A world government may or may not be desireable, depending on how it is put together and how it evolves. But a knee-jerk opposition or support of it is based on provincial concerns very reminiscent of the economic conflict that preceded the US Civil War. Economic interests in the North and South had reasons for maintaining (or changing) the status quo, as you point out. The ruling classes on both sides had a vision of the future of the nation that favored their economic interests, and not the other's. Slavery, industrialization, immigrant labor, plantation agriculture, loose Federalism versus a strong central government, and the psychosocial concept of country or homeland (see my post above) all played a role, but they all distilled to one question: who was going to win and who was going to lose in the new national order. The "way of life" the South fought for was the way of life of a few thousand influential families. In the North, it was the future of the evolving corporate state and, again, a few hundred commercial interests.
This a contest between the ruling elites, and Robert's comment above "...the result is institutions that serve the needs of the elite that created them.", is remarkably perceptive.
Off Topic » in reply to More like the European Union, I'd guess.
The US Civil War was a dress rehearsal.
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Controversial subject: Part 2.
- Sounds rather paranoid to me. (n/t)
- The NWO...
- Re: Controversial Subject: Part 2
- Nature abhors a vacuum
- re: Nature abhors a vacuum
- I would think a one world government would require a centrally planned economy.
- re: I would think a one world government would require a centrally planned economy.
- It doesn't follow logically
- Not necessarily.
- More like the European Union, I'd guess.
- Right. We're seeing an example with China and the US.