A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it?

Immediately after you first sentence I already have to contend the thought that we have been slowly evolving into a more unified government. Obviously we have evolved, but it is clear that the nation-state is still problematic.

a) We are still deeply divided amongst ethnic roots. Take the Kurds, Yugoslavia (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians, Macedonians), South Sudan made up of mainly African Christians become a new state just 2 days ago after breaking away from North Sudan made of mainly Arabs Muslims. The Chechens still want to secceed from Russia and the list goes on. Overtime we have become more integrated, I cannot dispute this, however I believe our differences in terms of nations rather than states will continue to keep us seperated.

b) Have you seen the greater third world becoming more industralized. Not even Nigeria with its huge oil reserves has done so. I really don't see third world economies -which are resource rich- industralizing. Infact that major industrial economies are exploiting them. 3rd world economies with pretty much nothing (i.e Somalia) aren't going to fare much better at all.

c) What happens to the current power brokers that would lost in terms of power and ability to exploit for profit if a world government were to be introduced. There people have varrying degrees of control and power and if they realized they would not be able to profit from corruption (i.e Afghanistan) there discotent would most likely work to block the implementation of one world governance

There is only one way I can see a democratic world government working.
- Every economy on the Planet develops and becomes more modernized resulting in a push for democracy within these states
- The majority of people suddenly break down ethnic divides.

Also you have made the assertion that your entire post is factual and based on historic evidence. It is far from that: Infact is is non-factual and based on historic speculation.

Click here for more information.

There was a time when I thought we Humans would be best served by a benevolent one world government.
Then reality kicked in.
Mind, I'm not one of the "educated", perhaps not even one of the "intelligent" mentioned in this thread.
Think of me as a "drop-out", but a drop-out who loves to read, especially history.
Disclaimers serve a purpose and therefore know that *I* know every author has some bias. I also agree that "history is written by the victors".
I believe the problem with Governments are not the "rules", or lack thereof, but the "Rulers". Far too often the wrong ones rise to the top.
If I may oversimplify, I say "Governments" usually exist to serve the governors.

I propose something far from your one world Government...I propose Anarchy. Every citizen with the weapons of war our "governments" use to coerce others into subjection.

There is peace in my neighborhood, a peace not enforced by "the" state...that is the strength of mankind, not Governments.

Humans advance through conflict and competition, not by getting along. War, hate, and desperation will always be the driving force behind man's reaching for the stars- not by all of us getting along.

Originally posted by rdavis
Humans advance through conflict and competition, not by getting along. War, hate, and desperation will always be the driving force behind man's reaching for the stars- not by all of us getting along.

Your first sentence is dead on the money. The second one tragically misunderstands humanity. War, hate, and desperation are not driving forces of upward mobility, they impede it. The drive to survive and flourish and prosper is the driving force behind humanity's reaching for the stars, and that will be better facilitated once we learn how to get along. Self governance is a start. Respecting the unalienable rights of all other people is the key.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux





Oh,don't get me wrong. I appreciate you responding to my post. I was just wondering if you had anything to say that was actually related to it.

War, hate, and desperation are not driving forces of upward mobility, they impede it. The drive to survive and flourish and prosper is the driving force behind humanity's reaching for the stars, and that will be better facilitated once we learn how to get along. Self governance is a start. Respecting the unalienable rights of all other people is the key.

Quoted because far too many believe the lie that Government regulation encourages innovation.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist


Ok, lets say, hypothetically, you are in jail. Now that your in there, you are talking so scientifically, so mathematically with the other inmates, they really really hate you. One is going to rape you, and the others are helping him.

It is inevitable, so why oppose it? Seriously, try to accommodate them, spread your legs, rub some soap on.... If it was inevitable, you wouldn't oppose it, right Mathphys? That is my question, Mathphys, if you THOUGHT your rape was inevitable, would you oppose it?

Cause the rest of us don't want to be shafted by the NWO, thats why we want to oppose it.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Oh,don't get me wrong. I appreciate you responding to my post. I was just wondering if you had anything to say that was actually related to it.

I have made several posts in this thread arguing against one world government while doing my best to patiently explain how to reign in corporatism. Clearly you had not bother to read any of that, nor many of the other posts made by people who argue against one world government, and instead made the disingenuous statement that you made. So, I did respond to your post and its relation to this thread, you just refuse to listen, just as I said to begin with.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You quite obviously believe the same thing yourself, but that ignores the point. I did not bring up the Founders to praise them, but to make clear that the tyranny they believed they lived under was marshmallows and pussy cats compared to the tyranny American's face today.

Talk is cheap. Why don't you do something about it? You liken your cause to that of the Founding Father's, and yet, here you are: The armchair libertarian.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxA long way, in many ways, in the wrong direction. Your nonsensical historical reference is absurd. Pearl Harbor happened at at time when the U.S. was not, by any stretch of the imagination, isolationists, and Pearl Harbor was during World War II, but America has all ready fought a World War (that would be WWI to clear up the confusion for you), and had engaged in several military excursions before WWI. The empire building by the U.S. had begun long before Pearl Harbor.

You clearly are lacking in history. After the first World War, the government took a neutral and isolationist stance on all global issues. It did not involve itself in the politics of other countries and wanted nothing to do with World War II in its inception. It was only after Pearl Harbor that the vast majority of Americans wanted their government to enter the war.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe Wright Brothers were not funded by government, nor was Henry Ford, and Jonas Salk wasn't a government scientist either. If you were a scientist of his caliber maybe you wouldn't be so concerned about government funding and expect people to pay taxes so you can have a pay check to do God knows what.

Wow, one anecdote, which is considered to be a fluke by the vast majority of scientists, to support your entire argument as to why private research is superior to government research.

Without NASA:
No GPS and weather forecasting (no way of predicting natural disasters as efficient as we do today) as well as satellite TV because no private industry would launch satellites into space without any possible returns on investment.
No computers.
No baby food.
No Velcro.
Efficient water purification systems.
Breakthroughs in nanotechnology used in everyday life by the private industry, the industry that called it complete nonsense and science-fiction 30 years ago and NASA was left to pick up the slack and pace on research.
And many more products you take for granted that were spin-offs of pure scientific research, scientific research that would never been done by the private industry.
In fact, for every 1$ spent on research by NASA, NASA spin-offs generate 6$ for the economy.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxIronically you called me a communist! The Wright Brothers were in private industry. Henry Ford private sector. Jonas Salk private sector. At some point the ugly beast of corporatism reared its ugly head and private industry became something else all together. Many people in this thread get that you have no faith in any individual other than yourself, but you have shown little reason to give any of us to share your faith, and of course, you have dismissed many a member in this thread who have earned far more respect than you have. This is a sign of elitism.

I never called or insinuated that you are a communist. Where did you come up with that?

The greater scientific community considers what the Wright brothers did as the greatest scientific fluke in history, especially when the top mathematical physicists at the time unanimously agreed that "matter heavier than air" will never take flight. This will never be repeated when it comes to the space travel and can only be accomplished by government research. Unless, of course, you believe 2 mechanics can somehow efficiently harness and use the energy to accomplish manned interstellar travel across the universe? If you do, please don't bother responding.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYour grasp of history and what really happened is shamefully inexcusable. Before NASA existed there were test pilots flying Bell X class series jets, (Bell being a part of "private industry"), that led to the breaking of the sound barrier and were geared, by the time X-15 was developed, to fly straight into space:

Bell X were military contractors exclusively to the government. They did not build commercial jets that break the sound barrier, but rather military jets and had many government scientists work on their projects along with their own scientists. Ergo, it was funded by the taxpayer and can be considered government research.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxAre you serious? Any smoker of length needs no government study to know how dangerous to their health these cigarettes are. Of course, sugar, and particularly high fructose sweetener's are dangerous too, and if people are listening to their bodies they don't need any research studies, privately funded or government funded, to tell them this.

Actually, the side effects of smoking are not pronounced and apparent until it is too late. If you were aware of the scientific studies conducted by the government, you'd know that. But, like always, you resort to rhetoric. The fact remains: If the government did not conduct research and scrap all regulations off the cigarette companies, there would be many more smokers without realizing the health effects, seeing as in your privatized utopian world, medical doctors wouldn't be doing research on smoking either and wouldn't have the sufficient knowledge to logically conclude that a patient's problems all stem from smoking.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI am currently debating an elitist whose agenda is undeniably to advocate one world government, and whose fairy tales and delusional fantasies are clearly on display.

If you consider a grad-school student surviving off of 18K/year on stipends and ramen noodles as elitist, then you really have a poor grasp of the term "elitist". I do not advocate for a one-world government (you didn't read my first post, did you?) but that of its inevitability in the distant future once all countries are on the same level in terms of economic development and culture. You would know that if you actually read my posts in this thread.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI have never claimed to be a libertarian, this is a label you and the other guy are using, obviously as a pejorative, to describe me, while then both of you rely upon strawman arguments to misrepresent what I have argued. You must necessarily lie in order to "refute" my arguments. This is more than telling.

When one implies that all forms of taxation is tyrannical, do you really expect us to infer that you are not a libertarian? That is what the Libertarian ideology promotes, and logically, that is what most people can deduce from people who imply such things. Or do you not understand rational deducing and inference?

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI am not the one advocating any overthrow of government, you are. A one world government will never come into existence as long as The Constitution for the United States of America stands in its way. Further, your lie that I advocate scrapping regulations for corporations is telling as well. Corporations are charted fictions that exist solely by permission of the state that chartered them. In the United States, that means these corporations exist by the grace of the people, and because of their artificial and granted existence, they are undeniably subject to regulation.

It is strange how you accuse me of constructing strawman arguments, while that is all that you have been doing. I did not advocate for a one-world government, and would happily fight if it were ever pushed for in my lifetime. However, I did say that it is inevitable in a few centuries given our evolution and the slow trend of cultures of the world merging into one global culture thanks primarily to the information age and the internet. If you are such a die-hard patriot, why are you on an international website? Is this not a form of the globalism you claim to be fighting against? No one is stopping from creating an American-only Abovetopsecret forum, where IP's from all other countries in the world are blocked. But, like all arm-chair libertarians, it's all talk and no action.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Corporatism is not capitalism, and corporatists hate capitalism and free and unregulated markets. Ironically, you seem to hate the free and unregulated market - as nonexistent as it is - too.

Unrestricted capitalism is a complete disaster. Just look at Northern Mexico and Somalia. The free-market has made those places very prosperous, hasn't it? If the unrestricted free-market is clearly the best system, how come it has failed every time it has been attempted? No one economic system is perfect, and mixed economy countries are generally the most stable for both the citizenry and the corporations. Just look at Scandinavian countries and compare them to libertopian (lawless) countries today. Case closed.

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI have just explained to you the facts about corporations. Because they exist by grant of charter, they are ultimately controlled by the people of the state in which they were chartered. What can be chartered into existence can have that charter revoked. Of course, most people are woefully ignorant of such causative actions and would instead whine like you are about how they are powerless to end corporatism. Useful idiots, each and every one. Useful to corporatism.

So, what are you doing about it to end "corporatism" and implement your nonsensical fantasy of an unrestricted capitalistic system? Talk is cheap.

There is no distinction between corporatism and unrestricted capitalism, well at least with corporatism according to your use of the word, there is some regulations in place to protect the people. With unrestricted capitalism, companies do not have to abide by any safety regulations that were normally in place to protect the people. Now, the normal citizen would have to start inspecting their food and drugs or paying an "unlicensed professional" to do it, whose credentials are impossible to confirm whether they are legitimate or not. Indeed, your proposal does sound to be superior in all aspects. Still, that does not stop wealthy people like the "evil" Rockefeller family from contracting young poor kids to work in coal mines and oil rigs, since they wouldn't be able to afford school as it is fundamentally wrong, according to you, to have a publicly funded education system.

After all, child labor laws conflict with the free-market and its potential, don't they?

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxPeople, much like you, seem content to blame and whine and cry and sob, and have absolutely no intention at all of actually solving the problems. Advocating an even bigger government certainly won't do this, and even so, you are clearly not in favor of killing a nasty corporation, just empowering government agencies tasked to prevent their malfeasance and perpetuate the moral hazard. Remember "too big to fail"?

No, actually, my proposals are practical in every sense. It is people like YOU who are living in this delusional fantasy that libertopia is the ideal society for mankind. People require centralized government in order to prosper as a nation, and there should be no reason why their individual rights cannot be upheld and respected while they obey laws and pay taxes for necessary services (education, roads, infrastructure, law enforcement, etc.). In libertopia, all of that is to be scrapped except law enforcement and military under the nonsensical pretense that every person and corporation will respect the liberties and freedoms of other people.

The irony is not lost on me, however. Isn't it your contention that corruption is always going to be widespread when a government is centralized? What will stop corporations from becoming corrupt, if not the government? At least with a government, they are accountable to the people. Corporations only care about their bottom-line profit and maximizing profit for their shareholders. Questionable behavior (corruption) that breaches the liberties of other people and kept hidden from the government (either by bribe or legal loopholes) is always an inevitable certainty.

Originally posted by Inkrinhuminge
Cause the rest of us don't want to be shafted by the NWO, thats why we want to oppose it.

I find your analogy does not fit. There is no "NWO" and there won't be a world-government in your lifetime nor in your great grandchildren's, so I suggest you stop being paranoid and get on with your life.

When countries are ready, both industrially and culturally (many centuries into the future), then and only then will a world government become necessary, and that is if the people want it. If people want to remain individual states, that is fine by me. Whatever the people want, goes.

If you need to ask this question, it's either too late and you've sipped the Kool-Aid, or your paycheck is signed by one of the numerous alphabet agencies in favor of the NWO...in which case, you made the Kool-Aid.

Either way, I don't feel any compassion for you.

Good Luck Comrade...you're gonna need it.

*snip*

you think your family yourself or grandchildren will be welcomed into a nwo better make sure your a neuro surgeon or your obsolete, sorry bud you don't have a ticket to ride this train.....



Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Originally posted by FrenchOsage
There was a time when I thought we Humans would be best served by a benevolent one world government.
Then reality kicked in.
Mind, I'm not one of the "educated", perhaps not even one of the "intelligent" mentioned in this thread.
Think of me as a "drop-out", but a drop-out who loves to read, especially history.
Disclaimers serve a purpose and therefore know that *I* know every author has some bias. I also agree that "history is written by the victors".
I believe the problem with Governments are not the "rules", or lack thereof, but the "Rulers". Far too often the wrong ones rise to the top.
If I may oversimplify, I say "Governments" usually exist to serve the governors.

I propose something far from your one world Government...I propose Anarchy. Every citizen with the weapons of war our "governments" use to coerce others into subjection.

There is peace in my neighborhood, a peace not enforced by "the" state...that is the strength of mankind, not Governments.

First, I would like to make it clear: Your lack of education has no bearing on the validity or lack thereof of your argument, and I respect you and your position for not resorting to personal attacks but rather just respectfully stating your post. I thank you for being civil, which is quite the rarity in this thread.

Indeed, human governance is corrupt. But, with our advances in AI and computer technology, what is your opinion on an objective robotic politician? Of course, by the time a world government is possible, I suspect our advances in AI technology by then would exceed that of the human brain. If a robot is programmed to serve the people and only the people, what problems can arise from that, seeing as machinery does not suffer from any of the corruption that is inherent among humans?

Just a thought I'd like to throw you.

Originally posted by Codered88
you sir are an idiot ; )

you think your family yourself or grandchildren will be welcomed into a nwo better make sure your a neuro surgeon or your obsolete, sorry bud you don't have a ticket to ride this train.....

How about you stop watching the lunatic Alex Jones and come back to reality?

What you do not realize is that the burden of proof is on you, since history has given us all of the independent nations that exist today. So saying you have heard all of the arguments against a one World government, and that you don't believe them, isn't saying anything at all.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist


Why oppose it? People have to want that type of world unity. You can't force people into it and expect them to be okay.

Personally, if done right, I would welcome it. But I don't really trust anyone to handle unity, so that's why I don't think a united world is ideal.

Originally posted by rdavis
Humans advance through conflict and competition, not by getting along. War, hate, and desperation will always be the driving force behind man's reaching for the stars- not by all of us getting along.

The vast resources that are the requirement for manned interstellar travel say otherwise.

If humans are in constant war and bloodshed, why would they have any time to focus on going into outer-space? Scientists will be spending their time researching to find any feasible real-world applications to military weapons and not space travel. Given that attitude, mankind will never make it to the cosmos and will self-destruct. In that case, I hope the new species that replaces us can forgo their differences and aim for the stars.

To be honest, I am inclined to agree. Mankind will most likely kill himself in a nuclear holocaust any one of these centuries before we ever have a chance to go into space.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

Originally posted by Codered88
you sir are an idiot ; )

you think your family yourself or grandchildren will be welcomed into a nwo better make sure your a neuro surgeon or your obsolete, sorry bud you don't have a ticket to ride this train.....

How about you stop watching the lunatic Alex Jones and come back to reality?

How about you start watching Alex Jones you lunatic and come back to reality? We could use your help! unification is powerful, but not the sort that I believe NWO would want. Hey MathPhys, do you believe your government is corrupt?

edit to add; a star for the post above mine, I actually agree with it... how funny.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
What you do not realize is that the burden of proof is on you, since history has given us all of the independent nations that exist today. So saying you have heard all of the arguments against a one World government, and that you don't believe them, isn't saying anything at all.

Strawman fallacy. I've already alluded to historical facts in my OP that people started out by defining their borders as tribes and clans, which then became villages and communities, eventually becoming cities and states, and finally the nation states we have today. What part of this did you not understand?