We should rid ourselves of America...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

counterargument: norway or sweden (take your pick).....(SNIP)

um... sweden and norway
sweden and norway are much nicer places to live. i'd actually readily move their once i've finished my education if i knew the language.

So your example of how the world should be run is Sweden? With a fake monarchy run by socialists who demand the world’s hightest tax rates?

Sweden is slightly larger than California and has about 9 million inhabitants, fewer than the LA Metro area. 85% of Swedes live in a few big cities, but if you average it it’s about 55 people per square mile. By contrast, California has 36 million people or about 210 per square mile. You can't compare the two. When their population density quadruples, we’ll see how good their “free lunch” economy holds up.

My Mother is from Denmark and my Father, Sweden. I have traveled Scandinavia and seen for myself how wonderful the people are. It is a wonderful place to visit. It's nice to see people go about their daily lives with respect and tolerance for each other.

But they live in a house made of playing cards. They only have those rights that the government grants them. Their government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission.

I just don't understand why would trust a world government with the power to enforce policies as it deems fit. Do you really think it would achieve the promised goal of global utopia? Its madness I tell you. All it would achieve is despotism.

reply to post by METACOMET


ok, you make a lot of claims about the scandenavian nations, but nothing to really back it up... how are the people in such 'oppression'?

oh, one more thing. i've heard a lot of people talking on ATS about one of the very key concepts of liberty being gun ownership (second amendment discussions abound on ATS)
...sweden and norway have very high gun ownership rates.

Originally posted by koncept
The idea that a "one world government" could be good for anyone is pure madness.

The tyranny that the lower classes would likely face under such a circumstance is unfathomable.

i'll bite, why would the lower classes be subject to such tyranny under a "one world government" as i've outlined (very vaguely...)

It is a nice idea in theory, where there would be world peace, but you forgot one little detail....Were human and it would never work, History has proved it over and over again. Its like taking a fish out of the water and throwing it in the desert, the fish wouldnt live. There will always be people who want more power than others and we will never all get along, It simply will never work, It would have been done in the very begining of humanity if it could work but we will always find diffrences with other people,build walls, and make flags.Believe me I would be all for world peace (world peace would be needed for this to happen) but there will never be world peace, because you have people like me who will fight and die before the american flag dissapears.

There will be a one world government. And everyone will conscent to being a part of it. If you don't, you will be killed. The new world order is coming, even if you don't think so. I will not be part of it, nor do I want to be.

BTW if you use Google Earth, type in 666 and see where on the Earth it takes you to. Hint, it's a scandinavian country.

If you would like a preview of what that one world government may be like, read the Book of Revelation chapter 13.

Ok... yes, I'm a Christian, but that's my viewpoint so I guess some of you need to say something displeasing to me now, so I expect it. But it's still my viewpoint anyway.

reply to post by tac109


it certainly won't work when we keep having people saying it won't work. humanity changes, the zeitgeist (the concept, not to be confused with the video) changes, culture changes, our mindsets will change. as we grow more and more connected to the world we will see the world for what it is. it's us
that's us, that's all we are. this little pale blue dot

reply to post by Fromabove


google earth took me to texas when i typed in "666"
actually, it pops up with a "did you mean" list, and texas was the first one listed, then sweden and a bunch of others.

anyway, this was just more than a bit off topic and preachy. you should discuss the merits of the system i proposed, not what you think is going to happen in some future end of the world scenario.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


i might have a few problems but deliberate lying is not one of them--i told you the truth--since i never realized you would put me on the witness stand i didnt make a tape recording to unvague what i last said about --there's not enough to go around for all of us--today we have an up to date situation with all of us here being witnesses to the same ?the murder in pakistan by suicide bombers of the former pm---the same kind of islamic extermists that blow themselves up in iraq and afghanistan and gaza and now abbas is having blow yourselves up for pal freedom videos broadcast again on pal tv getting ready for the next round ? of murdering jews living on their own G-D given land that muslim extermists covert after-----the madness in your soul wont be happy till they are blowing themselves up in the malls i'm priveledged presently to share with north americans ? you do want to invite them all in along with the mexicans i gather or did i misunderstand what you said ?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Let's examine your theory in a microcosmic way. Hypothetically speaking, let's say you have 5 friends, and are trying to make plans for the evening. Let's say you want to do something the other 4 don't want to, or conversely the others suggest something that you really don't want to do, or all 5 of you have your own thing you'd rather do. I'm sure you've seen situations where trying to keep a few people happy doesn't work. Heck, even trying to keep one person happy(i.e. Divorce rates, etc....) can be difficult to impossible. Now let's try to get 6+ Billion people to come to an agreement on how they'd like to live their lives, and decide on which culture and economic system that they should all adopt. Now let's throw in the greedy, the power seekers, the criminal predators, the manipulators, etc... to this equation. A good analogy here is cat herding.
Just look at Pakistan, Israel/Palestians, Iraq, Africa, various Asian countries. They can't settle their personal, ethnic, political, religious, etc. differences, much less the rest of the world.
You're plan completely ignores human nature, as does every other idealistic philosophy(to include socialism/communism). There simply is no peaceful way to get everyone in the world onto the same sheet of music.
Another thing you don't consider(which also goes back to human nature), is that people can identify with their homeland(or their town, state, village, tribe, ancestral nomadic territory), and have some allegiance to it. They don't necessarily feel as passionately about an area in the world they have never seen, with people they've never met. Your system wouldn't raise the standard of living for the lowest classes, it'd bring the standard of living down for the remainder of the world. That's the biggest fault with idealistic/socialistic ideals. The equality they bring is shared misery, not shared prosperity.

reply to post by GT100FV


right on you have hit the nail on the head: shared misery instead of shared prosperity is what we would have to endure going the way of madness in his soul--thank you for seeing the answer better than i could express it.

I just planted my field of corn. It is a VERY big field and I will reap lots of corn come harvest time. I worked VERY VERY hard as I do every year at planting my corn. I also put up a fence because my property borders some people I really don't know very well and they dont know me very well.


My field is lush with just the right amount of sunlight getting to my tender crop. My neighbors field is sand, and all water runs off because of the large hill right in the middle of the field.

I opened my fence one day as an act of good will. My neighbor ran his cattle into my corn because they are hungry becuase he can't grow wheat or corn on his hilly field.

All my hard work is gone, my corn has been eaten and I will have no profit to get me through this winter.

Then next spring when it is time to plant the corn, where is my neighbor that I opened the border for? He and his cows went south for the winter because I had no corn or profit for them over the winter, so they moved onto the next warmer weather field to plunder and I am left to plant my own crops again until he comes back at harvest time.

See...the world is not as sweet as we want it to be. Keep my borders shut, thank you very much!

Dorian Soran

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I love the idea of world peace where the grass is always green and the birds are always singing. But the only way that can happen is if somthing big happens to our world that would brainwash us or force us to band together, like an alien attack. But until then the only flag I salute is the American flag.

Originally posted by yahn goodey
i might have a few problems but deliberate lying is not one of them--

did i accuse you of lying? i accused you of using a logical fallacy (just one that's very vague, never said it didn't happen)
and that the people were incorrect, the world could easily be fed with current levels of production and we could EASILY increase production

there's not enough to go around for all of us--

yes, there is. there's actually MORE than enough to go around. as i already explained, if the obese would eat regular amounts and the starving were given the surplus, we'd all go to sleep full.
if that didn't work, we could still step up food production

today we have an up to date situation with all of us here being witnesses to the same ?the murder in pakistan by suicide bombers of the former pm---the same kind of islamic extermists that blow themselves up in iraq and afghanistan and gaza and now abbas is having blow yourselves up for pal freedom videos broadcast again on pal tv getting ready for the next round ?

um...this is kind of contextless. what do you mean?

ALL extremists are bad. islamic, christian, jewish, hindu, etc

of murdering jews living on their own G-D given land that muslim extermists covert after

are you aware that israel is responsible for the vast majority of civilian death in that conflict and that there is no reason to involve anyone's gods in politics.
if you want to pull the "it's their god given land" card, please, let the deity in question come forth and actually tell the world in person.

-----the madness in your soul wont be happy till they are blowing themselves up in the malls i'm priveledged presently to share with north americans ? you do want to invite them all in along with the mexicans i gather or did i misunderstand what you said ?

you're clearly just engaging in hyperbole. you clearly misunderstood what i'm saying... hold on, after i'm done responding to everyone i'm just going to post a clarifying statement

reply to post by GT100FV


you set up a strawman that, when actually applied to the world, would exclude the existence of any peace and stability. it's quite obvious that we can have peace in the world.

let's look at it on a smaller scale: europe
france and england specifically.

now, if you just have any passing knowledge of european history, you'll know of one of the many many many many wars they engaged in.
these days, however, they are trade partners and haven't engaged in wars for a long time.

now, this was thought of as impossible, but it happened.

the impossible is possible, it just never seems probable.

and one more thing, you clearly don't understand my idea if you're going to label it as "idealistic"
it factors in the problems with the greatness of humanity.
and it's very mildly socialist.

you haven't shown how we'd share misery.
what is it with people valuing opinions more than reasoning in this thread?

reply to post by Dorian Soran


false analogy and oversimplification of a very, very complex situation.

the world isn't about "we earned this" it's more "we happened on this because other people did some things and now we pretend that we're entitled to it because we have a flag"
the world is too small for us to say "this land belongs to this nation"

a nation is a fraction of a pixel. smaller than a spec.
i say that so much is greater than the nation. the world. the species. the individual. yes, the individual, the fraction of the fraction of the fraction of a spec is greater because the individual can unite people.

you know, you put a bit of shame on the doctor, if anyone would support this idea, i think he would. though he'd probably have a lot of things to contribute that would smooth out the process.

reply to post by tac109


clearly nobody is reading the idea properly, it's not some utopian pipedream. i don't expect perfection.




ok, everyone keeps assuming that i'm for a "let's just do this" system, i don't know where this idea is coming from because i've used the words "gradual process" on here... or is nobody paying attention?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You've yet to explain how folks are gonna be convinced to give up their self interests for the "greater good." The reason there is peace in certain parts of the world is because of the style of governments(i.e. democracies). Democracies don't tend to attack other democracies. That's why the notion of expanding democracy is a noble one.
As for my argument being a strawman- I disagree. My point was very valid, with regards to getting folks in agreement, especially crossing ethnic, and cultural boundaries. The more important question is, who would be in charge of this. Can you imagine trying to get your message out for elections to the 4 corners of the globe. And let's say there was corruption in this one world government(just like there is in every government to some degree), and there ceased to be representation of the interests of the citizens of the world, who exactly would address this issue, or be able to solve it? That's why countries exist, because their citizens share commonalities that other people don't have with them. They are far better represented with regard with their self interests, than some unaccountable, singular government, that didn't have anyone to answer to. I'm with a few other posters here. I'll continue to salute my own flag, before giving up self governance to some nebulous body. I love my country, and that's why I am a career soldier. I think that some things are worth fighting, killing, or dying for, in order to preserve.
Becoming a member of the Borg isn't one of them.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

false analogy and oversimplification of a very, very complex situation.

WRONG - proper analogy. It is not that complex of a situation. No man and I mean NO MAN is going to give up what he has worked for so a man of lesser fortune can move in. IT IS a pipedream of utopia...at its simplest level.

the world isn't about "we earned this" it's more "we happened on this because other people did some things and now we pretend that we're entitled to it because we have a flag"
the world is too small for us to say "this land belongs to this nation"

Well maybe when we have outside evils to fight against will we band together under one world flag ( sounds like an episode of STAR TREK by the way) until then I will continue to hold dear the flag of the land that my relatives died defending for freedom, thank you, and not let people across my border 'cause golly gee its the nice thing to do.

a nation is a fraction of a pixel. smaller than a spec.
i say that so much is greater than the nation. the world. the species. the individual. yes, the individual, the fraction of the fraction of the fraction of a spec is greater because the individual can unite people.

I am not even going to ask what you were doing when you wrote that. Our dreams are like children, we must nuture them and.....BLAH a pixel of a pixel of a spec of an SDRAM card of the hard drive of life? WHAT?

you know, you put a bit of shame on the doctor, if anyone would support this idea, i think he would. though he'd probably have a lot of things to contribute that would smooth out the process.

Ahh my friend tread lightly when refering to the good doctor. Even HE would not have opened the borders of the Tardus to the Daleks because it was the gosh golly gee universally NICE thing to do....no I don't think so!

Dorian Soran

reply to post by GT100FV


becoming one of the borg isn't what i'm asking, you're clearly not looking at that, though.

Originally posted by Dorian Soran
WRONG - proper analogy. It is not that complex of a situation. No man and I mean NO MAN is going to give up what he has worked for so a man of lesser fortune can move in. IT IS a pipedream of utopia...at its simplest level.

this isn't about people giving up what they've worked for, it's a false analogy because of that

Well maybe when we have outside evils to fight against will we band together under one world flag ( sounds like an episode of STAR TREK by the way) until then I will continue to hold dear the flag of the land that my relatives died defending for freedom, thank you, and not let people across my border 'cause golly gee its the nice thing to do.

and this is why we're going to die as a species.
50% of the world's wealth is controlled by 1% of the population
1% of the world's wealth is controlled by 50% of the population

does it not make sense that those 50% who control only 1% each get the CHANCE to control more through hard work
maybe you should realize something... the top 30% of the population of India in terms of intelligence outnumbers the entire american population, and they don't have as high of a chance at success as someone of average intelligence in america...

I am not even going to ask what you were doing when you wrote that. Our dreams are like children, we must nuture them and.....BLAH a pixel of a pixel of a spec of an SDRAM card of the hard drive of life? WHAT?

it's called putting things into perspective, taking light of ideas isn't very ice.

oh, and i was watching doctor who, oddly enough.

Ahh my friend tread lightly when refering to the good doctor. Even HE would not have opened the borders of the Tardus to the Daleks because it was the gosh golly gee universally NICE thing to do....no I don't think so!

ahem, evolution of the daleks arc. even the daleks get a second chance.
oh...and people of the world are far from a despotic uniformally militaristic race with obvious nazism undertones...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


since the democracy loving people? of pakistan are busy demonstrating their fervent belief in the democracy of the "usa"? by destroying millions of dollars worth of property in their mindless attempt to overthrow musarraf because they think its his fault alqaida murdered her-buttuo--do you really think that we want them here?not me nor most other rational people i know of----if they want to destroy themselves and the economy that has let them survive this long so far--i hope they never are allowed to come here and destroy whats left of our lifestyles thank you ! america should seal up its borders and allow no one else to come in--the hotel is full--no more vacancy left.matter of fact the usa should start kicking out all the trouble makers here now that want to bring her down--and that comes from a visitor jew that loves the usa and all the benefits she has shown/bestowed on me/us.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's quite obvious that we can have peace in the world.

Where is the evidence of this? History certainly doesn't provide any.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


i never said there was historical precedent
i never said it would be easy
i just said the we COULD, that it's possible to accomplish if enough people work together for it

reply to post by yahn goodey


and again...you're missing the point.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

the "occupation" idea has a bit of a (and i hesitate in saying this) racist overtone to it. and obviously there would be health screenings

So... in your one-world, borderless, utopian society everyone is equal. Okay. What happens to people who don't pass your "health screenings"? Do they get quarantined, and sent off to some island somewhere like a leper colony? Do they get taken out back "Old Yeller" style?

I am not saying that (in the society you speak of) I would want people with all sorts of diseases just roaming to wherever they please and spreading things. I am just curious how your health screenings would deal with this situation. Everyone is equal, and has more opportunities... uness they're contagious, or icky? You're just trading one kind of inequality for another.

Originally posted by jedimiller
I totally agree with you. no borders would equal no wars and no poverty. let's open up to other countries and make them grow. we should stop being so selfish with our wealth and spread it globally, bringing in all kinds of races and groups and becoming as one. i'm ALL for it.

Yes, because this never happens within the borders of one country! If we eliminate the borders, problem solved!! Within the borders of every individual country there is some kind of violence, poverty, discrimination, class/caste system. These things would still exist, just on a much grander scale.

Face it, it is human nature to classify and categorize others. People would find some way to oppress, exploit, ignore, etc. each other. There is no way that human beings will ever see each other as completely equal.

Sorry. I don't want a one-world government, and I will fight and die to prevent it from being forced on me. It must be nice to have these ideas about a perfect society with no war or hunger, where we all just make daisy chains in a meadow somewhere and sing together. Us humans are far too angry a species.

Why would one worry about their topic being derailed if one is presenting a solid rational idea in the first place? Personally I think with no border you have no order. Can you imagine everyone competing for resources in such a world order? If there is one thing that mankind has been really adamant about over the ions it is competing for resources and sometimes it gets really ugly.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

yes, there is. there's actually MORE than enough to go around. as i already explained, if the obese would eat regular amounts and the starving were given the surplus, we'd all go to sleep full.
if that didn't work, we could still step up food production

Are you serious?

Not everyone who is obese is obese because they eat tons and tons of food. Some people are obese because they choose to eat the wrong kinds of food. Granted, they eat more than they should, but not so much that it is preventing others from eating! What about those who are obese because they have thyroid or hormonal issues? (Before you start making assumptions, I am not obese. I am 5'8", 120 pounds.) You are making generalizations about ridiculous things, while you are telling others that their arguments are vague.

Did you know that many of the super obese people (watch Discovery Health sometimes, because they run shows about them often) actually suffer from malnutrition? Again... it has to do with quality of food, and not just quantity.

Furthermore, the amount of food that one consumes might not have anything to do with how skinny one is. (And I know, you said "starving," not skinny). Ever seen a group of teenagers wolf down everything in sight without seeming to put on an ounce? Again, what about thyroid problems?

You seem to want to tell people that they have had enough to eat, and cannot eat any more, because they have to give their food to starving people. Yeah... I can see people giving up their food easily once you explain it to them nicely. (Please note the sarcasm).

Plus, you say that we could step up food production. We could. We could plant more crops, and raise more animals. We might have to take some land away from people to do this, but again... I'm sure once you explain the situation to people, they'll understand and give it up nicely. No? Well then, we could take all of that "empty space" where nobody lives and convert that to farmland. Who cares if it is inhabitated by endangered species and whatnot... better cut those trees down!

I heard someone on television recently say that if Americans stopped spending so much money on their pets, that money could be used to buy food and medicine for the poor. Don't tell me what to spend my money on, don't tell me how much and what to eat, don't tell me how to use my land. THAT is why people will largely reject these changes of which you speak.

By the way... in case you couldn't tell... you're obesity argument really bothered me. What about people who eat a lot, but just work it off by playing hackey sack or ultimate frisbee in the quad? Or by marathoning, or whatever. You take away their food surplus, and then what? Tell them to stop exercising so much? Or just let them continue exercising, and waste away? Your proposal takes away so many personal liberties that I don't think you've even thought of.

My advice: Finish your education, get out into the real world for a while, and feel what it's like to work for things and struggle. Then, have someone tell you that none of that matters, that we should all just redistribute some things, and that we should all be equal. I'm not sure that your future self would agree with your current argument.

Keep thinking, though. Work that brain. If you don't use it, you lose it.

Peace out.



[edit on 30-12-2007 by TheHypnoToad]