Global New World Order! Okay, so what?

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


look at how the u s government has slowley gotton more and more corrupt over the years ,think about that on a global scale

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I must say that when(as the question is not if) the absolute power of a GLOBAL government corrupts those who are at its helm, then my friend... Where do we run? At least today in these troubled times we can escape to another sovereign state if the one under current inhabitance turns tyrannical.

THANK YOU!
Jstatz, Schlock are on the same page I'm at.

If a tyranny forms within you're country... "At least today in these troubled times we can escape to another sovereign state if the one under current inhabitance turns tyrannical." Very well put!

Thats what I'm trying to say is the reason we need many countries... the whole idea of one country running the world is horribly wrong!

look at how the u s government has slowly gotton more and more corrupt over the years ,think about that on a global scale

Thats my point exactly!





[edit on 24-10-2007 by Techsnow]

Originally posted by Techsnow
I don't understand why nobody has responded to my idea of a tyrannical government forming out of a border-less world. Don't you realize that if were to operate on a galactic scale we have to first unite (with borders, different countries, and ideas) on a galactic scale.

How are you going to unite countries on a galactic scale when the definition of galactic is:

ga·lac·tic /gəˈlæktɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[guh-lak-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. Astronomy. a. of or pertaining to a galaxy.
b. of or pertaining to the Milky Way.

2. immense; huge; vast: a problem of galactic proportions.
3. Physiology. pertaining to or stimulating the secretion of milk.

Wouldn't that in the case of (2.) be a world government? Even that is pushing the limitations of the definition.

Originally posted by TechsnowThe only way to freedom and a good world is for multiple countries to unite under a republic that are willing to oppose one another. In the scenario that one country were to become tyrannical, it is up to the other countries to stop that country and change it back into a republic.

Okay................ WHAT?!

I thought I covered that? You know? Or covered what of which was sensible.




Let me put this into laymen's terms for you because you don't seem to understand it otherwise.

Right now let's say it's NATO against the SCO. This is the kind of ballet the world has been accustomed to as far as foreign policy since such an institution was created. "US AGAINST THEM" to further simplify it for you. There would be no need for that kind of constant pressure from foreign countries.

This type of foreign interaction is dated and extremely dangerous. If we united as a world coalition, there would be no country against country but people vs. republic. We as a people would be responsible for our governments actions, instead of foreign threat.


Understand?

reply to post by Techsnow


its my feeling that after they get control they will want a vast reduction in population ,just wanting enough to pick up after them

No I can't say that I do understand...

Are you saying that you support a tyrannical police state world government with no borders and no one to oppose them?

reply to post by Doctor Schlock


WE DON'T RUN. With a republic similar to the one we're talking about, the people would have the real power. There would be no way they could manipulate the situation in their favor.

Also, let me clarify a few things too. I'm not in anyway suggesting this could even happen in our generation, let alone right now. I don't think humans have the mindset and understanding to undertake such a drastic social change.

reply to post by Techsnow


THE R E P U B L I C opposes them. NOT AN EQUALLY TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

Jesus.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Doctor Schlock

 

WE DON'T RUN. With a republic similar to the one we're talking about, the people would have the real power. There would be no way they could manipulate the situation in their favor.

Also, let me clarify a few things too. I'm not in anyway suggesting this could even happen in our generation, let alone right now. I don't think humans have the mindset and understanding to undertake such a drastic social change.

Do you mean a republic that I'm talking about?
A republic where there are multiple republic nations that are ready to check one another in case one gets out of line and turns into a tyranny??

If thats the case then I agree thats a good idea. But just forget the idea of ONE single republic! It WILL fall! And it would only be a matter of time.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


thats how u s government got started and look how thats turned out

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I think our generation might do.

Well... i say that, but i'm only 20 years old.

What i believe and what is real are two different things - if i believe that my generation is capable of turning the world for the better, then i think it'll be better if i hold onto that belief, maybe do something about it too...

Then again... i'm in a position where i'm willing to try anything so long as we can get out of this damn mess we're in...

As a people, as a republic. We would oppose those who oppress us. 7 billion united, we would have the absolute power. Not them. Just being united as a one world state would take away all their fear mongering because the only thing we would have to fear is those who regulate our lives.

I don't think I was clear enough about the republic being the people would be the leverage against it's own government. Instead of a foreign threat leveraging our every action. Similar to what you see going on with Iran, it's loose affiliation with Russian and China, and the hault to invade by the United States of America.

reply to post by Throbber


those are nice thoughts, but i dont see it having a happy ending

I want to sum this up.

There is only one way for world peace.That is multiple republic nations.

The problem is corruption always gets in the way and so does profit.

The real issue at hand is the money. The fact is, bankers are in control of the U.S. economy, the Australian economy, and the EU economy.

The central bankers are the real threat to world peace and prosperity.
Until they are dealt with we as a planet will continue to live in a plutocracy.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
As a people, as a republic. We would oppose those who oppress us. 7 billion united, we would have the absolute power.

You seem to be forgetting that these days numbers mean nothing.

Biological weapons are the norm when we think of man-made apocalypse, not nuclear - and bio-weapons are far more potent than any crude missile will ever be.

Why be afraid of 7 billion people when you can reduce that number to a few million with the flick of a button?


EDIT: Who said anything about a happy ending?



[edit on 24-10-2007 by Throbber]

reply to post by jstatz


I'm not saying it's a simple solution either. History is our greatest teacher and we could only make progress by learning from our mistakes. Creating something on this large a scale would be incredibly difficult but just because previous generations failed at anything doesn't mean we can succeed later on. Social evolution, baby. Have faith.

reply to post by Throbber


You have to take into consideration the amount of infighting when people were calling those shots. Not everyone associated with every government agency is a bad person or "in on it." There's a whole level of human rationale that we couldn't predict if we wanted to. 74% of the American people disagree with the Iraq war and they're not necessarily taking us out by the millions to restore the playing field in their favor. And in the people "pushing back" I don't mean a full blown revolution but through many democratic means as we've recently seen in Bolivia.

We give these men and women too much credit for the things they do. The more power we give those who are corrupt, the more power we're taking away from ourselves.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


it sounds like a great place but here and now the people in power have other plans

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Creating something on this large a scale would be incredibly difficult but just because previous generations failed at anything doesn't mean we can succeed later on. Social evolution, baby. Have faith.

It's not about faith, it's about doing what we can, because there's nothing else to do.

The problem is that society is completely cut off from any political process apart from 'which dude do we want in'?

When i was growing up i envisioned a world where no political decision was made without public approval, regardless of whether it seemed a 'good' idea, that way there shouldn't be anything happening that the public doesn't know about.

It's a pity i grew up so damn fast.


EDIT: I did take that into account btw, but i also took into account 'special interest' groups.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Throbber]

reply to post by Techsnow


That's the only way to "peace" (peace in your definition being a constant tension, created by opposing nations) with a simple minded approach. When the people of this world finally achieve peace, it will be exactly that. Absolute peace brought on by the responsible actions of the people of one republic. No political posturing involved.