Lets talk about "A" New World Order --- AKA --- Yur gonna hate me

a reply to: datguy

I am a firm believer in the US Constitution.

I am also a firm believer in freedom, individual liberties and rights.

Anything else? Not so much. If I wanted something different, I'd move to another country.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I LOVE our Constitution! I love Freedom!, THAT is the New World Order I envision
I grew up in and around Boston and used to walk the Freedom Trail every chance I got. Figures like Crispus Attucks, Paul Revere (he did more than just his "midnight ride") and the Sons of Liberty, were engrained in my soul by the time I was 7.
When my mother used to take me to the library, I used to sit outside, under a statue of George Washington. The plaque on the statue commemorated the site where the revolutionary army stopped for the night, before they rode into Lexington/Concord to fire "the shot heard around the world"
Most of these things are long lost to history now, the trail itself is no longer painted, Faneuil hall is a giant food court and unless you pay for a guide most would pass over the historic markers without notice.

For me ideals that represent what our Founding Father did BEFORE they ever wrote the constitution are what a New World Order could be. Shedding the oppression, freeing themselves! NOT relying others to do it for them

a reply to: datguy

The concept of the Constitution was to limit government.

a reply to: DBCowboy
The concept was to limit Federal Government, it made attempts to secure power to the states governments.

Lets not forget the constitution itself was a compromise of many conflicting ideas, it took time and debate to create.

The concept also included ideas that recognized and allowed for "we the people" to grow and change.
Change is inevitable, at some point "we the people" do and will make choices that others do not agree with.
Are we to simply dismiss these choices? wouldn't that be a detriment to the constitution itself?
I can say for sure that is where we are at right now in the US, and it is detrimental to freedom.

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: DBCowboy
The concept was to limit Federal Government, it made attempts to secure power to the states governments.

Lets not forget the constitution itself was a compromise of many conflicting ideas, it took time and debate to create.

The concept also included ideas that recognized and allowed for "we the people" to grow and change.
Change is inevitable, at some point "we the people" do and will make choices that others do not agree with.
Are we to simply dismiss these choices? wouldn't that be a detriment to the constitution itself?
I can say for sure that is where we are at right now in the US, and it is detrimental to freedom.

Granting encompassing power to government won't solve our problems.

a reply to: DBCowboy

are you sure?
can you stake all of humanity on it?

Any government needs some power to function and fulfill its mandates. Its how that power is granted and who its granted to that creates the problem. A One World Government isn't defined by Despotism or Etatism, its simply a "new" world order, it can be whatever we make it.
Are you advocating for anarchy?

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: DBCowboy

are you sure?
can you stake all of humanity on it?

Any government needs some power to function and fulfill its mandates. Its how that power is granted and who its granted to that creates the problem. A One World Government isn't defined by Despotism or Etatism, its simply a "new" world order, it can be whatever we make it.
Are you advocating for anarchy?

Name me one time in the history of our planet where ceding authority and control to a government, any government has benefitted people.

Just one.

originally posted by: datguy

Are you advocating for anarchy?

Anarchy is never self-sustaining.

But I would lean towards anarchy rather than authoritarianism.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I would IF I could show any circumstance in history where people have willfully ceded power to any government, your comment is a trap and ignores the concept of not only a living constitution but also the idea that government can be a force for good.

Specifically in the US, how else would we get from one place to another so easily, send mail, osha regulations, FDIC insurance, interstate power distribution, Vehicle safety, Weather services/warnings, FEMA relief (yes I went there), EPA, FAA, research funding in universities, National guard, National cancer institute.....do I need to list more?
I can if this was somehow an insufficient example.

And this short list doesn't address government funded social programs like, SSA, food stamps, ADA, SBA, VA

AND all this doesnt even address the foreign relations aspect of the Government

It's true. The root cause of the problem is deep-seated fear and addiction. Because of fear, humans have fallen into the trap of dependency on this system that we navigate through in life. We depend on this system for security, stability.... it's our life support. Without it, we die. This disempowers us, making us weak, vulnerable and enslaved to those in charge. Just like the way out of any addiction is sobriety, the way out of our enslavement is by weaning ourselves from our dependency on this current system or world order. You want people to rise up, unify to create a new world order, one that is fair and just. But just as a drug addict can't live as a healthy, rationally thinking, fully functioning human being until they become sober, people in this world can't create a new, functional, uncorruptible, abundant system of living until they face their unresolved fears and break their dependency on the old system. You can't solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it. The New World Order that you want has to be created from a higher consciousness. People need to evolve in order to transcend the dependence (slavery) that we're currently trapped in.

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: DBCowboy

I would IF I could show any circumstance in history where people have willfully ceded power to any government, your comment is a trap and ignores the concept of not only a living constitution but also the idea that government can be a force for good.

Specifically in the US, how else would we get from one place to another so easily, send mail, osha regulations, FDIC insurance, interstate power distribution, Vehicle safety, Weather services/warnings, FEMA relief (yes I went there), EPA, FAA, research funding in universities, National guard, National cancer institute.....do I need to list more?
I can if this was somehow an insufficient example.

And this short list doesn't address government funded social programs like, SSA, food stamps, ADA, SBA, VA

AND all this doesnt even address the foreign relations aspect of the Government

We didn't lose rights when feds built roads or delivered the mail.

a reply to: datguy

What if, you'd get a global vote, where everyone that has a vision can submit it and everyone gets to vote. The world will then be reorganized anew. Every proposal gets a piece of earth in size according to the amount of votes each idea got.
Like that everyone gets to work with like-minded on their utopia.
Lol

That would mess up everything, but we would pull trough with a blue eye, the course we're on will make humans but a memory...

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, I have shown examples of how governments can benefit humanity.

The example of the US constitution even existing should be a tribute to that but you don't want expand your concept of what a new world order can be.
It would appear to me you like the turmoil in the country/world and only want more of the same. This amounts to complicity in the rise of the current World Order that neither of us want.
The only difference i can see is that i want to do something about it

If this is not true I would love hear your ideas rather than the empty rejections you have offered so far.

a reply to: socialmediaclown

And I believe that humanity can transcend that gap quickly, I feel like its already begun and is well under way.
Its a matter of proper motivation/education or I guess some would say propaganda/programing. I would hate to see that motivation came in the form of mushroom clouds, I would much rather prefer people choose their own fate. People should be able to choose which cause they would sacrifice their lives for.

a reply to: Terpene

I feel like this example would end in 7 billion+ nations...and it doesn't address the removal of the current world order.

But its the best suggestion anyone has offered in the thread so far.
I also think that many are too complacent on the matter and would not partake in something like this because "insert excuse here"

a reply to: datguy

Let's agree on this.

If the US of A gets to keep the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all the amendments, is allowed to keep its borders, its sovereign status, then by all means, enjoy your new world order.

You won't hear a peep from me.

a reply to: datguy

Depends all upon the answer to this question:

Is man inherently good or inherently bad?

Half and half? Then there will inherently be conflict and there is little to be done about it.

a reply to: Terpene

Eventually, someone would figure out how to rig a global election. Then imagine a boot on mankinds neck for a million years.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

I'm sorry I cannot definitively answer that. Mostly because it is, in essence, a matter of perspective and perception.

Conflict is the intent. The UN was charted to end Violent conflict like some sort of Gundham government.
yes its an obscure reference

Their mission is to use their Gundams to attack OZ directly, in order to rid the Alliance of its weapons and free the colonies from its oppressive rule.

There is conflict now, baseless fights over perceived lines in the sand, or ideological beliefs, or just plain greed plus all of the above.

I think humanity is inherently good with a far greater potential than it is attributed by many. But it also extremely susceptible to fear, trauma, deception, not because it is weak but because it wants to be good. When bad things are done it ripples throughout the human conscience and can have adverse effects.

Take 9-11 for example, not only did a major portion of our society have some sort of trauma related to the events, but society was a whole deceived by the people they trusted.
I remember the days before Bush gave his speech at ground zero the whole world seemed to be uniting, there was an overwhelming sense of unity.
Bush ruined it, he took advantage of that state of mind and led the world into what we see now. Instead of embracing that unity used it to manipulate and start a war.

Edit: with the proper safeguards a new world government could easily avoid the same pitfalls

a reply to: datguy

And I believe that humanity can transcend that gap quickly, I feel like its already begun and is well under way.

Hopefully, you're right because breaking free from the old programming is really the only way forward. Without making that leap, humanity is doomed to repeat the same patterns of fear, trauma, victimhood, corruption over and over again until we are finally extinct.

a reply to: DBCowboy

it currently suits its needs as far as recognizing human rights, but nationalism and borders are the cause of many problems, we can do without them.
Do you think that the ideas in the US Constitution can be improved upon?

a reply to: socialmediaclown

Think of it like this,
Even in the WORST case scenario

in speculation lets say TPTB are intelligent enough to have created and orchestrated this "great reset" and 90% of humanity would perish, even if they could pull it off, surely they know the result is not sustainable. Eventually a state of equilibrium would be achieved which would in essence nullify whatever concept of "control" or "power" they had.
So in essence they are also hastening this "awakening" to benefit humanity