Debate Is a 1 World government really a bad thing?

[Justinian]

So let's think about this...
- We already live in a World where the rich own/run everything.
- Wars are fought over imaginary boundaries created during previous wars.
- Religion/language/culture creates divides and can lead to wars.

So What is the real difference if we were to be combined as one giant country with no imaginary borders, where religions would be dealt with.. somehow, and the cultures could successfully merge and integrate without the hindrances we have today of visas.?

Everyone talks about.. OOOOOOHHHH the ever present NWO.. who cares? If they in fact do exist, they would make less money off of a 1 world government, but even if not the lack of borders and creation of a one world gov could lead to less wars. I mean what would need to be fought over? People not wanting to be part of the one World government? All I can think is that those people would be the sheep of remnant governments that want their imaginary borders back.

Thoughts?

 

[titorite]

IT would be a good thing if run by rational normally well adjusted people.


If it would be run by the bilderbergers, rothschild rockafella pyscho elite then no... They just want to kill all the people beneath their economic class so no one will look down on them for marrying their cousins or their robots.

Those freaks just want to ruin the world.

 

[AAA]

I am an anarchist, therefore I wholly disagree with and would not support any government, small or large.

Government is predicated upon coercion and violence for sake of an edict, has a monopoly on the initiation of force, and uses it on even the nonviolent who violate no one. Government is inherently a violation of natural inalienable rights. It is evil at it's very core.

That being said, I am all for a New World Order. I am very much an advocate of peaceful social order, respect for rights, and the personal and/or communal responsibility required.

I am also a globalist as I can see a very practical and beneficial outcome for abolishing imaginary state lines, promoting free trade, sharing of information ideas and resources, etc, etc, etc, etc, ...and coming together as a people rather than competing and warring as nation states.

What we have isn't working nearly as well as it could. We have every means and resource available to have something great. I vote we go for it.

 

[BlastTyrant]

For me this is a double edged sword.

One world Gov would be good if like titorite said it was run by honest good well meaning people, but we all know that would not be the case. As a society we are prone to having a hierarchy people need to be told what to do and have someone to look up to when things fall apart, it is Human nature so a NWO would inevitably go right back to where we are at because that is just in our nature, we do not have the ability to co-exist with one another so in return we need that form of GOV to keep us in line.

Literally the one and only solution is a massive plague or Noahs Ark scenario where most of the worlds population is lost and then we have to PRAY that those who rebuild, rebuild correctly with honest intentions and morals.

 

[wyldberi]

Humans have been called social creatures for good reasons. Our roots lie somewhere in the vicinity of pack animals and territorial tribalism. I tend to believe governments were invented as the scale of our societies grew; some sort of organization was needed to ensure the needs of the group were met -- division of labor, and all that. Also, as the size of a village grew into a town, and then a city, and then a state, things got more complicated and placing kings and legislators and committees in charge of making sure the infrastructure was maintained and operated properly became more important.

Larger groupings of people permitted the specialization and division of labor, improved efficiency, and surplus production. That's where a big problem enters the picture. Surpluses transform a community into a target for outside groups willing to loot and pillage to obtain the accumulated wealth present within, without working to create it. Governments are the institutions we create that are charged with protecting ourselves against external enemies and internal criminals.

Establishing a one world government would do nothing to correct the imperfections in our character. As long as we continue to organize our lives around the scarcity of resources and the need to exchange our labor for the goods and services we need for survival and want for pleasure, we will need some system for dispensing domestic justice and defending us against foreign threats.

At its best, a government bureaucracy is a necessary evil. As already mentioned, the problem with a one world government is the threat it poses for abuses of power by those who gain the seats of power. It is a character trait of those most likely to abuse power once it is handed to them to seek out positions of authority that enable, rather than restricts such behaviors.

Here is one vision of the future of humanity envisioned by those who would put a one world government into place:

The Message of the Georgia Guidestones

It doesn't sound so bad on the surface. But in case you missed it the first time around, go back to Principle #1 and ponder the implications of that for a while. It's frightening stuff, particularly when you realize you, and I, will not be amongst those who are invited to the party.

 

[DEATH OMEN]

We can try it and see if we like it, if not we can over throw it and try something else till we get it right.

 

[wyldberi]

We can try it and see if we like it, if not we can over throw it and try something else till we get it right.

First, you're going to set up a single governing body that holds all the cards; control over the military, the justice and prison systems, the economy and the financial system, including taxation.

Then this government will take control of the health care system, all the transportation, and the educational system. That government will begin regulating all aspects of your life, and use computerized surveillance systems to monitor your telephone conversations and your buying proclivities. They will track your individual movements using surveillance cameras mounted in public spaces, unmanned drones, and satellites in orbit. If you get on their list, you will be unable to use any form of transportation to go to a different location; location being the key word, since there will be no foreign countries where you could flee to, if that would make any difference at all since the same surveillance systems would be used in all localities.

Then, once you handed all this power and authority over to this government, if "you" don't happen to like what and the manner in which it is being done, you, and the other individuals you include under the rubric "we," will just overthrow the system having a stranglehold on the necessities of life and replace it with some other system until you get it right.

Good luck with that.

 

[DEATH OMEN]

We can try it and see if we like it, if not we can over throw it and try something else till we get it right.

First, you're going to set up a single governing body that holds all the cards; control over the military, the justice and prison systems, the economy and the financial system, including taxation.

Then this government will take control of the health care system, all the transportation, and the educational system. That government will begin regulating all aspects of your life, and use computerized surveillance systems to monitor your telephone conversations and your buying proclivities. They will track your individual movements using surveillance cameras mounted in public spaces, unmanned drones, and satellites in orbit. If you get on their list, you will be unable to use any form of transportation to go to a different location; location being the key word, since there will be no foreign countries where you could flee to, if that would make any difference at all since the same surveillance systems would be used in all localities.

Then, once you handed all this power and authority over to this government, if "you" don't happen to like what and the manner in which it is being done, you, and the other individuals you include under the rubric "we," will just overthrow the system having a stranglehold on the necessities of life and replace it with some other system until you get it right.

Good luck with that.

Well about anything beats what we got. With the Rep. controlling everything, even showing the President that anything he wants it will get not make it through Congress, if the President doesn't like what come from Congress, he can veto it, then there need to be a 2/3 or 3/4 votes to override a veto by the President. I don't think our "founding fathers'" had this type of behavior when they started this country.

 

[wyldberi]

Well about anything beats what we got. With the Rep. controlling everything, even showing the President that anything he wants it will get not make it through Congress, if the President doesn't like what come from Congress, he can veto it, then there need to be a 2/3 or 3/4 votes to override a veto by the President. I don't think our "founding fathers'" had this type of behavior when they started this country.

I'm not arguing with you that what we have sucks.

The founding fathers instigated a rebellion against King George and established a Federation through the Articles of Confederation. A few short years later they had to re-do things and wrote a Constitution. Why? The Articles of Confederation set up a government that was too weak to survive. Human nature was causing the separate States of the Confederation to try to get the better of all the other States.

In the Constitution the founding fathers expanded the powers the federal government had, but made it clear those powers were strictly limited in scope. The limits placed on the federal government by Constitution were defined through enumeration, with those powers and that authority not granted being retained by the State governments and by the People of the United States.

The problem we have today in this nation as I see it is that the federal government has ascribed to itself all sorts of powers and authority not listed in those enumerated by the Constitution. All three branches of government have been complicit in this usurpation. The executive branch uses executive orders, and hides behind the rubric of "national security" to do what it wants. The judicial branch issues rulings that directly contradict the text of the Constitution, and went so far as to stop the national election of 2000 before it was concluded, having no basis in Constitutional authority or legal precedent to do so. The legislative branch -- well, just as you say, they basically do nothing. The government officials in all three branches have been bought and paid for by the wealthy and by corporations; they no longer act on behalf of the American People.

Anyway, the founding fathers were mindful of the necessity of limiting the power of the government. Establishing a single government to control the world would only set the stage for the same type of flunkies currently serving in our federal government to take up residence in the seats of power of that "one world" government. The wealthy and the powerful would wind up buying them, too.

If the People of the USA are unable to put an end to the shenanigans going on now, here, how would you expect that they would be able to throw off the shackles of that world government?

 

[AAA]

The answer is to kill almost everyone. Burn it - start over. Premise the new on principles of respect for inalienable rights and personal responsibility, and that which is equal and universally beneficial. But we humans are not gods. So we have to give that option up. It just isn't right. It's not ethically sound.

Human nature makes it difficult to convince almost 8 billion people to get along, to form a global social order that does not require coercion and violence or national territories. People are generally either too selfish complacent or stupid to break free from the current hypno-ala' poached frog divide and conquer corporate warmongering coercive debacle that is working ever closer to either enslavement or collapse.

Enslavement is unacceptable and ethically unsound as genocide, thus not an option. Arguably, humanity is currently in a state of enslavement.

It has to bust, Order out of Chaos style, either as a result of it's own eventual dysfunction or via induction of Chaos, whereby a New Order will follow.

The question is what kind of Order?

...one premised on principles of respect for inalienable rights and personal responsibility, and that which is equal and universally beneficial.