It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Gates Says Life Would Be Much Easier With A World Government

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   


Not only did Gates advocate global government, but he also spoke favorably of the UN and NATO, completely overlooking that they are a major force of oppression in the world. NATO can’t even hold a meeting without thousands of people gathering in the streets to protest their actions. Someone as heavily involved in world affairs as Bill Gates should know all about this.

During the interview last month, Gates said, “Take the UN, it has been created especially for the security in the world. We are ready for war, because we have taken every precaution. We have NATO, we have divisions, jeeps, trained people. But what is with epidemics? How many doctors do we have as much planes, tents, what scientists? If there were such a thing as a world government, we would be better prepared."

Not long ago this subject was considered a total conspiracy theory, but now one of the richest people in the world is openly suggesting that this is a good idea. Governments are generally a pretty bad idea, even when they are small they can still do a tremendous amount of damage. So when a government rules the entire planet, there is no telling what type of atrocities it will be capable of.


theantimedia.org...




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Bill Gates got super rich because he bought Microsoft for $50,000 when it was getting started. They needed the money to continue. He spent 1 year at Harvard and dropped out when Microsoft took off. No offense to the OP but who cares what Bill Gates thinks.

I don't put much credence in what he says but someone like him can be dangerous because he has the assets to buy anything he wants.
edit on 26-2-2015 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
The size and type of government is irrelevant.......it all depends on the quality of those in charge.

A king author type running a world dictatorship would be great, far more efficient. We all saw what happened when you let a hitler run a small democratic country.

The whole communism is evil stuff is cold world propaganda. Some how the Government convinced most Americans all the plumbers making the same money was evil and must be destroyed. Silly looking back.
edit on 26-2-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

Some how I don't think life is too hard for bill gates.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Life would be easier when people like Bill Gates and other Zionists are eradicated from this planet.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
What is wrong with a world government? What do you people think you are going to lose with a world government? Western superiority?

We are getting a world government whether any of you like it or not. If we keep the idea native to "conspiracy theories" and refuse to embrace it, it will be done anyway except it will be done nefariously.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to sort out how such a government would work. Do you want to leave it a bunch of control freak alcoholics, or don't you think we would get some better ideas through universities with the generation that will need to see this through taking the lead.

If we keep shunning our own governments and refusing to speak up or get involved, then our governments will be turned against us.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
What is wrong with a world government? What do you people think you are going to lose with a world government? Western superiority?



If we keep shunning our own governments and refusing to speak up or get involved, then our governments will be turned against us.



I don't care about Western superiority. What is wrong with a world government?
The problem is the top-down structure where individual liberty are not valued.
The solution is bottom-up government.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka



Bill Gates Says Life Would Be Much Easier With A World Government

Sure would. For him, and people like him. For the rest of us it would be hell on earth.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

_____________________________________

Imagine what I meant to write up there.


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The further away from your level your representatives are from you, the less accountable to you they are.

So let's see ... what's wrong with a world government? I don't know. What's wrong with Washington?

Now understand that a world government is even farther removed form you than Washington is. That's what's wrong with a world government.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
What is wrong with a world government? What do you people think you are going to lose with a world government? Western superiority?



If we keep shunning our own governments and refusing to speak up or get involved, then our governments will be turned against us.



I don't care about Western superiority. What is wrong with a world government?
The problem is the top-down structure where individual liberty are not valued.
The solution is bottom-up government.


I agree. But who is up there asking for it?... Rich a holes like Gates, so it is going to be them and their buddies at the forefront fixing the game for themselves on a global scale.

I don't mean to sound like I'm ranting but I have always kind of though that the NWO conspiracies have been pushed to scare people away from the idea so that the wealthy do not have to maneuver their shady plans in public where people want the same thing but public control.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Public control is local control.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
We are getting a world government whether any of you like it or not.

Who's "we"?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The further away from your level your representatives are from you, the less accountable to you they are.

So let's see ... what's wrong with a world government? I don't know. What's wrong with Washington?

Now understand that a world government is even farther removed form you than Washington is. That's what's wrong with a world government.



If you left the problem to university students to solve they may come up with something like regional governments that connect centrally for food distribution, legal tenders, transportation etc. I'm confident they could come up with a way to keep diversified regions that need only comply to minimal central oversight. I'm sure it can be done.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Public control is local control.



I agree. But when your local area suffers a drought or flooding or whatever, it is the centralized part that can pick things back up. We need that too.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA diversified regions that need only comply to minimal central oversight.

The heck is the point in having central oversight if it's minimal?



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

It's interesting, but I remember watching a disaster and breakdown of society type show once. They had five experts on how to survive the widespread breakdown of society, and they all approached the problem from different philosophical angles.

The one thing they all agreed on was that in the event of widespread breakdown, the best chance humanity has to survive is to have less centralized control. The more self-sufficient communities are in and of themselves in their localities, the better off they would be.

In other words, the trend toward ever increasing centralization and consolidation and specialization was bad because it weakened an area's ability to adapt in the event they get cut off.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
"Governments are generally a pretty bad idea" is one of the dumbest statements I've ever read. "Government" as a generic term is not bad at all, rather it's absolutely necessary. ATS as a site is a form of government, just the infrastructure of the site is 'government' in some form, because it provides a coherent way for various people to participate in a uniform structure.

Bad government is bad. And a lot of governments have been or have gone bad. I'll agree to that.

But just because a government would be worldwide doesn't mean it would be bad automatically. Now in the world we live in, it probably would turn out bad, and companies and various other dickheads would wind up running everything to the detriment of the ridiculously vast majority. But it's not a bad idea. It could be done right, and like Malbosia said, the more we hunker down and peek through our blinds at what 'them there evil guvments' are up to, the more we allow said governments to do whatever they want.

Bill Gates says life would be easier with a uniform system for the entire planet? Well, I think he's probably right. But those of us who are used to consuming on the backs of those third world countries we like to throw a few bucks at now and then.... Yeah, I can see where we'd want to keep our golden bulls and pledge of allegiance.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MALBOSIA

It's interesting, but I remember watching a disaster and breakdown of society type show once. They had five experts on how to survive the widespread breakdown of society, and they all approached the problem from different philosophical angles.

The one thing they all agreed on was that in the event of widespread breakdown, the best chance humanity has to survive is to have less centralized control. The more self-sufficient communities are in and of themselves in their localities, the better off they would be.

In other words, the trend toward ever increasing centralization and consolidation and specialization was bad because it weakened an area's ability to adapt in the event they get cut off.



Ok. I see that. How about disaster response though? If we don't allow some centralized oversight, then parts of the world that are prospering agriculturally or technologically etc. will not know that there are other parts of the world that are suffering.

What of we have a local government that is suffering and through desperation start to conflict with a neighboring government that has had better luck. We could be right back at wars and ultimately back to where we are today.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBlackTiger
But just because a government would be worldwide doesn't mean it would be bad automatically.


Yes, government is always bad, it is also mostly unnecessary.

That said, our federal government is necessary for national defence.

State governments are completely free to do as they please with the single caveat that they do not violate their own constitutions or our national constitution. Citizens may cross state borders freely so they can depopulate when government bloats and becomes abusive, this prompts reform or results in desertion.

Municipal governments are completely unnecessary but, perfectly acceptable if desired.




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join