Massimo2002
Active Member
That sounds good.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Will there be a one world government controlling the population of people one day ?
- Thread starter Massimo2002
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #conspiracy
Will Due
Member
The following was written c1935.
"These forty-eight states, having abandoned the twin sophistries of sovereignty and self-determination, enjoy interstate peace and tranquillity. So will all of the nations of the world begin to enjoy peace when they freely surrender their respective sovereignties into the hands of a global government—the sovereignty of the brotherhood of men. In this world state the small nations will be as powerful as the great, even as the small state of Rhode Island has its two senators in the American Congress just the same as the populous state of New York or the large state of Texas."
"The limited (state) sovereignty of these forty-eight states was created by men and for men. The superstate (national) sovereignty of the American Federal Union was created by the original thirteen of these states for their own benefit and for the benefit of men. Sometime the supernational sovereignty of the planetary government of mankind will be similarly created by nations for their own benefit and for the benefit of all men."
"Citizens are not born for the benefit of governments; governments are organizations created and devised for the benefit of men. There can be no end to the evolution of political sovereignty short of the appearance of the government of the sovereignty of all men. All other sovereignties are relative in value, intermediate in meaning, and subordinate in status."
- Urantia Book
rocala
Well-Known Member
Well said @Heyo I am more than a little shocked at the hostility to the idea of a united world. Perhaps such people think that two world wars (so far) are signs that we are doing things right?
The inevitable, unsubstantiated red bogeyman.
If it is a united world, it cannot be immigration can it. Do you moan about poor people moving around in your own country?
You complain about socialism yet seem to forget that the mobility of working people has been the driving force of capitalism.
There already is.
An elitist gang of banksters controlling all nations of the world. Or nearly.
An elitist gang of banksters controlling all nations of the world. Or nearly.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Instead of a big brother world government which means trickle down economics and trickle down decision making, we need a trickle up approach; central world public servant, that performs the will of the people.
The Political Left dislikes trickle down economics. Ironically, this is how the US and most other government works. All the taxes are collected and brought to the top. Then the people at the top, add debt to this, and then trickle it all down, based on how they make the most campaign donations. Centralized power makes leaders think the budget is their own agenda slush fund, regardless of the will of the people.
I like the idea of a trickle up approach, where all the tax payers decide via a Trickle Up Democracy. We have internet and social media to allow individual tax payers, in the Democracy, to interact and agree on things such as a balance budget. This will of the people is trickled up and assigned as a task to the public servants who do our bidding. Why trust morons, to trickle down, who cannot even spend within our means?
The Democrats has a Socialist vision of a Big Bother World Government. I prefer a world wide Democracy where leaders can be hired and fired by the people for incompetence. Now we elect people based on personality and not necessarily competence. With Trickle up we will want to recruit the most competent. There is a saying in the Bible,
Here is a simple test run we can conduct to see how this works, address bottlenecks and fine tuned before prime time. At tax time, all tax payers, both individual and corporate will get two pie charts along with their tax forms. One pie chart will be the current national budget broken down into some detail. The second is left blank. The object of this test is to fill in the blank pie chart with your share of the tax burden. You as a tax payer can assign your tax share to whatever budget elements you wish, using the current budget as a template to understand current priorities. If you are going to pay $1000 in taxes you spread that over the pie chart based on your priorities.
All these pie charts are then sent back to the IRS and added together. This is then sent to Congress as a balanced budget; taxes=expenditures, Their job to get it done with the money and proportions we trickle up. The tax payers would have to OK, any more debt, since all decisions of money has to trickle up. You will need the best people to make this work, since throwing money at problems will not be acceptable.
I would even allow for bonuses to those great servant leaders who save money and innovate better solutions; trickle up investments. I would even give school children of all ages each a $1, from their school budget, so they can fill in their own pie charts; develop forward thinking civic skills. Parent can even give their spouse and children some of the leverage of their tax burden; for couples and families. It could done at the IRS web site so it is easier to compile and present to the people for final approval, and then sent forward.
The Political Left dislikes trickle down economics. Ironically, this is how the US and most other government works. All the taxes are collected and brought to the top. Then the people at the top, add debt to this, and then trickle it all down, based on how they make the most campaign donations. Centralized power makes leaders think the budget is their own agenda slush fund, regardless of the will of the people.
I like the idea of a trickle up approach, where all the tax payers decide via a Trickle Up Democracy. We have internet and social media to allow individual tax payers, in the Democracy, to interact and agree on things such as a balance budget. This will of the people is trickled up and assigned as a task to the public servants who do our bidding. Why trust morons, to trickle down, who cannot even spend within our means?
The Democrats has a Socialist vision of a Big Bother World Government. I prefer a world wide Democracy where leaders can be hired and fired by the people for incompetence. Now we elect people based on personality and not necessarily competence. With Trickle up we will want to recruit the most competent. There is a saying in the Bible,
Here is a simple test run we can conduct to see how this works, address bottlenecks and fine tuned before prime time. At tax time, all tax payers, both individual and corporate will get two pie charts along with their tax forms. One pie chart will be the current national budget broken down into some detail. The second is left blank. The object of this test is to fill in the blank pie chart with your share of the tax burden. You as a tax payer can assign your tax share to whatever budget elements you wish, using the current budget as a template to understand current priorities. If you are going to pay $1000 in taxes you spread that over the pie chart based on your priorities.
All these pie charts are then sent back to the IRS and added together. This is then sent to Congress as a balanced budget; taxes=expenditures, Their job to get it done with the money and proportions we trickle up. The tax payers would have to OK, any more debt, since all decisions of money has to trickle up. You will need the best people to make this work, since throwing money at problems will not be acceptable.
I would even allow for bonuses to those great servant leaders who save money and innovate better solutions; trickle up investments. I would even give school children of all ages each a $1, from their school budget, so they can fill in their own pie charts; develop forward thinking civic skills. Parent can even give their spouse and children some of the leverage of their tax burden; for couples and families. It could done at the IRS web site so it is easier to compile and present to the people for final approval, and then sent forward.
I don't know. It seems to me that if they have to hide, they can't really be in charge. If they can't show their faces to the world and say "Yes, we're the ones who are really in charge," then they're probably not.
And conspiracy theories will always abound.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Same with conspiracies.
And Freudian denial...
I don't understand why the FED cannot be owned by the US Treasury.
Nobody has given me an explanation. Ever.
An "idiocracy"-style scenario, that looks much more realistic now than it did just twenty years ago.
The history of banking in the U.S. has been kind of complicated, a lot of trial and error - just as with the political system. Theoretically, I suppose the Federal Reserve Bank could be put under direct control of the Treasury Department (which would place it directly under the President's chain of command), although I don't think that would prevent corruption. Corruption would likely increase.
A better idea would be to make the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve directly elected by the people, not appointed.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
The "FED" is a private bank (as in "Federal Reserve Bank") & what it has is government-sanctioned monopoly for exclusive rights to put the money in circulation, here in the US.
The US Treasury doesn't exist for the purpose of owning or operating banks; it's just a department of the federal government that deals with the accounting, management, collection of taxes, payments to employees & for bills, etc.
The FED also doesn't need to exist, so there wouldn't be a need for it to be owned by the US government anyways.
If it were "owned" by the US Treasury or any other part of the federal government, then the banksters wouldn't be able to profit from it & that's why it really exists.
Many countries have private central banks & very few don't, such as North Korea, Iran, and Cuba.
It seems there are some countries that do have central banks that are owned by their governments, such as China and Russia.
Here in the US, we used to have coins made with silver, but I no longer see them in circulation.
The US Constitution does give the government the power to coin money and to regulate its value & it has done this separately. There have been dollar bills in circulation with "Silver Certificate" at the top rather than "Federal Reserve Note". Silver certificates have a blue seal in place of where Federal Reserve notes have a green seal. I even have some with a red seal & they say "United States Note" at the top.
That is a risk. With the only difference that the State spends public money on building hospitals, schools and motorways.
The bankers spend their own private money on yachts. And sometimes on gambling and prostitutes.
I think that a better idea would be to give the ownership to the Treasury. So universal healthcare can be funded by the US government.
I don't think these banking élites will have a stroke, if they stop gaining a million dollar a day. They'll survive.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Governments can't even control all the people in any one country and never agree on how (and if) they should try to do that. Any kind of World Government would only serve to increase those difficulties exponentially.
If anything, the direction of travel is towards more separation, autonomy and independence, with larger political and economic unions but by the choice of the smaller individual constituent parts.
Ultimately, it should be owned and controlled by the people, for the people's benefit. I also believe the post of Secretary of the Treasury should be an elected office as well.
Are you saying that in the United States there is a such a high level of corruption and bribery that it would be impossible for the Secretary of Treasury to administer the FED and its seigniorage system properly and honestly?
Well...that means my country is Wonderland in comparison.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Just the Secretary of the Treasury, not any of the other cabinet heads?
Are you saying that in the United States there is a such a high level of corruption and bribery that it would be impossible for the Secretary of Treasury to administer the FED and its seigniorage system properly and honestly?
Well...that means my country is Wonderland in comparison.
No, it's not impossible, but without a robust system of checks and balances in place, there is greater susceptibility for corruption.