Why is a one world order an inherantly bad idea?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Sure after WW2 was an economic boom, but look what happened shortly after .
(The US for the most part proved itself by throwing out one of the strongest armies in history)

Before getting involved with other nations we had no debt, no taxes foreign interests or enemies.
But your right ww2 made us great


I stand by my comment that Isolationism is what made us great.
edit on 28-9-2012 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Simple answer is absolute power corrupts absolutely!



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by samerulesapply
 


Basicly it is good idea but.......beside the mechanics of international trade, economics.....the most critical part for its succes will be....who is running it.

That is where huminity fails short, if you'd ask me. For as long there is no absolute test on someones motives, loyalty, discretion and psychological determination for sociopathy a world order is a dangerous concept to bring into practise.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
it is not a bad idea. It is not an original idea either. It is the way they are implementing it that will be our collective downfall.

You can't worry about what history will say about you. You do and let the world you make decide. Damn the consequences, but all of them. Your names sake included.

They are not simply explaining it all. Their dishonesty will seed distrust and counter all forms of unity, though clever at first. People need to understand. That is why we are given the gift of speech. So we can reason with each other and explain our intentions.

Hands will destroy what head cannot explain.

There is no heart to their plans. No mediation. The body is not complete, the cycle is not true.

The tower will fall.

edit on 28-9-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Thing is without a one world goverment simple fact is we will never pool enough of our talent and resources to get off this rock!



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
Thing is without a one world goverment simple fact is we will never pool enough of our talent and resources to get off this rock!


You know of somewhere better?

Don't you think it would be better to solve our problems here on Earth before creating an even bigger problem, just so we can go somewhere else with our problems?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

"You know of somewhere better?"

Not yet but somewhere will turn up soon me thinks with all the planet hunting we are doing these days.

"Don't you think it would be better to solve our problems here on Earth before creating an even bigger problem, just so we can go somewhere else with our problems?"

Yes in theory, in practice its never a good idea to keep all your eggs in the same basket! Dont you think?

I imagine that when and if we do ever manage to get out of here a lot of the current problems we face will rapidly dissipate. Examples population, pollution, racism, poverty, longevity, religion all will become more tenable and addressable IMHO of course.
edit on 28-9-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by zonetripper2065
 




Before getting involved with other nations we had no debt, no taxes foreign interests or enemies.


I'm not fully getting what you mean... are you stating that you had not enemies before WWI or WWII ?

Since the US inception it had one of the more devious enemies available, the UK. the US even invested in Pirates at that time
Then your neighbors and internal enemies.

The US will always have internal enemies, that is a consequence of federalism.That is one reason why the Federal government pro-actively acts to erode state influence and authority and promotes redistribution of wealth across states.

The Civil War brought you debt and internal pacification and permitted the expansion West, to be fair it was conquest of space after that was complete it was time for expansion in South America.

By that time the US was a great power, like Russia, UK, France, etc and a great power has special needs and obligations in the world stage to maintain the benefits of being one. So I really do not see how you can think that you can say that you had "no debt, no taxes foreign interests or enemies."

I would agree that you expansionist activities, starting by with the provoked war with Spain was unnecessary, that it could have been all pursued by economic and political means since then. It would have costed the US and the rest of the world less. But you couldn't have staid out of WWII, and Pearl Harbor was partially an offering to get the required popular support for the intervention.

When I say you couldn't have staid out I say because of economic, not political reasons. Japan expansionism would lock you out of Asia and Germany would have taken the UK, Ireland before the Russians and the Chinese managed to counter those actions. By its nature the Nazi regime would not survive long beyond Hitler, it would quickly change into something else, but Japan Imperialism would have gained strength and memento.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Perhaps a society where individuals govern themselves and act on their own behalf would be more likely to achieve harmony and balance.

It's remarkably difficult to live according to one's philosophy.

Have you ever decided to cut through all the meaningless interaction, politeness and chit-chat to focus on what really matters to you?

If you're not on someone's good side you're on they're wrong side. This aspect of society is not enforced by villains and dictators with too much power.

People are brought together more easily by common foes and hate than by shared causes and dreams.

Groups are dangerous, we need more individuals.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Legos
 


"Perhaps a society where individuals govern themselves and act on their own behalf would be more likely to achieve harmony and balance.

It's remarkably difficult to live according to one's philosophy."

It's remarkably difficult to live according to ones own will, people are war like by nature. Its our very nature that has to change, but take away our dominant war like qualities and we would probobly lose our scientific prowess and ability to colonize and adapt to new situations.

"Have you ever decided to cut through all the meaningless interaction, politeness and chit-chat to focus on what really matters to you?"

Unfortunately all the meaningless interaction, politeness and chit-chat is part of the world we live in.

"If you're not on someone's good side you're on they're wrong side. This aspect of society is not enforced by villains and dictators with too much power."

Our current notion of goverment also incorporates this notion "If you're not on someone's good side you're on they're wrong side" There is nothing new under the Sun there, its all very Sun Tzu, The Art of War IMHO.

"People are brought together more easily by common foes and hate than by shared causes and dreams."

I totaly agree, and this saddens my heart immensely!

"Groups are dangerous, we need more individuals."

Individual groups are even more dangerous, carefull preaching such sentiments will surely get you on a list somewhere these days!



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Legos
Groups are dangerous, we need more individuals.


As individuals we are weak against the system. We need solidarity and a common cause, or else we will never change anything.

We are social creatures and work better as a group than we do on our own.

The idea of individuality was sold to us as another way to keep us divided and weak.

The capitalist class organize and work together. Bohemian club, the trilateral commission, the bilderberg meetings, and many other secret organisations.

They fear the working people organizing against them.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Its not an inherently bad idea. It is an essential one if we are to survive long term.

Its just that we are not ready for it yet. Not by a long long way.

Theres no way to do it at the moment where it wouldn't be a tyranny founded on violence.

Its centuries away from being workable.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 

"Its not an inherently bad idea. It is an essential one if we are to survive long term.

Its just that we are not ready for it yet. Not by a long long way."

Then its time to get ready, and sharpish because its happening all around us. Sink or swim time for us clever/not so clever Monkeys.

"Theres no way to do it at the moment where it wouldn't be a tyranny founded on violence."

Most of the great nations of Earth started as tyrannical dynastys founded on violence and baptized in blood. My point is you cant make an omelette without breaking a few billion heads! Sad but true fact.
edit on 1-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join