A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it?

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Out. Troll somewhere else.

Asking for evidence = trolling? Wow, it would have been more mature of you to say, "I have no evidence, but please, I am delusional and couldn't conceive the notion that no one is controlling this world. I need to have that comfort, that, people are controlling this world."




posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 


I agree,

troll somewhere else.

You cant just start a thread and ignore arguments.

Asking for evidence is known to be the cowards way out.

Its what the disinformationist says when he is desperate.

"Oh, i am totally cornered in my argument... DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE?" lol

Troll somewhere else globalist...



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BanMePlz

I agree,

troll somewhere else.

You cant just start a thread and ignore arguments.

Asking for evidence is known to be the cowards way out.

Its what the disinformationist says when he is desperate.

"Oh, i am totally cornered in my argument... DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE?" lol

Troll somewhere else globalist...


This has to be the most hilarious post on this forum, and it speaks volumes over how much of a gullible person you are.

Hey, did you know our sun is really just a "global elitist" hub and the radiation it emits is used to brainwash you? Even though I don't have evidence, clearly, only trolls require evidence to believe in claims. So, are you going to put on your tinfoil hat to protect yourself against the radiation emitted by the sun, which is clearly designed by the global elite thousands of years ago to brainwash the masses and implement a world government?


If you don't believe what I say at face-value without evidence, then you are a troll according to your logic, and you should probably take your own advice and troll elsewhere. Because, clearly asking for evidence is trolling.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 


Sure, there is evidence for everything right?

That has to be the stupidest thing i ever heard.

You just keep on relying on your pathetic "GIVE ME EVIDENCE" argument.

We all know that there is not evidence for everything that exists.

Even in science. There are stages of the universe in which we have no idea what happened. Yet science just fills in the gaps with B.S.

If you support science, than you support belief without evidence.

Stop being so desperate.

When einstien came out with his theory of relativity, there was no evidence for it.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Like I always say, as long as people need to believe in an authority to lead and protect them, we will inevitably work towards a world government system.

However, this is not the main problem we as a species are facing currently.

The problem is "what type of government" will it be?
And "who will pull the strings"?

Do we want a elite class of ultra-rich industry tycoons and moguls combined with banking monopolies, imperialist royal families, and military interests "pulling the strings"?

No, that would be the worst possible outcome.

What we want is a Free world, where people's Civil Liberty is protected, and their Interests are served through government. We want a just and honorable system that works to protect the good folks of the world from having their liberties trampled upon by criminals, organizations, governments, corporations, etc.

It's the fork in the road we as humanity must face.

Do we choose a world system based on Freedom and Liberty for all?
Or do we surrender to a global tyranny of the selfish and short-sighted elites?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Like I always say, as long as people need to believe in an authority to lead and protect them, we will inevitably work towards a world government system.



Wrong.

Stop spreading disinformation.

You are spouting your opinion as fact.

Clear indication of disinformation.

Globalism is a fallacy made to benefit the few.
edit on 9-7-2011 by BanMePlz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 


I like the way you just cowered away from my reply. lol



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 


While i am not opposed to a fair and Democratic World Government, i am opposed to those who would subvert such an institution for their own ends.

The issue is not so much World Governance, but who oversees and what are the rules and what are my rights as a citizen/individual.

If this World Government had a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and an International Law that everyone could abide by then it wouldn't be such a problem.

The problem is that we face a Corporate World Government with no Democracy, no Rights and a blatant disregard for any laws or ethics or morals.

Cosmic...



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BanMePlz

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Like I always say, as long as people need to believe in an authority to lead and protect them, we will inevitably work towards a world government system.



Wrong.

Stop spreading disinformation.

You are spouting your opinion as fact.

Clear indication of disinformation.

Globalism is a fallacy made to benefit the few.
edit on 9-7-2011 by BanMePlz because: (no reason given)


I didn't say globalism.

The terminology "globalism" which you use refers to a tyrannical elite of corporate, industrial, military, and royal interests (TPTB), raping the world for their benefit.

That stands directly in contrast to it's opposite, a free world where everyone's liberty is upheld.

You didn't even bother reading half of my post.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 





Secondly, there is no reason why these "global elites", if they exist, would want a totalitarian world government.


Pfffffttttt! Your O.P. smacks of the most odious kind of elitism, and given that O.P. is an advocacy of global governance, for all intents and purposes we can reasonably assume you are one of these so called "global elites". Define that term however you like, you have revealed quite a bit about your political ideology in your opening post alone. For example:




Eventually, when all third-world countries industrialize (which is a matter of when, not if), we will see a world-government in the works.


"Third world" is an elitist term, even if you only used it cavalierly and thoughtlessly. Whether non industrialized nations eventually do industrialize or not, labeling these nations as "third world" is most assuredly elitism.




I've heard all the arguments against a one-world government, and frankly, none of them hold any merit at all. The most common one, "There are simply too many religions, cultures, and ethnic groups to expect a democratic one-world government".


This is how an elitist tends to argue, fallaciously, this fallacy being an argument by dismissal. Putting words in the mouths of expected opponents in order to justify an argument by dismissal only exacerbates the fallacy. Further, hidden within this fallacious argument is the revelation that what you are advocating in terms of a "one world government" is a democracy. Perhaps you've never heard, or perhaps you have, that out of democracy rises tyranny.




The U.S also has a very diverse mix of ethnic groups, religions, and cultures and they happen to make it work and are democratic for the most part.


The elitist also tends to make vague generalizations about "facts", and are all to often woefully uninformed, which makes sense since being informed tends to dissuade one taking elitist points of view. Constitutionally speaking, all the States in the Union, of The United States of America are guaranteed a republican form of government. Just because citizens' - certainly not the people, but citizens' - can vote for certain government officials, this does not make - Constitutionally speaking - the U.S. "democratic". The elite desperately want to convince people that the U.S. is a democracy, and of course, expressions such as "making the world safe for democracy" are designed to elevate democracy as some sort of mechanism for freedom, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason, and tragically less and less so daily, that a diverse mix of ethnic groups, religions, and cultures work in the U.S. is precisely because a republic was established to restrain democracy from trampling all over the rights of individuals. The elite do not seem to like this much and put much effort into propaganda in an attempt to undermine the Constitutional republics established, both federally and state wise.




Should the U.S become more decentralized, then?


Yes, it should. Under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the national government established in the early days of the United States had a difficult time functioning as a national government. The biggest problem they faced was raising revenue due to the fact that the Articles of Confederation did not allow that national government to impose taxes, and could only request from the states funding. Because some states would honor the request, where others did not, this created a big problem and became the primary basis for federalism. However, federalism was never intended to destroy the sovereignty of the states, and anyone who has ever read The Federalist Papers knows this. Of course, elitists don't really believe they have the time for such droll reading.




Should they split up into 50 countries, and then decentralize further into defining their borders by cities? That is what the argument implies.


Under the Constitution for the United States of America, it is not impliedly so, but expressly so. Of course, you have used artful language to avoid the reality that the 50 states are sovereign and hold express powers not delegated to the federal government, by presenting "50 countries" instead of acknowledging them as states. In terms of implication, what your argument here implies is that political power flows from the top down, which of course, is grossly elitist.

By top down I should clarify this is not language used so that it may be construed that down is less than top. In constructing an edifice it begins with a foundation, and then builds up to its ceiling. The ceiling is the top, the foundation is down from that, but it is the foundation that matters most, and weak foundation almost always guarantees a weak edifice.

The foundation of all governments is the people. As you made clear in the beginning of your O.P. before there were governments there were people. Governments came later. Thus, all political power begins with the people, and the hold the inherent political power at all times. Some people may imprudently surrender that power, but even under this circumstance, the fact remains the same, and that is that all power flows directly from the people.

In the United States, this power, Constitutionally speaking, begins with the people who ordain - until such time they collectively decide to change what has been ordained - local, state, and federal governments. The City of Los Angeles, for example, has its own charter, but is limited in what it can do as a local municipality by the State Constitution of California. The State of California operates under its own Constitution, but is limited in what it can do by the federal Constitution. The federal government operates under the Constitution for the United States of America but is limited by the express, and implied rights of the people.

Stated another way, consider what Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court recently said in Bond v. United States:


"Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National government federalism "secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power."...It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a state by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions...Federalisms limitations are therefore not a matter of rights belonging only to the State. In a proper case a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress; e.g. separation of powers limitations see... The claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a States constitutional interests even if those interests are also implicated."


Take note of Justice Kennedy's use of the word "diffusion".




If the U.S can be a stable democratic nation, then a world government can be a stably democratic as well.


The stability of the U.S. lies in its establishment of a republic, and any signs of instability are arguably because of the democratic principles elitists are attempting to impose upon that nation. The established republic(s) was designed to protect the rights of individuals, the democracy that is desperately being imposed upon the U.S. is an attempt to undermine the protections of individual rights, and indeed, the elites, beginning with the priest class lawyer set, love to frame rights as "civil rights" which is another word for "legal rights" which is priest class lawyer mystical incantations for rights that can be granted legally and therefore legally taken away.




Each nation would be a state, and the former presidents of that country would be its representative. There would be varying laws between the states, but a federal government to oversee such things as climate change, research and development, a space program, and education of all citizens.


It is beyond laughable that you would deign to lecture people on what things would be like under a description that fairly describes what all ready exists, it is gross and intolerable ignorance. First of all, compulsory education legislation is not federal it is done by the states. The administrative agencies set up specifically in regards to public education have no authority over the states.

More importantly, it should be made clear who casually you threw in "climate change" as being some sort of federal responsibility. That administrative agencies on a federal level, not at all mandated by Constitution, have aggregated the power they have is due to the inexcusable ignorance of we the people. Your efforts to perpetuate that ignorance is shameful at best, and nefarious at worst.




If we are ever to colonize the stars, cure most diseases, solve poverty, and become a knowledge-based sentient species with a largely educated population, then a one-world government is of most importance.


Where you spent a few paragraphs offering up U.S. federalism - and of course, your misinterpretation of what federalism actually is - as a valid paradigm for a one world government, you then follow with this idealized argument. Ironically, you follow this sentence with:




We spend trillions of dollars on military technology, our top scientists working on heavily funded military projects and weapons that specialize in killing and suffering, and there is the constant possibility of a nuclear war which could end civilization as we know it, not to mention documented climate change and the impacts it has on our planet.


Without a hint of irony you destroy your own argument of your misrepresentation of federalism by pointing to all that is wrong with a strong centralized government.




Albert Einstein was quoted to have said to the U.N: "IN ORDER to achieve the final aim - which is one world, and not two hostile worlds - such a partial world Government must never act as an alliance against the rest of the world. The only real step toward world government is world Government itself."


How ironic that you would cite Albert Einstein after lamenting "the constant possibility of nuclear war". The prospect of annihilation by nuclear weapons can be traced directly to Albert Einstein:


Albert Einstein did not work directly on the atom bomb. But Einstein was the father of the bomb in two important ways: 1) it was his initiative which started U.S. bomb research; 2) it was his equation (E = mc2) which made the atomic bomb theoretically possible.”


In Einsteins defense, as well as holding him rightfully accountable:


Neither the public image nor the personal protests capture the true, complex story of Einstein and the bomb. Contrary to common belief, Einstein knew little about the nuclear particle physics underlying the bomb. On the other hand, as the archives show, Einstein did not merely sign the letter to Roosevelt. He was deeply involved in writing it, revising it, and deciding how to get it to the president.


discovermagazine.com...

Einstein advocated the development of the Atom Bomb, only to become horrified at the fallout once one was developed and actually dropped. He advocated something he knew very little about, and when he learned of the consequences changed course and advocated pacifism. The important thing to understand is that Einstein was a physicist who knew little of nuclear particle physics yet used his position to advocate a weapon he couldn't possibly understand. Now you present him advocating a "one world government" and it begs the question; what the hell did Einstein know about government?

You follow Einstein's quote with one from Carl Sagan, and again we are shown a certain amount of elitism here. Why would you offer up quotes from two scientists in order to sell this "one world government"? Technocrats do exist, and advocate technocracy, a suspect form of government where scientists "serve" the people.

The only possible way a "one world government" could ever possibly work is when the vast majority of people are prepared to govern themselves. Failing that, and without the necessary checks and controls that the holders of the inherent political power should be using to restrain government, governments will continue their steady march towards an aggregation of power. Aggregated power is demonstrably problematic, and perhaps Lord Acton said it best: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 


While i am not opposed to a fair and Democratic World Government, i am opposed to those who would subvert such an institution for their own ends.

The issue is not so much World Governance, but who oversees and what are the rules and what are my rights as a citizen/individual.

If this World Government had a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and an International Law that everyone could abide by then it wouldn't be such a problem.

The problem is that we face a Corporate World Government with no Democracy, no Rights and a blatant disregard for any laws or ethics or morals.

Cosmic...



Exactly, nail on the head.

The point is, we need a system where our Liberty and Freedom is protected from being trampled.

I only see two kinds of systems in general. Those that respect me, and those that disrespect me.

Freedom is a system that respects us I believe. And that is the system I want here on Earth.

Tyranny is the system we see all around us however, and that is why we are in a crisis.

The fork in the road. Freedom or Tyranny?

If we sit back and don't care, Tyranny is almost the certain path.
I fear that in order to take the path of Freedom, we may have to make major sacrifices and fight very hard for it.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BanMePlz
Sure, there is evidence for everything right?

You, clearly, are not an educated person.


Originally posted by BanMePlzThat has to be the stupidest thing i ever heard.

Typical use of ad-hominem fallacies and total lack of wit. "Stupidest" is the best and most wittiest personal attack you can come up with?



Originally posted by BanMePlzYou just keep on relying on your pathetic "GIVE ME EVIDENCE" argument.

Yes, because unlike you, I am an educated person and come to logical conclusions with sufficient evidence and data at hand. I don't take things at face-value, but, perhaps you do.



Originally posted by BanMePlzWe all know that there is not evidence for everything that exists.

There is evidence for everything that exists, whether it is physical evidence or inference made from scientific experiments and mathematical proofs (black holes, for example). Once again, you're wrong.



Originally posted by BanMePlzEven in science. There are stages of the universe in which we have no idea what happened. Yet science just fills in the gaps with B.S.

So, you think science is also apart of the globalist agenda? Do you even know what science is? I wouldn't expect you to, seeing as you are clearly an uneducated person.



Originally posted by BanMePlzIf you support science, than you support belief without evidence.

Science has evidence. Experiments can be repeated by ANYONE to confirm a scientific fact, but what experiments can I repeat to confirm the fact that there is a "globalist elite"? None. My apologies, but educated people require evidence before they are convinced and not take extraordinary claims at face-value. I find it hilariously ironic how you are saying science has no evidence, and yet, there exists sufficient evidence to prove a "globalist elite/agenda" exist.



Originally posted by BanMePlzIStop being so desperate.

Yes, I'm the one making claims of something that has no evidence and dismissing science, which has sufficient evidence via experimentation and mathematical proofs, but yet believing the delusion there is a "globalist elite" controlling the world.



Originally posted by BanMePlzWhen einstien came out with his theory of relativity, there was no evidence for it.

There was sufficient evidence, but of course, someone like you would not be aware of that. There was rigorous experimentation conducted by other physicists, constant scrutiny by other mathematicians of his mathematical proofs, and it all turned out to be sound. This is how science works, not your conspiratorial drivel where anyone can make a claim and be taken seriously.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 


mankind has alot to learn before it 'evolves' the the global unification level

if it were tried right now, the 'imperfections' of man would corrupt the whole system.... greed still exists in man, lack of real empathy and compassion.. mankind still falls for the most basic of tricks, fails to understand compromise ( compromise and working together being a main pillar in a global establishment, without it global establishment is nothing more than global tyranny )... just to name a few

humans have been at war with one another since they have existed, think about that.

i agree with the original post, that it is inevitable that one day man will reach his higher potential and he will form peace on Earth all people will be unified on a global scale.

but i strongly emphasize that mankind as a collective has not reached that point yet, mankind still has much to learn and work on.
edit on 7/9/2011 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

You, clearly, are not an educated person.


Hahah, im smarter than you. I dont support globalsim



Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

.
Typical use of ad-hominem fallacies and total lack of wit. "Stupidest" is the best and most wittiest personal attack you can come up with?
.


Its not Ad hominem. I thought you were smart.



Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
Yes, because unlike you, I am an educated person and come to logical conclusions with sufficient evidence and data at hand. I don't take things at face-value, but, perhaps you do.



Oh sure. Youre totally not taking the concept of globalism at face value...



Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
There is evidence for everything that exists, whether it is physical evidence or inference made from scientific experiments and mathematical proofs (black holes, for example). Once again, you're wrong..


Okay, show me evidence for the timeline of the big bang. You cant. Period.
Yet you still think you are educated. Good job. you're so educated.



Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistSo, you think science is also apart of the globalist agenda? Do you even know what science is? I wouldn't expect you to, seeing as you are clearly an uneducated person.



Oh yeah, im so uneducated. Boo hoo, im so insulted. I totally dont know what type of person tries to put other people down when they dont agree with their argument *sarcasm


Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistScience has evidence. Experiments can be repeated by ANYONE to confirm a scientific fact, but what experiments can I repeat to confirm the fact that there is a "globalist elite"? None. My apologies, but educated people require evidence before they are convinced and not take extraordinary claims at face-value. I find it hilariously ironic how you are saying science has no evidence, and yet, there exists sufficient evidence to prove a "globalist elite/agenda" exist.
:



You have an extraordinary claim which is "a one world government is inevitable" Where is your evidence hypocrite?



And im delusional about a global conspiracy?
You cannot prove it or disprove it. Your allegations of delusion are moot. Try again smartguy.



Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistThere was sufficient evidence, but of course, someone like you would not be aware of that. There was rigorous experimentation conducted by other physicists, constant scrutiny by other mathematicians of his mathematical proofs, and it all turned out to be sound. This is how science works, not your conspiratorial drivel where anyone can make a claim and be taken seriously.




Yeah, when the theory of relativity first came out, there was plenty of evidence... the rigorous experimentation and scrutiny were all just for fun. HAHaha.

You are just a typical wanna-be know it all. You dont know jack squat.
edit on 9-7-2011 by BanMePlz because: quotes
edit on 9-7-2011 by BanMePlz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Pfffffttttt! Your O.P. smacks of the most odious kind of elitism, and given that O.P. is an advocacy of global governance, for all intents and purposes we can reasonably assume you are one of these so called "global elites". Define that term however you like, you have revealed quite a bit about your political ideology in your opening post alone. For example:

You are clearly delusional and paranoid. I suggest you take your medication. You have no proof that I am apart of this "globalist elite", in fact, you have no proof they even exist. It is quite typical of the loony conspiracy theorist to assume anyone who disagrees with their fantasies must be apart of the "system" and is in the "know".



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux"Third world" is an elitist term, even if you only used it cavalierly and thoughtlessly. Whether non industrialized nations eventually do industrialize or not, labeling these nations as "third world" is most assuredly elitism.

Third world is not an elitist term. Unlike you, I would love to see them develop and be at the level of first world countries. I am a humanist, but you seem to be the elitist who would prefer that third-world countries do not develop and are to be exploited by first-world countries. Also, you have no evidence that "third-world" is an elitist term. It is an opinion, and as you should know, you cannot argue an opinion.




Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThis is how an elitist tends to argue, fallaciously, this fallacy being an argument by dismissal. Putting words in the mouths of expected opponents in order to justify an argument by dismissal only exacerbates the fallacy. Further, hidden within this fallacious argument is the revelation that what you are advocating in terms of a "one world government" is a democracy. Perhaps you've never heard, or perhaps you have, that out of democracy rises tyranny.

Do you even know what a fallacy is? For your education, when you call an argument a "fallacy", you are expected to elaborate. Maybe you haven't been in a debate or do not understand the dynamics of an argument, but simply saying "you're wrong and stupid" does not invalidate an argument. Perhaps, it does with you loony conspiracy theorists, but not among educated people.

And if you have a better idea than democracy, tell me, what is it? You prefer a dictatorship or communism? Or do you naively believe that humans should not be governed and will respect the property and rights of others without there being a law-enforcement? Typical lolbertarian nonsense.







Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe elitist also tends to make vague generalizations about "facts", and are all to often woefully uninformed, which makes sense since being informed tends to dissuade one taking elitist points of view.

More ad-hominem fallacies. Why is this form argument so popular with you loony conspiracy theorists? Is it because you lack complete evidence and try discrediting your opponents by attacking their character? It is truly no wonder that no educated person subscribes to these fantasies.



Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxConstitutionally speaking, all the States in the Union, of The United States of America are guaranteed a republican form of government. Just because citizens' - certainly not the people, but citizens' - can vote for certain government officials, this does not make - Constitutionally speaking - the U.S. "democratic". The elite desperately want to convince people that the U.S. is a democracy, and of course, expressions such as "making the world safe for democracy" are designed to elevate democracy as some sort of mechanism for freedom, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The process is democracy, but the country is a constitutional republic. Are you saying that this cannot be emulated on a global scale? Of course, because you either believe in the nonsensical ideology that there should be no law enforcement or government because humans can govern themselves or a fundamentalist religious nut-job.








Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYes, it should. Under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the national government established in the early days of the United States had a difficult time functioning as a national government. The biggest problem they faced was raising revenue due to the fact that the Articles of Confederation did not allow that national government to impose taxes, and could only request from the states funding. Because some states would honor the request, where others did not, this created a big problem and became the primary basis for federalism. However, federalism was never intended to destroy the sovereignty of the states, and anyone who has ever read The Federalist Papers knows this. Of course, elitists don't really believe they have the time for such droll reading.

It is too unfortunate the vast majority of people disagree with your ideology. Libertarianism is only popular amongst uneducated toothless hicks and high-school dropouts who are addicted to drugs. This is why it will never be taken seriously. Yes, in an ideal world, government and law enforcement is not needed, but humans will turn everything into carnage once such stupidity is implemented.






Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxUnder the Constitution for the United States of America, it is not impliedly so, but expressly so. Of course, you have used artful language to avoid the reality that the 50 states are sovereign and hold express powers not delegated to the federal government, by presenting "50 countries" instead of acknowledging them as states. In terms of implication, what your argument here implies is that political power flows from the top down, which of course, is grossly elitist.

My argument implies no such thing and your inference couldn't be anymore wrong. Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills?





Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe foundation of all governments is the people. As you made clear in the beginning of your O.P. before there were governments there were people. Governments came later. Thus, all political power begins with the people, and the hold the inherent political power at all times. Some people may imprudently surrender that power, but even under this circumstance, the fact remains the same, and that is that all power flows directly from the people.[./quote]
Of course, the government should be serving the people and only the people. But, what you are proposing, is essentially, the devolution of mankind. You want us to revert back to our natural instincts and return back to the hunter-gatherer days, don't you? I mean, after all, those were the days when mankind was free to rape and kill whom he pleased, were

The rest of your arguments is riddled with unnecessary historical definitions, ad-hominem fallacies, red-herrings, and appeal to authority fallacies. Frankly, I haven't the time to dissect such nonsense. The simple fact is, the majority of the people do not want libertarianism. They prefer centralized government, and what the people want, goes. Do you disagree with that? Do you want enforce your ideals of liberty on a people who view them founded in complete foolishness?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefishmankind has alot to learn before it 'evolves' the the global unification level

if it were tried right now, the 'imperfections' of man would corrupt the whole system.... greed still exists in man, lack of real empathy and compassion.. mankind still falls for the most basic of tricks, fails to understand compromise ( compromise and working together being a main pillar in a global establishment, without it global establishment is nothing more than global tyranny )... just to name a few

humans have been at war with one another since they have existed, think about that.

i agree with the original post, that it is inevitable that one day man will reach his higher potential and he will form peace on Earth all people will be unified on a global scale.

but i strongly emphasize that mankind as a collective has not reached that point yet, mankind still has much to learn and work on.


Exactly, I completely agree. Well said. We are definitely not ready for a world government, and likely won't be for a very many centuries. But, there will come a time when it is necessary and we must pool all of our resources as one in order to sustain the survival of the human race. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people on here are under the impression a world government is coming sometime in 2012, when there is absolutely no evidence and would be completely idiocy to even try it at this time. 6 billion people cannot be forced under a global dictatorship, no matter how much money these globalist elites, if they exist, have at their disposal.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
edit on 9-7-2011 by BanMePlz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

You are clearly delusional and paranoid. I suggest you take your medication.




Clear indicator which speaks volumes about this guys character. Rude, defensive and doesnt really know anything..

I think he just needs to stfu and spew his globalist propaganda somewhere else.

He is obviously just a troll who cant help but put LOL at the end of every reply like some little kid..

And i like the way he whines about Ad-hominem attacks then he goes out to call people "uneducated" "delusional "paranoid" etc. What a hypocrite.

Typical globalist mentality.



edit on 9-7-2011 by BanMePlz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BanMePlz

Hahah, im smarter than you. I dont support globalsim

For someone who claims to be intelligent, at least try spelling the "ideology" you don't support correctly.



Originally posted by BanMePlzIts not Ad hominem. I thought you were smart.

Merriam-Webster definition: Ad-hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. You have not posted any evidence to support your ridiculous claims, have not answered any of the questions I have posed, but opted to a poor attempt at ridicule. Not the brightest bulb in the box?




Originally posted by BanMePlzIOh sure. Youre totally not taking the concept of globalism at face value...

Nope, I base my opinion and argument on historical precedence. Man started out as a small tribe to become the nation states that we see today. If we can come that far, logically, a global government is not too far off (give it a few more centuries).





Originally posted by BanMePlzOkay, show me evidence for the timeline of the big bang. You cant. Period.
Yet you still believe it. Good job. you're so educated.

You're a creationist, aren't you? There is sufficient evidence that the big bang explains the origin of the universe, much more evidence in fact than there is to your fantasies of a globalist elite. I don't have the time to post all of the experiments conducted in peer-reviewed articles when you would most likely disregard it and claim it to be apart of the "global elitist" agenda.







Originally posted by BanMePlzOh yeah, im so uneducated. Boo hoo, im so insulted. I totally dont know what type of person tries to put other people down when they dont agree with their argument *sarcasm

You clearly must suffer from convenient amnesia. I countered your arguments and inquired for evidence, you personally attacked me and called me a troll, I responded. If you can't handle the heat, I suggest you stay out of the kitchen. By the way, you had no argument simply because you have no evidence. Therefore, it is all but assumptions at best.




Originally posted by BanMePlzYou have an extraordinary claim which is "a one world government is inevitable" Where is your evidence hypocrite?

I've already answered that. Perhaps if you had the attention span to read the first post, you'd know that.






Originally posted by BanMePlzYou cannot prove it or disprove it. Your allegations of delusion are moot. Try again smartguy.

Interesting. I use historical precedence and scientific facts via evolution to come to my conclusion. What do you use? Radical claims, quotes taken out of context, and youtube videos created by people who have mental health issues.





Originally posted by BanMePlzYeah, when the theory of relativity first came out, there was plenty of evidence... the rigorous experimentation and scrutiny were all just for fun. HAHaha.

Do you even know what kind of mathematics the theory of relativity is based upon? For your education, it is branch of pure mathematics called topology. There were countless experiments done and countless scrutiny of Einstein's mathematical proofs. I find it comedic how you are comparing your delusions and fantasies that have no EVIDENCE AT ALL to an established scientific fact.


Originally posted by BanMePlzYou are just a typical wanna-be know it all. You dont know jack squat.

This seems to be a recurring theme on this website. Insult the sceptic who asks for evidence, because, that is the only way you can ever hope to appear that you discredited their arguments.
edit on 9-7-2011 by MathematicalPhysicist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Do we choose a world system based on Freedom and Liberty for all?
Or do we surrender to a global tyranny of the selfish and short-sighted elites?

So, tell me, in this free world:

How do you plan on dealing with pollution and climate change, especially when it is coming from another country?
With the possible threat of an alien invasion?
Research in medicine and space?

Or will the free-market take care of all of that? Because, obviously, corporations can be trusted more than an elected government, no?

If it wasn't for government research, you wouldn't be on this computer to type and speak about liberty. If it wasn't for government research, you wouldn't know about the dangers of cigarettes and smoking. If it wasn't for government research, we would still pretty much be in the 1950's. Those were the days, weren't they?
edit on 9-7-2011 by MathematicalPhysicist because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join