Why would you oppose a one world governement?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You should at least recognize that it isn't much different than what is already in place in the US which is a pretty good, relatively speaking, example of a free country instead of making it seem like it is going to increase tyranny.

The main problem with government in general is bureaucracy.

So what would happen in a OWG would be a huge cumbersome bureaucracy, where getting anything done was like "drawing blood from a stone".

The notion of social order should be completely dynamical and adaptive within localized contexts.

otherwise :

You have reached the global government call center, you are 7 billionith in the que. Please do not hang up as your call is important to us. You will be attended to in 150 years.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

The world marveled at what the founding fathers of the United States created when they drafted our constitution. The world cringes in despair when they see what has become of our nation.

Have you considered that what has become of your nation is partly the result of having such a constitution in operation, unchanged barring a few amendments, for over two hundred years?

An enlightening book to read, for Americans interested in their own political and constitutional processes, is Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist who visited your country in 1831. He greatly approved of your Constitution, but was not blind to its flaws and failings. Based on what he observed on his visit, de Tocqueville made some predictions about how American history would play out in the light of your Constitutional arrangements. He predicted, among other things, a terrible civil war over slavery, the rise of America and Russia to world dominance and opposition in the twentieth century, and many other things which have since come true. He was, of course, no clairvoyant, but was merely following historical and constitutional trends to their logical conclusion.

The point to remember is that the US Constitution is not a perfect prescription for how people should live together. No human document could possibly be. Society changes, and the rules governing it have to be flexible enough to accommodate those changes. A constitutional provision introduced for a benign reason may do exactly what it is intended to in the short run – yet in doing so create, over the long term, a collateral situation, constituency or sequence of events that is pernicious to liberty, equality and good government.

It is not hard, I think, to find such provisions in the US Constitution. For example, the frequency of elections ensures that no-one stays in power too long, yet it creates regular, highly problematic disruptions of the normal process of government. As de Tocqueville puts it,

At the approach of an election the head of the executive government thinks only of the struggle that is coming on; he no longer has anything to look forward to; he can undertake nothing new, and he will only prosecute with indifference those designs which another will perhaps terminate.

– Democracy in America, Ch. 7

Nowadays, when campaigning for a Presidential election essentially begins halfway into the incumbent’s term, the deleterious effects of this provision are only too obvious. And presidential term limits, while highly desirable for other, obvious reasons, only exacerbate the problem.

Admirable as it is, the US Constitution, like all others, is essentially a set of compromises between different interests and different desirable ends, so designed as to keep foreseeable, undesired side-effects to a minimum. It does this relatively well, but far from perfectly. And after two hundred years, it is certainly showing its age. The fact that it has actually acquired, among some Americans, the status of a religious document – complete with a set of fundamentalist worshippers who treat it as Holy Writ – is a sign that it is in dire need of reformation.

*

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Obnoxious straight out of the box as always, eh, Jean-Paul? Cut the OP some slack. He isn’t suggesting that a borderless world will solve all problems of human difference; merely that removing those lines in the sand will give us one less thing to fight over. It seems like a legitimate assumption to me. Borders are constraints on human freedom, imposing restrictions on the movement of people, cementing physical divisions between people who are closely related by ties of blood and culture, and so on. Artificial borders also promote and justify the power and intrusiveness of states and bureaucracies.

One world government is a consummation greatly to be desired, though probably not achievable in practice.

"One World Government" is a huge issue.

1. There is the question of whether it is desirable as a model.
2. There is the question of how it would work.

I don't get the impression that you've really confronted either of these questions.

Which is exactly what the globalists are hoping; that they can turn it into a "feel good" issue; a "no brainer."

Originally posted by muse7 ...
Everyone being together without countries separating us and preventing us from reaching our potential as a species ...

This isn't what a one world government is all about. It's a government; there would still be countries!
Ideally, governments serve just a few basic purposes:

1) They coordinate actions, or mediate between the actors, so people aren't constantly working at cross-purposes.
Certain models (tyranny, dictatorship) downplay the importance of this function, while democracy allows the majority to get its way, provided the rights of the minority are protected. Other systems use consensus to pound out planning that will be acceptable to everyone involved. (See OWS video about this.) Business models usually are hybrid, using consensus as much as possible, democracy if dissenters stall a needed action, and dictatorship if lower levels fail to act swiftly enough.

A person, a group, or a planet without some goal to sustain it and help it to align its actions soon becomes confused, frustrated, and apathetic. Groups usually rely on special visionaries - "goal makers" - to fill this role. A government alone cannot guarantee the existence of such people. But a wise one encourages them. For example, in the US the "founding fathers" were an important group of goal makers. By abandoning the spirit of their original writings on which the US is founded, current governments are opening themselves up to being overthrown.

If a global government could assist all of its sub-groups to work together more efficiently for peaceful, high-minded goals, then it would be a great thing.

If all a global government can do is successfully hunt down and "neutralize" any individual that disagrees with what it's doing, then it would be a total curse.

2) They protect the physical environment - the game.
If a government can't act to keep the game going, then it's no government. Whose game is protected, and who will suffer depends to a large extent on the coordination model used. In an ideal world, the only enemies in the game are the forces of nature. In our human world, our brothers are often set up as our enemies. That's the product of the criminal mind. Thus, a government, to be effective, must assist the group with protection against natural mishaps, but also have a way to deal with internal criminality. This is a huge stumbling block for a government of any size. Fortunately, there is now technology available to help with this.

If a global government could help the planet identify real external and internal threats to planetary life and happiness, then it could make valuable contributions to our survival.

If all it can accomplish is to keep the population in constant turmoil by making everybody believe that they can't even trust their friends, then all they would "secure" would be a future of endless genocide.

...
instead we like to brand ourselves white, black, brown, hispanic, etc those things just keep us from reaching our true potential.

I don't know what makes you think that racial or ethnic identification prevents us from reaching our true potential.
Ideally, it wouldn't be a big determining factor, but could serve as a source of pride or entertainment for the various groups and regions. If you think that our true potential transcends the body or any single mode of thought or belief, then forced conformity would be a problem for a lot of people. Yet many find a lot of room for self-expression and productive action even within those confines. So I'm not sure race and ethnicity are the barriers to growth that some say they are.

As far as I know, all "one world governments" or "globalization plans" currently on the table are basically scams which pander to some power elite, and would tend to reduce most of us to slavery. However, the idea in its purity has its good points.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You should at least recognize that it isn't much different than what is already in place in the US instead of making it seem like it is going to increase tyranny.

edit on 30-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

The growth of the federal government of the U.S. has continually expanded since at least the Civil War. That bloated government is a drop in the bucket to what a one world government would bring.

OP, when you say this is part of the One World Government plan, "make people realize", isn't that whats wrong with us now, someone always wants to change your mind.

The Human race are still a bunch of infants, you just need to look at our leaders and others around the world to see that a One World Government would never work right now, and maybe never !



Peace

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But it is better than many places around the world. So while it isn't what you want it would be a step up for many.

Besides your point was that instead of one tyrannt there would be a thousand which is what there already is so your point is moot.

reply to post by Astyanax

Obnoxious straight out of the box as always, eh, Jean-Paul? Cut the OP some slack. He isn’t suggesting that a borderless world will solve all problems of human difference; merely that removing those lines in the sand will give us one less thing to fight over.

That high minded idealism (replete with promises of rehabilitation centers and all) didn't prevent you from acknowledging the line drawn in the sand between your own ideas and mine, did it? The borders are as defined ideologically as any imaginary border defining nations.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

But tyranny is already globalized. There is no government on the planet that respects your idea of freedoms so what would really change?

Some of us that are intimately familiar with life in the US and who now live in other countries might tend to disagree with you. Of course it is a matter of degrees.

If nothing else at least some of the worse would be replaced by something better.

The reverse is also true. Don't believe for a second that the US is the land of liberty. I will not return to the US to live that life of rigid conformity once again. If the OWG model is anything like the US then no, thanks.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I actually share your idea of freedom but I know that I will probably never see a government that respects it. Not a OWG or any other. So why demonize a OWG.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

But it is better than many places around the world. So while it isn't what you want it would be a step up for many.

Besides your point was that instead of one tyrannt there would be a thousand which is what there already is so your point is moot.

It is not moot, it is underscored by the actual experience of thousands of tyrants demanding I beg them for permission to exercise what is my right to do.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


I agree with you but Mexico is actually a nice place compared to the places I was thinking about. The US could be a better example of freedom but it is still a good reference point.

“I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.”
― Noam Chomsky

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But that is already the case. It isn't going to be brought about by a OWG.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

That high minded idealism (replete with promises of rehabilitation centers and all) didn't prevent you from acknowledging the line drawn in the sand between your own ideas and mine, did it? The borders are as defined ideologically as any imaginary border defining nations.

What on earth are you on about? I wasn’t objecting to your ideology but to your lack of good manners.

But, now that you’ve raised the subject – to an ideologue, everything manifests ideology. Even the most cursory inspection of history will show that the borders come first, and the ideological differences follow much later, largely as an attempt to justify the existence of the borders in the first place. If you know of any counter-examples it might be instructive to list them.

And do try to be a little more courteous, there’s a good fellow.

reply to post by Astyanax

What on earth are you on about? I wasn’t objecting to your ideology but to your lack of good manners.

Sure, that's why you - right out of the gate - called me obnoxious, because of your solemn belief in "good manners".

But, now that you’ve raised the subject – to an ideologue, everything manifests ideology. Even the most cursory inspection of history will show that the borders come first, and the ideological differences follow much later, largely as an attempt to justify the existence of the borders in the first place. If you know of any counter-examples it might be instructive to list them.

Sure, let's pretend that borders were not created out of any ideology, but that borders create ideology. That's the ticket!

And do try to be a little more courteous, there’s a good fellow.

Practice what you preach...there's a good fellow.

Here is a great article on all this
The Elite Plan for a New World Social Order

Whenever there is a change of era, the previous era is always demonised in a new mythology ......

The pursuit of money is the root of all evil, and the capitalist system was inherently corrupt and wasteful. Anarchy reined in the marketplace, as corporations blindly pursued profit, with no concern for human needs or for the Earth. How much more sensible are our production brigades, producing only what is needed, and using only what is sustainable. Capitalism encouraged greed and consumption; people struggled to compete with one another, to ‘get ahead’ in the rat race. How much wiser we are now, to live within our ration quotas, and to accept our assigned duties, whatever they might be, in service to humanity.

In those terrible dark days, before the blessed unification of humanity, anarchy reigned in the world. One nation would attack another, no better than predators in the wild. Nations had no long-term coherence; voters would swing from one party to another, keeping governments always in transition and confusion. How did anyone ever think that masses of semi-educated people could govern themselves, and run a complex society? Democracy was an ill-conceived experiment that led only to corruption and chaotic governance. How lucky we are to be in this well-ordered world, where humanity has finally grown up, and those with the best expertise make the decisions for the whole globe

How scary were the old days, when unlicensed, untrained couples had total control over vulnerable children, behind closed doors, with whatever neuroses, addictions, or perversions the parents happened to possess. How did this vestige of patriarchal slavery, this safe-house den of child abuse, continue so long to exist, and not be recognised for what it was? How much better off we are now, with children being raised scientifically, by trained staff, where they are taught discipline and healthy values.

reply to post by muse7


With the track record of governments throughout history and currently always falling into corruption and or many of them violence death and oppression why in the world would we want to risk having a single government for the entire world?

As the saying goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Giving absolute power to a world government would be absolutely insane!

~

george bush indorsed NWO, where has it gotten us ?
Enough said.

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.