Would a world government be bad if they were just restricted to enforcing a US style constitution? - The Great Awakening

Would a world government be bad if they were just restricted to enforcing a US style constitution? 🗣️ DISCUSSION 💬

posted 2 years ago by truthseeker44 2 years ago by truthseeker44 +19 / -0

Obviously the thought of world governance brings up ideas of tyrants restricting liberties via socialism and communism. What if instead of these systems, a cooperative world government was in place whose only agreed upon role would be to strictly enforce a well written constitution, such as something like the US Constitution?

To me, the main problems would be voter fraud, a federal reserve type monetary system, big tech monopolies and also a sense of complacency amongst communities.

If by some magic (perhaps blockchain technologies) these problems could be fixed, I don't see how a world government, or a world constitution would be a bad thing.

I would love to know others thoughts about this

30 comments

30 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (30)

sorted by:

▲ 1 ▼

– Narg 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

You mean like how the US Government is restricted to just enforcing the US Constitution?

It's hard enough to get even LOCAL officials to listen to us and to do the right thing. Imagine dealing with a GLOBAL government.

Smaller government is better and a hell of a lot safer. That's why the US Constitution actually describes a confederacy of STATE governments overseen by a SMALL (but not small enough, as we now know) federal government.

Small government is always better than big government.

Self-government is best.

Civil Disobedience By Henry David Thoreau 1849

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. [Bold added]

permalink save report block reply

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q