Is One World Goverment so bad after all?

[Leroy_Jenkems]

OWG sounds good on paper...................that's about it.


I think that Hiki, the thread starter, and a few others here have been clicking on the Scientology banner ads near the bottom of pages around these forums a bit too much...screw the Thetans, USA #1!!!!!!!

 

[driller80545]

Another layer of Government isn't necessarily a bad thing so long in (your) opinion if it's small. A caramel wafer bar has many many layers more than a cake, yet you cannot deny the cake is larger and more fattening and wasteful.

Those "Orwellian nightmare" components may be to a degree means to an end. If you need to use subversion, cloaks and daggers to bring about a "Global Society", then so be it; it is far more efficient than trying to persuade people to give up their national sovereignty freely and to see each other as humans rather than Americans, Britons, French, Germans, Libyans, Russians, etc.

I suppose when humanity is in balance with nature you can encourage freedom again. The problem with freedom to breed is that any species, with complete freedom and a complete monopoly to breed, will suffocate out the other species. Imagine for a moment Lions can breed a hundred times more and without the limitations of predators. The world would be overrun and the food cycle would be buggered. The same is happening with humanity. We can breed freely and act as a super predator, not held in check by old age, disease (currently anyway), virus, etc.

Roll with this for a moment. Having read Paul's Manifesto and other works, imagine the following; The Sugar Companies come along and say "Hey, we are under attack from foreign companies! Mr Government, please subsidise us." "<Sigh> Sure, ok." Under Paul's philosophy, that's wrong because it's the Sugar Companies looting from the tax payer. He uses this very example.

Bare with the relation here; I buy a plot of land to build a Tennis Court. On the land used to live a load of badgers, squirrels, foxes, five old oaks and a rather perplexed beaver. I build my Tennis Court and go about my merry way. This creates an imbalance; the reprecussions are clear, the lack of the foxes as predators leads to a boom in rat populations, which leads to further problems of rat infestation, etc, so on. I have, in a regard, "looted" from "the animals" and environment.

I don't wish to go on a greeny rant here, I am by no means a green, but it's obvious really that if Humans are given freedom - complete and utter freedom to do whatever they wish so long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of other human beings, the environment will suffer. The environment is NOT human being, and does need to be protected.

The 'NWO' agenda is one of the only ways to try and ensure the protection of the environment from the actions of man.

What do you think?

-CuriousOnlooker

Interesting argument. I will say this, nature does not need man, man needs nature. Man cannot manage nature anymore than he can manage the universe. Man cannot survive without nature, but nature can survive just fine without man. Attempting to manage nature is a futile exercise in self importance and a mistake in the perception of time. It is himself that man needs to learn to manage if he wants to survive as a species. Nature will be just fine.
Is this what you are saying?

 

[rpfan2008]

Imagine a british empire, with all those nuclear weapons, automatic(robo) guns, chemical-bio weapons, radiation weapons and only one enemy----"unnecessary population".

And what is unnecessary, you are not going to decide. Now take for instance US as the example, where middle class is burdened with extra taxes and big businesses are relaxed from the same. Democracy is only needed where there is oil. Govt. funds the same countries which they are going to bomb next, both with tax dollars(Soviet/Libya etc).

Do you think these people have anything to do with morality or humanity ??
One World Govt.?? Are you kidding? How about 'one family' world or a city block. Send in your gf to my place, cuz we are a family. Sounds good??

 

[rpfan2008]

The 'NWO' agenda is one of the only ways to try and ensure the protection of the environment from the actions of man.



-IdiotDicksucker

"Western populace will accept serfdom if it's binded with protection of environment"

Wenever thought of that.

What do you think?

You are wasting your time.

 

[Crickett]

Yes, the elements about RFID, Security Cameras on every corner, policestate and so on are exactly the Orwellian nightmare. And if/when a global community is instituted, people should fight tooth and nail to prevent it from getting these elements. Rather it should be as limited as possible, but still strong enough to hold everything in it together. If I was to decide, I would like Ron Paul to be the main architect in forming it

Of course your Constitution and Bill of Rights have good stuff in them ('thou I havent read them). But in a practical sense, when world moves on, you cant hold on to them forever. As I said, when new situations arise which cant be dealt with the C and BoR, you shouldn't jam with them but analyze the situation with modern means.

This thread is just so sorry, to me. Half the time it sounds like foreign countries are trying to "advise" the US that we should just merge back into the British Empire and give up all of the freedoms and sovereignty of the ONLY country in the world that is intended to be run by The People. Sorry, but, there is no other country like us, no other Constitution like ours, and no, we ain't got NO intentions of joining with foreign countries who would love to have us back. We fought for our independence and if I have anything to say about it, it is being KEPT. If Canada and Mexico want to merge, they better build a big bridge.

 

[CuriousOnlooker]

"Western populace will accept serfdom if it's binded with protection of environment"

Wenever thought of that.



You are wasting your time.

I post on these forums seeking honest discussion and honest debate in a friendly environment and atmosphere. There was no need to resort to petty name calling; it shines badly on you and the Ron Paul movement as a whole. His whole Philosophy is built around the freedom of expresion of the individual; no where have I tried to stifle yours, or anyone elses, and by resorting to just insulting others it makes others think less of you. Not for your opinions, but how you present them and your lack of respect for others.



Back to the issues, though. The poster who refered to man handling himself is dead on. I was at a nature talk when I was younger, where a man who spent his whole life training and breeding birds said how terrible it was the local forest authority would cut down old trees and place new ones, because the dead trees themselves provide a habitat and nutrients for so much of the rest of the local eco-system.

Nature has had a funny knack of, for hundreds of thousands of years, of taking care of itself. The same can be said for man. Intervening to protect nature doesn't, generally, work. It's man's intervention to protect, and destroy, nature that leads to problems.

Nature has had 'freedom' before man's agricultural development. We are constantly meddling and intervening in nature; were animals and trees to, as an extreme, have equal rights of human beings, no Libertarian could argue for the subjugation of Birch trees for Paper at the expense of their liberty.

We could debate over the ramifications for the environment if man does not change his ways until the sun goes down; suffice to say, I don't think many people can agree that the current proceedings are sustainable. It is the number of human beings and the rapid rapid rate we are breeding that is part of the core of the world's problems.

 

[AgentOrange]

I read a book about this premise in the early '90's (I don't remember the name). Theoretically, the premise is great...it's no different than the 50 states in the US forming one country. A government could be set up the same way, each country having the same rights that a state in the US has. Practically though, I don't think it would ever work, for the reasons given elsewhere in this thread. So I would agree, that theoretically one-world government could be great, I just don't think it will be because of megalomanical humans.

 

[anaconda]

I suppose if we had a U.S. Constitution ruling the world we would be fine. And no income tax.

Immigration and the demand for U.S. resources would pose very tricky problems however. We are free to move about within our republic. Everyone from New Delhi and Rwanda would want to move to North America.

It struck me as an interesting imperialist alternative: to accept other nations into the U.S. as states if they adopted the U.S. Constitution and dollar. Peacefully.

 

[Leroy_Jenkems]

This thread is just so sorry, to me. Half the time it sounds like foreign countries are trying to "advise" the US that we should just merge back into the British Empire and give up all of the freedoms and sovereignty of the ONLY country in the world that is intended to be run by The People. Sorry, but, there is no other country like us, no other Constitution like ours, and no, we ain't got NO intentions of joining with foreign countries who would love to have us back. We fought for our independence and if I have anything to say about it, it is being KEPT. If Canada and Mexico want to merge, they better build a big bridge.

Damn straight!

 

[NH4RonPaul]

OMG what idiocy

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.

Sorry NEVER!

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.

OMG are you some sort of idiot? The whole UFO thing is like the Global Warming hoax -- intended to scare people into world government. Aliens failed to scare people so now they are using GW. It's all about fearmongering to get YOUR MONEY.

Um, why do you fall for all the crap that the UN puts forth to dupe you into this nonsense?

DEATH TO THE NWO, and anyone who doesn't see that ONE of anything is bad, can't be too bright.

http://www.oneworlddemocracy.net/

 

[NH4RonPaul]

I certainly hope moderators will delete this thread and all the nonsense in it.

 

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Dude politiicans are stupid, corrupt, and out of touch.

Quebec wants to secede from Canada.

Parts of America want to change the landscape of America.

Basque seperatists have fought for years about parts of Spain and France.

And those groups are close geographically and culturally.

To think that the whole world can be one group and work together using the same goals is just preposterous. The Irish vote away from the EU should tell you that. If 27 countries cant vote on even being in a group how will 200+ countires vote about abortion, gay marriage, food, water, electricity and other things?

Do you actually think Bush Sr. talked about the New World Order 200 times because he cares about the people in Ecuador, Zimbabwe, or even Iowa? He doesnt care. He is a megalomaniac.
The markets decide best and the markets should be as local as possible.

 

[Hiki]

I certainly hope moderators will delete this thread and all the nonsense in it.

Yeah, don't listen to the opposite arguments but let's live in our little boxes.
Btw, I did not read any UN propaganda to achieve this position. I thought it over all by myself.

In fact, i've seen the Zeitgeist, Endgame and Esoteric Agenda. But you have to realize that this is only one side of the argument, and you're right in a way that this whole idea is a bad thing if it comes in a way that those documentaries show it. Was John Lennon an evil UN NWO conspirator when he wrote about this in his song "Imagine"?

I know that people will never know how to live in harmony, but piping down countries and those borders might aswell help it. In fact I'll apologize for saying that the U.S Constitution is an old document, it would be the perfect foundation of a global community.

 

[jon_perez]

Yeah, don't listen to the opposite arguments but let's live in our little boxes.
Btw, I did not read any UN propaganda to achieve this position. I thought it over all by myself.

Like a point I made earlier, the United States itself is composed of a union of different States and that seems to have worked out pretty well so far...

In fact, i've seen the Zeitgeist, Endgame and Esoteric Agenda. But you have to realize that this is only one side of the argument, and you're right in a way that this whole idea is a bad thing if it comes in a way that those documentaries show it. Was John Lennon an evil UN NWO conspirator when he wrote about this in his song "Imagine"?

Yeah, he was a brainwashed Manchurian Candidate indoctrinated by reptilian aliens to create songs to convince the masses to believe in 1-world government... ask David Icke... chuckle...

 

[jon_perez]

Imagine a british empire, with all those nuclear weapons, automatic(robo) guns, chemical-bio weapons, radiation weapons and only one enemy----"unnecessary population".

And what is unnecessary, you are not going to decide. Now take for instance US as the example, where middle class is burdened with extra taxes and big businesses are relaxed from the same. Democracy is only needed where there is oil. Govt. funds the same countries which they are going to bomb next, both with tax dollars(Soviet/Libya etc).

The principle to keep in mind here is that "government" is supposed to be "of, by and for" the people. It doesn't really matter if it's a big one world government or a city government, as long as that principle applies. Certainly, a good case can be made for the fact that the further away removed a government is from the people, the less it tends to serve the latter, which is one argument against "world government".

On the other hand, at least on paper, agreeing on common principles and laws among a group of people does tend to prevent the costly horrors of war. Look at the United States for example, individual US states are in fact bigger than many other countries in the world and have their own individual autonomous interests, and yet no wars have been fought among the States within the Union for a long long time. Did this particular Union work? I'm sure almost everyone will say it did.

Although perhaps a fair number of Texans and other Southerners may disagree... ?

 

[jon_perez]

If we have one world government, then criminals will not be able to flee to other countries to escape punishment, because there would be a single world police.

Kind of like how before the FBI was created, criminals in the US could easily cross state lines to escape prosecution.

We all understandably fear the abuses that go along with too much power concentrated in one body. One does not even have to have world government to see how such excesses occur. The sordid actions engaged in by bad, corrupt elements within the CIA, FBI and other national agencies are enough of a lesson. But one must also acknowledge that these organizations have their fair share of positive accomplishments. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, similarly, the price of good government is _also_ eternal vigilance. Small government is no guarantee of good government (it may arguably more manageable, but at the same time, it cannot take advantage of any "economies of scale"), nor does big government, per se, mean bad government (although the concentration of power that big government, on paper, implies, does tend to have a bias towards wastefulness and tyranny).

The problem with having too closed and narrow (not to mention paranoiac) mindsets among those who oppose the idea of extranational governments, is that they may become marginalized in the discussion because their obvious lack of rationality makes it too easy for people to dismiss them as kooks.

Observe how Ron Paul makes his case, he can always make a well reasoned point that takes a lot of serious thinking to contradict. Paul may have controversial ideas but he himself has never come across as a kook for me. Unfortunately you can't say the same about many of his followers. The difference is in the amount of foam around the mouth.

 

[jon_perez]

Great post, you made my point. I guess we're zooming on the same frequency here.
It truly is the natural step to get rid of the nations and become a global community, next stop would be colonizing other planets and one day you're "eartborn" or "marsborn" Just imagining here...

What we want is one intergalactic government, headed by a single Emperor... that's how you achieve order...

 

[jon_perez]

Govts are a natural thing, they always happen. Wishing them away is an utopia.

Yes.

The bully is the govt, because he has a monopoly on violence. He makes rules, and people do not dare to disobey them for fear of the violence he will unleash for crossing him.

Yes, but this is supposedly the archaic form of government, e.g. Feudalism. Remember, we are now supposedly operating on the enlightened principle of government, of, by and for the people. The price we have to pay to get that is eternal vigilance (it cannot be just about blindly saying we want "smaller" government, "small", in fact, being a very relative term).

Anywa, this is the kind of vigilance that people like Ron Paul are, in fact, engaging in, and we should be very thankful that there is such a figure capable of removing the apathy of people when it comes to government, and arouse their passions for reclaiming it for themselves.

 

[Hiki]

Like a point I made earlier, the United States itself is composed of a union of different States and that seems to have worked out pretty well so far...

Yeah, he was a brainwashed Manchurian Candidate indoctrinated by reptilian aliens to create songs to convince the masses to believe in 1-world government... ask David Icke... chuckle...

Exactly. USA is an example of the OWG on a smaller scale and of course in a lot more simplified form.

David Icke, haha. No, the guy has some good points but yeah all that reptilian stuff But, you always have to listen, no matter what crazy stuff is being spoken.

What we want is one intergalactic government, headed by a single Emperor... that's how you achieve order...

 

[DriftWood]

Yes.

Yes, but this is supposedly the archaic form of government, e.g. Feudalism. Remember, we are now supposedly operating on the enlightened principle of government, of, by and for the people. The price we have to pay to get that is eternal vigilance (it cannot be just about blindly saying we want "smaller" government, "small", in fact, being a very relative term).

Anywa, this is the kind of vigilance that people like Ron Paul are, in fact, engaging in, and we should be very thankful that there is such a figure capable of removing the apathy of people when it comes to government, and arouse their passions for reclaiming it for themselves.

A little theory of mine that has been bouncing around in there..

I think we people need more than vigilance to keep the govt in its place. They also need money:

If the world works as i think.. that in civil war people pay protection money to the militia with the most guns.. and then end up with a dictator.. that treats its people as slaves.. the people work hard for themselves and manage to hide away some of the money they make.. they use the money to bribe their way to more rights.. the dictator gets dependent on the bribes / taxes of its people.. the govt makes sure it does not hurt the hand that feeds it to bad. It does not bleed it to death, it just takes a little cut. So thats pretty much where most western societies are today. The people have the govt eating out of its hand, its pretty harmless. The people do not kill off the govt, because they still need its protection service. But the only thing that keeps the govt in its place is the fact that it is dependent on the tax money from its people. As long as people keep wealthy they will have economic power, and they can feed this beast and keep it domesticated. Well what heppens if the people suddenly become poor, and loose their economic power unable to feed it taxmoney? What happens if the govt finds another source of getting money? Just look at the corruptive power of oil. Oil producing nations govt dont need people to feed it money, they get money growing out of the ground. The govt with all its guns no longer has much of a reason to be kind to its people. It does not need them for feed itself. I think this theory could explain why oil rich countries like saudi arabia, and russia have such nasty and corrupt govts.

So in the end i think people need to stay vigilant and stay rich in order to keep the govt in its place. This is why economic freedom is so important for political freedom. If people loose their economic power, they will probably soon loose their political freedom as well. (A little tax money or bribe money goes a long way to keep the govt at bay.)

Cheers