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.

 

One world gov't ... why bad?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Please tell me why a one world gov't would always be bad or infringe on our personal freedoms??

Let's assume that all nations freely joined into a democratic, world gov't. The United States of Earth.. or the EU - Earth Union.

Go back 225+ years and I'm sure you'd hear the same arguments from people in the states against joining a larger federal gov't.




posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I think it is eventually going to happen. In a much more organic way than alot of people seem to think.

Give it 300 to 500 years time. IMO

A one world goverment is a logical step in human development.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
A one world goverment is a logical step in human development.


If you call returning to feudalism of the Middle Aages human development then go for it because that's what the NWO is about.

So unless your an elitist with billions of dollars, to the fields you will go to.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
300 - 500 years? We won't even be around. Overpopulation, War/Terrorism, will have taken its toll by then. We might even be in Space and Mars by then. So an EU would only apply to the Earth. I don't understand how it is bad either? One government (Democratic or not) means we won't go to War to try to force our form of government on others, since it is all the same.

[Edited on 5/5/04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xenophanes85
300 - 500 years?


Oh yea, good point.

300-500 years that is way too long.

I say in 2012-2015 the NWO will be here.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   


A one world goverment is a logical step in human development.


Well your right, it is the next logical step. But sadly we live in a world where things aren't that simple



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Originally posted by Facefirst
A one world goverment is a logical step in human development.


If you call returning to feudalism of the Middle Aages human development then go for it because that's what the NWO is about.

So unless your an elitist with billions of dollars, to the fields you will go to.


I never mentioned a NWO conspiracy. I mentioned the logical evolution of human goverment.

I never mentioned feudalism. Not even close. I am looking at a much larger version of.... lets say the EU. Not some modern day version of medieval Japan.

And as for the numbers I gave, that was a guess.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I look at it his way. If we had a one world government then yes overall for the good of mankind the world will be a much better place. However creating a single government would mean people all over the world would be ruled on way giving no variation anywhere. I also think that the only way to get a single goverment to work efficiently would be to have smaller "councils" running areas which in effect would basically end up like the system we currently have (separe countries or indeed separate states within the same government.)



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
No variation? Diverse ethnic and religious groups will still exist. Countries might even still exist. The countries will be like the states of the US with the EU (NOT European Union) as the federal power. In fact, its ALOT like the UN today. A council of countries.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Yes, a one world govenment is an inevitable stage in our social development. However, it may be said that technology might have brought this stage to us earlier than we are perhaps ready for. Technolgy has speeded up the process of world communication and transportation. The world has become a smaller place and what happens in one part of it affects the rest to a much greater degree and much more quickly than ever before.

The main arguement that most use to oppose any type of one world govenment is an old one. It is natural in human societies for a relatively small group of powerful individuals to have most of the control. This is because, like in the various animal kingdoms, some are better suited to lead and some are better suited to follow. As much as we would like to think otherwise, humans are not created equal at all. Those who are more successful, are more driven to achieve their goals, and are more dedicated to whatever they believe are more likely to be the leaders and are more likely to be at the "top" of things. Given human nature, it is logical to assume that these people will be simultainiously admired but attacked, respected but feared, loved but hated.

Many of the feared, secret (and not so secret) societies (Illummati, Knights Templar, Freemasons, etc...) are often accused of trying to establish a one world govenment as though that is an evil goal. I don't believe it is. I also believe that there are few that would not jump at the chance to be an important member (ie: in the know) of some of these societies.

Think about it. If you had been born a Rothchild, or a Rockerfeller, would you still fear the NWO? Of course not. Actually, from what I've read of some of these societies, those are the people that probably should be running things, if in fact they don't already. Why? Because they seem to be really good at controling chaotic forces and keeping their minds on the goals they have set for themselves. That is a pretty accurate descrption of Leadership when you look at it without emotion and fear for you own status.

I think a lot of the fear of a one world govenment is from those who are pretty sure that they aren't included in the group that will hold and excercise the power.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   
i think a single world government will be a disaster, unless of course things change radically. all it will do is give rich and powerful people more money and power.
i don't think that the whole world will be managed fairly when the people who will be in charge are likely to be super-rich heads of multinational companies or be controlled by them. there is enough bribery and corruption at the european union.
the rich get richer while the poor have to fight it out amongst each other.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Why would it give all the rich people power money etc???
For me this is just the poor trying to excuse their own lack of success in life.
I think a one world government wouldnt be bad. Why does everyone assume the religious persecution, lack of variation, etc?
Why can we not live as we do now under the British Government, American government, etc, except that everyone is under that system??
I dont get it



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I really need to learn to explain myself more fully.


Originally posted by xenophanes85
No variation? Diverse ethnic and religious groups will still exist. Countries might even still exist. The countries will be like the states of the US with the EU (NOT European Union) as the federal power. In fact, its ALOT like the UN today. A council of countries.


Sorry what I meant was not that religion would suddenly disappear it was more that different areas and people would want or need different laws and under one government could not get that. Also without central rule it would end up very much like the goverments of today.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by UglyBoy]



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
How about one government which makes the MAIN ideas but leaves provinical governments/departments?
Like your local council, but with more power, e.g. Laws
I think this is the system they use in america at the moment?
I think it's also similar to the system Blair was trying to introduce with the EU



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Yes I agree that would be the only way a central government could work well. But isn't this a lot like the UN at the moment ie creating a general set of rules which all it's members (are supposed to) work by leaving other decsions purely down the governments.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Why would it give all the rich people power money etc???
For me this is just the poor trying to excuse their own lack of success in life.
I think a one world government wouldnt be bad. Why does everyone assume the religious persecution, lack of variation, etc?
Why can we not live as we do now under the British Government, American government, etc, except that everyone is under that system??
I dont get it


depends if you measure success in life with monetary wealth, some people don't want a dog eat dog world.
does the whole world have to conform to western values!



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I just dont see why everyone automatically considers the idea of one government ruling the world a bad thing filled with oppression, terror, slavery, etc.
There is no evidence for this, except for the poor (common) person's intense hatred for those who have managed to do better than themselves in life or trying to blame their lack of success on everyone but themselves.

I dont measure success in life with monetary wealth. I certainly consider, for myself at least, satisfaction in life to be directly related to how many people I help in life.
But as it has been said, 'Money doesnt buy happiness, but I dont see those in poverty happy'



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67


If you call returning to feudalism of the Middle Aages human development then go for it because that's what the NWO is about.



Yanno, feudalism has to be one of the most abused words in the history books. It's a very ambiguous word and can be used in a myriad of ways, and the way it is applied to medievil society is very misleading.

The reason the word survives in history is because it has become tied in with fiefdom. But even here, people have imagined fiefs to be bundles of land which a vassal had no rights to. The truth is that there were inheritances and entitlements (even females could inherit fiefs).

In actuality, if you rent your home today or have a mortgage, you are living to almost the exact same system as the one in the High Middle Ages.

If you want a good book on the subject, I heartily recommend Europe in the High Middle Ages by Prof. William Chester Jordan.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by no_name
depends if you measure success in life with monetary wealth, some people don't want a dog eat dog world.
does the whole world have to conform to western values!


It doesn't matter if people want a dog eat dog world or not. That is the way it is. That is the way Nature is and that is the way Humans are. It has never been any different and it's not likely to change anytime soon.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

Originally posted by no_name
depends if you measure success in life with monetary wealth, some people don't want a dog eat dog world.
does the whole world have to conform to western values!


It doesn't matter if people want a dog eat dog world or not. That is the way it is. That is the way Nature is and that is the way Humans are. It has never been any different and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

it does not have to be a dog eat dog world, look at buddhists. we can live in harmony and not have to fight each other all the time.
thats the reason i disagree with a wolrd government, cos we are forced to play a game created by someone else. if it had our best interests at heart i would not be against it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join