Good comment buddy, you make a lot of valid points.
My question would be why would anyone want any kind of government.
They always end up corrupted by big interests. I guess the best you can hope for is that small local governments are the desire. Sadly though the sheeple won't rise against their governments until they have nothing else but revolution.
NK is an extreme example see my last post where the citizens are so well trained and cowered that they'll put up with any amount of brutal treatment from their leaders.
In the west too many are dependant on the state which is pathetic and the reason Scotland didn't vote to leave the UK. People love their free stuff rather than getting of their arses and working to keep themselves.
Sighs
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thanks mate. Following you.
I disagree with having small local governments as the authority responsible for a state/region/country.
The reasons include inequality, lack of trust, a rise in hatred for other governments, division of resources, regional culture, and global influence.
The world as we know it is armed to the brim with deadly and advanced military weapons that can obliterate an area into nothingness in mere seconds. Who's to say if Germany ends up being divided into 10 different states, will there be unity and peace amongst them? Will one state be okay that the next state holds the keys to armed nuclear warheads? Will the other state be okay that it is just their state that has to handle all of the refugees coming in from the south east? I don't think so.
Individual local governments, unsupervised by a larger federal government, will only result in resentment, and eventually - anarchy.
Take the example of the United States, before they signed the Bill of Rights, before the region was governed by different power players before its independence. What happened? They all fought amongst themselves. The social and cultural repercussions are such that we see them today as well. There is a reason they all united, there is a reason it is called the 'united' states of America. If they had gone on with individual states run by individually responsible local governments, that would be like the middle east as we know it today.
Take the example of Kashmir. Pakistan and India are still fighting over this disputed territory, and neither wants to take a step back, because they don't want to lose its strategic geopolitical position, resources, and regional influence.
The reality is that man, longs for war, for influence, for domination, and for rule. History teaches us this. Women can be better leaders than men in my opinion. Look at Merkel. She has made Germany into a state the whole of Europe looks up to. Men will always fight. They will always want to have the upper hand.
As for Scotland, you're right, i think they can do better without England dictating their rules onto them.