Inquiring into their beliefs that their most cherished individuals do not share is a reasonable concern that will undoubtedly reveal a great deal about that individual. It makes no difference if it is a significant reality or no one else accepts it. Right now, I'm more interested in radical, counter-mainstream beliefs than in the realities held by ideological minorities.
In my opinion, the world would undoubtedly be a better place with a worldwide federal government. Humanity can only create a sustainable future with a federal government that spans the globe. Humanity cannot progress without global administration, which subjugates national governments.
Changes to the environment, the sanctuary movement, cyber-security, economic development, money laundering, and pandemics are international issues. Take cyber-security as an example; it can't exist independently of cyber-security globally. You won't be able to prevent hackers from accessing your web servers unless all of them are secure. Without a trustworthy global strategy, there can be no effective national pandemic plan. Because viruses do not respect national boundaries, international cooperation is essential.
Our shared public areas are known as the commons. Commons, fields, plazas, or other open areas were common in older communities. The unfortunate situation where the commons were used but not maintained—everyone took from them, but nobody restored them—was known as the catastrophe of the commons. Humans are in a similar position now; we seek global civil freedoms but reject global obligations. One sign of a worldwide common catastrophe is this.
Numerous international agencies, as well as numerous treaties and laws on a worldwide scale, are already in existence. Long before the rise of empires, there was the concept of a global domain. The Republic of the Whole World may begin with the League of Nations. We have established mechanisms for transferring funds, agreements about civil rights, the regional application of legislation, and war policies. Current institutions like the United Nations can make recommendations to governments, but they do not have the power to really control those governments. Put another way, it is powerless on a global scale. It is not an independent body. How can an individual today make a difference at the United Nations?
There is no democratic global governance and no global federal government whatsoever. Despite this, I hold the unconventional view that global management of the planet requires this transnational international power.
It seems that a global federal government—even a good one—would bring about great trouble. How would it undoubtedly serve its purpose? The concept of an entirely global organization with ultimate say is regarded with skepticism today when even relatively harmless firms like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and WeChat are perceived as being intolerably too large. Much of the world views global power with suspicion. If you wanted to bail, where would you go? Is there a way out if the international federal government collapses? There aren't any simple answers.
Putting aside these concerns, the desire to abandon outdated ideas of national sovereignty is the primary practical barrier.
While this will be challenging for any nation, the strongest will find it particularly so.
Regardless of these and other valid concerns, federated nations would benefit from a global government. We have the power to replace the military model with a police one, to address global warming, to promote human advancement, and to establish the fundamental human freedom to travel the world. I get that very few people believe that these days, but that's fine with me. Generations will be required.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Congratulations @lucidlucrecia! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 4000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Hello.
There is reasonable evidence that this article has been heavily processed with AI.
We would appreciate it if you could avoid publishing AI-generated content (full or partial texts, art, etc.).
Thank you.
Guide: AI-Generated Content = Not Original Content
If you believe this comment is in error, please contact us in #appeals in Discord.
To confirm your authorship of the content, could you please add the link to your Hive blog to your well-established social media account like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter (which has not been recently created).
After you add the link, please respond to this comment with the URL link to that website.
You can remove this mention, once we confirm the authorship.
Thank you.
More Info: Introducing Identity/Content Verification Reporting & Lookup
Is there a particular reason that you're asking for social media verification? Was this article lifted from elsewhere?
Hive allows people to remain anonymous. If they do not wish to reveal their identities, they have a right to do so. Nobody should be required to verify their identity to a single anonymous person who acts as an authority, which is approved by a small minority of people with a large stake. Are you willing to verify your identity?
Stop harassing our users for no reason. You're making active, engaging users leave the blockchain. Stop destroying what is left of this platform.
I'm glad they're challenging her. She has been posting nothing but Ai generated or content by others in threads, so I checked her blog. After thinking it sounded too polished for the content she typically shares I checked it on a free plagiarism checker. It came out clean, but it's more likely she pays to have the same checker service rewrite it for her, so it appears to be original. Notice the topics... None of her topics are original in any way. It's all topics typical spammers use, because it's been extensively written about by early bloggers. HW uses better paid services to check content and have found it elsewhere, so requires she proves it's her content. I bet it isn't and she's been lying to and stealing from everyone, including you for quite a while
Thanks for sharing this information. I'm interested to see whether they actually put up a source. There's been a long history of abuse on their behalf, but I certainly do acknowledge and appreciate when they catch someone legitimate.
I think they used to add the source, but the comment came across as being too accusatorial, so they just went with this to ask them to verify rather than pointing fingers right off the bat. Other users were taking it as proof of plagiarism in the past and attacked people. This more laid back approach has limited witch hunts by those who come across these comments on content. It's an innocent until proven guilty approach
I'd consider it innocent until proven guilty if they didn't automatically start downvoting all of a user's posts. Asking first without downvoting is non-accusatory. This is among the big issues I've had with them - they punish before even giving people an opportunity to reply. This scares innocent people away.
I do disagree with those who witch hunt, of course. Proof first! Enact justice the right way.
To be honest, they did already find proof of plagiarism and it's on her to prove it wasn't. The biggest argument is that no one is guaranteed rewards, whether or not it's original, so it's not really a punishment. I disagree with them, but the largest accounts disagree with us and they have the power. This is just an investment to them and they'll say that they are simply protecting it. Now again I disagree, but if code allows it it's the law