Why would you oppose a one world governement?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by muse7

 

My guess is that no high level degree Mason would be as naive as you to think that all it takes is doing away with borders to bring us all together.

Gee, just imagine that slavery never even would have existed if there were no borders. Gee, just imagine that there never would have been any religious persecution if there were no borders. Gee, just imagine that ever persons unalienable rights would be treated with profound respect, if only there were no borders.

So far you have argued well against the idea that the world would be any better without borders, but not as to why it would be bad.

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr

So far you have argued well against the idea that the world would be any better without borders, but not as to why it would be bad.

I am not arguing against a borderless world, but against a "one world government" and even then, if and when people learn how to govern themselves then even a "one world government" would not be so bad. That is to say, when humanity can learn to respect the rights of everyone else, and to understand that outside of defense of self, property, or others in need of defense, no one has the right to cause others harm, then I am willing to discuss the idea of a centralized government that spans the globe.

Tragically, I am confronted daily by people who insist that rights are nothing more than "social constructs" and do not deserve the reverence I afford them. As long as that remains the case, no "one world government" will usher in peace. More than likely, under this tragic set of circumstances, a "one world government" would find its "authority" through tyranny. The O.P. (and I cannot help but wonder if this O.P. is joking or being a "devils advocate" when he makes such assertions) is suggesting "rehabilitation" camps to bring in this peace.

Other ideologues come to his defense, while fastidiously distancing themselves from the stupidity of suggestion such as "rehabilitation" camps, and argue in the past it was "primitives" who bashed each other into suppression, as if such is not the case today. Somehow we are expected to believe humanity is much more civilized today.

Simple observation of modern events demonstrates that humanity is far from being "civilized" in any sense that the naive ideologues insist it is.

reply to post by muse7


One world government would lead to continued streamline of society. As different forms of government are culled then it will move to religion, then to philosophical ideologies and later to petty things such as race. All these things would need to come to pass in order to have one way one thought one philosohy and one people. having too many diverse groups would work against unity which would eventually lead to the government breaking back up into countries. that is the point of countries to keep ideologies, religion and customs alive.

Much diversity would be lost.

This is not even mentioning that putting power over the world under one government would be very attractive to those with world domination in mind. Total absolute power is always sought after by evil tyrants.. putting the whole world under one government is a wet dream for all dictators. Stalin, Hitler and mao would be ecstatic over the idea.

it is never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.

reply to post by muse7


I respect that as an idea that I hope one day can come to stand. In this world where greed and laziness have corrupted many people, I find it hard to understand how it would apply. The greed and laziness has been used to fuel capitalism and free market economies the world over. I am not a socialist or communist, but I believe in personal accountability. When we have people that are willing to sacrifice the good of others for their personal gain, we cannot achieve world unification. In the so called 'good' nations there is economic rape and pillaging going on every day. There is chemical poisoning of the species and many species. There is ignorance, sloth and avarice being trained in the generations of citizens that should learn to be self reliant. Religion has created politics which has created this whole damned mess we are in in this world. Giving over the last vestige of individuality at this point would be like handing the keys and walking out to put on the shackles. Do not believe in the benevolence of the powers that be at this time in history. Do not live in paranoia either, but try to share information and live in preparation.

Nah.. although personally, it doesn't matter to me.. skirting this or that system, all the same. I'll float around whatever govt mores / rules I don't agree with regardless. There will be a sub culture, and I'll be a proud member. Could be a tropical island, or a different patch of Earth that best suits my fringe lifestyle.. so be it.

How about abolishing "national" governments all together.. let locals decide their environment. Every state & county can set their own unique policies that reflect the will of the people... hookers and drugs would become legal here in Santa Cruz over night..lol

All I want from the govt is to maintain the roads and pick up the trash, I dont need their advice, opinions.. or to be led by any TV stranger anointed 'leader'.

Perhaps a 1 would govt would be bigger, clumsier, and more far removed dumber than current DC mafioso... allowing for better graft opportunities... especially in areas where dear leaders were roundly despised.

Have you heard of the diversification benefit in portfolio investment theory?

In simple terms it states that a portfolio will generally exhibit superior performance when the individual securities held in the portfolio do not covary together or another way to put it is negative correlation. When one investment is doing poorly, then it helps if another investment are doing well and vice versa. Diversification decreases risk w/o decreasing the return.

In this world of increasing interconnectedness it is getting harder and harder to find investments and economies that do not covary together and everything increasingly has positive correlations. This increases risk w/0 increasing the return.

This principleof diversification also applies to governments, diseases and many other multivariate systems. A one world government would make it nearly impossible to reduce risk through diversification. Bad government will be more damaging, recessions will be amplified, disease epidemics will spread more rapidly because instead of having many, interconnected systems we will have one system.

I don't care about aliens, Illuminati, ancient prophesy or any of the endless conspiracy theories you find on ATS, but I do know that a one world system would markedly amplify the posibilities to wipe all of humanity of the face of the earth.

reply to post by muse7


Yes , because the Needs of the Many Outweight the Needs of the One...........

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?

*waits to be called a globalist 37th degree mason rothschild*

Might be a pipe dream on my part, but I had been thinking about this for a while and I think it would take some time to get used to living in such a world, but wouldn't that be the ideal world to live in? Everyone being together without countries separating us and preventing us from reaching our potential as a species, instead we like to brand ourselves white, black, brown, hispanic, etc those things just keep us from reaching our true potential.

To be honest I wouldn't really mind a one world gov.
As long as it is just and fair it has my vote.
But that is not the most likely scenario, chances are bigger that this one world gov would become corrupt and opressive.
So unless somebody of some organisation could garanty the fairness of that government, I wouldn't want to see a one world gov.

reply to post by muse7


I don't think that a one world government/global community could work. I echo a lot of replies already in this thread when I say that all the cultures, religions, sects, etc, would never be able to come under one government unless that government could rule with an iron fist. That's something none of us would want.

Besides that, it is the competition that pushes us forward. If we were all mindless peons under the thumb of a single governing body, there would be no need to advance in any aspect, be that technology, science, whatever.

That's my bit.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

Touche!
The bigger the entity, whether it is political, mechanical, social or whatever, the more apt is to break and the harder it is to administer. Also, the bigger the political body the less individual sovereignty we have and thus less liberty. Please, look around you. This is apparent in almost everything we do.

I agree with the op. If done right it could be the best thing to ever happen to humanity.

John Lennon said it best....

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Of course the biggest problem is, TPTB will never do it right...*sigh*

reply to post by muse7


I used to oppose the idea but as time goes on and i think of the good it could do if incorporated properly. Earth would be far better tro live in for everyone from every background and political ideology. All that technology and knowledge shared equally. Our aims to preserve our species and look to the stars.

The current leaders however i am opposed to they are all nutjobs especially Israel with its new wargame aimed at Iran and calling for WW3.

Imagine a world united like the Earth on Star Trek or Coruscant of Star Wars. Nothing is impossible.

The natural way of things are tribe takes over lands and caves of less evolved tribe, said tribe settles on land and forms villages and learn to prosper, these villages become towns overtime spreading influence to other regions, these influential towns become cities and colonise new regions, these groups of cities become countries as the centuries roll by, this new country turns into an empire as it continues to spread throughout the world and dominate new peoples, as the milennia roll by individual countries may join to become allies and share things, these countries shortly become unions and then finally when all countries are unions the next step is one global government governed by a vast international cabinet who speak one language and share one agenda.

The perfect NWO would be one where all countries retain their individual pride,purity and traditions but all must conform to one world currency to prevent economic meltdowns, a one world military and eventually as technology permits a space fleet, one world aim and everyone has the right to vote, free healthcare, free education etc.


Currently however i fear for this planet when nutjobs like Netanyahu run freely among the corridors of power. As our governments care only for themselves and not their country a recent example being all the main parties in the UK refused to give a referendum on the EU problem when millions of fed up Britons want out. A time where uncontrolled birthrates,expansion and immigration is unsettling native populations of humans and animals alike.

We need a new world or to make a better one and frankly the former is easier than the latter as the world tumbles deeper into trouble.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Wouldn't that be taken care of if it could be enforced that people are allowed to believe whatsoever as they desire, so long as it does not interfere with another person being entitled to believe differently?

Right there is the start of how to deal with your religious issues. Get your mind on your game, and out of the games of others. Unless you've got nothing better to do, in which case I feel bad for you son, I got many many problems, but being overburdened by the beliefs of another, most certainly isn't one.

(anyone see what i did thar? ^ also, I'm not speaking specifically about yourself Erongaricuaro, it was more of a general statement for any busy bodies in the audience.)

I don't think anyone is shut off entirely to the idea ( I may be wrong) because there is potential that it could take the human race to the next level and stop wars and move us into the space age.

What people are complaining about is any of the current existing nation's governments being the foundation for a world government. The U.S. had potential, but it is blowing it, by stripping rights away, having a two party system, bowing to corporations, and building it's military. A functioning, decent one world government would have no need for a giant military. It would be so beneficial to the people that any uprisings would be be very small pockets. If they grew then there would be an obvious problem in the government.

A one world government is a good thing, but it will have to be a new type of government not yet existing (that i am aware of).

reply to two posts by Jean Paul Zodeaux [2]

Are you attempting to equate Zionism with mythology?

No. Zionism is a political movement. If 'the Jews should return to Zion, because it is their homeland’ is an ideological statement, then Zionism is an ideology. But that, as I said before, is arguable. What is not arguable is that the Zionist movement, whether an ideology or not, is based on a myth. Palestine is not the ‘homeland’ of the Jews, any less or any more than New York or Basra is.

Such a suggestion is typical of ideologues such as yourself who generally like to use the word "myth" as another word for falsehood, or lie.

I’m an ideologue, eh? All right, then, what’s my ideology?

Geopolitical. Emphasis added.

Do you think ‘geopolitical’ is a synonym for ‘ideological’? Or do you think ‘political' and ‘ideological’ are synonymous?

GEOPOLITICS
1: a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state

2: a governmental policy guided by geopolitics

3: a combination of political and geographic factors relating to something (as a state or particular resources)

Merriam-Webster

Not much about ideology there, I’m afraid.

Did you honestly believe I would have any difficulty at all in finding these references?

Not at all. I have some difficulty believing you quoted them, though, because they prove you wrong. Seriously, Jean-Paul, why don’t you consult a dictionary to find out what ‘ideology’ means? It is painfully obvious that you don’t understand the meaning of the word.

Oh sure, the hoodlum Hitler's advance all over Europe, battering his neighbors into submission was not ideological, it was really just some totemic primal urge.

Indeed it was, and it wasn’t just Hitler’s, either. I suggest you read Thomas Mann’s masterpiece, Doctor Faustus; it’s a neat way of gaining an understanding about the relationship between Nazism and totemic, primal urges in pre-war German society. You might also dip into the economic and political history of Europe between the First and Second World Wars, which might explain a few more things about Hitler and the rise of Nazism.

Such wars as?

Such wars as occur between Bronze Age tribes. Again, Jean-Paul, I must wonder at your apparent lack of English comprehension skills.

How did an ideologue such as you manage to "see" this? You cannot possibly hope to separate ideology from conquest. You may smugly pat yourself on the back and point to...say, the so called "war on terror" and declare that this is merely a conquest for resources and territory, but such ideology misses the point that the United States has used this "excuse" of ideological warfare to circumvent Constitutional restraints and declare war on its own citizens. Would your ideology insist that people are just one more "resource"?

Again: what’s my ideology?

Of course you can separate ideology from conquest. They are always yoked together artificially in the first place. As for the rest of your harangue, it neither captures my political opinions nor has it anything to do with what we are discussing.

I cannot comment on the rest of your second post because it appears to be nothing but babble. Perhaps you would like to try expressing yourself again once the fit has passed; recollected in tranquillity, your arguments may present themselves in logically expressible form. Perhaps.

It would never work. Why? Humans are humans, and there will always be something about someone else humans don't like.

Now, if you could find a way to brainwash every single person and eradicate all non-believers, you might be on to something. Oh, wait...

i think a one world government could go either way, it depends whose running it

In a past thread which I had started, I also asked a similar question, What is so evil about the idea of a One World Government?
I have been reading many different views on the subject, but the conclusion that I eventually came to is that no matter what we may think, a One World Government is inevitable.
My reasoning is that as we begin to move out from Earth, as we are attempting to do even now, the effort will be a concerted one of different nations. Should we colonize another world, there will not be a US, a UK, a Soviet Republic, a North or South Korea, nor a China or Japan. It will be an Earth Colony, which will eventually come to rival the population of this planet.

The idea that a One World Government is doomed to failure because it didn't work in the past wouldn't really apply. The very things that prevented or collapsed it in the past would be avoided like the plague. As many of you here have stated before, The Elitist want it, The Illuminati want it, fill in the blank, The __________ want it. The question is, why would they bother to ATTEMPT to change what is already in place here, when all that has to be done is start it where there simply is nothing to change?

This certainly may not happen in our life times, but eventually our societies will be more than willing to pay to board Southwest Space Lines, and arrive on that far away world. We will willingly live under the rule of that OWG.

reply to post by lance_covel


Well thats one interpretation of how things may go. But do not forget the lessons of history. A bunch of sociopathic religious zealots didnt like England , too corrupt (sort of like the idea of usurping the land rights of indigenous peoples), and left it , and forged a path to new territories as Pilgrims . U.S. resident members will know of this, since these were the hardy folk who settled America and gave birth to the thanks giving holiday by the same name.

It is not beyond the scope of imagination that the enormous coffers of the larger religious organisations , may be used if a given religious body decides they have had enough of this BS here on Earth (you know, democracy, fairness, equality regardless of political or spiritual affiliation, the rich giving to the poor,rather than the poor shoving thier last five pence in a collection plate, while stinking rich entitled scumbags fleece everyone in sight and do no one any favours) and decide to colonise a nearby planet. They have the cash after all , to buy the kit.

It may become the way of things that the planets end up with philosophical or religious affiliations as globes. Because of the structure of such organisations these will not become single governments ( especially not a Christian one. The very idea has some dodgy connotations for those who have studied Revalations) due to various scriptural factors, and reasons pertaining to a healthy respect for tradition. Rather they will likely as not split off into little wee mini churches, and wait a few hundred years just to make sure they have a REALLY good reason to want to kill the people over the hydrocarbon volcano , who believe exactly the same thing the first lot do, but just a little differently .

reply to post by TrueBrit

Well thats one interpretation of how things may go. But do not forget the lessons of history. A bunch of sociopathic religious zealots didnt like England , too corrupt (sort of like the idea of usurping the land rights of indigenous peoples), and left it , and forged a path to new territories as Pilgrims . U.S. resident members will know of this, since these were the hardy folk who settled America and gave birth to the thanks giving holiday by the same name.

Agreed. That is the way history wrote itself. But I stand fast to the idea that a repeat of that situation would be avoided at almost any cost. Unfortunately, those sociopathic, religious zealots would most likely find themselves being transported back to the then known as place "Compound Earth"