How a one world goverment COULD actually work.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: DBCowboy

No. You would be shown where you are incorrect before being released. Why lead with violence when you can lead with compassion and care?

Gods, that is ####ing scary ass stuff right there.

Thanks for proving my point.

wow. shown where you are incorrect before being "released". WHAT THE HELL?? wonder what would happen if they couldnt convince someone they were incorrect?

a reply to: Unruhestifter

Nope. Power always corrupts. There is a perfect example on a slightly smaller scale of a single world government although they are working toward it and yep it's the EU. It started out as a trading bloc and had very little powers when it came to members of the bloc and now what fifty years later they are a behemoth of power with no ability to remove them, any country that dares goes against anything they want to get pushed through are attacked and if a country dares elect someone who isn't liked by the EU or is in any way anti-EU they are attacked Heck isn't Holland who recently was attacked and threatened to have their rights to voting in the EU removed? Italy has been attacked, Ireland...need I go on.

No single government hell no single group of humans can have as much power as you imagine to give them that would stop them from becoming a one world dictatorship. It is a nice thought but humans at they're core are easily corruptible, even if you do not believe it about yourself we all are, as Ted Dibiase used to say "Everybody has a price".

So in closing, nice idea but impossible at any point in human history (past, future or present) and any person who claims to be able to offer you a safe, rights pushing one world government better have the hair on their heads shaved so we can find those horns.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

You are more a fan of disappearing someone I see. Showing someone the error of their ways is worse than locking them up for life, or putting a bullet in their head?

Compassion works better than violence.

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

You are more a fan of disappearing someone I see. Showing someone the error of their ways is worse than locking them up for life, or putting a bullet in their head?

Compassion works better than violence.

No. nice way to put words in my mouth. what you just advocated is re education type camps.....no thanks. again, if someone is to be re educated before being "released" (your word), what happens when they can not be convinced they are of the wrong opinions?

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

Simple. They would be shown the evidence. They would be allowed to tour areas that have benefited, speak with people who were worse off before, and given paperwork to go through. Then sent back with no harm having been done.

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

You are more a fan of disappearing someone I see. Showing someone the error of their ways is worse than locking them up for life, or putting a bullet in their head?

Compassion works better than violence.

"Showing someone the error of their ways"....that sentence is terrifying in itself. Really, it is. It assumes that if you do not agree with the "one world" you will be in error, and require "correction". Please tell me you see how this is a very dangerous ideal....and will be implemented in horrific ways.

What if homosexuality is considered being in error? Many in the past and some in the present actually think this way. The result, people being sent to "re-education" and "therapy" to show them the error of their ways. So, tell me, in this case, is "showing the error of their ways better than locking them up or putting a bullet in their head (as you put it above) ?

No thanks...and I will never acquiesce to anyone that thinks "showing me the error of my ways" is an acceptable governmental ideal.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

You are more a fan of disappearing someone I see. Showing someone the error of their ways is worse than locking them up for life, or putting a bullet in their head?

Compassion works better than violence.

"Showing someone the error of their ways"....that sentence is terrifying in itself. Really, it is. It assumes that if you do not agree with the "one world" you will be in error, and require "correction". Please tell me you see how this is a very dangerous ideal....and will be implemented in horrific ways.

What if homosexuality is considered being in error? Many in the past and some in the present actually think this way. The result, people being sent to "re-education" and "therapy" to show them the error of their ways. So, tell me, in this case, is "showing the error of their ways better than locking them up or putting a bullet in their head (as you put it above) ?

No thanks...and I will never acquiesce to anyone that thinks "showing me the error of my ways" is an acceptable governmental ideal.

It is really scary that there are people that think this way.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: DBCowboy

No. You would be shown where you are incorrect before being released. Why lead with violence when you can lead with compassion and care?

Gods, that is ####ing scary ass stuff right there.

Thanks for proving my point.

wow. shown where you are incorrect before being "released". WHAT THE HELL?? wonder what would happen if they couldnt convince someone they were incorrect?

You won't be released until 2 + 2 = 5.

Silly Winston!

a reply to: Krakatoa

Is it better to try and show you mean well, or simply throw someone in jail for their lifetime? I personally would rather be proven incorrect and sent back to live life.

It is and always has been up to the people to keep officials in check. The reason corrupt laws are enacted and abused is the failure of the people to act as a balance against their government. Inaction breeds corruption and abuse.

I would rather be shown where I was wrong than sit for years in some cell.

Then again, my view of a world government is far more benign that what you imagine one would be.

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: Krakatoa

Is it better to try and show you mean well, or simply throw someone in jail for their lifetime? I personally would rather be proven incorrect and sent back to live life.

It is and always has been up to the people to keep officials in check. The reason corrupt laws are enacted and abused is the failure of the people to act as a balance against their government. Inaction breeds corruption and abuse.

I would rather be shown where I was wrong than sit for years in some cell.

Then again, my view of a world government is far more benign that what you imagine one would be.

OK, You are in error thinking that a one world government is a good idea. I suggest you are taken to be "shown the error of your ways until such time as you agree". Then, and only then, will you be released.

See, who is to decide what is in error and what is not?
You?
A government official that doesn't know you?
A psychologist or other mental health professional?
A court?

See, this is the problem...not every human thinks the same....and you and other need to ACCEPT that this is a good thing and OK. Accept and embrace the diversity, do not condemn it. And, until you agree....again, I suggest you are taken away to be shown the error of your ways.

staff edit

a reply to: Krakatoa

Who decided what was correct and incorrect in the country you live in? Was it you that decided what was correct and incorrect? Or was it politicians who don't know you, but still decided for you?

Yes diversity and individuality are great things, no one denied that nor condemned it.

Would you rather have jail and prison systems that fail time and time again, or rehabilitation services that get people on the straight and narrow without resorting to medicating and taking away their livelihood?

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: Krakatoa

Who decided what was correct and incorrect in the country you live in? Was it you that decided what was correct and incorrect? Or was it politicians who don't know you, but still decided for you?

Yes diversity and individuality are great things, no one denied that nor condemned it.

Would you rather have jail and prison systems that fail time and time again, or rehabilitation services that get people on the straight and narrow without resorting to medicating and taking away their livelihood?

But, that is NOT what you have been advocating here. You have changed your rhetoric to hide the fact that you want the government to "show us the error of our ways"....and are trying to soften it now.

Perhaps you should really think this through using the fact that there are people that will take advantage of this to usurp others for purely personal ans selfish reasons. As long we are are a species that has that as part of our makeup, it will happen...ALWAYS. Al the rose colored glasses in the world will never change that basic fact.

Again, if you do not accept that, then you need to be taken to be re-educated until such time as you accept it and agree.

a reply to: Krakatoa

The subject was about what should be done to those that disagree with a unified world government. I answered that question. Then the subject of diversity was brought up. Again I answered that question.

It seems to me that you are the one not thinking things through. I mean that respectfully of course. Using the logic you just put forth, every government could be usurped for negative purposes.

My rhetoric never changed. I addressed topics as they were brought up.

originally posted by: BenignChaos
a reply to: Krakatoa

....get people on the straight and narrow ....

Think about that little statement you made above. STRAIGHT and NARROW. In other words, comply with a narrow set of rules and do not deviate from that path or you will be "shown the error of your ways".

Now, does that sound like someone embracing a diverse set of thoughts and actions, or one that is draconian and forcibly condemning them and committed to change your thoughts and actions to agree with the collective?

I repeat, read your own statement again, and again, and again, until it SINKS into that dictator-like brain of yours.

a reply to: Krakatoa

You do realize straight and narrow means law abiding, correct? It is hypocritical of you to say the rules set forth by a global government would be terrible because they are crafted by others, yet you live under rules that were crafted by others.

You live in a society where breaking those rules would put you behind bars for months, possibly years, yet doesn't help you to better yourself and get back to a lawful life.

The very notion that you posit contradicts the very laws you live under. Shall I go on pointing out the hypocrisy you have put forth?

A one world government is the quickest way to slavery of the people. a reply to: Unruhestifter