It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it?
page: 20share:
reply to post by Xaphan
After reading the whole of this thread I still fail to see why 'a global government would be a disaster'
We have never had a openly global government. What do we currently have that is so precious?
What freedom?
If not a global government then some form of anarchy, why not? It would be no worse than the present global situation, unless you are comfortably off, rarely a victim of crime, live in a nice safe neighborhood, have a good secure job, transport, secure future, family to take care of you when you are unable to look after yourself.
This does not describe the majority of the population of the planet so quit trying to defend your right to have something to the exclusion of most others. I live in Britain, the west, I am not willing to defend my right to something I have no chance of attaining
After reading the whole of this thread I still fail to see why 'a global government would be a disaster'
We have never had a openly global government. What do we currently have that is so precious?
What freedom?
If not a global government then some form of anarchy, why not? It would be no worse than the present global situation, unless you are comfortably off, rarely a victim of crime, live in a nice safe neighborhood, have a good secure job, transport, secure future, family to take care of you when you are unable to look after yourself.
This does not describe the majority of the population of the planet so quit trying to defend your right to have something to the exclusion of most others. I live in Britain, the west, I am not willing to defend my right to something I have no chance of attaining
A one word government is inevitable but it has to happen naturally and ruled by the people.
a one world government ignited by fear and proxy wars for oppression is not what i want to be a part of.
there is a difference
a one world government ignited by fear and proxy wars for oppression is not what i want to be a part of.
there is a difference
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
I agree that a one world govt could be a good thing. Just not with the people trying to implement it today. power hungry greedy sadistic spoilt brats who need a good old fashioned council estate arse kicking
I agree that a one world govt could be a good thing. Just not with the people trying to implement it today. power hungry greedy sadistic spoilt brats who need a good old fashioned council estate arse kicking
reply to post by Threegirls
It is a profound indictment of government that the majority of the population of the planet does not live in a state of freedom. I can see no better reason to oppose a one world government than this right here. It is astounding to me that some of the best arguments made in this thread against global domination are coming from the people actually advocating it. The fact that these people seem incapable of recognizing this is only more reason to oppose a one world government. People get the government they deserve, and if people are insistent on maintaining a culture of thoughtlessness and lack of discernment, that insistence will only be amplified by the government they ordain.
Let's make no mistake about this, governments exist by consent of the governed. Hitler existed by consent of the governed. Hussein existed by consent of the governed. The Soviet Union, and China's government today exist by the consent of the governed...and of course, the shameful and unlawful imperialism thrust upon the world by the United States today is happening by consent of the governed.
Before there was government, there were people. People do not exist because governments allow it. Governments exist because people allow it. All people, everywhere, regardless of what some Constitution might say, or what a body of legislation might say, hold the inherent political power. Sovereignty begins with the individual, not with land, and certainly not by some divine right doctrine, or social contract or military thuggery that would deign that sovereignty belongs to the privileged.
Pointing to the fact that most people on the planet are continually having their natural and unalienable rights denied and disparaged does not undermine their rights, it undermines the value of the governments that are demonstrably failing to protect these rights, and failing that ensuring every individual has a method by which to seek a redress of grievances.
All people, everywhere, are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Why these rights tend to be trampled upon by the very governments that should be tasked with protecting them is because far too many people believe that law is arbitrary and capricious and that it is legislated and enforced based on whimsy.
This idea that one persons rights can exist at the exclusion of other peoples rights is not true, and misunderstands what rights are. Rights are not privileges, regardless of the artful use of priest class lawyers who love to utter their mystical incantations and equate privileges with rights. Privileges are favors granted by some other person to another. A privilege can be granted or denied. Rights, on the other hand, can be neither granted nor denied. They can be trampled on, spat on, pissed on, defecated on, but when they are this is not lawful. When it becomes legal to trample, spit, piss, and defecate on rights, it does so by consent of the governed.
What then, are rights? They are far too numerous to list, and are better understood in what they are not. Shakespeare wrote, in All's Well That Ends Well, "Love all, trust few, and do wrong to none". Do no harm. If you are not harming anyone else, then what you do, you do by right. The only exception to this is in the matter of defense.
All people have the right to life, and to property. It follows then that they have the right to defend this life, and their property. They have the right to equal the force being used against them to accomplish this defense.
These are what rights are, and they are not in any way rights that exist to the exclusion of others.
This does not describe the majority of the population of the planet so quit trying to defend your right to have something to the exclusion of most others. I live in Britain, the west, I am not willing to defend my right to something I have no chance of attaining
It is a profound indictment of government that the majority of the population of the planet does not live in a state of freedom. I can see no better reason to oppose a one world government than this right here. It is astounding to me that some of the best arguments made in this thread against global domination are coming from the people actually advocating it. The fact that these people seem incapable of recognizing this is only more reason to oppose a one world government. People get the government they deserve, and if people are insistent on maintaining a culture of thoughtlessness and lack of discernment, that insistence will only be amplified by the government they ordain.
Let's make no mistake about this, governments exist by consent of the governed. Hitler existed by consent of the governed. Hussein existed by consent of the governed. The Soviet Union, and China's government today exist by the consent of the governed...and of course, the shameful and unlawful imperialism thrust upon the world by the United States today is happening by consent of the governed.
Before there was government, there were people. People do not exist because governments allow it. Governments exist because people allow it. All people, everywhere, regardless of what some Constitution might say, or what a body of legislation might say, hold the inherent political power. Sovereignty begins with the individual, not with land, and certainly not by some divine right doctrine, or social contract or military thuggery that would deign that sovereignty belongs to the privileged.
Pointing to the fact that most people on the planet are continually having their natural and unalienable rights denied and disparaged does not undermine their rights, it undermines the value of the governments that are demonstrably failing to protect these rights, and failing that ensuring every individual has a method by which to seek a redress of grievances.
All people, everywhere, are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Why these rights tend to be trampled upon by the very governments that should be tasked with protecting them is because far too many people believe that law is arbitrary and capricious and that it is legislated and enforced based on whimsy.
This idea that one persons rights can exist at the exclusion of other peoples rights is not true, and misunderstands what rights are. Rights are not privileges, regardless of the artful use of priest class lawyers who love to utter their mystical incantations and equate privileges with rights. Privileges are favors granted by some other person to another. A privilege can be granted or denied. Rights, on the other hand, can be neither granted nor denied. They can be trampled on, spat on, pissed on, defecated on, but when they are this is not lawful. When it becomes legal to trample, spit, piss, and defecate on rights, it does so by consent of the governed.
What then, are rights? They are far too numerous to list, and are better understood in what they are not. Shakespeare wrote, in All's Well That Ends Well, "Love all, trust few, and do wrong to none". Do no harm. If you are not harming anyone else, then what you do, you do by right. The only exception to this is in the matter of defense.
All people have the right to life, and to property. It follows then that they have the right to defend this life, and their property. They have the right to equal the force being used against them to accomplish this defense.
These are what rights are, and they are not in any way rights that exist to the exclusion of others.
reply to post by ThePeopleParty
I do not believe there is only one group trying to work towards and implement a global government. There are religious groups, social groups, political groups, so many who have hope that it could be achievable with many diverse minds working together to ensure that it does not become all of those negative things that nobody here wants. There are so many people today with the benefit of the lessons of history and with many perspectives. For the global Gov to become corrupt it would take each representative from each country to be complicit in the corruption. I like the interactive Gov idea using the internet to give each person a voice. It is possible that equality of race, sex, and every other diversity would be a byproduct of such a Gov.
I think there should be more debate and meditation on this topic. The religion argument against it holds no water.
I do not believe there is only one group trying to work towards and implement a global government. There are religious groups, social groups, political groups, so many who have hope that it could be achievable with many diverse minds working together to ensure that it does not become all of those negative things that nobody here wants. There are so many people today with the benefit of the lessons of history and with many perspectives. For the global Gov to become corrupt it would take each representative from each country to be complicit in the corruption. I like the interactive Gov idea using the internet to give each person a voice. It is possible that equality of race, sex, and every other diversity would be a byproduct of such a Gov.
I think there should be more debate and meditation on this topic. The religion argument against it holds no water.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Seveen
Yes and with government leaders turning their heads and prostituting our nation out to foreign leaders this "One World Federation" is right on track. How many people need to die for a small handful of people to rule the world and a majority of citizens sold bliss in exchange for their freedoms.
The problem is thinking TPTB owe you something.
They don't. Not really.
So basically you are saying that you do not disagree with 80% of the population decreasing due to man made disease and war and would argue that this be permitted because those with money and power don't owe humanity the decency to evolve according to God's plan?
In case you don't read your bible those who do wicked things are meant to suffer for them and those chosen are to be gifted and some are to be the ones that bring about retribution for man kind. My Christ is a warrior and my people believe that Christ is humanity... we have the ability to make decisions in this world and it is our job to make the right ones. We are suppose to be helping humanity not hurting them, by your opinion I can only guess which side your on. You are either another drone or really believe what you say but.... Sadly you and your side has no say in what good does only evil.
This is a very good quote.
Originally posted by FuturePeace
A one word government is inevitable but it has to happen naturally and ruled by the people.
a one world government ignited by fear and proxy wars for oppression is not what i want to be a part of.
there is a difference
A One World Government is not a bad thing. . . but it is a VERY broad term. We need to realize that we can have a World Goverment, or we could have a corrupt World Goverment. People fighting the NWO aren't all fighting the idea of a World Goverment, but the very real upcomming corrupt World Goverment that will have even more leverage against the people than the governments in place currently have.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
My complaints about the failings current methods of Government invite contemplation. The statement you quoted does not support any argument it simply states a fact about current failings. All known methods of governing have potential pitfalls, that is true. If you can see the pitfalls you can avoid them.
The guiding principles for any gov should be peace, fairness and equality. If that was the global gov principles then my statement about current failings would not apply. The current UK gov is causing these problems due to violating the principles of peace and fairness.
My complaints about the failings current methods of Government invite contemplation. The statement you quoted does not support any argument it simply states a fact about current failings. All known methods of governing have potential pitfalls, that is true. If you can see the pitfalls you can avoid them.
The guiding principles for any gov should be peace, fairness and equality. If that was the global gov principles then my statement about current failings would not apply. The current UK gov is causing these problems due to violating the principles of peace and fairness.
reply to post by Threegirls
As long as the unalienable rights of individuals is treated as some sort of legal fiction that can be taken away, there will be no peace, fairness, and certainly not equality under the law.
The guiding principle for any just government should be the zealous protection of individual rights.
The guiding principles for any gov should be peace, fairness and equality.
As long as the unalienable rights of individuals is treated as some sort of legal fiction that can be taken away, there will be no peace, fairness, and certainly not equality under the law.
The guiding principle for any just government should be the zealous protection of individual rights.
Originally posted by Seveen
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Seveen
Yes and with government leaders turning their heads and prostituting our nation out to foreign leaders this "One World Federation" is right on track. How many people need to die for a small handful of people to rule the world and a majority of citizens sold bliss in exchange for their freedoms.
The problem is thinking TPTB owe you something.
They don't. Not really.
So basically you are saying that you do not disagree with 80% of the population decreasing due to man made disease and war and would argue that this be permitted because those with money and power don't owe humanity the decency to evolve according to God's plan?
How do you get that out of my short blunt statements?
I am Atheist. It is delusional to think there is some kind of moral authority over seeing TPTB.
Originally posted by xPico
A One World Government is not a bad thing. . . but it is a VERY broad term. We need to realize that we can have a World Goverment, or we could have a corrupt World Goverment. People fighting the NWO aren't all fighting the idea of a World Goverment, but the very real upcomming corrupt World Goverment that will have even more leverage against the people than the governments in place currently have.
YES!
How and Who - - not When or If.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As long as the unalienable rights of individuals is treated as some sort of legal fiction that can be taken away, there will be no peace, fairness, and certainly not equality under the law.
The guiding principle for any just government should be the zealous protection of individual rights.
Not the way I understand it, please define what you mean. Individual rights should be subject to peace, fairness and equality not the other way round.
reply to post by Threegirls
All people are subject to individual rights. Rights are not some sort of legal fiction invented by kings, legislators, or judges, they are the natural phenomena that arises with life, and social interaction. Rights are not fiction, they are natural.
People do not have the right to life because some wise old man declared it so. Wise old men, and women, recognized the self evident truth of this. The right to self defense, or property is derived from the right to life and the right to property, which are self evident rights that exist with or without government.
When people are acting lawfully, and recognize that they are subject to these laws, not legislation, but laws, then peace, fairness, and equality under the law prevails.
On a side note, it should be noted that I am being almost pedantically precise with the use of the word "equality", which if it is to equated with fairness and peace in this context, can only mean equality under the law. It is just as self evident, that on a biological level, we are not all equal, and because of individual effort, we are not all equal. Equality, in and of itself, is too broad under these circumstances. It is important to be clear that we mean equality under the law.
Not the way I understand it, please define what you mean. Individual rights should be subject to peace, fairness and equality not the other way round.
All people are subject to individual rights. Rights are not some sort of legal fiction invented by kings, legislators, or judges, they are the natural phenomena that arises with life, and social interaction. Rights are not fiction, they are natural.
People do not have the right to life because some wise old man declared it so. Wise old men, and women, recognized the self evident truth of this. The right to self defense, or property is derived from the right to life and the right to property, which are self evident rights that exist with or without government.
When people are acting lawfully, and recognize that they are subject to these laws, not legislation, but laws, then peace, fairness, and equality under the law prevails.
On a side note, it should be noted that I am being almost pedantically precise with the use of the word "equality", which if it is to equated with fairness and peace in this context, can only mean equality under the law. It is just as self evident, that on a biological level, we are not all equal, and because of individual effort, we are not all equal. Equality, in and of itself, is too broad under these circumstances. It is important to be clear that we mean equality under the law.
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
I agree with everything you say, but there should be no central goverment controlling it, it should just have admin offices.
I want to see the complete dissolution of boundaries and the fair distribution of wealth and recources worldwide. Boundaries are an imaginary construct anyway, and if we had a fair spread of wealth you wouldn't get people all emigrating to the rich countries.
To govern this and keep order there should be locally elected Cantons - one for every city, bigger ones for bigger cities, and they should be known to all citizens.
I agree with everything you say, but there should be no central goverment controlling it, it should just have admin offices.
I want to see the complete dissolution of boundaries and the fair distribution of wealth and recources worldwide. Boundaries are an imaginary construct anyway, and if we had a fair spread of wealth you wouldn't get people all emigrating to the rich countries.
To govern this and keep order there should be locally elected Cantons - one for every city, bigger ones for bigger cities, and they should be known to all citizens.
Click here for more information.
Mod note: Read before posting. Please refrain from personal commentary and confine your comments to the topic. Thanks. -- Majic
edit on 7/12/2011 by Majic because: (no reason given)
I believe in a sense this is okay especially since were moving to the space frontier we need to become one as a world to conquer whats next which im
sure is already in play but I'm not chill with them killing us off or allowing steroids or any GMO's in our meats and foods and all the health risks
they surround us with.
In a sense we must have a one world government, but the government needs to have the right intentions, no doubt.
In a sense we must have a one world government, but the government needs to have the right intentions, no doubt.
reply to post by SeattlesFinest
Who is moving to the space frontier?.....As far as I am concerned, retiring the shuttle without a replacement is a major setback.....What are they replacing it with again?
I believe in a sense this is okay especially since were moving to the space frontier
Who is moving to the space frontier?.....As far as I am concerned, retiring the shuttle without a replacement is a major setback.....What are they replacing it with again?
reply to post by liejunkie01
lol they have another shuttle that will be controlled by magnetic force from a docking unit on earth. The new space craft that will start test flights in 2014 can travel to mars in 5 months instead of the one we have now which would be 5 years..
Our new commercial airlines will take us 2 hours to go around the world.
Then the virgin mobile guy made a space ship for people to get to go to outer space for 4 minutes which will cost $200,000.
So if you ask me were coming up fast buddy, Id like to hear some more of your theories another time.
lol they have another shuttle that will be controlled by magnetic force from a docking unit on earth. The new space craft that will start test flights in 2014 can travel to mars in 5 months instead of the one we have now which would be 5 years..
Our new commercial airlines will take us 2 hours to go around the world.
Then the virgin mobile guy made a space ship for people to get to go to outer space for 4 minutes which will cost $200,000.
So if you ask me were coming up fast buddy, Id like to hear some more of your theories another time.
reply to post by liejunkie01
lol they have another shuttle that will be controlled by magnetic force from a docking unit on earth. The new space craft that will start test flights in 2014 can travel to mars in 5 months instead of the one we have now which would be 5 years..
Our new commercial airlines will take us 2 hours to go around the world.
Then the virgin mobile guy made a space ship for people to get to go to outer space for 4 minutes which will cost $200,000.
So if you ask me were coming up fast buddy, Id like to hear some more of your theories another time.
lol they have another shuttle that will be controlled by magnetic force from a docking unit on earth. The new space craft that will start test flights in 2014 can travel to mars in 5 months instead of the one we have now which would be 5 years..
Our new commercial airlines will take us 2 hours to go around the world.
Then the virgin mobile guy made a space ship for people to get to go to outer space for 4 minutes which will cost $200,000.
So if you ask me were coming up fast buddy, Id like to hear some more of your theories another time.
edit on 12-7-2011 by SeattlesFinest
because: (no reason given)
Putting all talk of Elites and the like aside, I believe that it is evolution that will drive us towards a one world government. Evolution will also
push humanity outwards and we will begin to spread the human seed beyond our solar system. Why can't people see what the inevitable is? Humanity will
not survive unless we form a global union of states that can ensure the welfare of the planet, it's people and can defend itself from outside threats
such as asteroids and comets. I also believe that in order for a planet to succeed, a country like the United States must form on EVERY planet that
has intelligent life in order for them to successfully begin the process of galactic exploration. Now before anybody goes ape# on the U.S. part...I'm
not talking about the wackadoo Christian Right nutjobs we have here. I'm talking about the principles the nation was founded on...freedom, peace,
security, responsibility and sacrifice. Whether you feel it's b.s. on the part of the U.S. is irrelevant. Those are the principles a world government
has to adopt before it can move forward and progress. As a matter of fact I will go so far as to say a Liberal planet will have a MUCH better chance
at survival than any other kind of government that Iv'e seen here on Earth. If your against a one world government, you are standing in the way of
destiny, fate, evolution and progress. That's alot of stuff coming your way...I think you might want slide a lil bit to the left!
new topics
-
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat: 2 hours ago -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People: 5 hours ago
top topics
-
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago, 7 flags -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People: 5 hours ago, 3 flags -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat: 2 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Christmas Dinner ??
Food and Cooking • 17 • : putnam6 -
It's Offical Now
US Political Madness • 6 • : Oldcarpy2 -
London Christmas Market BANS Word ‘Christmas’
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 43 • : Freeborn -
The reason it works is.....
General Chit Chat • 1 • : Naftalin -
1 Billion dollars
General Entertainment • 12 • : Blueracer -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 49 • : Xtrozero -
Can someone 'splain me like I'm 5. Blockchain?
Science & Technology • 97 • : Xtrozero -
NYPD arrests migrant who allegedly set woman on fire on subway train, watched her burn to death
Breaking Alternative News • 53 • : GENERAL EYES -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3809 • : Crazierfox -
Dick Van Dyke saved from Wildfire by neighbours on his 99th birthday
People • 0 • : gortex