Why would you oppose a one world governement?

reply to post by TrueBrit


I don't really see how a group of people fleeing religous persecution is an example of world government. Or how that is proof that it wouldn't work.

The US is full of people of different religions and while they may not agree on certain things they are coexisiting. Why would a OWG be different.

reply to post by daskakik



A single government , ruling a world of different beliefs, DOES NOT WORK! It does not work on the global scale because on the wider game board of an entire planet, preventing dangerous zealots from destabilising the powerstructure is not remotely possible. Its HARD to keep a nation from exploding under the wieght of deep rooted hatred of one another, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE. However, on a global scale? You are in la la land if you think that will work.

reply to post by lance_covel


Which is precisely why it wont work. A one world government would have to find a way of making EVERY religion and every people of the Earth intergrated , regardless of how hard that would be. This would require that government to be an even greater tyranny than anything that has been before. No matter which way you look at it, OWG would quickly become a hate object for everyone living under it, and would be destroyed from the inside out to free the people from its oppressive nature, and we would be back at square one, like Europe after Rome fell.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by daskakik

 

A single government , ruling a world of different beliefs, DOES NOT WORK!

You keep saying it but I don't really see the why behind it. Southern baptists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Krishnas and more coexist in the US. I don't really see the US struggling to keep the nation from exploding. At least not because of the religious diveristy.

I think the major misconception here is that they think if every country shared a government, they'd also be sharing a religion. Which is not the case.

The only actual hurdle is that some countries ban the freedom of religion and usually only allow one type to be practiced. If you were to have a one-world government, they would need to be willing to allow their citizens to practice any religion they choose without persecution.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by smileypants

 

When did Ron Paul use religious fear mongering? I'm pretty sure he has a Libertarian approach to religion. Atheists and communists want to eliminate religion out of sheer hatred for the authority of the Godhead. It is not a matter of tolerance, especially when they burn down churches and destroy art( Chinese are notorious for destroying the temples in Tibet), and when they talk like you do with the utmost contempt for anything Godly.

I'm not an Atheist or a communist (but thanks for the prejudgment), I don't know why you think I hate the Godhead (thanks again) and I don't have contempt for godly things (wow, you're on a roll). My problem is with religious EXTREMISM and it's imperialistic way of spreading gospel. Sorry about dragging Ron Paul into this, but he does have a extremely-religious base who vote based on their belief in an NWO plot. I was merely saying that we could have a successful one-world government if it was created by the people, not the elite, with the ideal of social responsibility and individual liberty being at it's core. As a spiritualist you should be familiar with the idea that everyone in this world is interconnected, all part of the Source or Godhead. So why would a cohesive and peaceful existence be a negative thing? If children from India and America had the same positive opportunities, or the same quality of life, wouldn't that be what God want's?? Me thinks you should start practicing your love of the Godhead by loving your fellow man. Pretty sure Jesus said somewhere to love you "enemy". And that really means to love yourself since we are all one organism and therefore we have no real enemy. As a perceived Atheist I embrace any religion that teaches man to live with others in a peaceful and respectful manner free from abuse, guilt and fear.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Nature's number one job is to create and promote diversity. No two leaves are the same, no two trees are the same no two snowflakes are the same, no two ants or fish or clouds or people. Diversity works, it's a law of nature. A one world religion or government would not work out in the long run. Although, it is possible to achieve unity through diversity. This is also exactly what nature does, it lets all the earth's diversity live in a perfect balance.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, when you take a slightly less "macro" look at Nature and it's Perfect Balance...you find that this balance and harmony is maintained by everything eating everything else, all the time.
Nature, from afar, looks tranquil, leafy and verdant, fluffy and furry. When you get close, you see claws and fangs, camouflage and armor and stealth, hordes and swarms, ruthless rape, egg-eating and newborn slaying, merciless bloody consumption of still-living prey, stingers and quills and barbs and venom and neurotoxins, no mercy, no quarter, no pity. Either you are more of a badass than everything around you, or you are dinner, soon to be feces, soon to be fertilizer.
Nature is not the place to look for examples of Peace, and how to achieve it. It seems to me that our tendencies to war and competitiveness are a direct result of our having been a part of Nature for so long. If we want peace, we must turn away from the nature given to us by Nature.

Originally posted by muse7
Wouldn't that be better than living in countries, divided by lines in the sand and fighting like school children in playgrounds?

*waits to be called a globalist 37th degree mason rothschild*

Might be a pipe dream on my part, but I had been thinking about this for a while and I think it would take some time to get used to living in such a world, but wouldn't that be the ideal world to live in? Everyone being together without countries separating us and preventing us from reaching our potential as a species, instead we like to brand ourselves white, black, brown, hispanic, etc those things just keep us from reaching our true potential.

I would have no problem with a one world gov't, just as long as the powers that be helped people so that we all could move forward in our lifes. Not get sucked pennyless and live in a paper box under the bridge.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Some of us that are intimately familiar with life in the US and who now live in other countries might tend to disagree with you. Of course it is a matter of degrees.
The reverse is also true. Don't believe for a second that the US is the land of liberty. I will not return to the US to live that life of rigid conformity once again.

Whoa. Doesn't sound like the US I know....rigid conformity? Where did you live? What happened to make you feel this way? I'm interested....please elaborate.

Originally posted by theovermensch
One World Goverment is the only solution.You could enforce a global minimum pay,then upward moblity would actually work and corporations would not be encouraged to exploit workers in third world countries.

OWG might be inevitable, and it might even be a good thing....but not without built-in constraints to keep its economic policy:

• free of ideology and based solely on sound economic scientific theory,
  
• constructed to be reactive instead of predictive, and
  
• committed by law and design to strive for minimum impedance to commerce
  

For instance, you mention enforcing a global minimum pay, or a Global Minimum Wage. Minimum Wage sounds like a good idea, but looking at such a policy through the science of economics has shown that it has far-reaching, complex consequences, which compound over time, and snowball into major problems.

Minimum Wage is actually a form of price control, akin to Rent Control laws such as those in NYC. Such policies usually have good intentions--reasonable wages for unskilled labor, reasonable rent prices for housing. But historically it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that any time a government enacts a price control, things spiral out of control very quickly, and often the result is the opposite of the intended effect of the control.

Minimum Wage is a control known as a Price Floor. The cost of wages may not drop below a specific value. (Rent control is a Price Ceiling.) Thus, two things are immediately apparent from the economic perspective: One, the demand for labor at the low wage end will drop significantly, as does demand for any product or service that goes up in price. Two, the real minimum wage is $0.

So, in arbitrarily raising the minimum cost of labor to a fixed point, the demand for that labor is lowered accordingly, as less employers will be able to afford to hire such people, or will only hire one, instead of two or three. True, those that do get hired enjoy a higher wage than they otherwise may have received, but only at the cost of many others receiving no wage at all.
This demonstrates the key tenet of the study of Economics: all resources, no matter what kind, be they materials, skilled or unskilled labor, land and property, currency or capitol--all of them are finite in supply, some more than others. This scarcity results in competition for those resources. Money, and prices, are the vehicles we usually use to enable this competition for scarce resources. Most resources have multiple ways in which they can be used--timber can be turned into furniture, or pencils, or the framing of a house. Economics, therefore, is the study of the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses.
When resources are allocated to those places or businesses in which they will result in the generation of much wealth, they have been allocated economically. If they end up somewhere where they do not generate wealth, or even left to rot and not used at all, then they have not been allocated economically.

So when looking at the minimum wage idea, it should be kept in mind that a higher wage results in fewer jobs of that type, and therefore increases competition between those workers applying for that job. The higher price results in fewer jobs because the employer has a finite amount of money with which he can apply only so much to purchasing labor for that job. This means that he must pay more for less work completed, which results in the employer having fewer products to sell, and those he does have to sell are more expensive than they would have been. Consumers who absolutely must have his product, despite the higher price, must therefore buy less of some other thing somewhere else. I could go on, but you get the idea. The effects of price controls are like ripples in a pond...they travel ever outward, and bounce around, and cross each other.
The higher wage of the lucky worker who manages to get hired will not benefit long, as the prices of everything will inch up in response to the rising cost of labor, and soon his buying power is no more than it would have been had no minimum wage been set. Whereas those that are on the REAL minimum wage of $0 have an even more difficult time, because the cost of everything went up and they can't find work.

In fact, Minimum Wage was actually used purposefully in the post-civil war south in the U.S. as a method of keeping the newly freed slaves out of the job market, by raising the lawful wage above what most employers could afford to pay them. The ex-slaves were hesitant, illiterate, uncomfortable and unused to their new status, and had little or no skills to offer at first....and many of them never got a chance to begin learning job skills--which would have increased their value in the job market--because of the "Minimum wage".

So, please.....let us have good economic policy in this OWG thing.

reply to post by Tsurugi

I may not agree with all your economic prescriptions (I don’t believe anything remotely like a ‘sound economic scientific theory’ exists for us to follow), but I agree with you that a global minimum wage is neither desirable nor possible. More generally, any one-size-fits-all policy or prescription on anything is likely to be a failure. So I think any democratic world government of the future would have to be a highly devolved one, with lots of independent decision-making at local, national and regional levels.

In this, as in so much else, America shows the way forward. Conservative Americans, always afraid of the tendency of central government to arrogate power unto itself, may not think so, but compared to most other countries, government policy and power in the United States are admirably decentralized and distributed. There is also a great deal of constitutionally-guaranteed corporate and individual freedom: people are thought to have a right to pursue happiness, or whatever it is they are pursuing, in any way they please, subject to certain restraints intended to prevent them from injuring or inconveniencing others. This is the kind of world government most advocates look forward to – and since the world is much more of a heterogenous and multicultural place even than America, a single world government would probably have to be even more devolved, and lie yet more lightly upon the people, than that of the USA.

Of course, the problem of how to prevent a world government becoming over-mighty or slipping out of touch with the interests of the multifarious governed remains. That is no different, however, from the problem of stopping a national government – America’s or anybody else’s – from falling into the same errors. Such problems will exist as long as we have governments, and we shall have governments until we all sprout wings and turn into angels.

Many of the people expressing themselves against a world government on this thread are, I would guess, people who object to any kind of government at all – the kind who think, ‘I’m an intelligent adult, I don’t need authorities telling me what to do, so to hell with the government!’ Of course, that point of view isn’t very mature – the problem is that conflicting interests need to be managed, and that is what government is for. The only alternative is the law of the jungle, sometimes referred to as libertarianism or neoconservatism.

Really intelligent adults understand that government is a necessary evil; it was never intended to be for the pleasure of the people; it exists to ensure the public good, which is rarely compatible with personal pleasure. A serious shortcoming of democracy is that political leaders cannot usually acknowledge this, because promises of bitter medicine, however fairly it is to be distributed, rarely win elections. The truth is that government is most irksome where it is most needed, and where it is most needed it is indispensable.

Personally, I think a single world government is unlikely any time soon. It may also be that, by the time such a thing becomes possible (if it ever does), we shall no longer need it. But I doubt that, somehow.

Of course, it is entirely possible that in the relatively near future there will be one world government – with perhaps a few thousand citizens, they being all that is left of the human race. In such a case, of course, there will be no arguments about the need for one world government, but sadly it will have come too late.

reply to post by Astyanax

Great post. I read it with a very satisfying lack of disagreement.

As for the "sound scientific economic theory"...it does it exist. Not in its entirety, of course. We have yet to discover a "Unified Field Theory" for economics, just as we have yet to discover such a theory in physics.
Nevertheless there are a great many areas of physics in which we have complete understanding, based on certain "laws" or formula that have withstood the test of time and, though our knowledge does not encompass the whole, we can still build bridges that will not crumble, construct planes that run 24/7 for 20 years straight and do not fall. We can split atoms, or construct devices to let us look closely at them. We can make antimatter and store it in a magnetic bottle. We can explore the depths of the sea, put massive communications equipment in geosynchronous orbits, and capture the radiation signature of objects that are six billion light years away, at the very edge of the known universe.

My point here is that, while our knowledge and understanding of physics is not complete, it is still healthy enough to allow us to do many fantastic things we would otherwise not have the ability to do.
Economic theory and method have progressed greatly in the last hundred years. Most people are vaguely aware of a general advancement in science and technology, but few bother to actually study those advancements...and economics is no different.
But economics, alone of all the sciences, is unavoidably central to the issue of government and government policy, and in a republic or democracy where citizens exercise their franchise and vote, and thereby take a hand in shaping economic policy, it seems to me to be critical that basic tenets of economic theory be widely disseminated to the voting public, along with a few guidelines on how to look at the world from an "economic" perspective. Otherwise we will never dig ourselves out of the holes we're in now.
It is so easy for politicians and their crooked corporatist cronies to get away with financial trickery, because most people haven't the slightest comprehension of economic mechanisms. Sell short or long? Huh? What's a Derivative? How do you keep a running tally on the value of a $30,000 loan at 9.64% interest, compounded quarterly? Why, for god's sake, do we have minimum wage laws that have been in place, and rising steadily, for...40 years now? 50? Why are we a "debtor" nation, and what are the pro's and con's of that kind of economic policy? What is "money" exactly, how does it work, what are the definitions, conditions, and causes of inflation, deflation, stagflation?

Seriously. In the US, current economic policy is shaped by "Keynesian" economics. John Maynard Keynes was a smart guy and made a lot of advancements in economic theory...but he got a little ahead of himself and stopped observing and learning and thus developing economic theory and instead began to tinker. Keynes is the reason we have things like Quantitative Easing, Stimulus, Bailouts, and other massive Federal impositions into the workings of the market. Not to mention the tight hold the Fed Reserve has on interest rates. Keynes proposed this type of interventionist policy in the 1950s. It has long since been shown to be mathematically and conceptually flawed....but we're still doing it!! Why??

Because the public is in the dark about advancements in economics.

....sorry. Kinda went off there for a minute.

/endrant

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by muse7

 

I oppose a one world country because I have nothing in common with the third world, and do not intend to lower my standard of living to theirs.

You don't realize it was a fluke that you were born in a "first world" country?

I don't agree I'm against a one-world-government why would we give the Elite absolute power think about it one world religion The Gov would have way to much power i appose a NWO they are straight Evil i am not down with that There plane is to control and enslave us all WAKE UP

Global Peaceful Unification is the inevitable choice for mankind to the future!

I've been replying to "Why is a one world order a bad thing?" threads since my first day on ATS, and frankly, I'm exhausted. I don't wanna go through the details and reasons again, so I'll give you the gist.

1 - Someone would be in control of my laws, thoughts, freedom, and religion other than myself or God.

2 - It would mean the death of 80 to 90 % of the world's population

3 - it would only financially benefit the elite, it would make things harder on the rest of us

That's the gist. Too much more to post right now.