Is One World Goverment so bad after all?

[Theocrat]

Thinking Postmillenially

Perhaps it ain't, knowing the nature of people it is quite utopistic. Even a true communistic system would be wonderful, but it is utopistic. The Soviet Union was a great example of a great idea driven by power-greedy men which eventually failed.
Perhaps this "global community" idea could work if people are always active in the politics of the system. If someone/a group starts going for power then it's the obligation of the people to hold them back and prevent them from doing it. If you just had a strong and active "Ron Paul movement" watching over the system then you could possibly prevent power from corrupting. But of course I'm asking too much from people, Ron Pauls are hard to come by.
I did say that people should be allowed to govern themselves at a local level, having local "governments", and not the parliament or whatever in the global community deciding on their matters.

But you all wanting to get rid of government, remember that an anarchy is also utopistic. You need some kind of a government, however you bend it.

Yes. Humanistic utopias always fail, and they can do none else but fail. History is replete with examples of nations which attempted to overthrow God and establish Godless societies, only to fall by committing genocides and eventually, political/economic suicides.

The only way a one world government can work is by building it on a solid foundation, and the only solid foundation is Jesus Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, Who is already ruling on the throne in heaven and bringing all things under His dominion (as the Last Adam) upon the earth by subduing His enemies and rewarding His chosen people.

 

[Hiki]

Yes. Humanistic utopias always fail, and they can do none else but fail. History is replete with examples of nations which attempted to overthrow God and establish Godless societies, only to fall by committing genocides and eventually, political/economic suicides.

The only way a one world government can work is by building it on a solid foundation, and the only solid foundation is Jesus Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, Who is already ruling on the throne in heaven and bringing all things under His dominion (as the Last Adam) upon the earth by subduing His enemies and rewarding His chosen people.

 

[TheGrimReefer]

Perhaps it ain't, knowing the nature of people it is quite utopistic. Even a true communistic system would be wonderful, but it is utopistic. The Soviet Union was a great example of a great idea driven by power-greedy men which eventually failed.
Perhaps this "global community" idea could work if people are always active in the politics of the system. If someone/a group starts going for power then it's the obligation of the people to hold them back and prevent them from doing it. If you just had a strong and active "Ron Paul movement" watching over the system then you could possibly prevent power from corrupting. But of course I'm asking too much from people, Ron Pauls are hard to come by.
I did say that people should be allowed to govern themselves at a local level, having local "governments", and not the parliament or whatever in the global community deciding on their matters.

But you all wanting to get rid of government, remember that an anarchy is also utopistic. You need some kind of a government, however you bend it.

Why is anarchy utopistic? So we don't argue over semantics I'm going to go ahead and give you my definition of anarchy. "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual." - Murray Rothbard from http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Also remember that "A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos."

 

[Hiki]

Why is anarchy utopistic? So we don't argue over semantics I'm going to go ahead and give you my definition of anarchy. "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual." - Murray Rothbard from http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Also remember that "A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=john+birch+society&ei=n49NSLjTMYuAjgKFosXTDA&hl=en

Take a look at this.

 

[Theocrat]

Just Curious

Am I supposed to be the guy on the right?

 

[TheGrimReefer]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=john+birch+society&ei=n49NSLjTMYuAjgKFosXTDA&hl=en

Take a look at this.

I stopped watching it as soon as they referred to anarchy as being lawless. I never advocated getting rid of laws. Their definition of anarchy is much different than mine. I also didn't like the fact that they kept referring to the 10 commandments.

 

[Hiki]

I stopped watching it as soon as they referred to anarchy as being lawless. I never advocated getting rid of laws. Their definition of anarchy is much different than mine. I also didn't like the fact that they kept referring to the 10 commandments.

But who makes up the law? Who looks after the laws and that they're being followed? The people? Under an anarchy you will end up having a fucktard gathering himself a band of thugs who goes around looting people and having a primitive form of oligarchy.
I didn't like every part of it aswell but it's a great video with great points. Nothing is perfect.

 

[Hiki]

Am I supposed to be the guy on the right?

No, forget it.

 

[Theocrat]

Self-Government is the Key, and God is the Keymaker

No, forget it.

Don't take me for a fool. I understand clearly you were being sarcastic with that picture because of my post. I just disagree with you philosophically on your thoughts toward a one world government, as I'm sure you do with mine.

Global utopias won't work until the sinful natures of mankind can be resolved, which means that God has to intervene to change the hearts of men. Of course, it's not done by force of arms in a "top-down" situation, but rather, it has to occur through evangelistic means of preaching the Gospel and doing good works ("bottom-up" strategy). That's the fundamental point I was implying in my first post of this thread.

 

[Hiki]

Don't take me for a fool. I understand clearly you were being sarcastic with that picture because of my post. I just disagree with you philosophically on your thoughts toward a one world government, as I'm sure you do with mine.

Global utopias won't work until the sinful natures of mankind can be resolved, which means that God has to intervene to change the hearts of men. Of course, it's not done by force of arms in a "top-down" situation, but rather, it has to occur through evangelistic means of preaching the Gospel and doing good works ("bottom-up" strategy). That's the fundamental point I was implying in my first post of this thread.

Fine, I guess everyone here knows how our worldviews differ and we really dont need this argument in this thread

 

[TheGrimReefer]

But who makes up the law? Who looks after the laws and that they're being followed? The people? Under an anarchy you will end up having a fucktard gathering himself a band of thugs who goes around looting people and having a primitive form of oligarchy.
I didn't like every part of it aswell but it's a great video with great points. Nothing is perfect.

Law would be determined by the non-aggression axiom - "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom."
The police and courts would enforce the law. If someone aggressed against some one else they would be forced to compensate the victim.

 

[Hiki]

Law would be determined by the non-aggression axiom - "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom."
The police and courts would enforce the law. If someone aggressed against some one else they would be forced to compensate the victim.

That's a good creed. Are you implying that the police and courts are independent? Where do they get their regulations, money and all that? I think that this system is far too complicated and hanging on too many variables, that you need somekind of a limited government to hold it together.

 

[Ozwest]

Law would be determined by the non-aggression axiom - "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom."
The police and courts would enforce the law. If someone aggressed against some one else they would be forced to compensate the victim.

What I don't understand is that you guys keep dribbling on about rights aggression, and law enforcement.

Relax.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Thread title question: If you have to ask the question, it most probably is.

 

[TheGrimReefer]

That's a good creed. Are you implying that the police and courts are independent? Where do they get their regulations, money and all that? I think that this system is far too complicated and hanging on too many variables, that you need somekind of a limited government to hold it together.

The courts would be privately owned and voluntary like everything else on the market. They would depend on people buying their service and if their service wasn't good, or was unjust ,they would go out of business because no one would buy their service.

 

[TheGrimReefer]

What I don't understand is that you guys keep dribbling on about rights aggression, and law enforcement.

Relax.

Lol, I'll go smoke a cigarette and calm down.

 

[Ozwest]

The courts would be privately owned and voluntary like everything else on the market. They would depend on people buying their service and if their service wasn't good, or was unjust ,they would go out of business because no one would by their service.

I nominate Andy Griffith, and Barny Fife.

 

[Paulfan05]

I used to want a one world government, thinking there would be no war lets just be humans not americans,mexicans,germans,ect......

 

[Ozwest]

The end of the United States, the Constitution, and the bill of Rights.

A world government, complete with a world army, a world court, global taxation, and powers to control education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, and the environment.

Welcome to your "Brave New World."

 

[Defining Obscene]

Heres an easy comparison. States rights vs. the fed. Now, kick that up a notch. Same problems, amplified.