Originally Posted by freemedia2018

Great, me too. I'm not in favour of globalism to make that happen. There's the either/or you're making.



I understand, we don't want to put all our eggs on basket Earth.



That too is what I meant when I said you're making it "either/or." You said it's beyond you, it isn't beyond everybody.

You are insisting (as globalism does) that globalism is required to achieve such things. I insist that autonomy is important, and globalism is NOT required to achieve such things. Your way costs freedom, you insist that my way costs us the human race. It's a good time to point out that the church has made arguments like yours (give us your freedom or we all die) to enslave people for centuries.

Totalitarian regimes use it as well. It's not a new argument in the least, it's a tired either/or argument. I wish humanity would outgrow that already, but it doesn't enjoy learning from history-- it prefers the repeat.

Working together and being shackled together aren't the same. I take issue with the latter, not the former. Why can't you admit that they are two different things? Your argument rests on conflating the two-- insisting that one is required for the other. That's where we differ, anyway. Your (overreaching) one-world government is not necessary. A very minimal version of it is one thing, something we have tolerated (and debatably benefit from) for a long time.

The overreaching is the problem. Ok, you think it isn't overreaching. Well, how about the example that this thread is about? That's overreaching in the extreme-- not for the benefit of citizens or life on earth, but for the benefit of corporations and monopolies as everyone's expense. What exactly is it, that makes you ignore the significance of that problem. Or do you recognise it (this would be better at least) and insist that it can be mended through a due process that was just this very week demonstrated to NOT include the will of the people?

I'm impressed at how you and other fans of globalism can overlook that. In my opinion, the unwillingness of globalists to even try to understand the position of dissent demonstrates globalism's inability to cater to the will of the people. It's not a democracy, the will or the needs of the people (apart from basics like safety-- and that is debatable) are moot-- it's a slowly growing global dictatorship. Now prove that if we give up everything else, that a government that doesn't care about our freedom really still cares about our safety, please. The demand is so high, the justification needs to be proven-- not merely insisted upon, as you are doing.

Originally Posted by freemedia2018

Which is a monopoly, which means your choices are diminished.

If you don't have jurisdictions to choose from, your choices are diminished. It really isn't a silly comparison at all.

One person lives in Antarctica, another in Mexico, they have to vote on the thermostat setting. Alright, that example really IS ludicrous, but the metaphor works for many other things (city dwellers drafting legislation completely unaware of how agriculture will be affected in real life. Happens all the time.)

If every cell in your body had to vote to get things done, you would probably die very quickly. For a world government, a lot of things simply don't get done. They won't, and most people don't care what other countries want anyway. Heck, in the USA most people don't care what the other half of the country wants at all. But they're happy to accept authority over them anyway. Now imagine a world-sized version.

Where do we get different standards from? We get them from different needs and different resources (also, culture.) We have lots of different distros to choose from. Why shouldn't everybody just make one giant distro? Because one-size-fits-all can never compete with the fit of bespoke tailoring.

You take away jurisdictions, nothing is tailored anymore. Not solutions, not spending, not cultural differences, not even rights.

We just make cookie cutter everything. And those things we don't legislate, those simply fall by the wayside. We may not be told we have 5 years (for real this time!) to throw away all our non-metric tools. But even if that doesn't happen, we will have similar problems and all sorts of mandatory changes, with the European Copyright Directive being the latest non-hypothetical, non-metaphorical, dazzling real-life example. And we can't learn from it now because of what, metaphors?

It doesn't matter if you legislate which side of a shirt buttons go on or not-- global authorities justify themselves by stopping war, and if they can do that, great. But they have not necessarily proven to do so (there's a lot of war in the world) and now we are asking them to handle finances (the EU) as well.

Russia and Britain had a pretty good thing going, in this regard. How would you like to be in Africa under British rule, or be in Ukraine, under-- well... or be in Ukraine? America is far from solving its problems by voting, the EU is far from solving its problems by voting, and the bigger these things get, the problems seem to grow as large as the solutions.

It's almost as if people are trying to make government more effective by giving it bigger guns. You know what happens when you you escalate the solution like that? You escalate the problems that it's trying to solve. It would be a metaphor, if we weren't living in a world full of examples that people are happy to ignore.

People can't solve their own problems, they still want to invite everyone else's problems to their doorstep. The best place among isolationism and globalism is somewhere in the middle, yet we keep racing towards the edge. There's nothing but conflict ahead-- more than we need too, but for some reason, we welcome it.

History can tell you why. Power-hungry leaders thrive on chaos, and we are building a more endless supply of it. Within the subject of narcissism, it's called "hurt and rescue." For everybody else, it's called political opportunity.

Originally Posted by jazzy_mood

I'm not in favor of putting all eggs in basket Earth either.

Originally Posted by ondoho

^ quoting ronald reagan to make your point against the EU?
oh, that's harsh...

Originally Posted by enorbet

Earth IS "one basket".

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu

It's safe to assume that this is our only basket. Life on Earth is uniquely designed for life on earth, so unless we find another planet with the exact same composition....this is it.

Originally Posted by enorbet

I started to snip but then decided to quote your post in it's entirety to demonstrate that all of your correlation depends on one fallacy - that any World Governance requires destruction of jurisdictions.

Originally Posted by jazzy_mood

I guess for this to happen it's necessary to provide plenty of food

Originally Posted by enorbet

Have you ever lived in an apartment building, a condominium, or even a named community of any kind that has some sort of Board of Directors, Landlord, Community Organization or whatever name is chosen to label a governing body of that microcosm? How about a Municipality, a County, a State, or Nation? Does everyone in such communities behave like Stepford Wives, all look the same, act the same, etc? I'll answer that - Yes to some degree they do. That's the nature of Social Contract but it is strictly a matter of degree. We ALL accept responsibility to be a part of any organization and the Community of Planet Earth, of Humanity, is just one of scale, an extension of what we accept as a part of any Family. It does not require Pod People.

It will be what we make of it. It already is, but by default. Not making a choice can be said to be making a choice in itself. Rather than let Global Administration be some slipshod unorganized chaos, I think I'd prefer a little thoughtful organization especially if you are correct that we are permanently all stuck here together.

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu

Regarding League of Nations and UN, its obligations should only involve international conflict and potential wars. Everything else should be at the national level, or ideally state level and lower.

Originally Posted by young_jedi

For those looking for a technological solution there's I2P which can serve as a replacement for the regular Internet in the event that it gets bad enough to warrant such action. I2P focuses on exclusively internal communication and not proxying to the regular Internet (think of it as network within the internet; a true darknet). You have the ability to tunnel TCP/IP based applications (IRC, Jabber, steaming music, etc.) through the network. In fact, you can even tunnel your torrent downloads! I2P currently has 9,000 to 14,000 active machines depending on the time of day. Most of the nodes are either European or Russian (as I assume their the most hostile regions).

Originally Posted by freemedia2018

You continue to insist that a single solution is necessary to accomplish things we both understand perfectly well are important-- and nothing changes if you replace one important issue with an arbitrary list of other issues that are obvious to anyone as "the reason we absolutely need the EU."

Essentially you're begging the question, with emphasis on begging. "Please, Sir! My family only needs the EU to live on this planet!" I think I hear Sarah McLachlan singing Angel. But it doesn't prove we need the EU, let alone the sort of nonsense they're taking valuable (essential!) resources away from saving humanity to police the internet. It's just ridiculous. Throw in the people who have lost everything (or closer to it) from the ham-handed overreaching of the EU, and the argument may even go from emotional hyperbole to outright lies. But that's the problem with globalists. Theyre so used to the "big picture" that sometimes it's as if the details (or reality, or systemic problems with bureaucracy and corruption) don't exist in their world.

I remain unconvinced, as do an increasing number of people. When everything is world-sized, I guess you can overlook facts and problems of anything you consider smaller. Like people who don't agree, that's a common one. They don't fit this system, hmm, there's obviously something wrong with them.

It's not like they have a point or anything. It couldn't be that. Let's just divide the world into globalists and denialists, the latter being any party member that doesn't know that we have a very good reason for doing all of this.

Originally Posted by jazzy_mood

Like Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" (of course, I'm paraphrasing a bit here).

Originally Posted by ondoho

this mess of a discussion where people are using terms like "giant strawman"...

Originally Posted by freemedia2018

Right. When you have conflicting but important needs, like freedom and safety, the sane answer is a balance. Not a false compromise, but a sane one. Patriots lean towards freedom itself, and cowards (but more than cowards, the people who exploit them for gain) lean towards "safety" at all costs. And it's like fool's gold.

There's nothing wrong with people in the middle, as long as the compromise isn't false or arbitrary, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with people leaning a bit one way or the other. I lean towards freedom. I'm quite certain that if we put all our trust in authority, whether local or global, we stand to lose something important. Global authority is the sort of thing where if we let go of too much, we aren't likely to get it back. The only prevention that exists then is to be forever sceptical of power grabs. I do think there is obvious merit in humanity continuing to exist- we really aren't all bad. We aren't saints, either, but there are no saints in the animal kingdom. The entire taxonomy is full of jerks, dolphins notoriously so.