21 Sept ’14 ~Question of the Day~ Independence Not Wanted

Not one drop of blood was spilt during the recent (Sept. 18/14) Scottish referendum on independence in which 85% of the eligible population voted, which was one of the highest turn outs for voluntary voter participation in history.
55% voted against independence so Scotland will remain under British rule.
The result is remarkably similar to the 1999 referendum where Australians were asked whether or not we wanted to become a republic (voting in Australia is compulsory… we lead the world in this area).
What do you think has brought about this evolution of change in humankind’s attitude towards independence when recent centuries saw so much bloodshed over this very issue and do you think the seeds are being sown for a one world government?

It seems to me that most people in Scotland were more concerned about their economic prosperity than any sort of National sovereignty.
It seems to me that many people are getting beyond nationalism.

It also seems to me that going beyond nationalism does not necessarily imply one world government. It can mean a global level of cooperative behaviour between empowered individuals. This does not require that anyone submit to government, if those individuals acknowledge the rights of all other individuals to free existence and the necessity of a healthy environment to support us all.
Such a mode of existence requires eternal vigilance, internal and external.

So it is not necessary to have “one world government” and it is a significant probability under current trends.

[followed by]


It seems to me that we really do need to go all the way to individuals, and individuals are free to associate at whatever level they choose.

I belong to many international groups – here at ANG and Lifeboat foundation are just two examples.

I’m not forced to belong to either, not forced to comply with either.

And I acknowledge we are not there yet.

We still have far too many tribal and ultranationalist and religious groups bent on global domination, so nations retain a little utility for a while yet.

[followed by]


What I mean is that if we choose to value individuals and individual freedom, and we do so in the full knowledge of the many levels of our interactions and dependencies with each other and with the environment, then we don’t need to enforce any higher levels of organisation, they will emerge “organically” (in a sense) from the requirements of all self aware individuals looking after their own long term self interest. It will quickly become apparent that self interest is best served by cooperating at all levels with all other entities – particularly if there are strong independent trust networks throughout the system to warn of those with a higher probability of cheating – and at what level their past cheating occurred.

It seems to me that in a very large measure, our spheres of influence are defined by the networks we have and the degree of trust that exists within those networks.

Most may not explicitly express it in such fashion, and it does in fact seem to be what is present.

In a sense the news media seems to be the current ultimate expression of broad trust networks – to the degree to which we do actually trust it (most do, even if individuals like myself don’t).

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see
This entry was posted in Politics, Question of the Day and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s