Can world government begin with United Nations?

[Svante]

w e have europeean union EU and nord alliance ANA. can world gouvernement continuer from United Nations? The regions of world gouvernement could be forme b y the United Nations. what do you think and how can this get to start?

UN study website:
http://www.sadashivan.com/freephotos4ursocialstudy/id39.html

The regions would go as follows:

North American Union- USA, Canada, northern quarter of Mexico, greenland, iceland, the bristish isles, and the carribean.

South American Union- All of the latin America countries (including Falkland islands.)

European Union- all countries currently in the EU, and include all of Eastern Europe and the western half of Russia.

Asia minor-Spanning from Turkey to Kazakstan Saudi Arabia to India and all the countries in between

Asia-Eastern Russia, to china to Thaiwan but only the mainland asia.

Oceana- Includes Japan, Australia, and the pacific Islands

North African Union- All countries just north of the equaitor spanning from Cameroon to Somalia

South African Union- All of the other African Countries and Madagascar

[Dros]

No.

The UN is an instrument set up by capitalist/imperialist nations to mitigate and direct imperialist conflicts and ambitions without destroying infrastructure and production. It can not be the basis for a global proletarian state. Not now not ever.

[PRC-UTE]

It wasn't setup to operate in that way, and it's hard to imagine that it could. I think a deliberately constructed global (or quite large) federation of states in a post-revolutionary period will be the first steps towards global governance.

[sonicbluetm]

Being an anarcho-socialist, as I've said, I think that centralization of power is an almost universally negative thing. It didn't serve communism in the past and I believe it isn't serving the vast majority of people currently living within the developed world and especially the people living on its periphery in the third world.
If anything I think we should be working hard to dismantle all supranational organizations of power, lest Orwell's terrible vision be realized:
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/1984_fictious_world_map.png

[Svante]

you say dismantle supranational organisations o f powver.dismantle them t o what,this 4 divisons you have?

[sonicbluetm]

No, no. Dismantle means to disassemble, to take apart, to destroy. What the map shows is the Orwellian world order from the book, 1984. This is what I do NOT want to happen, and is what I believe all these unions (EU, South American Union, [It exists, look it up. It was formed just last week but no one knows of its existence because the mainstream media refused to report it. I really don't think that was just a coincidence.] the rumored North American Union, etc.) are in fact leading to.

[Sankara1983]

No, no. Dismantle means to disassemble, to take apart, to destroy. What the map shows is the Orwellian world order from the book, 1984. This is what I do NOT want to happen, and is what I believe all these unions (EU, South American Union, [It exists, look it up. It was formed just last week but no one knows of its existence because the mainstream media refused to report it. I really don't think that was just a coincidence.] the rumored North American Union, etc.) are in fact leading to.
The so-called "North American Union" is a right-wing anti-Mexican conspiracy theory with little basis in fact.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

The U.N. can't set up a global government because they can't enforce their decisions.
Sanctions can hurt a small, poor country, but have little or no affect to a wealthy nation, especially one in the security council.

If the U.N. can't enforce it's decisions now (remember Bush and Blair ignoring the U.N. when Iraq started) why would they be able to in the future?

[sonicbluetm]

The so-called "North American Union" is a right-wing anti-Mexican conspiracy theory with little basis in fact.
Yeah, I thought as much. But NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, IMF and myriad other existing and planned supranational organizations are a very real part of this larger globalizing movement.

[Dean]

Decentralization of power has little to do witht he number of countries in the world (besides having no nations). I would think the world better off with a NAU than a more powerful US.

[sonicbluetm]

I don't agree with that view. A central debate within the United States, which has literally shaped the nation throughout its history, has been the conflict between Thomas Jefferson's "states' rights" and Alexander Hamilton's "federalism". Now Hamilton may not have been well-intentioned, as I believe that he wasn't, but he certainly wasn't stupid. He, along with his Federalist party and the New England elites who backed it, knew VERY WELL what they needed to accomplish in order to make sure that the United States wouldn't live up to its democratic and populist promises. They were set on one thing and one thing only: centralization of power. It's where they got their name, the Federalists. I believe that the more centralized a government the easier it is for a few influential people to take control of it and thus to wield autocratic power over a vast swath of the population of a given "region" or country. This is what happened in nearly all the communist states in history, and it's what finally ended up happening in the United States after over a century of struggle between these two battling ideologies. I happen to believe that Thomas Jefferson, the man who essentially gave birth to this nation, had the right idea with "states' rights". Unfortunately, the richer the elites got in this country, the more powerful they became, and so it was inevitable that by 1913 they would get their ultimate wish, the central bank, otherwise known as the Federal Reserve System of the United States. This institution was the key to the stranglehold on this nation's government that the elites now possess, and to the rapid erosion of personal freedoms for its people.
Most people don't know this but the Federal Reserve, though incorporated by Congress (some say unconstitutionally), is not in any way, shape or form part of the public sector, but is in fact a wholly privately owned corporation. Who owns it you ask? Few know the full list of all the banks that hold stakes in the Fed, but the biggest of them all is the Bank of New York, Alexander Hamilton's own bank, located at 1 Wall Street in New York City, which predates even the first central bank of the US (which Hamilton created, and which was also controlled by Hamilton's Bank of New York, and which was subsequently dismantled by Thomas Jefferson himself).

[aussiestalinist]

The so-called "North American Union" is a right-wing anti-Mexican conspiracy theory with little basis in fact.


Cuba, Bolivia and a few other South American countries have set up organizations that are countering these capitalist fronts. Cuba and other Southern countries have made their own trade agreemtns going against America and Mexico.

[Colonello Buendia]

The UN and it's agencies are too centralized and often very top heavy. people like the WFP on the ground have done some good things but their work leaves people in the capitalist mentality which is fucking dangerous.