reply to post by one4all
I'm not in favor of ANY sort of global government, much less a democracy. I can't, for the life of me, see the logic in allowing another culture the
"right" to vote my culture out of existence. They ought, by rights, have to fight for that outcome.
Global government would be the most dangerous thing to EVER hit the earth. More dangerous than any government now in existence, more dangerous even
than the asteroid that extincted the dinosaurs. A 'democracy' form would only exacerbate the problem, and hasten the end of mankind. That much
power, centralized in ANYTHING, would doom us all.
You see, wherever there are people, there will be a class structure. It can't be avoided, short of making humans programmed automatons, and forcing
everyone to be EXACTLY the same. Same height, weight, intelligence, aggression, hair color, ad infinitum. Name a human community that doesn't have
classes of any sort, anywhere. Imagine that class structure, on a larger scale, and FOCUSED. Bad business, that. Wherever there are classes, there
will be a struggle. Someone will INSIST on running the show, and someone will take exception to that. Thus the conflict starts. It's just an integral
part of the human condition.
With that said, I'm WITH you on the need for the US to stay within it's own borders. We, by rights, ought to clean our own house, and let the rest
of the world do as they will with theirs. Since that isn't going to happen, in the US or anywhere else, the next best thing is to let individual
communities, or countries, control their own turf. No other population on the planet has, or ought to have, the 'right' to vote on how the US is
run, anymore than we ought to vote on how they run their own countries. If the US, or any other country, detects a problem with the activities of
others within their borders, their natural right to vote extends ONLY to voting the malignant influence out of their borders, not meddling in the
politics of others. Where that influence goes beyond their borders, and what it does, is then none of their concern. They have their own house in
By the same token, none of my neighbors step into my house and start rearranging the furniture. It would be quite a dangerous thing to do so. Before
anyone says "but nations are a whole different thing!" no, they're not. Miyamoto Musashi said "from one thing, know 10,000". In other words, a
macrocosm is nothing more than a microcosm on a larger scale. It really IS that simple.
I can see it now. A delegation is sent to a 20 member tribe of Warani indians in the Brazilian rainforest with a message saying "3.2 billion people,
out of a world population of 6 billion, says your part of the rainforest has got to go, because they want more teakwood furniture. So sorry about
that, but the majority has spoken. We give you to the end of the week to be out of our rainforest. You were outvoted." Meet the new boss, same as the
A 'pure' democracy always votes itself out of existence, by degrees. While Mr Celente said a lot I can agree with, the move toward a democracy
wasn't one of them, unless it's tempered with something else, and not in it's 'pure' form. There is then NO protection for minorities, and by
degrees every group will be the minority in it's own turn, until only one is left. Then the vote drops to the individual level, and POP! no more
[edit on 2009/5/9 by nenothtu]