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.

 

Why is one world government a problem?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Centralized control is not natural or sustainable. It would also be un- accepting of better alternative that may arise.
I feel the only government that can work, would be extremely decentralized, adapting to the local needs of local people. Technology should enable a system of instantaneous concusses. What causes most problems in the world, are those that presume to govern over issues they have no real stake in.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
if it wasnt run by maniacs like it already is proving my maniac theory because they let the countries think they are separate with retarded arguements or battles that make no sense so they can profit but it still doesnt make sense because they think once they pull the shroud from this illusion we call countries we wont change a single bit except for these political leaders



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Having a one world government isn't a bad thing, at least you'd have a centralised group of people who you can associate with.
However the real issue at present is the one world government being forced onto us run by people who want one for THEIR benefit and not the rest of the population of the planet.

And that is where the problem is, we are going to have one eventually but we as the world populace have to decide is this, who will WE ALLOW to run it?
People who consider Humanity as a whole or consider themselves?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
1 - A one world government would mean a one world religion, or abolished religion. No one would go along with that.

2 - A one world government would mean a massive depopulation of the planet, because the numbers are far too large for the elite to control. They would use any means possible, preferably subtle ones (like they already use), soft kill vaccines, unhealthy food, chemical public water supply, ect.

3 - Not only does the concept of a one world government go against the Bible, but Christianity alltogether would be banished (if not right away, then eventually). Civil rights would be ignored, forgotten, and eventually, left in the dust, along with a right to bear arms, freedom of speech, ect. The earth would eventually become a massive rock of overwhelming communism.

4 - The leaders of nations already get along fine without a one world government, and imports and exports would hardly be affected by the change. Ever hear of Bilderberg?


The one world government, new world order, should never happen. There are wicked and evil people sitting on the thrones, who are trying to kill millions of innocent people. They are the ones pushing for the one world government. That in itself should explain why it shouldn't happen... but I could go on and on.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DakotaCensus
 


Okay, I'll take a swing at this. The problem with a one world government, is that power corrupts. So given a group held that much power, that group would in turn, eventually become corrupt. These people could be the most well meaning souls in the world. But after time, corruption would seep in. Even if this didn't take place with the original group, as long as this institution remained in power, that group would eventually become corrupt. And a corrupt bunch with total world control would not be a good situation.
This is my personal view on why national sovereignty is so important, and the founding fathers of our nation spoke so often on how this nation must remain sovereign. Does sovereignty cause problems, yep. But compared to an unchecked power base that has global domination... There wouldn't be any wars, but God help you if you arn't in the top echelon of society. Class differential would be so much worse than it is today. Eventually, there would be no growth, no middle class. You would be in a two part cast system. The haves, and the have nots.
So, that's what my problem with a one world government, human nature. If we could ever evolve past the point of subjugation, then yeah, it might have a shot. If we could ever evolve past corruption, then yeah, it might have a shot. But not until that day, and right now, I don't see that as realistic in any sense of the word.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasr1oftheJedi
reply to post by DakotaCensus
 


Okay, I'll take a swing at this. The problem with a one world government, is that power corrupts. So given a group held that much power, that group would in turn, eventually become corrupt. These people could be the most well meaning souls in the world. But after time, corruption would seep in. Even if this didn't take place with the original group, as long as this institution remained in power, that group would eventually become corrupt. And a corrupt bunch with total world control would not be a good situation.
This is my personal view on why national sovereignty is so important, and the founding fathers of our nation spoke so often on how this nation must remain sovereign. Does sovereignty cause problems, yep. But compared to an unchecked power base that has global domination... There wouldn't be any wars, but God help you if you arn't in the top echelon of society. Class differential would be so much worse than it is today. Eventually, there would be no growth, no middle class. You would be in a two part cast system. The haves, and the have nots.
So, that's what my problem with a one world government, human nature. If we could ever evolve past the point of subjugation, then yeah, it might have a shot. If we could ever evolve past corruption, then yeah, it might have a shot. But not until that day, and right now, I don't see that as realistic in any sense of the word.


I mean this to be a serious rebuttal, rather than being dismissive of the points you made, and hope it comes across that way.

For your first point I won't argue that power corrupts, except that is ignores that the degree of power necessary to corrupt is actually very small. For a small personal example, I used to pay a 50% on cigarettes before I was of legal age to buy them myself because someone had the power to buy them for me. What this leaves behind in your statement is the implication that the greater the power, the greater the opportunity for and scale of corruption.

There may perhaps be a case to be made that a centralized global government, would not in fact have a significantly higher degree of corruption. The example I will use is the democratic government in Indonesia, which is a good case study and the population it holds sway over is highly culturally diverse, maybe more so than the US or Europe when you look at the blend of religions, languages and local and imported cultures.

Now granted the government here is ridiculously corrupt, but it is also in many ways very powerless as the highly fragmented population it governs naturally elects and equally polyglot range of representative officials who are in constant deadlock due in part to their diversity. My point is that a central world government may end up with less control that then regional (formerly national) governments is would represent.

Additionally, it has in no way eliminated wars or armed regional conflicts in this area.

As to the importance of sovereignty, you make an appeal to (American) traditional by invoking George Washington, but to what extent do the differences in historical and modern contexts apply? I mean to say, where does the motivation for a group of people to assert themselves as a sovereign nation come from. Keeping in mind that in the American example it was a non-inclusive group that ignored aboriginal populations, and transplanted slaves.It is that will that I believe is important, as history has demonstrated the concept of nationhood to be rather fluid in the long view.

Your points regarding economic growth I'm sorry to say seems to be a non-sequitur, can you please elaborate how you reached that conclusion? And do we not already exist in a world of haves and have-nots?

All that being said, I don't disagree with your conclusion.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DakotaCensus
 


All is well. I welcome any rebuttals to things I post, as if we can't bounce ideas off eachother, it kinda defeats the point of posting. Though, I also understand some can get hot under the collar if you don't agree with em' word for word, so ...anyways, we're cool! Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts on the subject. Now, on with the show ^.^

I will start by saying I don't envy your situation. The idea of a fractured, highly corrupt government doesn't sound appealing at all. The only good sounds like on the local level where it sounds like ya'll are represented by the district accurately, that must be nice.

If our one world order was similar to such a circumstance, I don't really see how it is any different from the UN we have now, to be honest. The security council claiming to be in charge while every nation just does what they've always done. Maybe I read it wrong. I don't know, if so, totally apologizes for not getting the true message.

My counter point to allowing a small group to have authoritative control would be the Nazis. A) it's easy, and B) it's apt. In the beginning, these guys were a small group with the authority to run the whole nation, and look how well that turned out. Now imagine it on a global scale. Not my utopia. Once you give people power, even if that original person remains uncorrupted by it, as generations pass, it will become corrupt, this is human nature.

I mean, heck, look at the UN as another prime example. It was formed for "Never Again", and yet, there are mass executions taking place all over the world, all the time. And all the while, they use their influence, their power, to wage war in the middle east to secure oil, and more power. Because power not only corrupts, it creates greed. It's like the Emperor told Anakin, "Once someone has absolute power, the only thing they fear is losing that power." And so this person, or group, will do whatever it takes to maintain that position at the top. This is human nature at it's worst.

As for war, I agree, it was a hyperbole statement, I shouldn't have made it. There will always be people killing people, no matter if there are a million nations or only one.

National Sovereignty: I'm more a Jefferson guy, but I get the point, and Washington is the guy people think of when it comes to the world stage and america. The original American ideal was to stay out of the world's affairs. This was pretty much true up to the world wars. After the first one, especially, people were tired of dying on foreign soil. It's the reason Peril Harbor took place, to get the population to support another war. The american people have never been fans of getting involved on the world stage. Unfortunately, those in power (and therefore, corrupted) owed favors to those in power in other nations, and so we go to war without the voice of the people being heard (This was a rare case of that being a good thing, as we helped stop a holocaust). Jefferson warned us about this kinda stuff. Just like he warned us about the banks, and a great deal of other things that infringe the freedoms the fathers set into motion. A nation that stays sovereign, one that doesn't follow the imperialist doctrine, spends it's resources to build itself up.

Is our history perfect, nope, it's literally written in the blood of patriots and the innocent. This is true with just about every land on the planet, though. Again, human nature, and another reason why we're so far from being ready for unity it's sick. Because we can all pretend we're all holding hands and being "one", but the pigs on the farm will always be on top. If something threatens that, they'll release the hounds.

In my country, we still have a middle class. It's not a strict divide between the top 1% and the 99%. I think the last paper (net page) I read said the poverty line is at like 20% or something. Aweful high, but hardly a strick divide of have and have nots. There are those in this nation that enjoy home ownership (though not as many as before, sorry to anyone that lost their home, I did too...-.-) a car and their kid goes to a decent public school. Not a bad deal.

Plus, they have room to move up the ladder. Build the better light bulb, the next hot app, bam! Now you're a 1%er! In a system that would eventually allow the level of corruption that a single world order would create, only if your blood is blue enough (swine enough perhaps?) will you be allowed to move up that ladder.

I don't think such a system would be immediate, but over time, just like on Animal Farm, it would be eventual. I wanted to continue to ramble on about the subject, but I'm running out of characters ^.^;;, so I'll leave it at that for now.

I hope this made a lick of sense, and even if it didn't, thanks for reading my wall of text ^.^!



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasr1oftheJedi
 


Appreciate the clarification, I think I see beter where you are coming from.

The tough thing when it comes to absolute rule is that there are a lot of examples of monarchs or oligarchs who ran their states very well and did a lot of general good. The roman emperor Augustus is one example. Equally, it seems that there exists periods of time when democratic governments go through spurts of constructive activity. I've been wondering lately if the real problem is not the form of government, but the method in which renewal takes place, whether it is a question of elections or succession.

There is a great story from Chinese history of the sage kings Yao, Shun, and Yu. All are regarded as having been morally perfect leaders, and the first two refused to let their own sons become emperor, instead choosing the person they felt to be the best successor. Until Yu, after whose death the Xia dynasty started in earnest when his son took over the throne. Leading to the usual range of good and bad emperors depending on their individual characteristics.

A system where good succession was ensured, again whether elected or appointed, would make me more comfortable with the idea of a global government, but I don't believe we are anywhere near such an idea existing.

For the record I am actually from Canada, just an ex-patriot here. Funny place Indonesia, despite the rampant corruption, and areas of instability in a recent survey people here reported themselves as being on of the happiest on the planet compared with other countries around the world.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Okay, I finished my coffee, one more bump and I'll stop walling your thread, sorry about that. The topic intrigues me and I love civil debate. In the end, I get to learn something while sharing my ideas, internet rocks.

Let's touch on a more touchy subject, religion. First, I'm in Christ and proud, just wanted to be a full disclosure. I also live in the bible belt, and I know exactly how these people will react once any attempt to put a one world order in place is going to go. I mean, just the formation of Israel and the UN increased gun ownership and sales in a way that had to make the weapon manufactures grin. They'll be up in arms, and quick. If you think the muslims act nuts for our occupation of their lands (I agree with you guys by the way, we have enough oil in the gulf and off the coasts and alaska, texas, etc etc, that we need to get the hell out of your business. Just don't try to blow up israel. And I know, how american of me, seize land and say tough cookies. Sorry, not trying to incite, just my opinion.) just wait until you see the reaction of the bible belt to a one world order. It will be a mad house. This will cause a call for disarmament of the population, and perhaps even a ban on certain religious doctrine. Then, Spit Will Hit The Fan.
In the name of Unity, religion will have to get a make over, and if you think it'll just be the bible belt that goes crazy, the muslims arn't going to tolerate the idea of no longer being allowed certain parts of their scripture either. If you think it's a hornets' nest now over land occupation, imagine how hot these people will get once you try to tell them how to worship. The current level of anger they have for the west will look like a slap fight compared to a slug fest heavyweight fight.
There's simply too much division in the world to have a realistic shot at a one world order. It would cause more chaos than it solves. It would create more division than anything of the like before it. As I stated in my first post, maybe one day, when we've all learned to respect our differences, and no longer desire to force this or that ideal down another person's throat, we could start working on unity. But even then, I have to agree with your perspective on how it should be done. Nations should remain their own sovereign nation, but we work together as a globe to improve the living conditions of all humanity (what the UN is suppose to be doing, instead of "peace-keeping missions" that work only to seize the lands of those who have no desire for UN troops to be present at all.) That's a long way away, and as long as we have pigs on the farm, it will never happen.
In the end, I don't have an answer for how such could or should take place, because I don't think it's in us to act in such a civil manner on a global scale with eachother. Millennia old feuds would have to be buried. Trust would have to be built on a level between nations that have always hated eachother. As an american, I don't even know what it's like to have a neighboring nation that wants your eliminated from existence, but sadly, there are several places in the world that can't say the same. From India/Pakistan to Iran/Israel, and lets not even open up the African situation...
It's a noble idea, it really is. I can see that for what it is. I just don't think it's realistic, not in my lifetime, anyways.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
If you get a good government where the best interests of the world and all it's creatures with mankind as the caretaker of the world it might be good. Right now the balance is tilted because we want more than we need. I don't see that mankind is capable of governing himself because of his greed and desire for power and pride. These complications make it almost impossible for a World government to work. We have been conditioned wrong for a long time. It's hard to erase a thousand years of conditioning to implement world government. Who would choose who is to survive and who can have kids. When god said to go out and multiply and fill the world, I think he was being sarcastic. I think he was a little pissed at Atum and Eve I still wonder what or whom God was. A leader of a race of beings we cannot comprehend.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DakotaCensus
 


Do you believe in Capitalism or Free Markets as they are understood?
I am not saying we have those, because we don't.

The reason we don't have those above, is exactly the reason why we should not have a one world government.

Open Markets allow free and fair competition and as a consequence, a balance of power among all people.
Currently, the Fascist Corporations and Financial Institutions own our government, and I definately would not want these parasites calling the shots in a one world government.
edit on 12-5-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
And you would be deemed a terrorist, and "our wonderful world leaders" would say how much a threat you are to our peaceful freedom loving world, and that you even have the audacity to threaten the world with your middle finger island. They may also "uncover" evidence that you are involved in other activities in order to trump up charges.



Originally posted by StratosFear

If one was set in place as one poster said there would be nowhere to go, well then i`d build an island in the shape of a middle fingers so as to be seen from satellite.

edit on 7-5-2012 by StratosFear because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by DakotaCensus
 


Do you believe in Capitalism or Free Markets as they are understood?
I am not saying we have those, because we don't.

The reason we don't have those above, is exactly the reason why we should not have a one world government.


I think they are loaded terms that carry a range of meaning depending on who is using them, although I agree with your assertion that they don't exist as long as we are talking their idealized definitions.I also think a lot of interests are served by keeping the definitions obscured.

However, we do have some features of the classic definition of capitalism such as capital accumulation, and private ownership of the means of production. this is where things get obscured as a feature such as wage labor some could claim it does exist, but arguments can be made on both sides whether wages are market determined or not.

Can you elaborate on your last point? I don't I follow your line of reasoning and would like to understand better what you mean.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by DakotaCensus
 


Open Markets allow free and fair competition and as a consequence, a balance of power among all people.
Currently, the Fascist Corporations and Financial Institutions own our government, and I definately would not want these parasites calling the shots in a one world government.
edit on 12-5-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)


Sorry, didn't catch your edit.

I would dispute the claim the free and fair competition leads to a balance of power, at least if you are examining any one particular moment of time. Perhaps a balance would be achieved by averaging over time, but competition by its nature creates a tiered environment. There may perhaps be a more fluid power dynamics between nations, but it wouldn't change the reality that resources, labor, and whatever is deemed to be talent at any one particular moment in time are not distributed equally. So the system might be fair, but the initial positions of its members would not be.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandHeretic
 


I agree.
Also, I don't think Humans as a collective are advancing spiritually together.
There are some going one direction and others are going the other way.
Hence, humans as a collective go through continuous but ever repeating cycles, until each individual escapes the laws of karma.

Greed, Envy, Lust, Pride, Hate etc etc are as old as man, and are just as much in full force now as it was then.
Nothing has changed.

A one world government would be hell on earth.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by GrandHeretic
 


I agree.
Also, I don't think Humans as a collective are advancing spiritually together.
There are some going one direction and others are going the other way.


Is there only one spiritual direction that people should be moving in?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


At one time here in America a person could learn a trade and make a living working on his own with little overhead. Then things got all screwed up. A farmer could raise food for twenty people and another person knew medical properties of nature. Food was available to feed everyone. Then greed and laziness came around. Laws were passed to regulate things so certain people would make more and live easier. I do not disagree with competition, I disagree with people profiting from competition. Does the Alpha Male in the animal kingdom sit around and do nothing? No, his job is like that of a soldier or fireman. They put their lives at risk to save the others. Competition and strength allow the younger and stronger take over. What happened to the wisdom that the old Alpha Male animal had. It was probably discarded and the group of animals never get to a higher plain of intellect. Humans overcame that trait of animals but it has recently been a trait of man to throw out the visions of the experienced wiseman who knows of all the things that have gone wrong in the past. We put too much pride in the young and allow their creations to sidestep common sense. We have been doing this for a few generations now. Do we really need all the things we have? Do we really need to trust electronics to think for us? Can't people think on their own any more or they trying to think like someone else. Have we thrown respect for the knowledge of our ancestors away and resorted to taking pills to treat the symptoms of our stupidity? What happened to taking a walk in the park without a can of mace. What happened to common sense. I guess we traded it in for a piece of paper.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Everyone is on the path they need to be on, if that makes sense.
Things like the words success mean different things to different people for example.
To some, it means obtaining as much material wealth as possible, while to others, it means gaining insight and knowledge, and understanding more about the world around us.

I could have been a politician or banker in a previous life and am now observing from a different perspective the harm and good that position has caused to others. Experience is the best teacher, because while you can read and talk to others on what they think and feel, it is not the same thing as having to live through it.


Originally posted by DakotaCensus

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by GrandHeretic
 


I agree.
Also, I don't think Humans as a collective are advancing spiritually together.
There are some going one direction and others are going the other way.


Is there only one spiritual direction that people should be moving in?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I'm sorry but it is difficult to believe that the US was such a wonderful place in times past. To say that is to ignore the sprawling slums in large east coast cities, child labor, slavery, the treatment of aboriginals, to name just a few problems.

As far as rising overhead costs, a small community could still exist without large overhead (assuming they could get the land), but that would come at the cost of lack of access to any kind of modern infrastructure, which is where at least some of those costs come from.

Hard to imagine that such a lifestyle was a paradise given the much shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates, and lack of access to education (whether state run, or informal if you can pardon the term being used for self-education).



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join