Ending Poverty is Impossible without Globalization

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: infolurker

Tell you what, I'll give you a number when you give me a number. You need to tell me exactly how many people are being killed right now due to tribal differences, over resources, cultural differences, religious differences, territorial disputes, need I go on? Because without a number to compare it to, your demand is a bull# one.

I have no idea but any Solution that advocates Genocide and Oppression to the whole planet is INSANITY!

If you think the greater good can be served by butchering billions of people to establish a "doomed to fail" utopia then I would classify you as sick in the soul.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

They get their profit by going to different people and exploiting them because they are tiny and the corporations are big.

Cultures get decimated by exploitation every day.

They may "keep" some semblance of their individual culture, but become impoverished slaves in the process. And any cultural traits that don't fit the corporate bottom line is crushed and eliminated.

It seems you want the exact same but through government.....

Because as Ketsuko pointed out, for us to be one people, we would have to be one people.

One language, one religion, one set of values.

So which is the one culture that gets to survive?

a reply to: infolurker

Your under the delusion you can't have multiculturalism without boarders.

a reply to: Puppylove

So when your one-world government becomes corrupt, who will save us then?

For the record, I will always refuse to be a part of any globalization, so you'd have to have me killed or sent to a re education camp.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: infolurker

Your under the delusion you can't have multiculturalism without boarders.

Again, how many bodies is acceptable to sacrifice? How many cultural, ideological, or religions dissenters would have to be "eradicated"?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Puppylove

So when your one-world government becomes corrupt, who will save us then?

For the record, I will always refuse to be a part of any globalization, so you'd have to have me killed or sent to a re education camp.

I get the feeling that wouldn't be a problem! For the "greater good" of course.

Though I have a feeling that making sure nobody could buy or sell anything would be incentive to comply....

LOL

Revelation 13:17 - That no one may buy or sell again except one who has the mark of the name of The Beast or the number of its name.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: infolurker

I answered you already. I'm not going to make up magic numbers for you. Especially when you discount that all that death your worried about is happening already because of this division.

But your idea would cause the exact same just by gov instead of Corp..... Why is that better in your mind?

It fixes nothing

a reply to: infolurker

Oh I'm sure there'd be a list before the globalization occurred and I'd be on that "list".

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: infolurker

They're above the law already, at least with a global government the people can rise up as one and say screw you, and make changes they can't just go somewhere else to get around.

A one world government traps them more than it traps us.

That is correct and look at the result. Iceland Jailed the dirty Bankers, why the hell don't we?

a reply to: forkedtongue

Let me give an example. Minimum wage. If it's worldwide, there is no slavery, no workshops, because there's no nation to exploit for it.

Minimum wage and many other regulatory programs fail because we're divided and that allows for it to simply go where that doesn't exist.

Corporations and bankers need to be regulated world wide, how can that happen without globalization?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: infolurker

Your under the delusion you can't have multiculturalism without boarders.

I would say you are under the delusion that multiculturalism can work at all.

It is failing in every western country it is being forced on.

It doesn't work, it never will work enmass.

In all of human history it has never happened.

One culture always destroys the other, they never fuse together.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: infolurker

You make a lot of assumptions, and ignore the genocide that happens everyday because there is no one to protect people from being ravaged by other nations and tribes because no one is looking out for them.

This is the second time I see this type of response.

When someone challenges you by pointing out an inevitable consequence of what you advocate, you point out that it is already happening.

I pointed out that your great society would necessarily obliterate unique cultures in order to create one, and I also alluded to inevitable genocide of those who would refuse your great society. I allowed you to side-step that one.

Your response to me on homogenizing the culture to create your one people is that it is already happening.

If it is already happening and you find it evil, then what makes your version of it good?

Then when someone does call you on the necessary genocide your great society would entail, you also claim it is already happening by way of response.

So again, if the current genocides are evil, what would make your genocide good?

a reply to: ketsuko

If there is going to be a genocide, and we want to get rid of poverty, why doesn't the OP's one-world government just kill the poor people?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: forkedtongue

Let me give an example. Minimum wage. If it's worldwide, there is no slavery, no workshops, because there's no nation to exploit for it.

Minimum wage and many other regulatory programs fail because we're divided and that allows for it to simply go where that doesn't exist.

Corporations and bankers need to be regulated world wide, how can that happen without globalization?

Minimum wage doesn't even work small scale, why do you assume it would work any better large scale?

America didn't lose minimum wage jobs to cheaper labor markets, we kept all of those.

We only lost higher paying jobs.

a reply to: ketsuko

One is generational, the other is not. One has no end, the other does.

Besides I'm not saying how to do it, I'm saying what needs to happen to end poverty. We can always continue as is and never end poverty.

I'm saying what's necessary, and what's necessary is for world wide human rights laws that can actually be enforced as well as world wide regulations on business and corporations.

It's simply necessary and is the only way to end world poverty.

You have ways to do that besides globalization I'm all ears. Instead of saying why it can't be done, come up with alternate ways to make this happen.

End goal: World wide enforceable human rights protections and corporate, big business and bank regulations, and the destruction of tax havens. Come up with a way to do this without globalization if your against it so much.

a reply to: Puppylove

You will never eliminate poverty. There will always be those that win and those that lose. There will always be exploited sub-cultures. There will always be people who use and abuse people and the system.

Poverty is just as much a cultural mainstay as religion.

It's idealistic to hope away and wish away poverty, but it'll never happen.

a reply to: forkedtongue

Sweat shops and slave labor exists. Why do you assume I only care about workers in the US? Would minimum wage and human rights protections not help them?

originally posted by: ugmold

Iceland Jailed the dirty Bankers, why the hell don't we?

And .....

Thirty Thousand Below Poverty Line in Iceland

Thirty thousand people, nine percent of the Icelandic population, are below the poverty line, while 13 percent are at risk according to a new report from the Red Cross, ruv.is reports.

According to the report, the largest group on welfare are young people, young men in particular. A total of 3,000 young people receive financial support from the municipalities.

Unemployment is highest among 18-24 years-olds, or 7.7 percent compared to the average unemployment rate in the country, which currently stands at 4.5 percent.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's defeatist and inhumane not to try.

Striving to be better should always be a goal. Eliminating all may not be possible, it also may be, but to not try to improve things at all is defeatism pure and simple.

Things can get better. To not try is well, lazy and defeatist and the height of pessimism.

a reply to: xuenchen

So it's exactly like the US, or even a little better?