In my world order, I’d like to see the end of globalization.
I’d like to see nation states, especially the big ones like Russia, Canada, the USA, China and Brazil, be broken down into much smaller states.
Each one of these states would be far more self sufficient than they are today.
World population would be something like 10% of what it is, and nature would make a comeback.
There would be large areas of wilderness seriously claimed by no one, where barbarians lurked, and settlers experimented with new ways of life.
Large corporations would be largely a thing of the past, inequality would lessen, necessities precede luxuries and goods would be manufactured and distributed locally.
Technologies that do more to hinder humanity than help would be relegated to museums.
Nations would interact but rarely intrude.
There’d be little immigration/emigration between states.
Each state would seek to preserve its native race, culture, customs and way of life.
But each state and community would go its own way, experimenting with different economic, political and social programs suitable to themselves and their habitat.
I’m all for decentralization. You sound like you want limited local government.
As an anarchist my question is, why have any government at all?
Why do you want to have your world order? What is your justification or rationale?
anybody suggesting mass die-offs (population reduction) to suit the vision of a better world is either intellectually lazy or seriously misinformed.
is it where you got your inspiration?
Georgia’s Own Doomsday Stonehenge Monument
blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ … 4bbKNepq1s
and
wired.com/2009/04/ff-guidestones/
Do you want to maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature?
Do you want to guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity?
Do you want to unite humanity with a living new language?
It seemes like a fallacy of wish fulfillment, think if that were to happen , your kids, grandkids would bake, you would be without job, psychiatrist, you would have to hide underground for many years, and come up to find what?
No, we must congratulate the creator of Space X, who will contribute where NASA can’t allocate, to find new frontiers, where excess willing populations can again find new frontiers, new western corales, where they can again watch the awesome setting of Suns, as they can relive those beautiful aspirations to hand down to their progeny.
No, the new world order will be a tremendous excercise, but worth it for those you love and cherish, so when you are long dead and gone, they can, over a fireplace of heavenly grace, amid the night of burning and smoking logs, somewhere you may even had some time to spend, long forgotten you, will perhaps be remembered for your faith and kindness.
I want moderate local government, not limited nor absolute.
Virtuous governments, rather than governments who cater to special interests.
For me, the objective of government is not to grow the economy, or prop one class up at the expense of another, but to make the economy more equitable and sustainable.
Of course this is difficult to achieve, especially in this day and age, but I think it’s ideal.
My overall justification is a temperate, measured society is best, one that isn’t too small and underdeveloped, or too big and overdeveloped.
Not mass die offs, just a gradual and graceful decline.
What we have now will ultimately lead to mass die offs, because it’s totally unsustainable, it will lead to world war 3.
I agree with some things on the Georgia Guide Stones, like leaving room for nature, and not others, for example, I don’t believe in a one world government, language or religion, I’m for deglobalization.
Globalization is anti-nature, man must strike the right balance between nature and artifice.
Yes to the first.
Yes and no to the second, these things take care of themselves by and large, with minimal state intervention.
No to the 3rd.
Why “yes to the first”?
I want to be able to go anywhere [at some point with a flying car], and so others should also be able too…
There would be a natural flow of people, but that’s not the same as economic migration [a kind of forcing still]. Ergo only some people can now have that freedom.
My guess is that wealth and skills [also a kind of wealth] will make the distinction [who can/cannot migrate to place x] without us forcing people to not travel.
Isn’t it better to not force things either way? The globalists push economic migration, but people in more financially attractive countries wont put up with the vast numbers that incurs. If you don’t force a lack of movement, nor push more movement, low and behold we arrive at a natural balance.
People can regulate their own daily activities without a government you know.
For me a virtuous government is an oxymoron.
Isn’t it obvious, do you wish to see nature destroyed?
I would like to see it make somewhat of a comeback.
We already have flying cars, they’re called airplanes, and the reason why more people don’t have them, is because they’re very expensive on oil, gas and things.
If everyone flew we’d run out of oil and gas a hell of a lot quicker, and it’d be difficult, if not impossible to supplant them with any combination of wind, solar, hydroelectric or biofuel.
These forms of energy are a little cleaner and greener, but they all produce their own forms of pollution.
You would like to see more freedom of movement, and you think that would lead to a balance of movement, not too much migration, but just enough?
The globalists aren’t pushing anyone to go anywhere, they’re just opening the borders more, so more freedom of movement would produce more movement, which would just uproot cultures and eradicate real, true diversity.
I don’t want more movement, I’d like to see the pace of society slow down to a crawl, because in my estimation, we’re heading for a crash, a political, economic, social and technological crash.
Someone needs to put on the breaks before it’s too late.
I know what you mean, you think forcing people to do things is violent.
You might say government is just organized violence.
And so violence just begets more violence, and selfishness, and greed.
You would like to see either an end to violence, or, at least the absence of a monopoly on it, get rid of the hypocrisy and so on.
I know where you’re coming from because at times I was an anarchist.
I’m going to get back to you on this one.
I have nothing against violence, I just don’t like it when one group of people say their violence is justified where others are not.
Yes, I would describe government as an organized gang that doesn’t like competition.
The end of monopoly on violence would be great. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Violent competition between individuals and groups is probably always going to exist.
Monopolies are always going to exist, too, but no monopoly is perfect.
Even now, we have states challenging states, and terrorists challenging states, and mafias, and cults.
We have different political factions vying for funds and votes.
I would say it’s better to have a good monopoly than a vacuum, but better to have a vacuum than a bad monopoly.
By good monopoly, I just mean a government that yes, is selfish and looks after its own interests, but is also wise, and looks after the interests of society.
People can regulate their own lives, and people can be regulated, sometimes people know themselves and what’s best for them and theirs better than anyone else, but sometimes they don’t.
Today the state regulates many aspects of our lives, it’s in charge of currency (along with the central bank), infrastructure, it educates our children, it’s monopolized medicine and psychiatry, tells us what drugs we can take, what sex we can have, it censors things, enforces political correctness, says we need a license to do this, a permit to do that, tells us what weapons we can buy, and so forth.
What I would like to see is not more or less regulations, but different ones, that will take society in a brand new direction.
In the coming weeks and months I’ll probably be sharing some of my ideas here.
I don’t need a government to do this, philosophers can redirect society with or without government.
I prefer the vacuum and so does nature. The whole some chosen people know how to run other people’s lives better than they can themselves argument is ridiculous at its core.
Actually, there are two subitems in that item (the question: “Do you want to maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature?”, and only the second of that two subitems is quite obvious, namely the “perpetual balance with nature”. The first subitem (“maintain humanity under 500,000,000” is not obvious, because the number 500,000,000 does not necessarily fit the second item (“perpetual balance with nature?”. Who said (you) that only the number 500,000,000 is the proper number for the perpetual balance with nature? It is also possible by a different number.
What a kind of “comeback” do you mean exactly? Do you mean the general comeback of the time before 1750 or before 1600 when the number of the global inhabitants had always been less than 500,000,000?
