There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+8 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Hello guys,

I've been lurking these boards for a few weeks now and it seems there is a lot of hysteria going on here.

If you really think about the contexts of a One-World Government, you will come to understand that it would do the planet good. You just have to think outside the box. Here are my points:

1) War Would End

In order for a One-World Government to be firmly established, there would have to be an understanding between all the nations of the world. The G-20 Summit is a perfect example of powerful nations co-existing for a beneficial common purpose. If all the nations in the world are united, then there won't be anymore disagreements or factors leading up to war. All difficulties would be resolved in peaceful fashion.

2) Poverty & Disease Would End

A lot of you seem to be complaining about higher taxes if a One-World Government becomes a reality. I believe that's a selfish point of view.
If the goal of raising taxes is to balance out the world economy and redistribute money to the poor, then why would it be such a bad thing?
I don't believe a lot of you have ever visited a third-world country, let alone put yourself in their shoes. I went to Afghanistan around 2006 to do some charity work and I can tell you that those people would give an arm and a leg to be able to live even close to how a minimum wage US citizen lives.

You all obviously care about the human race if you seem to be rebelling against the order in order to save "freedom". But would it be wrong to raise taxes in the wealthiest nations of the world and distributing to poor countries? Would it be wrong to use this same tax money to fund research for medical cures of the world's deadliest diseases?

3) Over-Population Would End

Let's say that this One-World Government sets a regulation that states that the amount of children you can have has to match the amount of income you make. Would this really be a bad thing? How many of you have seen or grown up in low-income families with multiple children? Some people can barely support themselves, let alone multiple children. What would happen to these children who've received a lack of nutrition and lack of education in their lives? This is the root of a moral problem that potentially leads to crime.

Let's say your parents were living off of Ramen noodles everyday and working minimum wage, would you respect them for bringing you into a world of poverty? What if they had waited until they were making enough income to raise you in a comfortable manner?

4) Violence Would End

Let's say that the "right to bear arms" is banished and punishment for certain crimes get harsher. Wouldn't this decrease the amount of violence and murder in the world? What if new technology were created similar to the weapons in the film, "Minority Report", that subdues criminals in a non-deadly way?

On a global note, this would take quite a bit of time because war would have to be abolished and peaceful coalition among nations would need to be established first, hence the One World Government.

5) Religious Extremism Would End

The age old nonsense of "My God is better than your God" has been plaguing mankind since the beginning. Even to this day, if you check the news, you will probably see "Suicide bomber hits subway, kills 15". Where do you think that suicide bomber got his motivation from?

Now, this might cause a bit of controversy but if I was part of a secret group that could influence the world's events, I would certainly try to stage some sort of Extraterrestrial contact with the world that would challenge people's beliefs. Now ask yourself if such an event happened, would the suicide bomber have still bombed the subway due to his religious beliefs?

There are many more points I would like to point out but unfortunately this post will not allow me to write anymore. Just ask yourselves if you would like to live in a society described as above.



+22 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I think many of us would agree with your point of view but here's the kicker.


The human race has always been corrupt and most importantly inept. We always screw it up.


Moreover history has shown conclusively when the world did have a central power with one person at the top it never worked out so well.


You just cannot trust that much power to one human being or even a consortium of a few.


+25 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
From a Utopian perspective a one world govt would be fantastic!


In reality it will be catastrophic!


One things that Absolute powers does and that is this: it corrupts absolutely!


+32 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
What's up with these "one world government is good" threads lately on ATS? Looks like shill invasion !

DeLarge


+8 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
A one world government is the worst case scenario for any person who want his or her own control over his or her destiny.

Since the beginning of time, people have need to organize them selves to be able to get along without too much conflict. This organizing is this: Our Customs, Laws, and Sensibilities.

And from the beginning of time this was best done in the smallest unit possible. The first organized group with rules is the family. When populations began to cluster for the benefit of all, communities were formed. The smallest form of governing is always the best. In the smallest form, it is was easier to get things done that directly affect the people in the group.

The larger the group gets the more difficult it is for the individual to have his our her rights held in esteem.

A one world government destroys sovereignty. To be sovereign over something means to be able to make the decisions that are best for it, because you are the one who lives there.

War would not end, because people would find other ways to organize themselves into groups and would always disagree about something, supreme global leader or not. A war can be fought with fire and rocks even if all weapons are destroyed, people will always find ways to fight and defend.

Overpopulation is a myth. A very small number of cities on the earth are too densely populated, but there is plenty of room and resources on this earth for every living person.

Raising taxes on the wealthy to help the poor is thievery. You remove the incentive for the wealthy to succeed, then the whole work of the past 2000 years of civilization starts to reverse. The individual working to solve his own problems in his own community is the best way to go every time. Tribes that live in tents in Afghanistan, and hipsters that live in high rise building do so because of the work and comfort level they have with their lifestyle. Here in the west we have worked extremely hard, long laborious hours in laying pipe, building bridges, roads and buildings, wiring for electricity....because that is the life we wanted. That was our choice...to work hard for our own benefit. Necessity is the mother of invention and you can not force it on people. If you provide for every ones need as a big welfare state government...nothing will be invented, markets will close and our skills we have developed will be lost to time.

I hope you see some counters to you strange one world government...small local government is what we want.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Look through history when a large state does get larger it usually sets about extreminating its very own people under the guise of "terrorism" threat.

With a global system eventually billions will come to be thought of as terrorists and a threat to the planet and global warming, so naturally they will attempt to exterminate those they claim are dangerous.

If you have a tumor do you wish it were larger? Same with government. Yes the tumor would feel lovely if you fed it sweets all day but when the size of the state increases so does misery. Your voice and vote also vanishes the larger the state gets in realtions to you, you become just a statistic.

Would you rather have 1/4000 share in deciding reality or 1/400,000?

Bigger doesn't mean better, would you like to weigh 500 lbs? How about 700lbs? Size actually has quite a large bit to do with happiness, the more crowded the area you live in the longer the commute, problem with most people they tend to cluster and make themselves miserable.

Cities should be abandoned, they should be turned into Detroits and left to decay so the residents fan out and find other places to live where less overcrowding can occur, most of the problems of violence and poverty have a very defined social setting in overcrowding.

As far as population, I don't see the earth dying from our overpopulation, maybe humans but not the earth, it just has such a vast amount of space and in a millisecond could kill all life on earth if a massive volcano erupted or comet hit the surface, so I think our job should be to get ourselves floating through outerspace on multiple craft for multiple destinations. So the space industry needs to go into full privatization, the very industry they seek to shut down such as GM should be putting us into space, instead we have clueless mindless idiots trying to score political points against each other over "global warming".



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Blah, blah, blah.

God, this argument gets old. I just got done posting on another thread for the same reason.

It's not the idea of a one-world-system which is the problem. If implemented, those who would be in control are those in control now. It would simply be the same people with even more power.

People tend to forget who will take control of such a system...and tend to overlook the things those who are in the position to take this control say in speeches and articles.

Take a look at the social/economic opinions of those who hold seats of power in the major organizations...the people who get together and hammer some things out at a 'summit' (or whatever name they want to give their puppet theatre).

These are, obviously, the people who would build and run a global government and they talk openly about plans and wants which should at the very mind-numbing least cause you pause.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TONE23
 


When was the last time someone had Absolute power? Adolf Hitler?
Do you think Adolf Hitler would have become who he was if he had grown up in our times? Do you know how much the world has globalized since WW2?


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Why are these types of threads popping up everywhere?


War: created by the people that proclaim they have a solution.

Poverty and Disease: created by the people that proclaim they have a solution.

Overpopulation: Really do you research. The earth is not overpopulated. Your just swallowing what your told. I bet you believe in Global Warming created by too much Carbon emissions too?

Violence: maybe not CREATED, but supported endlessly by the people that proclaim they have a solution.

Religious Extremism: created, and fueled, by the people that proclaim they have a solution.




Think of this as a chess game. It is time consuming and because we move step by step, we are now in check mate. But I guess it's not so bad. Right.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ohh_pleasee
 


In response to the person's post above, I'm guessing that you have a "solution" to reverse the effects of every society's wrong "solution".

How do you know if your "solution" is the right "solution?"

If your going to be witty, at least try to make sense.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by depmode21]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
In response to criticism about over-population, you guys should really read what I wrote about it in terms of morality. Perhaps I should have not labeled over-population and labeled it as one of the roots of crime and poverty.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
1) War Would End: of course war would end, there will be no one to report the war to, the people will never know that humans on the other side of the world are alive unless they tell us, or the gov (media) tells us they are. NWO means that "insurgents" or "freedom" fighters would be exterminated no matter the plight of their cause good or bad.


2) Poverty & Disease Would End: first off, most disease we encounter is created by ourselves, we have mutated almost every living and dead cell on the earth to see what they do when we manipulate them, then create a counter to the outcome, it’s common knowledge. And if NWO was going to stop them, they would have done it by now. Selling half of the Vatican alone would feed the continent of Africa and make sure they all had HIV, Malaria, and other meds for disease and sickness.

3) Over-Population Would End : from what I have read this is not the first attempt of man to play DOG, and that truly what it is, I am the master you are the dog, I will tell you if you will be spayed and neutered, I will control how much you will eat, I will control where you sleep, where you walk, who you meet, If you think your ideology of the world should be the model for humanity, it’s time to take a big slice of humble pie and choke it down your throat, no one person can fix our problems, it takes us all, and right now we have a .09% rating for overcoming political obstacles in our way...that’s been dead since Jesus.

4) Violence Would End : what a delusional point of view, the whole world right now is like an 18yr old with a 10 foot hard-on, have you been paying attention to current events, violence is our way of life it will never end, when violence ends we will no longer be able to defend ourselves, the brain is far too complex for us to remove a basic instinct, we would defiantly lose something we value by removing violence from our DNA, the key is to use the violence for positive outcome., not negative reinforcement.

5) Religious Extremism Would End; No... It is control and manipulation of culture and religion that are the direct result of our animosity to each other, it’s in our fashion & on the TV as well. Religion is like SEX it makes you feel good, it can even make you feel GREAT!!But its best done behind closed doors and kept to yourself O.o


One world Government can save humanity, get rid of disease, poverty, and clean the environment, and create an everlasting peace. The question is what are we willing to give up? Rights? Freedoms? Our lives? It has always been by conquest. Consent can only be taken from you, for they lack the understanding of human will.

One world government is the evolution of man and society, it is inevitable, it is our destiny and we shall march toward the stars either led by chains and whips, or compassion. Unfortunately Whips and Chains produce the most dramatic results in the shortest amount of time



[edit on 3-4-2009 by humilisunus]

[edit on 3-4-2009 by humilisunus]

[edit on 3-4-2009 by humilisunus]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
What a load of crap. Look, some plans look great on paper but it's an entirely different thing when they're put into practice. Let's take communism for example. In theory it means everyone is on the same footing. Property is 'communally' owned. Everyone shares equally in the nation's resources. But what really happens? Power and wealth are concentrated within a 'ruling' class and the rest of the population has a standard of living far, far lower.

Same for every historic instance of 'socialism'. On paper it's all about the masses. But in-practice it benefits a small few at the expense of the masses.

A OWG would fall to the same human issues. The wide variety of disparate cultures, religions, values and histories would create conflicting priorities. Look at the in-fighting between US states. Each has it's own unique needs and priorities. The USA is unique in modern world history as far as having such a diverse population functioning under a more-or-less democratic form of governance --- as flawed as it may be.

And why is our incarnation of this governance model flawed? Politicians. Individuals 'gaming' the system for their own personal gain. Can you possibly imagine the scale to which this would happen on a world-wide stage? It would be colossal in scope.

I'm sorry depmode but you are suffering from PAO :: Polly Anna Overdose. You have to factor-in human nature to your 'butterflies, zebras and fairy tales ' vision of humanity. It's an illusion. And a far fetched one at that. Look around the world. Look at the number of governments that oppress and prey on their populations for the benefit of the small elite :: North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuala, Zimbabwe, Sudan (and a host of other Aftrican nations) just to name a few. People ravaged by disease, famine, rape and genocide. At the hands of their 'leaders'. The very same 'leaders' that would represent them in a OWG.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
NWO would only work with a transparent government ran by the public not the eliteist scum who are only looking out for their OWN best interests. If Governments put all the BS aside and quit going to war over everything, all that money alone could have raised the standard of living of every man woman and child on earth. The suppressed technology alone could help entire nations be more self sufficient and sustainable. WHY do they need to keep empoverished nations back? I think you can answer that yourself. This world is FUBAR and no one can fix it without a massacre of the elitist rulers...I have listened for years to people wanting to do something about it but feel helpless. Once the internet loses neutrality the game will truly be over IMO.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Ok. Read following line carefully and think about your own government,in your country.
There is nothing wrong with a government.
Is it correct? I personally think that a lot of things are wrong in my government. And i do not think that there could be one thinking person on this planet who agrees that everything is going just as it should be in his government. Well, maybe except in N.Korea.
Just as others mentioned,there are corrupt politicians, there are foreign interests,there are lobby groups, there is bureaucracy, there is waste of resources and a lot of similar crap.
Now it is in the world with several competing power centers. Imagine how it is all going to get worse if there is no need to compete. One huge center. One huge corruption, one huge mix of foreign interests,one huge lump of lobby groups, one huge mess of bureaucracy,one huge spender of resources. One huge crap, like current one,only by magnified by factor of 100000.......000.
And wars would still be fought. Not every one would agree to join this "happy family of men". Not everyone who agreed would eventually accept all the following logical losses of religious/cultural/national identity.
I think that cons and pros are not in favor of such a system for an individual. I personally think that the only benefit is the elimination of our self-elimination threat as species. But since we managed it so far with two bitter enemies for decades aiming nukes at each other, to sell our freedoms for strait-jacket is too much.
There can not be a one-world government that is completely ok. There would be very wrong things in one government. Like - one world government.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


I agree with you all that human beings at the core are a crap species.
But I do not agree that there aren't people out there who could run such a government in the most transparent manner possible. There have been millions of people since the dawning of time who do good and mean good.

Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Ghandi, the list goes on and on.

Many of you are saying that you will be enslaved to a elite class of people?
Do you really think that an elite class of people can avoid being overthrown by six billion rebelling citizens? What are they going to do hide underground?

Any One-World Government that gets established will be done for the betterment of mankind. There will be nothing shady or corrupt about it.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
To the topic creator:

There are already other threads discussing that , please post on them , unless your mission here is to spam this kind of thread so you can brainwash people with your line of thought ?

Not that I think you could do that here , maybe on television , not on ATS though !

Would not be surprised to find that these kind of threads are all coming from the same IP either...



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by depmode21
 


looks as though DEPMODE21 the OP is another shill...brand new account and it seems as though he has been posting this article on Godlike and Yahoo.
..or he just plagiarized it... cut and paste like the Bootlickers do..

just another disinfo agent trying to cull the herd...

TPTB are already horrible please tell me how giving them more power would do any good at all.. they start all wars, they start all pandemics, they crashed the economy on purpose or by plan, overpopulation is a farce...
... do I really need to go on...

"if Freedom were Outlawed, would You be an Outlaw...??"
Hashishian



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by depmode21
 


Lot's of great replies already. Here is one question for you.

What happens when your cultural view or religious view is challenged and ultimately destroyed or removed by this 'One World Government' simply because it doesn't fall in line with THEIR belief system?




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
You want to talk about morality...try to have morality without religion. Do your research, read how the founding fathers of the United States of America, said all laws are based on an intrinsic belief in the Creator, who gives us our rights. The founding fathers went on to say in their writings that without a strong religious populace laws would be meaningless. If there is no God, then what is wrong with murder...if life is not sacred, then there is no problem in removing that life...it is only so much as killing a plant or animal if there is no religion.

Overpopulation is a myth....every single person living now in the state of Texas would have enough room to exist if they all were moved to New York City today.

www.washingtontimes.com...





new topics
top topics
 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join