Why is a one world order an inherantly bad idea?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 


the lifeline, will be the states and the rise of their power again
building from the ground up, eliminating entire levels of local government in order to just survive.

The spontaneous organization of people at the ground level to look not to government but to look to their neighbors, their church, their temple, secure their family and then see who needs help.
Once stability is restored the economy will start again.
but:
Not with imports from foreign lands because their collapse will be far greater, far more violent, far more starvation as they are ripped from the American tit of consumption......
Enormous federal programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the recently pass Healthcare Reform. What happened to the enumerated powers?
How did these things possibly get by the Supreme Court? Not that aid to citizens is wrong but it was never intended to be the role of the federal government.
That's what the 10th amendment was for, reserving all other powers than those enumerated to the federal government for the states.
The states should be providing these programs if they so choose and if they work they will compete with other states for populace and hence power in the House. This is how it was meant to be.

the states are engaging in no competition other than that for federal funds.

Constitutional Revolution of 1936 the turmoil in society of the sixties and the programs of Lyndon Johnson exploding the role of the federal government....




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
__________________________

Hierarchies , chase systems, pyramidal schemes, and monarchy systems
need to be illegal. Empires are created by sociopaths who have a desire
to control others. The human race does not need a King Herod.
__________________________


edit on 26/9/12 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 


you should rethink your rethinking..

here is some food for thought..


Google Video Link



Google Video Link


I can see you feel it could be amazing..

but ..

realistically..

it would be a nightmare..

for instance..

your message would have

not even been seen by us..

if it did not fall into the approved

party line..

for instance..

just exactly who do you think should

be in charge?

as soon as you answer that..

even agreeing there should be a one world

government mind you..

you have placed yourself as the opposition.
edit on 27-9-2012 by reeferman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 




A one-world-order inherently implies that a small group of individuals (small as compared to the number of people who don't have that kind of status) would have the power to make decisions that, quite literally, affect the entire world.


No such implications can be found or should be expected. I support a one-world-order that should be as decentralized as possible. What I think would be beneficial is normalized policies and generalized goals, imagine what could be done to end famine, manage water resources and pollution, even economic production. No more subsidies no more moving a factory to a new location to exploit cheaper work. General work conditions everything that WTO has failed to provide with its pure economic globalization.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


But the "one world order" is going to do all those things you say it will stop.

Why do you think we now have so much outsourcing? Because the economy is becoming more global.

As the economy becomes more global, the "nwo", it simply means those who have the most will be the ones who control the worlds economy. There is no more centralisation than that. Political issues will go from local to world-wide.

Globalisation, "nwo", is centralisation. Thinking the "nwo" will benefit any of us is like voting for Hitler in 1932.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 


Spoken like a true illuminati or global elitist!!! Well done. ha ha

Okay couple problems:

Depopulation back to 500 million. So they plan to kill a lot of people.

People forced to live in over crowded futuristic cities, basically no different than luxury prisons.

Micro chip in hand or forehead or you die

And probably something like either you worship the NWO religion which will be worshiping the Anit-Christ which will be the one world leader, or you die.

These are just a few of the issues...

I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow, it might take over a hundred years for all I know, but it's going that way. So that's the problem I see with the NWO.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




But the "one world order" is going to do all those things you say


I do not know but that was not the premise of the thread, the concept under discussion is if a one world order is a bad idea and I clearly state that it is not.

What you are now stating is that the current model that we seem to be fallowing is the right one, to that I fully agree with you that it is not and that citizens are in most part not even involved in the process, because of that it will result in two things a collapse or revolt.

A suppressive ultra state is not possible to implement today at least in the open and under a guise it will not really be that suppressive because of human nature there will be always a fringe of non-compliance...
edit on 27-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 


An interesting theory and you raise many valid points. I think one of the main problems with a one world government would be the fact that the government would have absolute power. It may start out fine with a democratically elected government but eventually I believe the wrong people would find a way to take charge.

Also, given human nature, I believe rival groups would form. There are so many different cultures and belief systems in the world I think it would be impossible to unite everybody. Eventually I think we would have an elite group keeping everybody else down using force.

I do agree with you that things are pretty bad worldwide as they stand now, in fact I would say we are headed for disaster. I just don't know what the answer is, I don't think it's a one world government.

Your thoughts are interesting and well articulated and I want to thank you for sharing them, you certainly got me thinking and that has to be a good thing.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 




If there's a one world government...who will they start wars with? Themselves?


War is a means to an end. That end is control of land, resources and people.

If there were an all out global dictatorship, war would not be the problem, it would be oppression and violation of human rights.

Think about how many monarchies man has suffered through!

Now we are coming into an age where the people have some kind of voice via representative democracy - it's very flawed still, but what we need is isn't everyone living under policies set by government, but rather government set under the policies of the people.

This is called true democracy (see my signature below) which doesn't yet exist, because people are afraid to let "Joe Six-Pack" and "Ghetto Man" make any decisions. As if this is any worse than "Mega-Banker Man" and "Career Politician Man" running the show!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by okamitengu
the only global system i would support is some kind of direct democratic representation.

no parliaments, or congress. just me, and you, directly involved in things at a local level, and contributing at a global level to the betterment of all things.

as best as one can anyway.





Real democracy is mob rule. The most heavily populated countries (areas?) would rule by sheer numbers. Suppose they voted to take everything you own?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jcarpenter
 




Real democracy is mob rule. The most heavily populated countries (areas?) would rule by sheer numbers. Suppose they voted to take everything you own?


And what is current democracy? Lobbyist rule? Banker rule? Corporation rule?

Guess what.. they are already taking everything you own.. through sales taxes, property taxes, interest rates.
They take what they can and leave you with just enough to live on so that you can continue to produce and take from you!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 




A one-world-order inherently implies that a small group of individuals (small as compared to the number of people who don't have that kind of status) would have the power to make decisions that, quite literally, affect the entire world.


No such implications can be found or should be expected. I support a one-world-order that should be as decentralized as possible. What I think would be beneficial is normalized policies and generalized goals, imagine what could be done to end famine, manage water resources and pollution, even economic production. No more subsidies no more moving a factory to a new location to exploit cheaper work. General work conditions everything that WTO has failed to provide with its pure economic globalization.



I noticed that those pro one world government believe very much that it will be based upon western democracy. Why? There are millions of people who really so not want that structure. What is going to happen to them? Will they be forced to conform and if so how?
It is a very naive and one sided way of thinking. The beauty for me is that there are people, countries and governments with different structures. If one gets out of control [as seen in the middle east], other countries can intervene to a certain degree.
What if there are no opposition to a central government? Where can you go to if you are suffering?
At the moment you can flee your country and seek refuge somewhere else. You won't be able to in a single government.
What if commercialism is going to be regulated and the same all over the world. Could a young entrepreneur still come up with a new idea, would he/she be allowed?
Are all shops everywhere going to stock the same things? Would you miss any individual shops that sell local produce [clothes, furniture etc] or will you be alright if we all had only access to official merchandise?
Who will regulate business behaviour?
For example I love the way the Japanese conduct their business whilst I do not like the way it is done in the west. Who will decide which one is best and what happens to those that disagree?
I could go on like this forever.

Just to end it here, would you be alright if there were a muslim rule of the world with all its trimmings or a purely christian one?
If not, why not,?
Think.
Humans differ, everyone is different, we are not all the same and we don't all have the same habits, beliefs and how we see the world. Therefore it is impossible for a one world government to stay in power for long. It would lead to wars by those that oppose it and want to live a different way [and rightly so].
edit on 27-9-2012 by Hecate666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Sorry bud no deal. Isolationism is what made America great we need to return to our roots.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
One day maybe, when we all grow up and realise we are all one human family and are all the same despite being different in appearance. The day when we all can appreciate that it’s our differences that make the world a better place just like the different types of flowers and plants give a garden its beauty.

That day isn’t far off. There is an upcoming evolution due for the human race. Not a biological but an evolution in the way we think, our attitudes and opinions as a species.
This evolution will happen because of the way we communicate. Thousands of years ago before language and writing, ideas were hard to communicate. Humans across the planet were isolated in their thoughts and ideas and had no way to communicate and build on them with others.

Language evolved in our species, and soon after so did writing. Technological advancements brought us ways to share and send ideas and information, from writings on stone tablets, to early types of paper, to the printing press, telegram, telephone, television and now the internet allows us to send an idea at the speed of light to everyone around the planet.

A disaster happens in one country, it’s a matter of minutes until someone on the other side of the world knows about it. (e.g. Haiti, Katrina) We are seeing how our fellow human beings suffer and misconceptions on our differences are being brought down. Countries will try and stop this spread of information but like the flow of water it cannot be stopped forever. Old men from previous generations will try to hold on to the old way but the children of today are being born into this new world. Soon the old men will be gone. Soon we will evolve. Soon but not today.

Today we still have a love of money and material things. This attachment to things and individual power is what rules today’s world and one world order will not work. Our self-interest has clouded our perception and our thinking. We are not aware of our emotions and how our attitudes effect our perception and thinking. We have a ways to go but that distance will be covered in a short time due to the speed at which information can now be transmit to all our brothers and sisters across the planet. Combined with our increase in knowledge in how the universe works, on how all the atoms in our body were created at the point of the big bang how the more you rewind it goes back to one, we are one.

This video explains it much better than I can



edit on 27-9-2012 by MrSpiderMonkey because: typo



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
If were all fallible and capable of hate...how could you possibly justify having anyone "control, lead or dictate" a whole group of people?? That would just mean we become mono-hateus...we hate the who they want us to hate and they way they want us to hate...it does not remove hate...

Diversity...is a conflict of interest with "united world" or "one world"....A white man leads with white man values a black man leads with black man values so on and so forth...

Look into the philosophies behind Taoism and you will soon see why a one world government is an unnatural idea that will not go "as planned"...the intention is good but that is what the road to "hell" or "suffering" is paved with...

Once you understand there is no absolutes, you will see how futile it is to try and create a "utopian" anything...there is no absolute way to remove the world of hatred...or intolerance...there will ALWAYS be some somewhere...

freedom = diversity which is opposed to oppression=unity

you have to oppress to unite...



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 


A global council/order wouldn't be a bad thing by default. It'd be a great way to unify the major countries, and indeed the entire world, in the more important ways, if applied appropriately.

It'd be extremely useful if Earth's people were ever to become aware of our civilization being a part of a larger, galactic civilization. If this were the case, it would almost seem a requirement, or rather, natural progression.

edit on 27-9-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I think this video sums up my reason for believing that one world system is an inherently bad idea. It usually comes with a lot of ideas for the ideal make up of society. And then this happens:



Granted, the opinions of Adam Smith are endlessly debated, but this little video is a fairly good representation of my views.

Anyone, or any group of people, with power over the whole global system, would become the man of system, and would run into the problem of the people having free will. Well if they don't want to conform to the system voluntarily, what then?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 


The main issue with me is many worry of an anti Christ figure taking over the world. Other then that I think it would be cool to be able to visit Temples of the world free of extremist or terrorist trying to force their agenda. And to have medications and clean water & food as well as education globally for many to have reasonable chances at life as they pass thru here? So yes again I think its the anti Christ figure that causes opposition overall..



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
If we take the U.N as an example of what we would get i would have to say, screw that. It would be the highly educated dumbass's with no common sense running it. No thanks.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
It would be a living hell. I prefer to let you speak your mind and possibly be offended by what you say. I could always ignore you or walk away.

I heartily agree with the above quote.


O.P. Y'all are some scary "ph*ckers"!


Wake up. world wide legislation will fix everything? Maybe they'll outlaw hunger?
or Murder?Or bullying? or your neighbors dog crapping in your yard?And who gets to be King of the world? What does that look like?
Just so you're"safe"and don't have to listen to boorish ignorant speech?..
edit on 27-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join