Is One World Goverment so bad after all?

Hiki

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
1,275
Now I know that pretty much everybody here is against the NWO and One World Government. But let's think about it.

Suppose that the orwellian big brother system isn't the form of the OWG, instead we would have a honest system with good men in charge (like Ron Paul), and of course you would have local government to decide on local matters, but overall there wouldn't be any countries.
Think about it. We are now living in the nationality era, where there are countries, borders and nations. We humans, have lived through different eras aswell. Many thousand years ago we were just small groups wandering around. That time went and then came the tribal-era. We formed tribes and the tribes fought each other and traded with each other. That era also went into history and as agriculture was formed, city-communities started forming and that eventually lead up to the nations and countries, and so we are now in the nationality-era. But does one think here that this will last forever? Do we have the United States, France or Russia 1000 years from now?
Think about it. Countries and nations don't do nothing but separate us, us humans. We're not American, British, Scandinavian or Korean, we're all humans. Imagine a world with no borders, people are free to go wherever they want without some imagined lines on the ground. That's what nations are, imagined things by humans. We dont class animals by any "nationalities", it's just one species living around the world. We are the only species with this weird stuff.

Now let's use our imagination and Sci-fi stories.
In my opinion, it's very likely that there is life out there, even in our galaxy. Heck, it's pretty much already confirmed that there's life on Mars so why not elsewhere? Now let's suppose that the life out there is also intelligent. When we humans become a spacetraveling species, are we going to find other species like us? Like in Star Wars. But if/when that time comes, we cant present ourselves like this "Hello, I'm Matt from United States, you shouldn't talk to those Iranians and Koreans cos' they're bad mmmkay", we present ourselves like this "Hello, I'm Matt and I'm a human being." We can't go wandering around as Americans, British or Iranian, we need to go as one, the human species. That's why we have to move on, one time or another. We cant jam ourselves into this nationality-era forever, otherwise we're doomed. So somekind of a system to unite the Earth must be made up, somekind of a One World Government. It doesn't have to be the BigBrother-state where we all live as slaves, it can be good too if done properly.

And imagine far far far into the future where we've met other spacegoing species, and one day we will form somekind of a Council, like the Republic in Star Wars, to decide on galactic matters between our species. In that kind of a time we can't for sure anymore think about America or Scandinavia or China, we're earthborn human beings.

Just made this thing up last night inspired by the game Mass Effect.
What do you think about it?
 
Very bad. Too much Star Trek and not enough www.fff.org

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back into bondage.

[Author unknown, it may have been Alexander Fraser Tyler (1748 - 1813)]
 
Last edited:
No thanks,

One - World - Corporate fascism holds no appeal to me.

Ron Paul didn't want to be world leader. He wanted to facilitate state's rights, and community empowerment. Self determination.

Haven't the last few years taught you anything?

Corporate federalism gets you no-where!
 
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell.

Thattt about sums up world government.
 
"Liberty is telling people what they do not want to hear"

George Orwell -
 
Ahh for christs sakes did you even read it? I know you're all drowning in fear of the Orwellian idea of world government. But THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! I already said that if it is not made in the way of the oppressive, big-brother system, it could very well be a great thing.

Of course the time for one is not now. If we do it now, with people like Bush in charge, then it will become that Orwellian nightmare. If/when we have contact with extraterrestials, then it might be time for a global system to unite us all.

Again think about it. As Richard Dawkins said about religions: "If you had been brought up in ancient Denmark you would be believing in Thor, if you had been brought up in ancient Greece you would believe in Zeus, if you had been brought up in Africa you would believe the Great Ju-Ju up the mountain". The same thing applies for countries, if you had been brought up in another country you would be swearing in the name of it and being oh-so-patriotic for it.
 
I read it.

Please realize that a "global system to unite all," is easily manipulated and twisted by individuals in positions of social and political power.

Power corrupts.
 
Consider for a second what you're advocating: Because distinctive cultural identities can sometimes engender hostility (when actually, it's governments that go to war, not peoples), you're advocating a one world government that will forcibly strip all people of their natural cultural identities and replace them with a homogenized earth-born human cultural identity, which will be determined by...who? This viewpoint presupposes that people's cultural identities are and should be determined by government, not by natural interactions of people themselves, and it also presupposes that our differences are some kind of disease that must be cured. ;) However, the richness of human culture comes from its differences and heterogeneous nature! It would be a travesty for a one world government to homogenize all culture, especially for the reasons you're supplying:
1.) Because everyone being the same is a good thing
2.) Because it'll be easy for feeble alien minds to understand us as human beings with a single shared identity (besides, it's important to remember that the current inherent dangers of global government will be somewhat mitigated once we are in contact with plenty of other intelligent races and spread all over the galaxy. However, if that ever happens, it will likely be a long time from now, and we need government that suits our current needs and does not present any unwarranted dangers given our current circumstances).

The funny thing is, with less powerful governments, humans around the world would get along a lot better anyway, despite cultural differences. Once governments find better things to do other than going to war (and/or when the leaders suffer rather than 18 year old sacrificial lambs), war will end. Plus, people do not need shared global government to tell them that they share things in common as human beings, and these make up our human identity. We can figure that out on our own, without it being forced down our throats by some global authority. In other words, we can naturally evolve world community and shared human identity without shared government.

In addition, about one world government in and of itself:
There are plenty of other threads about this where I and others go into detail why, but Orwellian government inevitably follows from one world government sooner rather than later. Even if it didn't, shouldn't the very possibility of it give you enough pause to avoid ever suggesting one world government? You're falling into the mistake of assuming that because it's possible for well-intentioned (and competent) people to hold positions of power, we should assume that well-intentioned and competent people will always exclusively hold positions of power. You're basically justifying one world government by first assuming utopia. Besides, one world government is entirely unnecessary when you ultimately want more local control anyway - why take the substantial risk for little to no gain?

Let's use your Star Wars example, by the way - you briefly made mention of the Galactic Republic. However, did you forget that, because there was only one Galactic Republic that needed to be taken over, Senator Palpatine was able to consolidate power and create the Galactic Empire? This would not have been nearly so easy to achieve if he had to take control of the 1001 Galactic Republics. ;)
 
Last edited:
If there was a world government... surely there is going to be Diebold used... come one - count 6 billion votes ? hahahah... What are the chances, some MAJOR douche is going to gain power.. i.e would George W have gained power? More than likely.. Big government can take EVERYTHING from you.
 
Perhaps we could revert to the "feudal system."

That worked well for centuries.

If you controlled the wealth...

Isn't that what is happening now? Corporate lords shrinking the middle class, finding willing serfs over-seas. Manipulating the masses through energy and food shortages.

Tell me I'm wrong.
 
Ahh for christs sakes did you even read it? I know you're all drowning in fear of the Orwellian idea of world government. But THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! I already said that if it is not made in the way of the oppressive, big-brother system, it could very well be a great thing.
Like you, I'm not convinced that a one world government or one international central bank is the embodiment of corruption or evil. The arguments about an "international government"/"new world order" being prone to certain problems do have a lot of truth to them. However, I don't share the apocalyptic paranoia of the Chicken Littles around here. One must also keep in mind that a "one-world government"/"one world central bank" also has certain specific advantages, at least on paper.

For me, it really depends more on exactly how what the details of such a set up would be than the fact that there is a "one world government" or lack of one per se. Political/social units have conglomerated and disintegrated countless times in history. Change is inevitable. Even the United States was not considered a single nation at the start, but rather a lot of different states with a high degree of sovereignty. (So how different is a "United States" from a "North American Union"?)

I recently realized that it should not surprise us that Ron Paul, being from Texas, would have a strong streak of independence-from-federal-government in his thinking. He certainly makes his case very well most of the time, but it does not mean alternative points of view are necessarily wrong.
 
Like you, I'm not convinced that a one world government or one international central bank is the embodiment of corruption or evil. The arguments about an "international government"/"new world order" being prone to certain problems do have a lot of truth to them. However, I don't share the apocalyptic paranoia of the Chicken Littles around here. One must also keep in mind that a "one-world government"/"one world central bank" also has certain specific advantages, at least on paper.

For me, it really depends more on exactly how what the details of such a set up would be than the fact that there is a "one world government" or lack of one per se. Political/social units have conglomerated and disintegrated countless times in history. Change is inevitable. Even the United States was not considered a single nation at the start, but rather a lot of different states with a high degree of sovereignty. (So how different is a "United States" from a "North American Union"?)

I recently realized that it should not surprise us that Ron Paul, being from Texas, would have a strong streak of independence-from-federal-government in his thinking. He certainly makes his case very well most of the time, but it does not mean alternative points of view are necessarily wrong.

So those who are against one world government are "Chicken Littles?"

I would disagree.

Perhaps lazy "cheeseburger eating," ambiguous, lemmings are the "Chicken Littles."

I refuse to be leashed. You are probably a poodle.

Stop pissing on my carpet!
 
One World Government = Feudal Serfdom

I will not be a serf
hopefully we can get our fellow man out of LaLa Land in time enough to prevent these greedy evil doers from their quest for absolute power and control.

Or else we face the ? of the future
Do you want your RFID chip in your right hand or your forehead?

monitor its progress at www.rfidjournal.com
 
So those who are against one world government are "Chicken Littles?"

I would disagree.

Perhaps lazy "cheeseburger eating," ambiguous, lemmings are the "Chicken Littles."

I refuse to be leashed. You are probably a poodle.

Stop pissing on my carpet!

Classic. :D
 
When people talk about global community, why do they always assume governments?I want us to engage in peace, commerce, and trade with the global community, however I have no interest in paying taxes to someone who sits in Geneva.

The true evil is an international currency. When the right to coin money gets interpreted to be, the right to give total domestic economic control to an unelected board of international economic policy makers, then we will have lost everything, albeit slowly over time.

There will be no other currencies to create competition. We will see the currency inflated ever so slightly. As our quality of life goes down, the wealth and property control of the upper classes will go up. We will have become serfs, all of us together, forever unified in our misery, poverty, and ignorance. It will be a new dark age that will last until the ruling class grows disinterested with total power, develops a sense of morality, or loses the art of treachery- in other words it will last forever unless destroyed.

The best time is to destroy it is now.
 
I'm all for a world without trade barriers (no tariffs and few restrictions). Where the whole world has the same open free trade market, as individual countries have internally. With globalism we are moving more and more towards this, capital goods and people move around more freely. I think its a very good thing, in one sense we are already part of it. The fact that the world is pretty much one country when it comes to trade does not mean it has to be one county when it comes to law. In a sense we are free to choose the govt and laws that best suits us.

We can make money in one country (where wages are high), live in another (where taxes on consumption are low), save our money in another (where capital gains taxes are low and the money is stable).

If you are against your tax money going to a war in Iraq.. just pay your taxes to a different country. If you don't want to move, you can still live in the same old country, but as a tourist. In many countries being a tourist is actually better than being a citizen (less taxes and obligations (like military service, jury duty, etc.)), you still have the protection of the law. Killing tourist is still illegal.

The whole concept of being a citizen get blurred and looses its meaning, when you start collecting citizenship (i got two, working on a third). You start feeling more like a free person of the world, rather than belonging to any one country.

Obviously its not so easy to arrange, and its more a dream than reality, but its a pretty cool concept. Not being a citizen of any country is really as free as anyone can get.

Edit: There is even a name for such free world citizens and tax evaders.. "perpetual traveler" aka "permanent tourist" aka "prior taxpayer".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler

Cheers
 
Last edited:
"Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

Be loyal. Black is white. Forget the contrary.

"Embrace" alteration of the past.
 
How about saying No."

How about re-storing the lessons taught by your fore-fathers?

Or is it the fall of Rome?
 
Back
Top