks. Competition is no good. Competition in Politics is no good. Control of Info is strength.

8) Control of the Governement and the Information and competing businesses is a requirement of big US Business today. yes, this includes control of Industries of all kinds, promoting Oil, Mining, Media, agriculture, Big Pharmacy, health Care... reduce competition. Drive the competiton out of business. Regulate the competiton. Control Congress. Prevent ABSCAN. Prevent a new S&L Scandal. Prevent a new Keating Five. Take advantage of Campaign Finance Reform with PACs and 501(c) organizations.... Recruit government employees that are regulators. Regulatory capture. Reveolving doors of industry and government through recruiting government employees.

The US Cartels have control through US Government Congressmen, through US banks, and focus on US and Global Corporations that make the most money in the world in mining, oil, agriculture, pharmacies, defense industries, manufacturing ... ect.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Well first of all, private enterprise will be abolished.

Money is an infinite resource .. money is a number. We can create an infinite amount of money ..

Our true resources are our People , and our labour force .. this is a finite resource . plus Earths natural environment, this is also finite.

Most of what you mention is the result of a limited designed system. A system that leaves control to those whom have the money .. and money in this system is a limited resource. Which is the failure of the current system.

We can and will build a new system. Filled with opportunity , growth and potential.. limited only by the success of our labours and the finite of our natural resources .. We can build a World that is strong, sustainable.. where everyone reaps the benefits of success or failure , whatever the case may be.. though success is most probable and likely.

This is a huge out of the box step for mankind.. one I believe many are willing to take.

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

Money represents human labor. It can be printed endlessly but it's total value can never exceed the labor it represents.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I believe the term is 'intrinsic value'.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

You are not that much out of the Box. From what I know of Modern Monetary Theory they believe we can increase the money supply in a way where everyone has some. Infation is still targeted for managment. But money supply needs to be high enough that it flows through the economy and benefits everyone.

So in a way I agree that US Leaders think in limited ways. The bankers promote the idea that we have to have this structure of money where banks get paid interest by everyone including the government ... but banks are just creating money out of thin air because the government has authorized them to.

A better idea is Treasury based banks, treasury based small business loans, treasury based education loans, treasury based Credit Cards, and Treasury based Interest Rates for Individual Savings Accounts at a minimum of 5% for people only (no corporations)

Your Model should have some goals

1) 5% Savings Interest Rates for People to encourage saving and help with retirements
2) Low Interest Rate Mortgage Loans, Fixed Rate for people not corporations
3) 0% -1% Interest Rate on Education Loans, since Investment in our people and our young people is part of the safety net that lowers crime and poverty
4) 4%-6% Interest Rate on Auto Loans, since purchase of manufactured goods helps the economy
5) R&D Investment in Alternative Energy, for laboratories, for K-12 schools, $2 billion to start
6) R&D Investments in K-12 school contests for clean energy, organic farming, hydroponic projects, fish farming, recycling, waste managment, $1 Billion to start
7) R&D Investment in Solar and Wind energy Plants as Government utilities in all 50 States ... the goal to replace our current Coal Energy Plants, provide sustainable energy Industry, reduce coal and fossil fuel polutions, reduce dependence on fossil fuel, establish clean cites or compound facilties, establish clean practicies, establish US based resources, manufactures, and workforce in the USA to source all work on Clean Solar and Clean Turbine Energy Production.

Well you should have plenty of your own Ideas...

You haven't really laid out a Model yet? What is your Model?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The Basics:

  • as mentioned , abolish private enterprise.
  • all investment is made by the world government.
  • private investors no longer required.
  • all labor and education paid equally . An hours work/education for an hours pay.
  • money for all labor and education will be credited out of thin air .
  • when money is used by participant it will than be removed from credit.
  • decisions will be discussed and debated by experts with full transparency, followed by a deciding peoples vote.
  • priorities will decided in the same fashion.
  • Total equality.
  • Let the chips fall where they may.
[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Sounds like you need an economist, someone with banking experience, and some experts that ran a Third Party Presidential Run to form a team. I think you will develope a little more after you get a team. Personally I don't have the experience you need.

I haev seen a whole list of people in the third partys listed in Wikipedia ... should be easy for you to find political people.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Actually , I just need a pen and paper , or someone to volunteer with good writing skills.

I just posed this question below:

Question:

  • A - you are in charge

  • B you have access to an unlimited supply of money.

  • 7 billion people

What would you do ?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Honestly it is a good question, but I might answer differently on different days. You are asking for Leadership, tough action, keen insight, experience with Interest groups, and someone with very good knowledge of history and Power with a caplital P.

I sense there are people here that want good things for everyone, but that they are mostly emotion when it comes to issues.

I shouldn't talk since I am a bit of a late bloomer, who didn't start with good education or understanding of the current political or economic system ... I'm still pulled in many directions on issues.

A) Stop congress from receiving gifts valued over a dollar from people and outlaw PACs, 501(c), and corporate contributions, Lobbyies and gifts (everything is a gift).
2) Nationalize Media time for all political candidates on TV, Cable, and radio... equal time for all candidates, like 15 minutes spots which forces them to say what their plan is, require them to report their position, force them to publish a plan, and force them to publish position papers every quarter to their constituents.
3) Reform Taxes to only 6 tax credits for person or corporation, mortgage interest up to like $100K, health care Insurance, health care expense, deductions for dependents, deductions for Charities up to $100K, encourge savings and retirement savings like in IRA.
4) Savings Interest Rate for people at 5%.
5) Free or 1% Loans on Tuition to encourage education
6) Free College for 2 years.
7) cut Defense down to $400 Billion
8) banks become utities under the Treasury.
9) No more Private banking all banking and financial Instruments are regulated and registered so that national risk can be recognized.
10) Government Employees are given Lifetime employment and prevented from taking jobs with the people they regulate or the industry they regulate.
11) End the Central bank by creating regional banks that can provide cash if there is a bank run, and other fuctions of Central Bank go to Treasury which is prohibited from hiring bankers, and employees can't go to work for Banks, Treasury creates money and provides to federal government without interest.
12) End Foregin Occupation, Foreign wars, and Limit foreign bases to small airports and small camps in maximum of 30 countries with only 300 vehicles maximum total. Vacate Germany, South Korea, Japan, Spain, Italy, and WWII era bases other than 2 maximum camps with 300 vehicles.
13) Legalize Hemp & Marijuana, treat drug possession as an illness, don't send people to jail for drug possession, community programs to help feed and house and bring families together ... to draw people together rather than criminalized them, force them into crime to earn money and get an apartment.
14) Get people out of the Rent Seeking jobs like Financial Managment, Lobbying, Tax Accounting, Tax Sheltering, Career Politics, ...
15) Break up Corporations based on Market Share, international market Share, and Total Capitalization ... Anti-Trust Law is applied. Probably need committees to look at how big is defined as too big. Telecoms can be broken down to 700 mile or regional area. Defense Contractors have to be broken down differently. Media might compete better with more channels or just more brands, but the problem is they cover the whole country, have few reporters, and are top heavy with huge revenue and huge executive pay. The FTC was Created to Break up monopolies, so they can figure this out.
16) There has to be a kind of Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) provision the creates transparency in government, allows auditing of government, and limits the Secrets kept by government people and government agencies. Maybe hold back pay checks for everyone from clerks to the President himself if they don't comply with requests for info as least 80% compliance with details and documents.
17) Political Reform & Election Reform also demand national referendums be held every year to tell politicians what we want ... this has to be a series of events to actually get the important issues on the Vote.
18) Corporations are not People, Money is not a Vote or free speach.
19) All of this could be done by Amendements to the Constitution, but so far looks like congress will block any change at all.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It was an 'out of the box' type question. Designed specifically to open the mind and explore possibilities. 'shoot for the stars opportunity'

I see todays current problems stemming from a restriction of monetary currency.

We have many job creation projects on the list .. we have plenty of qualified people and others willing to take up the challenge .. but, the funding is simply not there.

The tax collection -budget system is a complete failure .. and is holding progress back.

To free up the budget and implement an unlimited 'pay-as you work' system would certainly change the dynamics of the economy.

That being said , checks and balances will be required.. Inflation comes first to mind. If we simply print money as we need , the world you soon fill up with money devaluing all .So to prevent this .. I have proposed a elimination of money during the spending process .. instead of a tax system .. money will be expired when spent.

A dollar earned, a dollar spent, a dollar expired. completely eliminates inflation.

The other cause of inflation would be low production .. poor efficiency.. as is today , a poorly run inefficient business has high expense and low return. This would be shared by the entire community.. all success and failure will be placed on the price of the product.. A highly efficient run system will produce well creaitng low consumer costs .. a poorly run system will will leave a smaller share of goods to be divided among the people.

Effiency would be everyone's goal , as everyone would reap the reward of success . Media would be right on top of innefficiently run areas of public concern .. as sloppiness is a form of ineffiency.

College and all education would add to the over all world production and greatly encouraged through not just free tuition, but paid student wages for their hard work and effort in the studies of their pursuit.

Remember this is a world system wanting to be accepted by the vast majority , at least in it's early days ..

Certain items are your list would not pertain to a new system of unlimited monetary spending.. of course this is at a public level. where every individual will have the limit of his or her own earnings. But the Officials in charge of job creation projects would have an unlimited budget for all salaries. Everyone gets a job..

Delegation , prioritizing of resource allocation will be where most scrutiny will be focused.. We have to keep the machine running and well oiled.

What could we do with Full Resources at our disposal , including all the planet has to offer ? What world could mankind build for themselves when efficiency and imagination are unleashed together.. to build the best civilization man has ever known.

It is a possible dream.

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Prioritize! What to do when in charge is not answered specifically due to the people making decisions about how to proceed. Though some things must be concrete to enable a base that ensures everything unfolds through democratic process. I prefer things stated in what to do's rather than not do and that is in all communication. Every statement can be composed as such though sometimes it is greater challenge than others and this may be one of those. Close the current place operating this mess, absolute corruption requires this to happen. Once absolute is used in scale of determination there is no sorting what is good or corrupt it all must be wiped out in order to begin. Some parts/peoples that were good within that left behind can transfer. The choice to do good and cause no harm and allowing all people the same is all the actual government necessary. Humanity has the capacity to co-exist as worldwide community. War and money feed greed and it is about to lay it's ugly head down for eternal rest or it eat itself alive so as not to eat us any longer. People will have security knowing that all is well and shall continue to be. Basic needs are the priority and with resources whatever they are determined to become shall be plentiful enough to provide for everyone as long as they live. Once all people have food, shelter and clothing we can begin the healing. Everyone has the ability to be productive members of Earth. At all times since our beginning the population has within it the number of people gifted for certain work/trades/jobs to take care of all without shortage of work. The level of abuse currently we face could possibly require extra care and time in this area because many have become so f-ed up in our society. If all needs are cared for people need not save/hoard/take for their future and all that follow is secure. This may sound as if difficult and is actually quite simple and this is why: When the ill things are no longer weighing upon us relief is immense. A deep breath as the world has never known. A collective response that eternally echoes through all levels of emotions caused by harmful tolerance will bring joy enough to try all things new and happiness in life seeing everyone do the same. The creative burst of possibility shall last many generations and keep everyone busy. There is much to be done on all fronts with constructive regeneration. The change toward renewable everything excites a spark of working together as we race to accomplish the space between our actual capabilities with current position. I know in 1975 we were prepared to go solar as in research etc. so that is over 30 years to make good of intention. Well this is a start as to what is when Good is in charge all things become possible and everyone has a place in making it so! As it shall be for across time and space it already is... I am WE...ALL ONE In solidarity Worldwide FREEDOM...

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Very POSITIVE, thank you.

You have touched on so many important aspects of what change can bring.. one of those being the enlightened feeling of a promising tomorrow .. with having a great system that ensures we will be fine and our efforts will be rewarded , we can take a breath and find comfort in a sytem that has only good intentions .. and that we are all in this together .. we are one we are all. We share the success we share the failure.. with this we will all protect our future.

[-] -1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

In planning for sharing failure the need for protection. Goodness need no protection and "system" has taken all the abuse can withstand and shall be also laid to rest along with every other word attached to the ideals that have taken innocent lives in the name of this country. I for one will be holding my breath before relaxing in any plans for a new system.to love one another and let things take care of themselves. Accept others allowing them to do as they so choose. No harm intended none done. Kindness is the same as a system and far more simple. Thank you for your kind thoughts and efforts much appreciated.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Often our actions represent whats in our heart. Therefore we need to get our hearts in the right place. In having a system where everyone shares the benefits of success gives people a place to put their hearts, and incentive to protect our future. When I refer to protect it is the actions people will voluntarily take to care for and ensure a successful outcome. Currently for example, the Elite are sheltered from global warming therefore have no consideration towards cause nor effect.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

A one world federation first utopia now he gives us Star trek without the without the spach ships.Keep blasting those thrusters scotty.And don't forget to kettle all resisters.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Please beam us up to your perfected uno goverment.Each country bacomes a state? Thought each country was a state.Oh did you mean like the USA.We could have a whole word of Repubs and Dems.Won't that be fun.We will all be on the bum.The world is in a slow economic spiral?News flash most of the world lives in poverty and your goverments do nothing."If a full scale war breaks out"Now what are the chances of that ?

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

I thought you were to busy selling your prozac paradise to be concerned. Nothing like a one world big brother.

Someone to make us all safe.

Just like the sheep in little Bo peep

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Well than you must apologize to all the people here on this forum.You must make amends and go to a reeducation camp. Sell all that you have and devote yourself to improvment.There is no other way or you will be the same old false visionary.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Dr. Jones will be there shortly to assist.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by conservatroll (117) 1 year ago

Oh boy, Let's Occupy the World!!! What a stupid post. I only bump it because the first 2 replies are well thought out rebuttals.

[-] 0 points by TheBlackSun (-32) 1 year ago

Yeah big buddy!! If only more people around the world would believe it!

[-] 0 points by martino2010 (0) 1 year ago

Will it have a 'REAL" Bill of Rights? Do we lose local control of local matters? Will our tax money go to a World Bank and our thoughts about spending those monies not be even heard?

This is what the UN Agenda 21, supported by the elite want for us!

I vote NO

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

For starters, there will be no tax.. I already have that problem solved with an unlimited currency used publicly for all education and laborforce . it's a little tricky to grasp .. you need to suspend at least three ideas in your mind to grasp the thought itself.. but for the decision making.. so far the best alternative is to have expert educated discussions and debates .. with full public transparency and explanation on all recommended decisions ..weighing out all known pros and cons.. and from there .. letting the public have their say in the best course of action .. at some point a decision has to be made to move forward .. and a step will be taken . careful in all consideration. Mostly the concern is for public and environment well being.

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

Government is best which governs least and nearest.

Why would anyone possibly wish to be governed by a handful of individuals more distant and with less knowledge of your area's problems and needs than we already have in Washington D.C.?

The United States has grown too large and unwieldy. It should be broken up like any other over grown monopoly.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

If you break up into little pieces you become vulnerable.

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

Vulnerable to larger monopolies.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

There is a sense of security that comes with a well functioning system of society.

If we lived in that civilzation right now , today, we would not be thinking of abandoning it .. we would instead be thinking of strengthening it .. maintaing it .. pouring our very lives into it ..

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

A well functioning system of society doesn't need to be large. Iceland was able to throw off the austerity that was forced on them, but the much larger U.S. could not.

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

I had asked what your thoughts were on preparing for ART 5, by making amendments which render the nation more capable of knowing constitutional intent, here.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/keep-searching-for-ways-to-screw-the-corrupt-syste/#comment-930835

And here is where a major right wing coalition is being challenged with expressing their opinion on preparation for ART 5. I think its great! Put some pressure on them.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/975/440/does-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

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

Thought I was clear that more amendments are not necessary, but more political involvement and understanding. Any law is only as powerful as the people who stand behind it, and the present electorate are laying down in a media induced coma.

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

Preparatory amendment only makes the nation constitutional enough to know constitutional intent.

The first preparation is to end the abridging of free speech. That will do HUGE things for "political involvement" because of the amount of "understanding" that will be created.

Ending the abridging of free speech will reduce media to the corruptive, de evolutionary even it really is. Media will change. Abridging of the freedom of the press by corporate money will be ended.

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

How will the abridging of free speech be ended?

[-] 2 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

The proponents of preparatory amendment have a draft of a revision of the 1st amendment. The implementation and enforcement would be on a state level. Media corporations would be forced to provide prime-time national productions of limited length WHEN it is shown that the info is valid and relevant to increasing the level of constitutional intent in the people via democracy and that no equivilent is readily available.

The corporations corporate status in the state is revoked IF they do not comply. The implementation uses a petition on a state level with a required number of signatories which also must reasonably explain why they support the information, why its constitutional for the masses, under the 1st amendment.

PROP. REV. Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

EXISTING: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In order to conduct ART5, America needs to have more free speech and define constitutional intent. Erring on the side of more IS constitutional.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

what in 10 words ?

[-] 5 points by childseyes (85) 1 year ago

Brings back the usenet and gets public access to the main commercial networks.

Oops, 13 words.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

good idea

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 10 months ago

Congress refuses to count applications for Article V? Just learned this by reading at articlev.org. This forum does have some common sense stuff, or links to it.

Apparently, no one, no law; nothing ever told the clerk of congress to count applications for an Article V.

https://www.change.org/petitions/my-state-counts?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_message_notice

Looks like the biggest due process violation in the history of the nation, done specifically to deprive America of its first right. Can anyone notice?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Ban Censorship ?

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

What about a no goverment world.

There would be no countrys to invade and no militarys to do so with.

We would belong to each other and therfore not have to steal natural resources,they would belong to all of us.

We would not drop bombs on our cities because they belong to all of us and again no need for a military .

My friends this is the solution.

A no goverment world.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I almost have to agree with Problem solver and say a world without government just seems utopianistic. Say we did get rid of all gov't, wouldn't new organizations sprout up in their absents? And wouldn't those organizations vie for power over each other? I am not proposing a world government I believe that is just as utopianistic as the other extreme, but I find a world with no government, well, for lack of a better word, silly.

[-] -1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

I would find it a better alternative than a one world dictatorship.I see no reason why people can not have and make rules.Independant to an authoritan model.I find his suggestion of a one world goverment/new world order the final enslavement of mankind.Not an end to war/not an end to corporate polution,only an end to humanitys ability to live a life of peace.We do have the ability to live without rulers.We do not have the ability to live without rules.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

A one world government would not be a dictatorship. That would be impossible.. the people would surely revolt ..

On the other hand, a one world government would only be accepted if it did in fact provide freedom and equality for everyone.. and in doing so wars would end .. there would be peace.

nobnot , you oppose an idea that you do not fully understand , or rather misunderstand.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Explain? Do you mean Gay as in happy,or do you mean Gay as in homosexual.And please state how you came to your conclusion.If not, we will all understand that you are a turd!

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

I see freedom and equality.With your idea I see enslavement.I also see a very foolish person.No one said that there would be no rules.People do have the ability to make rules,People also have the ability to govern themselves without having an ever present overloard.In fact what we are seeing going on today is just the start of this model.Where as yours offer s nothing but the same old same old.Dictatorship,Phoney two party coke pepsie choices.People are capable of living without your one world/new world order.You vision is like the line in an old who song.Meet the new boss/Just like the old boss.Try to think things through so as not to make such an ass of your self.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Sounds to me you are the worm that wiggles.But in this world of corporate facist it is a common event.A shallow rebutal that is easy to expose as the workings of short sighted troll.Oh and Im not leaving problem maker.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Go live in your ' no world government'

[-] -1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

If there was a one world goverment wars would exist on every inch of the planet.

We would have the tyranny of an absolute Corporate dictatorship.

All nations and countries would be occupied by an armed security force.(see N.Y.P.D)

We would all be slaves of the few.

We would drop bombs on any city that resisted an authoritan rule.

Wars would never end.

This. my comrads is an idea whose time will never come.

Brought to you by sponsers of no world goverment.

[-] -1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 1 year ago

hahahaha you are a fool if you believe that. then the government would covertly instigate insurrection in order to have an excuse to engage in war. cant you see that right in front of your face?

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

So than you would prevent all attempts at a peaceful solution .. what does that make you.

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 months ago

that doesnt make me anything except aware of the truth. you are dealing with humans, greedy, self serving, and as far as this subject is concerned in complete disregard for all other humans that do not serve thier immediate needs.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 12 months ago

Is that truly what is in your heart, what of yourself, do you fall in this same category as you depict all other humans ?

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 months ago

no,, but then my goal in life is not a mansion and a ferrari and a kid in oxford. those in power on the other hand , these are not 'goals' they are necessities, the way a clean shirt is a necessity for me , well worth the death and destruction of the 'unworthy' if thats whats needed to make it happen for them.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Don't be foolish.

How do we get a one world government? MASSIVE ALL OUT WORLD WAR. That is the only way a one world government would ever happen.

[-] -2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I thought you wanted wars to end .. ?!?

100% of the worlds population want Peace.

It really shouldn't be so difficult.

We simply need to look at what's been causing the wars.. which I know you don't like to look at that aspect.. but it is necessary .. trust me. :-)

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

you're suggestion is to have global war to end war. That is ignorant.

No country would willingly give up their sovereign status to another.

Greed, hate, ignorance, and racism are a few of the leading causes of war.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

No trevor, I have nowhere suggested a global war.

and the groups you state are all minorities.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You can't have a one world government without world war. End of story. It will never happen any other way.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I hope you are wrong.

[-] -1 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

100% of the worlds population wants peace? you've spoken to everyone on the planet? agenda 21 is one world govt. not thanks. its really one world fascism.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I know what is in every mans heart.. for I too am a man with a heart. and I know what everyman is capable of. For I too am capable as any man.

[-] -2 points by BlueMonday (-154) 1 year ago

how do you what is in every persons heart?

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

We already have a world agreement relating to environmental issues. They are basically, respect for ideals. If such is true, then each nation is already governed by common sense. They would agree that war is against environmental interest.

The problem is media not allowing the truths people need.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The old way of thinking .. the old policies that were not working .. are breaking up .. and falling apart..

great comment.. you provide a ray of sunshine .. like a smile of hope

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Understanding enables functional perspective. The purpose of free speech is that people understand what they need to for survival and evolution.

Focused perspective on this by a movement ready to make media (and courts) accountable, along with soldiers, will protect our futures hugely. I posted about this here.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/aint-privitization-the-goal-of-all-good-republicla/#comment-933962

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I went over and read your comment.. interesting dilemna.

The soldiers Commander and Chief , is also the President. The President by oath is sworn to protect the Constituion.

I wonder where the President stands on anARticleV convention ?

Honestly though .. that is way out of my league.

But the focus you mention on clearly defining the enemy surely rings a true note.

Thanks again.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

You are welcome! Imagine if 10 soldiers on the same base filed that inquiry and occupy was outside the gate solemnly demanding command follow their oath.

If media ignored it, do you think that would be grounds for charges of concealing treason?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I don't see how wanting to improve the system would be considered treason. Rooting out corruption is not treason. An Article V convention is certainly not trerason .

Concealing treason..., the media is guilty of many concealments of the truth.. if by doing so is considered aiding and abetting than they real need to reconsider their stance and come forthright clean. Although , not sure where Congress's refusal of an Article V could be considered treason .. perhaps it would a decision of the supreme court to decide who has the authority over who. Refering to your comment about the early 1900's where an actual 2/3 voted for an Article V and none was held.. Who's decision was it to decline the convention .. again .. above my payscale .. Dsamms , a commenter on this Forum would be someone you would like to discuss this with.. bensdad would be another .. if you can get past his bias on the issue..

well have a nice day

[-] -2 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

No more wars of invasion or conquest; just wars of rebellion and suppression.

[-] -1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Would you support equal pay ?

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

If equal pay means equal pay for the same job, with an equally qualified man and women, then sure.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

equal pay means equal pay across the board .. if we both work ten hours per day we both get paid equal pay. period. for every man woman or child.. an hour of time is no longer or shorter for anyone else .. qualified , educated ,, young or old.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Ah man! And I thought that we agreed on something, There has to be an incentive to learn the trade, earn the degree, go through the sweat to learn skills needed. Seniority is also an issue regarding pay; at least with regards to experience.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Sorry, anyone using money as incentive is not choosing the career they love. Besides it would be discrimination to pay one person greater pay than another . I could get into a lot of trouble for that.

[-] 0 points by Nader (74) 1 year ago

I think most people need to balance enjoyment and earning potential when choosing a career. Do you really think there are people that love pumping shit out of portable toilets into their truck and then driving somewhere and pumping it out? Or do you think they like making almost six figures?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

That is a good arguement .. one in which I have tossed over in my mind several times.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

No, there would be people who disagree with how things are run and the world nation would shatter into smaller ones. Large empires always over-extend themselves after a point, then they break into tiny bits. The number of countries keeps multiplying. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible Belt eventually formed it's own country.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

With a World Government people would be fre to explore the mysteries of the Universe. and encouraged to do so.. Surely there is more to life than our mortal existence.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

You're talking nonsense. Stop reading utopian novels.

We are already free to explore the mysteries of the universe. There are scientists doing it every day. Study science, and you'll be able to do it too. I don't see what politics has to do with exploring the universe.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Slow down .. you brought up the bible belt.. I was merely acknowledging it's existense and not planning to abolish exploration. of its type. that was all.

As for the the larger empires breaking up into tiny bits .. we really only have a history to compare to .. not the future.. or the present.. With todays communication and the worlds advancement in technology, science, medicine, literature .. you name it .. electricity .. running water .. think of this , people today are spoiled from such an easy life we lived in the past century .. and we surely do not want to destroy our comforts but would rather improve upon them. Given the opportunity the vast majority of the worlds population would opt for peace .. peace and comfort.. Do you want war .. ? not likely .. not in your own front yard ..living in horror and fear .. there have been plenty of wars .. still many today lingering on .. ask any soldier if they would vote for a one world government to end all wars .. I can most assuredly think the vast majority of soldiers would like to see an end to the nonsense of War. It's really not so such utopian , it's a reality of what people want.just haven't completely been able to achieve it .. not in the past anyway .. Internet, Global media .. is what makes the present different from all the past ... this simple device of communication worldwide will create a new world culture of honesty and openess. for nothing will be left undiscussed.. all stones will be turned over.. every creepy little critter lurking behind secrecy will be found out.. flushed out.. and this will grow upon itself , it will escalate and overcome the whole world .

At which point we will need to be prepared to move forward with a new world government.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

think of this , people today are spoiled from such an easy life we lived in the past century .. and we surely do not want to destroy our comforts but would rather improve upon them.

Not all people. One billion people live in near absolute poverty.

Do you want war .. ? not likely .. not in your own front yard

I don't, but I come from a country that has pampered me. Some people who live in dire circumstances will fight for better lives. We saw that in the Arab Springs. Some people burned themselves alive because they were being mistreated.


We don't need a world government to achieve a world where everyone leads a decent lives. That can be done in a world where there are many governments, they just have to cooperate.

I think you see a problem, but you found the wrong solution. It's not the plurality of governments that cause harm in the world. It's the clash of cultures, religion, and greed for money and land. You should find solutions to those problems, a one world government isn't it. The problem is much more economical than political. Big businesses are ravishing the world, not political figures (although they play a role as enablers).

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

People living in poverty do not want war .. people burning themselves do not want war neither..

A one world government will only be achieved by the offer of an economic system that works on equality and fairness. This will be accepted with open arms by the vast majority.. which is where our good friend democracy rules will swing it the rest of the way.. and before you can say two spoonfuls of soda.. the whole world will be humming with laughter and joy.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

You drown your idea in a heavy coat of utopian sugar.

There is always a gap between theory and practice. It's very easy to say things will be this way or another, but it doesn't mean it will.

Occupy itself was not able to work as a team, what makes you think the whole world will?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It is even easier to say it will fail ..without looking into the deep philosophical aspects of the entire idea ..

Occupy did not have a leader.. but the interest in a better world was shown to exist by the original interest of people .. and that interest in a better world has not gone away .. it will never go away do you think people have decided they do not want equality , or fairness .. and that is why occupy has dwindled..?

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Sure people want that, but what does that have to do with one world government. You haven't showed why such a solution would grant us that.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

one world government will only be accepted if it does in fact provide equality and fairness .. and with a one world government there will be an end to war.. it just keeps getting better ..I know !

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Eating toasts spread with utopia for breakfast is unhealthy.

How could you prove that a one world government would provide equality and fairness before it's put into practice? And, how can you put it into practice if people must accept that it will provide equality and fairness without actually having proof that it will?

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Question:

  • A - you are in charge
  • B you have access to an unlimited supply of money.
  • 7 billion people

What would you do ?

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

I would cut down the money supply until it matched resources. Otherwise, it would create a complicated problem of inflation.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Okay,

the money supply will be cut down in a ' dollar for dollar' fashion.

Every dollar spent by the private individual will be removed from circulation .. for a lack of better explanation. If the system autogenrates you your paycheck .. for say building a automobile. The automobile you build than belongs to the system and is valud at the cost to produce. You than turn around and buy an automobile from the system . The money you sppend on the purchase of the automobile simply gets removed from your account.. the system doesn't need it .. it just becomes removed from public circulation and .. in doing so inflation never gets a chance to develop ..

A dollar earned - a dollar spent- a dollar removed .. it's in and out .. what is in circulation is money that has not yet been spent .

Such a simple concept .. but a very very important life altering world changing concept .. We could do great things with an unlimited currency such as this .. for one , the tax collection - budget system would be completely wiped out .. the system does not need taxes .. it creates money as needed .. as earned.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

We discussed this before. But here we are. So if the brain surgeon and the ditch digger work 1 hour, then each has an hour coin? So whose hour coin is worth more? And if one is worth more than the other, then we just have created a different currency than we have and nothing more. If the brain surgeon gets more hour coins, same result.