Why would you oppose a one world governement?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The Constitution our Founding Fathers made up was the best there is. You won't find a better one. I am tired of people whining about our Constitution and how bad it is. People just make a pitch for socialism and direct democracy. It's just getting so old listening to Utopians beg for their happy world where no one has to work.

That's your opinion. I disagree. I think the Swiss have a better constitution so I already found one.

How is direct democracy within a constitutional republic worse than representative government within a constitutional republic? One of the biggest gripes all around is that DC doesn't do the will of the people. What better way than having the people speak for themselves?

Who said anything about Utopia and not having to work?

The problems are manifold. Here are three.:

On an individual level, many countries offer different laws and mores some of which one person might find appealing while in other countries they could be capital offenses. With a one world government where could one hide from a law they find discriminatory or repulsive?

Who would control the money supply so that the government doesn't do what most have done, that is over spend the budget without giving a hoot and then devaluing the currency (inflation).?

Language is another barrier, not that people can't learn a second language, but that it is a matter of interpretation. Unless everyone speaks the same language fluently and with all the innuendo, there is bound to be misinterpretation.

Why do we depend on loudmouths to tell us what to do.

This comes down to evolution of the species, and right now the globe is not advanced enough to pull this off. When divisions are dropped and everyone realizes that we are all parts of a single whole, there will no longer be motive for war, greed, power... At this time a one-world government is the answer. Unfortunately, humanity still has a long way to go.

Reality is nothing more than a reflection of the global mind.. whatever government systems are in place now are there because this fits the collective consciousness of a country/region. The key to bringing about peace is not revolution, it's a large scale rise in awareness.

...one quick question before I subscribe or unsubscribe to this New World Order: Do I get chocolate??

If so...keep talking...if not, no thanks...


That might seem like a somewhat less than serious answer...though I view the initial question as less than serious.


Would I oppose a One World Govt?
Depends upon how it works or doesn't work out for myself and my loved ones. Thats the reality...I'm unlikely to oppose something that benefits me/my loved ones or doesn't make me feel too guilty about what is being done in order for us to benefit...most of us - if we were really honest - would think along the same lines I'd suggest.


But thats selfish! Where's your sense of social and moral responsibility!?
To which I answer this: If you're really so driven by social and moral responsibility - sell the computer you're typing on (and all your other *luxuries*) and donate the money, along with your time, to the closest soup-kitchen.


...and do I get chocolate??

Removing borders does not make everything all happy. Simply look at a nation individually and you will see this. The U.S. is extremely divided and corrupt.

We cannot have a one world government with our current WAY OF THINKING. Well we could...but it won't be the utopia that you imagine.

You may perhaps find interesting reading at my web samizdat on World Peace

LEARNERS: On the Move from WeaponWorld to PeaceWorld

learnerpeaceworld.info...

LEARNERS seeks to explain:

• WHY we have not achieved World Peace yet (including OWG)
  
• HOW to achieve it
  
• WHAT to expect after we have achieved it
  

Should mutual links be to your liking, I would post your URL at

learnerpeaceworld.info...

Any other suggestions or assistance in diffusing my work would be welcome. Right now, I have been a lonely voice in the wilderness for decades.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

To those of you opposed to One World Gov't, your hopeless tribalism and militaristic chaosism have become suicidal and obsolete; like a taste for human flesh, like preference for human slavery, and like divine favor of your identity group alone. Get over your precious selves and join the 21st century.

mark mulligan

Originally posted by allenidaho
I've always agreed with the "Spaceship Earth" school of thought. Forget about the whole NWO paranoia for a moment. Throw away your preconceived political notions and consider this.

Imagine the Earth as a ship. A living, breathing vessel hurling us around the solar system. And we are a crew of 6 billion and growing.

As this ship's crew, it should be our duty to utilize and manage our limited resources the best we can. And most importantly, it is imperative that we work together toward the greater good. To ensure our survival. To better our way of life. And to keep the ship running the best we can.

This is the only ship we've got. If we are to remain a crew divided, we are doomed.

Yes, the United Federation of Planets Model. Roddenberry's Star Trek fantasy one world/galaxy government. It's a great idea in theory. And as long as those who are in positions of authority in this government are enlightened beings, it would work ok. The problem is that in practice, those who rise to positions of authority are seldom enlightened. Positions of authority attract those who like power.

The best government is that which governs least (Jefferson), and the best way to have such a minimal government is by having smaller political units, not larger ones. Think about it. You have much more control over your city's government than you have over the Federal Government. In a local situation you have a better chance of knowing your elected officials. It takes less money to mount a counter-campaign if you don't like the way things are going. Whereas to change the President of the mumping U.S.A. calls for a substantially larger outlay.

My choice for such a responsive truly representative government would be along the lines of the Swiss model. Those folks have real democracy within those small cantons.

If a one world government meant everyone was equal, and had the same rights, opportunities and freedoms as everyone else - yes, that sounds wonderful, bring it on.

BUT do you really think TPTB are aiming for this?

reply to post by muse7


Living in a world which is run by the financial elite without the option of choosing one's own leaders is a lot like being a slave.

A Hitler in power would make life a living hell. If we get an evil president, we have the option of not electing him again. Also, term limits help keep dictators in check.

Living in a one world scenerio means that you would have to work your ass off to support others and therefore you would slave for a slave's existence. We are taxed beyond belief now to support entitlement programs; and what we endure now is nothing compared to what we would have to do in a one world scenerio.

There's alredy a one world government, they just haven't admitted it yet

reply to post by muse7
.

I agree with the ideology part of your topic, but when idea meets reality, it's not as simple as it seems.
Of course we won't be fighting like we are now, where most to all countries hate one another.
But sooner or later, there WILL be an opposing group in that 'one world government', and as history shows, it can escalate to violence and seperation very quickly.

Not to mention how hectic it will be for one government to control the entire world.
Then we would have to start branching out the 'one world government' into different sections, and those sections will turn into opposing ideas, and halleluja, a war.

One world government is a dream, and a dumb one.

I oppose centralized governments, especially the idea of a one world government. My reasoning:

Ultimately, not everybody has the same ideals. A person can only be secure in their own ideals when they are not ruled over by a government, but why is this? Well, it's because of that earlier statement, "not everbody has the same Ideals." When a group of persons come together to form a government there will ultimately never be any action of that government that will be approved of unanimously by the citizens thereof, simply because we are all different.

Now, as a country, and the government thereof, grow, more persons will be under the wing of this government. As the population of a country increases so do the idealogical divides of the people; a government can only have one policy on a particular issue, and as such can only appease so many. As the country, and its government, increase in size so to do the divides of the people over the policy of that country and government. Therefor, the best way to keep all of the peoples of the world appeased is to allow them to all do and associate as they choose for themselves.

The only legitimate reason for the existance of governments is that there are those who simply cannot fend for themselves. However, though this is a worthy cause, governments are inherently corrupt, especially very large, centralized. Tell me, how corrupt is the government of the United States, which has five-hundred-thirty-five representatives representing three-hundred-million citizens? No, I'll tell you; Very.

As power trickles down to larger and larger governments corruption sinks its teeth deeper and deeper into said government. The most functional government, therefor, is the smallest; a government that the all of citizens of can march on within an hour is the least likely to give in to corruption.

I would give my life to live free. Nothing would change for the better, in fact it would be inevitably worse. We would all be slaves, all of us. You would have to take my life before that happened and I guess they would have to terminate people like me who oppose them with every once of my being...

Originally posted by muse7
Wouldn't that be better than living in countries, divided by lines in the sand and fighting like school children in playgrounds?

Do you actually think that a one world government would stop all fighting? Trust me... People would quickly find a way to start fighting over something, dividing land and creating lines in the sand....

Look inside any single country. There is fighting within them. There is even Civil War in some. That should tell you just what would happen... Or rather, KEEP happening.

So my question to you. What GOOD would a one world government do?

A global government does 'sound' nice but I think the reality of it would be a very different experience. I think local is the best way IMO

peace!

reply to post by muse7
Many people would die rather than live in the world and the life you Muse about. There have been great efforts made to melt the racial, religious and other lines that divide and define people and while breeding matters amongst horses, chickens and spiders, we are told it doesn't matter where human beings are concerned, except of course amongst the Royals and Wealthy Elite..you won't see Prince Henry marrying an Mexican or Princess Alexandra marrying some rapper from LA, anymore than you will see a Champion Thoroughbred being bred to a mule. You see, one of the things being done is a mongrelizing of the common people until only a DNA Test will tell who or where a person came from. It is all a lie that will melt when the next World War is over and people once again become tribal and who you are, what you are and where your people came from will again matter. The Teaming Masses will of course huddle together but the plan is to strangle 80% of the world population out and off the face of the earth. Am I being harsh or cruel? Well guess what, those ARE the plans of the people behind the New World Order and you will be the willing fertilizer for them. Now tell me, am I lying?

To the OP. I can answer "why" by asking a few questions.

What language would be the global language?
What culture would be the global culture?
What would the economic structure be?
Would the individual matter, or would decisions be made strictly for the "masses"?
Would an individual have the right to protect themselves, with deadly force if necessary (bear arms)?

If you answer those questions honestly, you'll understand why I will never support a one world government.

reply to post by muse7


Except that this would install a One World Socialist government...there will be nowhere to run for those people who don't want to participate in your "pipedream"...

Obviously you really don't think about other people... People like you only seem to think to MAKE others accept your version of an utopia...

What will you do with those who don't want to accept your "pipedream"? I can guarantee it WILL be a mayority of people... The so called "people's movements and worker's movements" are only a small portion of the world, and yes people like you are readily accepting what tptb want to implement, a world dictatorship where they get to choose, and control every aspect of people's lives...

ABAJO LA OCUPACION....

DOWN WITH THE OCCUPATION...

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by 547000

 

Stalin said that, too..........

Stalin realized the crux of the matter too, or why do you think he used propaganda and killed people who tried to leave Russia? One mindset cannot coexist with the other. If you believe in individual dignity over the collective, you will not fit in with the Spock people. And if two different societies form they will squabble over resources, each claiming that the resources belong to everyone. The only thing that can unite the world is tyranny or a universal religion.