reply to post by Xaphan
After reading the whole of this thread I still fail to see why 'a global government would be a disaster'
We have never had a openly global government. What do we currently have that is so precious?
What freedom?
If not a global government then some form of anarchy, why not? It would be no worse than the present global situation, unless you are comfortably off,
rarely a victim of crime, live in a nice safe neighborhood, have a good secure job, transport, secure future, family to take care of you when you are
unable to look after yourself.
This does not describe the majority of the population of the planet so quit trying to defend your right to have something to the exclusion of most
others. I live in Britain, the west, I am not willing to defend my right to something I have no chance of attaining
A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it? , page 20
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 08:33 AM by ThePeopleParty
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
I agree that a one world govt could be a good thing. Just not with the people trying to implement it today. power hungry greedy sadistic spoilt brats who need a good old fashioned council estate arse kicking
I agree that a one world govt could be a good thing. Just not with the people trying to implement it today. power hungry greedy sadistic spoilt brats who need a good old fashioned council estate arse kicking
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 10:16 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Threegirls
It is a profound indictment of government that the majority of the population of the planet does not live in a state of freedom. I can see no better reason to oppose a one world government than this right here. It is astounding to me that some of the best arguments made in this thread against global domination are coming from the people actually advocating it. The fact that these people seem incapable of recognizing this is only more reason to oppose a one world government. People get the government they deserve, and if people are insistent on maintaining a culture of thoughtlessness and lack of discernment, that insistence will only be amplified by the government they ordain.
Let's make no mistake about this, governments exist by consent of the governed. Hitler existed by consent of the governed. Hussein existed by consent of the governed. The Soviet Union, and China's government today exist by the consent of the governed...and of course, the shameful and unlawful imperialism thrust upon the world by the United States today is happening by consent of the governed.
Before there was government, there were people. People do not exist because governments allow it. Governments exist because people allow it. All people, everywhere, regardless of what some Constitution might say, or what a body of legislation might say, hold the inherent political power. Sovereignty begins with the individual, not with land, and certainly not by some divine right doctrine, or social contract or military thuggery that would deign that sovereignty belongs to the privileged.
Pointing to the fact that most people on the planet are continually having their natural and unalienable rights denied and disparaged does not undermine their rights, it undermines the value of the governments that are demonstrably failing to protect these rights, and failing that ensuring every individual has a method by which to seek a redress of grievances.
All people, everywhere, are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Why these rights tend to be trampled upon by the very governments that should be tasked with protecting them is because far too many people believe that law is arbitrary and capricious and that it is legislated and enforced based on whimsy.
This idea that one persons rights can exist at the exclusion of other peoples rights is not true, and misunderstands what rights are. Rights are not privileges, regardless of the artful use of priest class lawyers who love to utter their mystical incantations and equate privileges with rights. Privileges are favors granted by some other person to another. A privilege can be granted or denied. Rights, on the other hand, can be neither granted nor denied. They can be trampled on, spat on, pissed on, defecated on, but when they are this is not lawful. When it becomes legal to trample, spit, piss, and defecate on rights, it does so by consent of the governed.
What then, are rights? They are far too numerous to list, and are better understood in what they are not. Shakespeare wrote, in All's Well That Ends Well, "Love all, trust few, and do wrong to none". Do no harm. If you are not harming anyone else, then what you do, you do by right. The only exception to this is in the matter of defense.
All people have the right to life, and to property. It follows then that they have the right to defend this life, and their property. They have the right to equal the force being used against them to accomplish this defense.
These are what rights are, and they are not in any way rights that exist to the exclusion of others.
This does not describe the majority of the population of the planet so quit trying to defend your right to have something to the exclusion of most others. I live in Britain, the west, I am not willing to defend my right to something I have no chance of attaining
It is a profound indictment of government that the majority of the population of the planet does not live in a state of freedom. I can see no better reason to oppose a one world government than this right here. It is astounding to me that some of the best arguments made in this thread against global domination are coming from the people actually advocating it. The fact that these people seem incapable of recognizing this is only more reason to oppose a one world government. People get the government they deserve, and if people are insistent on maintaining a culture of thoughtlessness and lack of discernment, that insistence will only be amplified by the government they ordain.
Let's make no mistake about this, governments exist by consent of the governed. Hitler existed by consent of the governed. Hussein existed by consent of the governed. The Soviet Union, and China's government today exist by the consent of the governed...and of course, the shameful and unlawful imperialism thrust upon the world by the United States today is happening by consent of the governed.
Before there was government, there were people. People do not exist because governments allow it. Governments exist because people allow it. All people, everywhere, regardless of what some Constitution might say, or what a body of legislation might say, hold the inherent political power. Sovereignty begins with the individual, not with land, and certainly not by some divine right doctrine, or social contract or military thuggery that would deign that sovereignty belongs to the privileged.
Pointing to the fact that most people on the planet are continually having their natural and unalienable rights denied and disparaged does not undermine their rights, it undermines the value of the governments that are demonstrably failing to protect these rights, and failing that ensuring every individual has a method by which to seek a redress of grievances.
All people, everywhere, are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Why these rights tend to be trampled upon by the very governments that should be tasked with protecting them is because far too many people believe that law is arbitrary and capricious and that it is legislated and enforced based on whimsy.
This idea that one persons rights can exist at the exclusion of other peoples rights is not true, and misunderstands what rights are. Rights are not privileges, regardless of the artful use of priest class lawyers who love to utter their mystical incantations and equate privileges with rights. Privileges are favors granted by some other person to another. A privilege can be granted or denied. Rights, on the other hand, can be neither granted nor denied. They can be trampled on, spat on, pissed on, defecated on, but when they are this is not lawful. When it becomes legal to trample, spit, piss, and defecate on rights, it does so by consent of the governed.
What then, are rights? They are far too numerous to list, and are better understood in what they are not. Shakespeare wrote, in All's Well That Ends Well, "Love all, trust few, and do wrong to none". Do no harm. If you are not harming anyone else, then what you do, you do by right. The only exception to this is in the matter of defense.
All people have the right to life, and to property. It follows then that they have the right to defend this life, and their property. They have the right to equal the force being used against them to accomplish this defense.
These are what rights are, and they are not in any way rights that exist to the exclusion of others.
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 10:20 AM by Threegirls
reply to post by ThePeopleParty
I do not believe there is only one group trying to work towards and implement a global government. There are religious groups, social groups, political groups, so many who have hope that it could be achievable with many diverse minds working together to ensure that it does not become all of those negative things that nobody here wants. There are so many people today with the benefit of the lessons of history and with many perspectives. For the global Gov to become corrupt it would take each representative from each country to be complicit in the corruption. I like the interactive Gov idea using the internet to give each person a voice. It is possible that equality of race, sex, and every other diversity would be a byproduct of such a Gov.
I think there should be more debate and meditation on this topic. The religion argument against it holds no water.
I do not believe there is only one group trying to work towards and implement a global government. There are religious groups, social groups, political groups, so many who have hope that it could be achievable with many diverse minds working together to ensure that it does not become all of those negative things that nobody here wants. There are so many people today with the benefit of the lessons of history and with many perspectives. For the global Gov to become corrupt it would take each representative from each country to be complicit in the corruption. I like the interactive Gov idea using the internet to give each person a voice. It is possible that equality of race, sex, and every other diversity would be a byproduct of such a Gov.
I think there should be more debate and meditation on this topic. The religion argument against it holds no water.
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 10:40 AM by Threegirls
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
My complaints about the failings current methods of Government invite contemplation. The statement you quoted does not support any argument it simply states a fact about current failings. All known methods of governing have potential pitfalls, that is true. If you can see the pitfalls you can avoid them.
The guiding principles for any gov should be peace, fairness and equality. If that was the global gov principles then my statement about current failings would not apply. The current UK gov is causing these problems due to violating the principles of peace and fairness.
My complaints about the failings current methods of Government invite contemplation. The statement you quoted does not support any argument it simply states a fact about current failings. All known methods of governing have potential pitfalls, that is true. If you can see the pitfalls you can avoid them.
The guiding principles for any gov should be peace, fairness and equality. If that was the global gov principles then my statement about current failings would not apply. The current UK gov is causing these problems due to violating the principles of peace and fairness.
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 10:53 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Threegirls
As long as the unalienable rights of individuals is treated as some sort of legal fiction that can be taken away, there will be no peace, fairness, and certainly not equality under the law.
The guiding principle for any just government should be the zealous protection of individual rights.
The guiding principles for any gov should be peace, fairness and equality.
As long as the unalienable rights of individuals is treated as some sort of legal fiction that can be taken away, there will be no peace, fairness, and certainly not equality under the law.
The guiding principle for any just government should be the zealous protection of individual rights.
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 01:54 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Threegirls
All people are subject to individual rights. Rights are not some sort of legal fiction invented by kings, legislators, or judges, they are the natural phenomena that arises with life, and social interaction. Rights are not fiction, they are natural.
People do not have the right to life because some wise old man declared it so. Wise old men, and women, recognized the self evident truth of this. The right to self defense, or property is derived from the right to life and the right to property, which are self evident rights that exist with or without government.
When people are acting lawfully, and recognize that they are subject to these laws, not legislation, but laws, then peace, fairness, and equality under the law prevails.
On a side note, it should be noted that I am being almost pedantically precise with the use of the word "equality", which if it is to equated with fairness and peace in this context, can only mean equality under the law. It is just as self evident, that on a biological level, we are not all equal, and because of individual effort, we are not all equal. Equality, in and of itself, is too broad under these circumstances. It is important to be clear that we mean equality under the law.
Not the way I understand it, please define what you mean. Individual rights should be subject to peace, fairness and equality not the other way round.
All people are subject to individual rights. Rights are not some sort of legal fiction invented by kings, legislators, or judges, they are the natural phenomena that arises with life, and social interaction. Rights are not fiction, they are natural.
People do not have the right to life because some wise old man declared it so. Wise old men, and women, recognized the self evident truth of this. The right to self defense, or property is derived from the right to life and the right to property, which are self evident rights that exist with or without government.
When people are acting lawfully, and recognize that they are subject to these laws, not legislation, but laws, then peace, fairness, and equality under the law prevails.
On a side note, it should be noted that I am being almost pedantically precise with the use of the word "equality", which if it is to equated with fairness and peace in this context, can only mean equality under the law. It is just as self evident, that on a biological level, we are not all equal, and because of individual effort, we are not all equal. Equality, in and of itself, is too broad under these circumstances. It is important to be clear that we mean equality under the law.
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 02:47 PM by yakuzakid
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
I agree with everything you say, but there should be no central goverment controlling it, it should just have admin offices.
I want to see the complete dissolution of boundaries and the fair distribution of wealth and recources worldwide. Boundaries are an imaginary construct anyway, and if we had a fair spread of wealth you wouldn't get people all emigrating to the rich countries.
To govern this and keep order there should be locally elected Cantons - one for every city, bigger ones for bigger cities, and they should be known to all citizens.
I agree with everything you say, but there should be no central goverment controlling it, it should just have admin offices.
I want to see the complete dissolution of boundaries and the fair distribution of wealth and recources worldwide. Boundaries are an imaginary construct anyway, and if we had a fair spread of wealth you wouldn't get people all emigrating to the rich countries.
To govern this and keep order there should be locally elected Cantons - one for every city, bigger ones for bigger cities, and they should be known to all citizens.
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 05:15 PM by kindred
Click here for more information.
Mod note: Read before posting. Please refrain from personal commentary and confine your comments to the topic. Thanks. -- Majic
edit on 7/12/2011 by Majic because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 07:24 PM by liejunkie01
reply to post by SeattlesFinest
Who is moving to the space frontier?.....As far as I am concerned, retiring the shuttle without a replacement is a major setback.....What are they replacing it with again?
I believe in a sense this is okay especially since were moving to the space frontier
Who is moving to the space frontier?.....As far as I am concerned, retiring the shuttle without a replacement is a major setback.....What are they replacing it with again?
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 08:00 PM by SeattlesFinest
reply to post by liejunkie01
lol they have another shuttle that will be controlled by magnetic force from a docking unit on earth. The new space craft that will start test flights in 2014 can travel to mars in 5 months instead of the one we have now which would be 5 years..
Our new commercial airlines will take us 2 hours to go around the world.
Then the virgin mobile guy made a space ship for people to get to go to outer space for 4 minutes which will cost $200,000.
So if you ask me were coming up fast buddy, Id like to hear some more of your theories another time.
lol they have another shuttle that will be controlled by magnetic force from a docking unit on earth. The new space craft that will start test flights in 2014 can travel to mars in 5 months instead of the one we have now which would be 5 years..
Our new commercial airlines will take us 2 hours to go around the world.
Then the virgin mobile guy made a space ship for people to get to go to outer space for 4 minutes which will cost $200,000.
So if you ask me were coming up fast buddy, Id like to hear some more of your theories another time.
reply posted on 12-7-2011 @ 08:00 PM by SeattlesFinest
reply to post by liejunkie01
lol they have another shuttle that will be controlled by magnetic force from a docking unit on earth. The new space craft that will start test flights in 2014 can travel to mars in 5 months instead of the one we have now which would be 5 years..
Our new commercial airlines will take us 2 hours to go around the world.
Then the virgin mobile guy made a space ship for people to get to go to outer space for 4 minutes which will cost $200,000.
So if you ask me were coming up fast buddy, Id like to hear some more of your theories another time.
lol they have another shuttle that will be controlled by magnetic force from a docking unit on earth. The new space craft that will start test flights in 2014 can travel to mars in 5 months instead of the one we have now which would be 5 years..
Our new commercial airlines will take us 2 hours to go around the world.
Then the virgin mobile guy made a space ship for people to get to go to outer space for 4 minutes which will cost $200,000.
So if you ask me were coming up fast buddy, Id like to hear some more of your theories another time.
edit on 12-7-2011 by SeattlesFinest
because: (no reason given)
Their OWN words tell the story (Shadow Government, The FED, One-World Government)
Posted 14 days ago with 194 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 194 member flags
16 Yr Old Questioned by FBI Over You Tube Video: about Ron Paul & Police State!!
Posted 0 days ago with 15 member flags
Posted 0 days ago with 15 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
California wants to treat 'E Cigarettes' like normal cigarettes.
General Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 17 flags
General Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 17 flags
AFTER MIDNIGHT: 107: Ridin' Into Town... *** Thanks For Tuning In !!! ***
ATS Live: 15 hours ago, 15 flags
ATS Live: 15 hours ago, 15 flags
Revealed: Obama Donor Sat in on IG Interviews with IRS Employees
Breaking Political News: 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Breaking Political News: 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.302 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.302 seconds
