Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, eyeball said: I repeat, I'd be as much an enemy of a communist country as I would a capitalist country. For the exact same reason. I don't make war on behalf of communist countries, I only make war in defence of Elizabeth Windsor in defence of the right. Communist countries would probably have you shot. You enjoy the protection of Elizabeth Windsor so long as you do not threaten her with being unhorsed and unheaded. If you cross that threshold, again, you are liable for what you publish.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Well if you don't have time to bring me up to speed, then perhaps you should cut me some slack for not knowing where you are coming from. Cut your own slack and go use the forum search feature. Quote If you want your World Government to do so much economic regulation, that it would make Orwell blush, That's not what I said at all. I said regulate the government. Quote again, that sounds like World Socialist Revolution to me, and even if it wasn't, I don't see how that is somehow preferable to the economic current status quo, there is too much regulation as it is, and you want to double down on that? There is too much regulation of our government? You're suggesting there's too much transparency and accountability and it doesn't have enough power top do what it wants? This is probably what Trudeau was thinking when he said he admired China's dictatorship. Quote Doesn't sound like a good idea, what specific kinds of regulations are you talking about though? Just one regulation, that the government submit to souveillance...to a degree that would make Orwell blush. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Just one regulation, that the government submit to souveillance...to a degree that would make Orwell blush. I don't see how that even constitutes a one world government, governments are being submitted to surveillance as we speak. If that's all you got, you aren't even proposing any changes to the status quo, whatsoever. Multi-national surveillance is already a thing, ever heard of Five Eyes? Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: I don't make war on behalf of communist countries, I only make war in defence of Elizabeth Windsor in defence of the right. More like Mary Queen of Scots in defence of sociopathic assholery. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 If you are talking about a worldwide intelligence agency that airs every nations dirty laundry to everyone in the world, so the public can "keep an eye on them", that also already exists, it's called the free press.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: I don't see how that even constitutes a one world government, governments are being submitted to surveillance as we speak. If that's all you got, you aren't even proposing any changes to the status quo, whatsoever. Multi-national surveillance is already a thing, ever heard of Five Eyes? You've never heard of souveillance? iI's not a misspelling. Its just about the complete opposite of what the 5 Eyes proposes to do. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: You've never heard of souveillance? iI's not a misspelling. Its just about the complete opposite of what the 5 Eyes proposes to do. The free press does not require a world government to operate, a world government would simply impede a free press. Again, you are proposing zero changes to status quo, and somehow consider that to be a World Government, very strange. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: If you are talking about a worldwide intelligence agency that airs every nations dirty laundry to everyone in the world, so the public can "keep an eye on them", that also already exists, it's called the free press. A free press is certainly a good idea but we need something more rigorous. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, eyeball said: A free press is certainly a good idea but we need something more rigorous. What is more rigorous? What you are suggesting is no different from the free press as it exists today, you just put a different label on it, and pretend like it's something else entirely.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: The free press does not require a world government to operate, Who said it did? I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: Who said it did? You said that was the reason why you wanted a world government, to help people keep more of an eye on the government, the free press already does that, no world government required. Looks like you'll need another justification for your world government, the status quo has that covered, already, and a world government would just impede the free press, so you would actually get less government transparency, not more. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, eyeball said: More like Mary Queen of Scots in defence of sociopathic assholery. The House of Stuart is perpetuated by union with the House of Hanover, Elizabeth Stuart > Sophia of Hanover > George I George I George II George III George IV William IV Victoria I (Mother Canada) Edward VII George V (The People's King) Edward VIII (Abdicates) George VI (Bertie) Elizabeth II (The Boss) FTW. Suck it, lefties. Edited February 1, 2019 by Dougie93
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: What is more rigorous? What you are suggesting is no different from the free press as it exists today, you just put a different label on it, and pretend like it's something else entirely. No I'm not suggesting anything like that at all. What I'm suggesting is more like data logging, using an auditing and validating process that ensures official discussions about the public's domain are entirely open to public scrutiny - effectively outlawing in-camera lobbying. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: No I'm not suggesting anything like that at all. What I'm suggesting is more like data logging, using an auditing and validating process that ensures official discussions about the public's domain are entirely open to public scrutiny - effectively outlawing in-camera lobbying. A world government would impede that from happening more than under the current status quo. You don't need a world government to do that, they will just get in the way. None of the reasons that you claim to want a world government will actually be improved if you had a world government, so I have no idea why you seem to think it's such a good idea. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: You said that was the reason why you wanted a world government, to help people keep more of an eye on the government I said one government will be easier to monitor than 200. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, eyeball said: I said one government will be easier to monitor than 200. But that isn't the case, it will make it harder to monitor, because the complexity of such a government is exponentially higher than 200 smaller governments. The EU isn't easier to keep track of than Germany, that's preposterous, scale up to a world government and it's even more preposterous.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: A world government would impede that from happening more than under the current status quo. I certainly expect it will resist transparency but as a result of corporate sociopaths who don't want their attempts to influence policy makers being observed and diluted. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, eyeball said: I certainly expect it will resist transparency but as a result of corporate sociopaths who don't want their attempts to influence policy makers being observed and diluted. I will resist transparency even more than the current status quo does, your proposed solution is counter-productive to your stated goals.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: But that isn't the case, it will make it harder to monitor, because the complexity of such a government is exponentially higher than 200 smaller governments. You monitor the very top. I subscribe to a trickle down theory of honesty and virtue. Make these inescapable at the very top of government and...as it is above so it will be below. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 If there was a world government, people would be less informed than ever about people living in different parts of the world, worldwide issues would suck up the entire agenda and make people less knowledgeable about local issues. Or worse yet the highly populated areas of the world will be dictating to less highly populated areas of the world, how to deal with local issues that know next to nothing about.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: I will resist transparency even more than the current status quo does, your proposed solution is counter-productive to your stated goals. I'm not interested in monitoring you. You're really only resisting the silly ghost that lives in your stupid knee. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: You monitor the very top. I subscribe to a trickle down theory of honesty and virtue. Make these inescapable at the very top of government and...as it is above so it will be below. They already monitor the very top, problem is, you can't make honesty and virtue inescapable at the very top of government and it's a fools errand to attempt to achieve such a utopia, that's not how politics work, and it never will work that way, wishful thinking plain and simple. One World Government is not a game changer that will stop this from happening, that's a pipe dream. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: If there was a world government, people would be less informed than ever about people living in different parts of the world, worldwide issues would suck up the entire agenda and make people less knowledgeable about local issues. Or worse yet the highly populated areas of the world will be dictating to less highly populated areas of the world, how to deal with local issues that know next to nothing about. Act locally think globally - do unto thers yadda yadda... Like I said its Kindergarten 101 stuff. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Act locally think globally - do unto thers yadda yadda... Like I said its Kindergarten 101 stuff. There is reason we don't let kindergartners run the world, wishful thinking usually doesn't stand up to reality. Wanting politicians to be honest and virtuous is just going to lead to crushed expectations and faulty political analysis, it isn't going to change reality one iota. The world you want to live in, will never exist, expecting politicians to not act like politicians, because they are under the thumb of one world government, is asinine. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Act locally think globally - do unto thers yadda yadda... Like I said its Kindergarten 101 stuff. That's what we do, locally we are the House of Windsor, globally we are free subjects of, interacting with the free markets, doing unto others; by national and international law and the laws of armed conflict as a founding and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. You can put your big boy pants on and join us any time. Edited February 1, 2019 by Dougie93
Recommended Posts