Is One World Goverment so bad after all?

[Hiki]

Now I know that pretty much everybody here is against the NWO and One World Government. But let's think about it.

Suppose that the orwellian big brother system isn't the form of the OWG, instead we would have a honest system with good men in charge (like Ron Paul), and of course you would have local government to decide on local matters, but overall there wouldn't be any countries.
Think about it. We are now living in the nationality era, where there are countries, borders and nations. We humans, have lived through different eras aswell. Many thousand years ago we were just small groups wandering around. That time went and then came the tribal-era. We formed tribes and the tribes fought each other and traded with each other. That era also went into history and as agriculture was formed, city-communities started forming and that eventually lead up to the nations and countries, and so we are now in the nationality-era. But does one think here that this will last forever? Do we have the United States, France or Russia 1000 years from now?
Think about it. Countries and nations don't do nothing but separate us, us humans. We're not American, British, Scandinavian or Korean, we're all humans. Imagine a world with no borders, people are free to go wherever they want without some imagined lines on the ground. That's what nations are, imagined things by humans. We dont class animals by any "nationalities", it's just one species living around the world. We are the only species with this weird stuff.

Now let's use our imagination and Sci-fi stories.
In my opinion, it's very likely that there is life out there, even in our galaxy. Heck, it's pretty much already confirmed that there's life on Mars so why not elsewhere? Now let's suppose that the life out there is also intelligent. When we humans become a spacetraveling species, are we going to find other species like us? Like in Star Wars. But if/when that time comes, we cant present ourselves like this "Hello, I'm Matt from United States, you shouldn't talk to those Iranians and Koreans cos' they're bad mmmkay", we present ourselves like this "Hello, I'm Matt and I'm a human being." We can't go wandering around as Americans, British or Iranian, we need to go as one, the human species. That's why we have to move on, one time or another. We cant jam ourselves into this nationality-era forever, otherwise we're doomed. So somekind of a system to unite the Earth must be made up, somekind of a One World Government. It doesn't have to be the BigBrother-state where we all live as slaves, it can be good too if done properly.

And imagine far far far into the future where we've met other spacegoing species, and one day we will form somekind of a Council, like the Republic in Star Wars, to decide on galactic matters between our species. In that kind of a time we can't for sure anymore think about America or Scandinavia or China, we're earthborn human beings.

Just made this thing up last night inspired by the game Mass Effect.
What do you think about it?

[FindLiberty]

Very bad. Too much Star Trek and not enough www.fff.org

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back into bondage.

[Author unknown, it may have been Alexander Fraser Tyler (1748 - 1813)]

[Ozwest]

No thanks,

One - World - Corporate fascism holds no appeal to me.

Ron Paul didn't want to be world leader. He wanted to facilitate state's rights, and community empowerment. Self determination.

Haven't the last few years taught you anything?

Corporate federalism gets you no-where!

[Conza88]

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell.

Thattt about sums up world government.

[Ozwest]

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell.

Thattt about sums up world government.

I love George Orwell - :D

[Ozwest]

"Liberty is telling people what they do not want to hear"

George Orwell -

[Hiki]

Ahh for christs sakes did you even read it? I know you're all drowning in fear of the Orwellian idea of world government. But THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! I already said that if it is not made in the way of the oppressive, big-brother system, it could very well be a great thing.

Of course the time for one is not now. If we do it now, with people like Bush in charge, then it will become that Orwellian nightmare. If/when we have contact with extraterrestials, then it might be time for a global system to unite us all.

Again think about it. As Richard Dawkins said about religions: "If you had been brought up in ancient Denmark you would be believing in Thor, if you had been brought up in ancient Greece you would believe in Zeus, if you had been brought up in Africa you would believe the Great Ju-Ju up the mountain". The same thing applies for countries, if you had been brought up in another country you would be swearing in the name of it and being oh-so-patriotic for it.

[Ozwest]

I read it.

Please realize that a "global system to unite all," is easily manipulated and twisted by individuals in positions of social and political power.

Power corrupts.

[Mini-Me]

Consider for a second what you're advocating: Because distinctive cultural identities can sometimes engender hostility (when actually, it's governments that go to war, not peoples), you're advocating a one world government that will forcibly strip all people of their natural cultural identities and replace them with a homogenized earth-born human cultural identity, which will be determined by...who? This viewpoint presupposes that people's cultural identities are and should be determined by government, not by natural interactions of people themselves, and it also presupposes that our differences are some kind of disease that must be cured. ;) However, the richness of human culture comes from its differences and heterogeneous nature! It would be a travesty for a one world government to homogenize all culture, especially for the reasons you're supplying:
1.) Because everyone being the same is a good thing
2.) Because it'll be easy for feeble alien minds to understand us as human beings with a single shared identity (besides, it's important to remember that the current inherent dangers of global government will be somewhat mitigated once we are in contact with plenty of other intelligent races and spread all over the galaxy. However, if that ever happens, it will likely be a long time from now, and we need government that suits our current needs and does not present any unwarranted dangers given our current circumstances).

The funny thing is, with less powerful governments, humans around the world would get along a lot better anyway, despite cultural differences. Once governments find better things to do other than going to war (and/or when the leaders suffer rather than 18 year old sacrificial lambs), war will end. Plus, people do not need shared global government to tell them that they share things in common as human beings, and these make up our human identity. We can figure that out on our own, without it being forced down our throats by some global authority. In other words, we can naturally evolve world community and shared human identity without shared government.

In addition, about one world government in and of itself:
There are plenty of other threads about this where I and others go into detail why, but Orwellian government inevitably follows from one world government sooner rather than later. Even if it didn't, shouldn't the very possibility of it give you enough pause to avoid ever suggesting one world government? You're falling into the mistake of assuming that because it's possible for well-intentioned (and competent) people to hold positions of power, we should assume that well-intentioned and competent people will always exclusively hold positions of power. You're basically justifying one world government by first assuming utopia. Besides, one world government is entirely unnecessary when you ultimately want more local control anyway - why take the substantial risk for little to no gain?

Let's use your Star Wars example, by the way - you briefly made mention of the Galactic Republic. However, did you forget that, because there was only one Galactic Republic that needed to be taken over, Senator Palpatine was able to consolidate power and create the Galactic Empire? This would not have been nearly so easy to achieve if he had to take control of the 1001 Galactic Republics. ;)

[Conza88]

If there was a world government... surely there is going to be Diebold used... come one - count 6 billion votes ? hahahah... What are the chances, some MAJOR douche is going to gain power.. i.e would George W have gained power? More than likely.. Big government can take EVERYTHING from you.

[Ozwest]

Perhaps we could revert to the "feudal system."

That worked well for centuries.

If you controlled the wealth...

Isn't that what is happening now? Corporate lords shrinking the middle class, finding willing serfs over-seas. Manipulating the masses through energy and food shortages.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[jon_perez]

Ahh for christs sakes did you even read it? I know you're all drowning in fear of the Orwellian idea of world government. But THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! I already said that if it is not made in the way of the oppressive, big-brother system, it could very well be a great thing. Like you, I'm not convinced that a one world government or one international central bank is the embodiment of corruption or evil. The arguments about an "international government"/"new world order" being prone to certain problems do have a lot of truth to them. However, I don't share the apocalyptic paranoia of the Chicken Littles around here. One must also keep in mind that a "one-world government"/"one world central bank" also has certain specific advantages, at least on paper.

For me, it really depends more on exactly how what the details of such a set up would be than the fact that there is a "one world government" or lack of one per se. Political/social units have conglomerated and disintegrated countless times in history. Change is inevitable. Even the United States was not considered a single nation at the start, but rather a lot of different states with a high degree of sovereignty. (So how different is a "United States" from a "North American Union"?)

I recently realized that it should not surprise us that Ron Paul, being from Texas, would have a strong streak of independence-from-federal-government in his thinking. He certainly makes his case very well most of the time, but it does not mean alternative points of view are necessarily wrong.

[Ozwest]

Like you, I'm not convinced that a one world government or one international central bank is the embodiment of corruption or evil. The arguments about an "international government"/"new world order" being prone to certain problems do have a lot of truth to them. However, I don't share the apocalyptic paranoia of the Chicken Littles around here. One must also keep in mind that a "one-world government"/"one world central bank" also has certain specific advantages, at least on paper.

For me, it really depends more on exactly how what the details of such a set up would be than the fact that there is a "one world government" or lack of one per se. Political/social units have conglomerated and disintegrated countless times in history. Change is inevitable. Even the United States was not considered a single nation at the start, but rather a lot of different states with a high degree of sovereignty. (So how different is a "United States" from a "North American Union"?)

I recently realized that it should not surprise us that Ron Paul, being from Texas, would have a strong streak of independence-from-federal-government in his thinking. He certainly makes his case very well most of the time, but it does not mean alternative points of view are necessarily wrong.

So those who are against one world government are "Chicken Littles?"

I would disagree.

Perhaps lazy "cheeseburger eating," ambiguous, lemmings are the "Chicken Littles."

I refuse to be leashed. You are probably a poodle.

Stop pissing on my carpet!

[bucfish]

One World Government = Feudal Serfdom

I will not be a serf
hopefully we can get our fellow man out of LaLa Land in time enough to prevent these greedy evil doers from their quest for absolute power and control.

Or else we face the ? of the future
Do you want your RFID chip in your right hand or your forehead?

monitor its progress at www.rfidjournal.com

[LibertyEagle]

I read it.

Please realize that a "global system to unite all," is easily manipulated and twisted by individuals in positions of social and political power.

Power corrupts.

+1000

[LibertyEagle]

So those who are against one world government are "Chicken Littles?"

I would disagree.

Perhaps lazy "cheeseburger eating," ambiguous, lemmings are the "Chicken Littles."

I refuse to be leashed. You are probably a poodle.

Stop pissing on my carpet!

Classic. :D

[micahnelson]

When people talk about global community, why do they always assume governments?I want us to engage in peace, commerce, and trade with the global community, however I have no interest in paying taxes to someone who sits in Geneva.

The true evil is an international currency. When the right to coin money gets interpreted to be, the right to give total domestic economic control to an unelected board of international economic policy makers, then we will have lost everything, albeit slowly over time.

There will be no other currencies to create competition. We will see the currency inflated ever so slightly. As our quality of life goes down, the wealth and property control of the upper classes will go up. We will have become serfs, all of us together, forever unified in our misery, poverty, and ignorance. It will be a new dark age that will last until the ruling class grows disinterested with total power, develops a sense of morality, or loses the art of treachery- in other words it will last forever unless destroyed.

The best time is to destroy it is now.

[DriftWood]

I'm all for a world without trade barriers (no tariffs and few restrictions). Where the whole world has the same open free trade market, as individual countries have internally. With globalism we are moving more and more towards this, capital goods and people move around more freely. I think its a very good thing, in one sense we are already part of it. The fact that the world is pretty much one country when it comes to trade does not mean it has to be one county when it comes to law. In a sense we are free to choose the govt and laws that best suits us.

We can make money in one country (where wages are high), live in another (where taxes on consumption are low), save our money in another (where capital gains taxes are low and the money is stable).

If you are against your tax money going to a war in Iraq.. just pay your taxes to a different country. If you don't want to move, you can still live in the same old country, but as a tourist. In many countries being a tourist is actually better than being a citizen (less taxes and obligations (like military service, jury duty, etc.)), you still have the protection of the law. Killing tourist is still illegal.

The whole concept of being a citizen get blurred and looses its meaning, when you start collecting citizenship (i got two, working on a third). You start feeling more like a free person of the world, rather than belonging to any one country.

Obviously its not so easy to arrange, and its more a dream than reality, but its a pretty cool concept. Not being a citizen of any country is really as free as anyone can get.

Edit: There is even a name for such free world citizens and tax evaders.. "perpetual traveler" aka "permanent tourist" aka "prior taxpayer".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler

Cheers

[Ozwest]

"Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

Be loyal. Black is white. Forget the contrary.

"Embrace" alteration of the past.

[Ozwest]

How about saying No."

How about re-storing the lessons taught by your fore-fathers?

Or is it the fall of Rome?

[Ozwest]

"Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice.'

Aristotle -

[AutoDas]

I support a one world government.

[Ozwest]

I support a one world government.Why?

[Andrew-Austin]

Centralization of power, especially to such an extreme, is inherantly bad.

Think how horridly the common man would be represented in a one world government.

[Ozwest]

" The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law."

Aristotle -

[Ozwest]

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, and not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

Ron Paul -

[pinkmandy]

I support a one world government.

And who would run your one world government? The same type of people who run the US except it would be even worse- all the power hungry and corrupt people from all corners of the earth would be positioning themselves in that power structure. And you'd want to condemn the whole world to the same fate? Sounds like utopia to me.

Who are you? Dick Cheney in cognito?

[Ozwest]

And who would run your one world government? The same type of people who run the US except it would be even worse- all the power hungry and corrupt people from all corners of the earth would be positioning themselves in that power structure. And you'd want to condemn the whole world to the same fate? Sounds like utopia to me.

Who are you? Dick Cheney in cognito?

Dick Cheney Rules!

I respect a fire-arms expert. :D

[rpfan2008]

I support a one world government.

Are you campaigning for it?
:rolleyes:

[Ozwest]

I prefer rational and objective thinking.

I hate outside authority, and would prefer to be self-reliant.

[pinkmandy]

Dick Cheney Rules!

I respect a fire-arms expert. :D

Lol! Well I'm not going hunting with that kind of expert!

[Ozwest]

Lol! Well I'm not going hunting with that kind of expert!

I'd love to go "a hunting" with him.:D

[dsentell]

If a one world government is so wonderful ---

how about letting the people of the world vote on it

rather than sneaking it in on the unsuspecting people of the world . . .

[Hiki]

I'm all for a world without trade barriers (no tariffs and few restrictions). Where the whole world has the same open free trade market, as individual countries have internally. With globalism we are moving more and more towards this, capital goods and people move around more freely. I think its a very good thing, in one sense we are already part of it. The fact that the world is pretty much one country when it comes to trade does not mean it has to be one county when it comes to law. In a sense we are free to choose the govt and laws that best suits us.

We can make money in one country (where wages are high), live in another (where taxes on consumption are low), save our money in another (where capital gains taxes are low and the money is stable).

If you are against your tax money going to a war in Iraq.. just pay your taxes to a different country. If you don't want to move, you can still live in the same old country, but as a tourist. In many countries being a tourist is actually better than being a citizen (less taxes and obligations (like military service, jury duty, etc.)), you still have the protection of the law. Killing tourist is still illegal.

The whole concept of being a citizen get blurred and looses its meaning, when you start collecting citizenship (i got two, working on a third). You start feeling more like a free person of the world, rather than belonging to any one country.

Obviously its not so easy to arrange, and its more a dream than reality, but its a pretty cool concept. Not being a citizen of any country is really as free as anyone can get.

Edit: There is even a name for such free world citizens and tax evaders.. "perpetual traveler" aka "permanent tourist" aka "prior taxpayer".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler

Cheers

I think you told my story better. The biggest mistake I made was probably with the word "government". Yeah I'm not saying that we must have centralized power in one location on earth where big rich men rule the world. I was merely meaning exactly what Driftwood said, a global community where you dont have borders or countries separating people from eachother, this way you wouldn't have any national conflicts. I didn't mean that different cultures must be demolished, of course they can be kept. Of course we don't go to the African tribes and tell them to abandon their way of life and join the global community, they should be left alone.

But yeah, at this time this is nothing but mere dreaming, but I can dream can I? But sometimes it's nice to use your imagination and outside-the-box-thinking, you can come to rather surprising results. I never thought I would actually support this especially after seeing documentaries like Zeitgeist and those Alex Jones stuff. But realizing that those are but one side of the argument, tsadam and here we are.


If a one world government is so wonderful ---

how about letting the people of the world vote on it

rather than sneaking it in on the unsuspecting people of the world . . .

Exactly, this is how it should be done, not by a few powerful men.

[Ozwest]

If a one world government is so wonderful ---

how about letting the people of the world vote on it

rather than sneaking it in on the unsuspecting people of the world . . .

You miss the point...

It's corporations aligned with governments that exacerbate this process.

Until people get off their backsides and do something, everyone will be led down the garden path...

What happened to your cherished liberties?

Here's hoping you won't find out.

[pinkmandy]

I think you told my story better. The biggest mistake I made was probably with the word "government". Yeah I'm not saying that we must have centralized power in one location on earth where big rich men rule the world. I was merely meaning exactly what Driftwood said, a global community where you dont have borders or countries separating people from eachother, this way you wouldn't have any national conflicts. I didn't mean that different cultures must be demolished, of course they can be kept. Of course we don't go to the African tribes and tell them to abandon their way of life and join the global community, they should be left alone.

But yeah, at this time this is nothing but mere dreaming, but I can dream can I? But sometimes it's nice to use your imagination and outside-the-box-thinking, you can come to rather surprising results. I never thought I would actually support this especially after seeing documentaries like Zeitgeist and those Alex Jones stuff. But realizing that those are but one side of the argument, tsadam and here we are.



Exactly, this is how it should be done, not by a few powerful men.


That may sound nice, but it isn't realistic. Not possible unless you can genetically alter people to remove the zest for power gene. We will always have people grubbing for power and the fewer bodies we have in control, the scarier that is for the rest of us. Someone is ALWAYS "in charge". Whether they be the people who regulate, legislate, or create the money supply. The only way to kneecap them is for people to govern themselves at a local level.

[TheGrimReefer]

"Real free trade requires no treaties." - Lew Rockwell

If you want to have true free trade and no borders than we need to get rid of government, not make a bigger one. Even if the leaders were elected by the majority it would still be corrupt because every government uses aggression to stay in power, otherwise it wouldn't be government.

Heres a good video on the EU that everyone should watch.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2699800300274168460&q=eu&ei=cHxNSPHILpXk4AKNmqybDA&hl=en

[Ozwest]

"Real free trade requires no treaties." - Lew Rockwell

If you want to have true free trade and no borders than we need to get rid of government, not make a bigger one. Even if the leaders were elected by the majority it would still be corrupt because every government uses aggression to stay in power, otherwise it wouldn't be government.

Heres a good video on the EU that everyone should watch.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2699800300274168460&q=eu&ei=cHxNSPHILpXk4AKNmqybDA&hl=en
A good reason Ron Paul lost votes.

No subsidy of farmers.

[Hiki]

That may sound nice, but it isn't realistic. Not possible unless you can genetically alter people to remove the zest for power gene. We will always have people grubbing for power and the fewer bodies we have in control, the scarier that is for the rest of us. Someone is ALWAYS "in charge". Whether they be the people who regulate, legislate, or create the money supply. The only way to kneecap them is for people to govern themselves at a local level.

Perhaps it ain't, knowing the nature of people it is quite utopistic. Even a true communistic system would be wonderful, but it is utopistic. The Soviet Union was a great example of a great idea driven by power-greedy men which eventually failed.
Perhaps this "global community" idea could work if people are always active in the politics of the system. If someone/a group starts going for power then it's the obligation of the people to hold them back and prevent them from doing it. If you just had a strong and active "Ron Paul movement" watching over the system then you could possibly prevent power from corrupting. But of course I'm asking too much from people, Ron Pauls are hard to come by.
I did say that people should be allowed to govern themselves at a local level, having local "governments", and not the parliament or whatever in the global community deciding on their matters.

But you all wanting to get rid of government, remember that an anarchy is also utopistic. You need some kind of a government, however you bend it.

[Ozwest]

Utopistic?

I'm moving to Bhutan. haha

[Theocrat]

Perhaps it ain't, knowing the nature of people it is quite utopistic. Even a true communistic system would be wonderful, but it is utopistic. The Soviet Union was a great example of a great idea driven by power-greedy men which eventually failed.
Perhaps this "global community" idea could work if people are always active in the politics of the system. If someone/a group starts going for power then it's the obligation of the people to hold them back and prevent them from doing it. If you just had a strong and active "Ron Paul movement" watching over the system then you could possibly prevent power from corrupting. But of course I'm asking too much from people, Ron Pauls are hard to come by.
I did say that people should be allowed to govern themselves at a local level, having local "governments", and not the parliament or whatever in the global community deciding on their matters.

But you all wanting to get rid of government, remember that an anarchy is also utopistic. You need some kind of a government, however you bend it.

Yes. Humanistic utopias always fail, and they can do none else but fail. History is replete with examples of nations which attempted to overthrow God and establish Godless societies, only to fall by committing genocides and eventually, political/economic suicides.

The only way a one world government can work is by building it on a solid foundation, and the only solid foundation is Jesus Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, Who is already ruling on the throne in heaven and bringing all things under His dominion (as the Last Adam) upon the earth by subduing His enemies and rewarding His chosen people.

[Hiki]

Yes. Humanistic utopias always fail, and they can do none else but fail. History is replete with examples of nations which attempted to overthrow God and establish Godless societies, only to fall by committing genocides and eventually, political/economic suicides.

The only way a one world government can work is by building it on a solid foundation, and the only solid foundation is Jesus Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, Who is already ruling on the throne in heaven and bringing all things under His dominion (as the Last Adam) upon the earth by subduing His enemies and rewarding His chosen people.

http://i25.tinypic.com/a10hes.gif

[TheGrimReefer]

Perhaps it ain't, knowing the nature of people it is quite utopistic. Even a true communistic system would be wonderful, but it is utopistic. The Soviet Union was a great example of a great idea driven by power-greedy men which eventually failed.
Perhaps this "global community" idea could work if people are always active in the politics of the system. If someone/a group starts going for power then it's the obligation of the people to hold them back and prevent them from doing it. If you just had a strong and active "Ron Paul movement" watching over the system then you could possibly prevent power from corrupting. But of course I'm asking too much from people, Ron Pauls are hard to come by.
I did say that people should be allowed to govern themselves at a local level, having local "governments", and not the parliament or whatever in the global community deciding on their matters.

But you all wanting to get rid of government, remember that an anarchy is also utopistic. You need some kind of a government, however you bend it.

Why is anarchy utopistic? So we don't argue over semantics I'm going to go ahead and give you my definition of anarchy. "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual." - Murray Rothbard from http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Also remember that "A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos."

[Hiki]

Why is anarchy utopistic? So we don't argue over semantics I'm going to go ahead and give you my definition of anarchy. "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual." - Murray Rothbard from http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Also remember that "A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=john+birch+society&ei=n49NSLjTMYuAjgKFosXTDA&hl=en

Take a look at this.

[Theocrat]

http://i25.tinypic.com/a10hes.gif

Am I supposed to be the guy on the right?

[TheGrimReefer]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=john+birch+society&ei=n49NSLjTMYuAjgKFosXTDA&hl=en

Take a look at this.

I stopped watching it as soon as they referred to anarchy as being lawless. I never advocated getting rid of laws. Their definition of anarchy is much different than mine. I also didn't like the fact that they kept referring to the 10 commandments.

[Hiki]

I stopped watching it as soon as they referred to anarchy as being lawless. I never advocated getting rid of laws. Their definition of anarchy is much different than mine. I also didn't like the fact that they kept referring to the 10 commandments.

But who makes up the law? Who looks after the laws and that they're being followed? The people? Under an anarchy you will end up having a fucktard gathering himself a band of thugs who goes around looting people and having a primitive form of oligarchy.
I didn't like every part of it aswell but it's a great video with great points. Nothing is perfect.

[Hiki]

Am I supposed to be the guy on the right?

No, forget it.

[Theocrat]

No, forget it.

Don't take me for a fool. I understand clearly you were being sarcastic with that picture because of my post. I just disagree with you philosophically on your thoughts toward a one world government, as I'm sure you do with mine.

Global utopias won't work until the sinful natures of mankind can be resolved, which means that God has to intervene to change the hearts of men. Of course, it's not done by force of arms in a "top-down" situation, but rather, it has to occur through evangelistic means of preaching the Gospel and doing good works ("bottom-up" strategy). That's the fundamental point I was implying in my first post of this thread.

[Hiki]

Don't take me for a fool. I understand clearly you were being sarcastic with that picture because of my post. I just disagree with you philosophically on your thoughts toward a one world government, as I'm sure you do with mine.

Global utopias won't work until the sinful natures of mankind can be resolved, which means that God has to intervene to change the hearts of men. Of course, it's not done by force of arms in a "top-down" situation, but rather, it has to occur through evangelistic means of preaching the Gospel and doing good works ("bottom-up" strategy). That's the fundamental point I was implying in my first post of this thread.

Fine, I guess everyone here knows how our worldviews differ and we really dont need this argument in this thread :p

[TheGrimReefer]

But who makes up the law? Who looks after the laws and that they're being followed? The people? Under an anarchy you will end up having a fucktard gathering himself a band of thugs who goes around looting people and having a primitive form of oligarchy.
I didn't like every part of it aswell but it's a great video with great points. Nothing is perfect.

Law would be determined by the non-aggression axiom - "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom."
The police and courts would enforce the law. If someone aggressed against some one else they would be forced to compensate the victim.

[Hiki]

Law would be determined by the non-aggression axiom - "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom."
The police and courts would enforce the law. If someone aggressed against some one else they would be forced to compensate the victim.

That's a good creed. Are you implying that the police and courts are independent? Where do they get their regulations, money and all that? I think that this system is far too complicated and hanging on too many variables, that you need somekind of a limited government to hold it together.

[Ozwest]

Law would be determined by the non-aggression axiom - "The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom."
The police and courts would enforce the law. If someone aggressed against some one else they would be forced to compensate the victim.

What I don't understand is that you guys keep dribbling on about rights aggression, and law enforcement.

Relax.

[Truth Warrior]

Thread title question: If you have to ask the question, it most probably is. :rolleyes:

[TheGrimReefer]

That's a good creed. Are you implying that the police and courts are independent? Where do they get their regulations, money and all that? I think that this system is far too complicated and hanging on too many variables, that you need somekind of a limited government to hold it together.

The courts would be privately owned and voluntary like everything else on the market. They would depend on people buying their service and if their service wasn't good, or was unjust ,they would go out of business because no one would buy their service.

[TheGrimReefer]

What I don't understand is that you guys keep dribbling on about rights aggression, and law enforcement.

Relax.

Lol, I'll go smoke a cigarette and calm down.:rolleyes:

[Ozwest]

The courts would be privately owned and voluntary like everything else on the market. They would depend on people buying their service and if their service wasn't good, or was unjust ,they would go out of business because no one would by their service.I nominate Andy Griffith, and Barny Fife.

[Paulfan05]

I used to want a one world government, thinking there would be no war lets just be humans not americans,mexicans,germans,ect......

[Ozwest]

The end of the United States, the Constitution, and the bill of Rights.

A world government, complete with a world army, a world court, global taxation, and powers to control education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, and the environment.

Welcome to your "Brave New World."

[Defining Obscene]

Heres an easy comparison. States rights vs. the fed. Now, kick that up a notch. Same problems, amplified.

[Ozwest]

Heres an easy comparison. States rights vs. the fed. Now, kick that up a notch. Same problems, amplified.


Fuck the Feds

[AmericaFyeah92]

I believe if we came into contact with Aliens, people would unite pretty quick. Odds are they would have their own tribes/packs/nests/hives as well.

[Defining Obscene]

Trying singing the new national anthem in over 100 languages.

[CuriousOnlooker]

I do support one world government, theinory.

-Basing society upon the soil that we were born makes as much sense as the starsign that we were born under. We should see each other as human beings.

-A global society based upon multiple individual nation states each pursuing their own aims and goals at the loss of other nation states is not a peaceful, nor humane, one. Having one global supernational power to hold all individual nations in check would be ideal; so long as the balance between "nation" and "Super-Nation" power can be kept. Hypothetically, if every nation agreed to be part of a "United States of Earth", then there wouldn't be conflicts between nation states (assuming there isn't some Civil War style calamity). Minnesota doesn't declare war on Ohio now, they don't have militaries. France wouldn't declare war on Cyprus in this new order.

-One can't deny the huge problems this world faces; Overpopulation is the big one. Every extra human being on this planet leads to extra resources being consumed, more pollution (ideally, we wouldn't have pollution because it's an infringement upon property rights. This can't be enforced by individual nation states though. Under Ron Paul's philosophy of America, if China starts pumping crap into the atmosphere, there's nothing America can / should do about it.) I'm not talking about Global Warming here; look at the rainforests, look at the polluted rivers and seas, look at the giant swirl of plastic in the ocean. This isn't good, and individual nation states can't deal with this. A global framework does need to be in place. The planet can't deal with more people than it has allready.

-We have moved from individual tribes to towns, to cities, to counties(/states), to nations. It's a natural next step to move to a single global community. I do not suggest we strangle out culture; no matter what "culture" you "are", you can agree that this planet needs to be saved.

(btw, I do not really agree with Global Warming so much. I am more ponderous than skeptical. :))

[Ozwest]

Trying singing the new national anthem in over 100 languages.
Can I have a couple of weeks.

I mean... That's a lot to memorize.:D

[Hiki]

I do support one world government, theinory.

-Basing society upon the soil that we were born makes as much sense as the starsign that we were born under. We should see each other as human beings.

-A global society based upon multiple individual nation states each pursuing their own aims and goals at the loss of other nation states is not a peaceful, nor humane, one. Having one global supernational power to hold all individual nations in check would be ideal; so long as the balance between "nation" and "Super-Nation" power can be kept. Hypothetically, if every nation agreed to be part of a "United States of Earth", then there wouldn't be conflicts between nation states (assuming there isn't some Civil War style calamity). Minnesota doesn't declare war on Ohio now, they don't have militaries. France wouldn't declare war on Cyprus in this new order.

-One can't deny the huge problems this world faces; Overpopulation is the big one. Every extra human being on this planet leads to extra resources being consumed, more pollution (ideally, we wouldn't have pollution because it's an infringement upon property rights. This can't be enforced by individual nation states though. Under Ron Paul's philosophy of America, if China starts pumping crap into the atmosphere, there's nothing America can / should do about it.) I'm not talking about Global Warming here; look at the rainforests, look at the polluted rivers and seas, look at the giant swirl of plastic in the ocean. This isn't good, and individual nation states can't deal with this. A global framework does need to be in place. The planet can't deal with more people than it has allready.

-We have moved from individual tribes to towns, to cities, to counties(/states), to nations. It's a natural next step to move to a single global community. I do not suggest we strangle out culture; no matter what "culture" you "are", you can agree that this planet needs to be saved.

(btw, I do not really agree with Global Warming so much. I am more ponderous than skeptical. :))

Great post, you made my point. I guess we're zooming on the same frequency here.
It truly is the natural step to get rid of the nations and become a global community, next stop would be colonizing other planets and one day you're "eartborn" or "marsborn" :D Just imagining here...

And with all due respect to your Constitution and Bill of Rights, afterall they just become outdated documents. You cant live according to them if something revolutionally new comes here (say an alien species), should we live according to the code of the Old Testament? Hell no. That's an old document also, and whether you like it or not, so will the Constitution be one day.

Of course this kind of thinking is ahead of its time, although we do have some serious global problems, and nationalities already slow the process.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Great post, you made my point. I guess we're zooming on the same frequency here.
It truly is the natural step to get rid of the nations and become a global community, next stop would be colonizing other planets and one day you're "eartborn" or "marsborn" :D Just imagining here...

And with all due respect to your Constitution and Bill of Rights, afterall they just become outdated documents. You cant live according to them if something revolutionally new comes here (say an alien species), should we live according to the code of the Old Testament? Hell no. That's an old document also, and whether you like it or not, so will the Constitution be one day.

Of course this kind of thinking is ahead of its time, although we do have some serious global problems, and nationalities already slow the process.

uh...i was with you until you said the constitution was "outdated"

[DriftWood]

When it comes down to it people need a govt. It matters less if that govt offers its services to a big number of people or a small number.

Anarchists and market anarchist forget why and for what purpose govts are formed in the first place. Govts are a natural thing, they always happen. Wishing them away is an utopia. In anarchy in the beginning of civil wars.. people have to protect themselves and their family from the violence of others. Everyone is a target for murder or robbery. People voluntarily seek protection with the biggest bully on the block. The one noone dares to cross. They pay him protection money. Now if someone messes with you or your family they will have to deal with the bully and his friends. The bully is not your friend, but you need him. The bully is the govt, because he has a monopoly on violence. He makes rules, and people do not dare to disobey them for fear of the violence he will unleash for crossing him. The bully will fight for turf and territory to expand his monopoly of violence over a bigger area.. he will get more protection money this way. If the bully really has a monopoly on violence in the area.. there will be peace. People will not kill or rob each other for fear of the bully. This is the govt.. its whole purpose is to protect us from the violence of others. We pay it taxes aka protection money, for this service.

Market anarchist fail to see that competition on law, means a competition on upholding different laws, it means competition on the monopoly on violence. It means civil war. Imagine different police forces, roaming the streets enforcing different and conflicting laws. That is civil war.

The reason there is countries.. that there is borders between them is because there can be no mixing of different laws, there can be no more than one monopoly on violence per country. If there is more than one.. the country will split into more than one country.

So that being set.. it matters little how big the country is.. as long as it protects its people from the violence of others. Other than that the best govt is the one that does little else. The size of the territory, or the number of its people, matters less.

Cheers

[kombayn]

^+1 Well said.

[LibertiORDeth]

Very bad. Too much Star Trek and not enough www.fff.org

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back into bondage.

[Author unknown, it may have been Alexander Fraser Tyler (1748 - 1813)]

+1776

[CuriousOnlooker]

Great post, you made my point. I guess we're zooming on the same frequency here.
It truly is the natural step to get rid of the nations and become a global community, next stop would be colonizing other planets and one day you're "eartborn" or "marsborn" :D Just imagining here...

And with all due respect to your Constitution and Bill of Rights, afterall they just become outdated documents. You cant live according to them if something revolutionally new comes here (say an alien species), should we live according to the code of the Old Testament? Hell no. That's an old document also, and whether you like it or not, so will the Constitution be one day.

Of course this kind of thinking is ahead of its time, although we do have some serious global problems, and nationalities already slow the process.

mmm. I've read widely on Alex Jones / Daniel Estutin / etc stuff about the NWO. I genuinely think the above is what, many of them, are trying to achieve. Ofcourse, there are the elements about RFIDing everyone, and removing the middleclass, but I believe these elements are probably not universally agreed by the "NWO". Evenso, and they would indeed be a massive infringement upon liberty, they'd be a pathway to dealing with the problems aforementioned.

One cannot doubt the wisdom found inside of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are, though, "outdated" in context. They are not outdated in values, in beliefs and in the ways people should live their lives. They contain much wisdom. However, they are not cohesive with trying to work with a supernational one world Government.

[Hiki]

mmm. I've read widely on Alex Jones / Daniel Estutin / etc stuff about the NWO. I genuinely think the above is what, many of them, are trying to achieve. Ofcourse, there are the elements about RFIDing everyone, and removing the middleclass, but I believe these elements are probably not universally agreed by the "NWO". Evenso, and they would indeed be a massive infringement upon liberty, they'd be a pathway to dealing with the problems aforementioned.

One cannot doubt the wisdom found inside of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are, though, "outdated" in context. They are not outdated in values, in beliefs and in the ways people should live their lives. They contain much wisdom. However, they are not cohesive with trying to work with a supernational one world Government.

Yes, the elements about RFID, Security Cameras on every corner, policestate and so on are exactly the Orwellian nightmare. And if/when a global community is instituted, people should fight tooth and nail to prevent it from getting these elements. Rather it should be as limited as possible, but still strong enough to hold everything in it together. If I was to decide, I would like Ron Paul to be the main architect in forming it :D

Of course your Constitution and Bill of Rights have good stuff in them ('thou I havent read them:p). But in a practical sense, when world moves on, you cant hold on to them forever. As I said, when new situations arise which cant be dealt with the C and BoR, you shouldn't jam with them but analyze the situation with modern means.

[freelance]

You want yet another layer of government???

[Conza88]

You want yet another layer of government???

I propose the NWO HQ be put on Mars... and all the politicans go live there...
So when we want to protest, and address our grievances - we have to fund our very own Space Station to get there..

[newyearsrevolution08]

I propose the NWO HQ be put on Mars... and all the politicans go live there...
So when we want to protest, and address our grievances - we have to fund our very own Space Station to get there..

That is a great mind at work.

I love it lol

We should allow the rp politicians the ability to stay down here with us though..

[CuriousOnlooker]

Another layer of Government isn't necessarily a bad thing so long in (your) opinion if it's small. A caramel wafer bar has many many layers more than a cake, yet you cannot deny the cake is larger and more fattening and wasteful.

Those "Orwellian nightmare" components may be to a degree means to an end. If you need to use subversion, cloaks and daggers to bring about a "Global Society", then so be it; it is far more efficient than trying to persuade people to give up their national sovereignty freely and to see each other as humans rather than Americans, Britons, French, Germans, Libyans, Russians, etc.

I suppose when humanity is in balance with nature you can encourage freedom again. The problem with freedom to breed is that any species, with complete freedom and a complete monopoly to breed, will suffocate out the other species. Imagine for a moment Lions can breed a hundred times more and without the limitations of predators. The world would be overrun and the food cycle would be buggered. The same is happening with humanity. We can breed freely and act as a super predator, not held in check by old age, disease (currently anyway), virus, etc.

Roll with this for a moment. Having read Paul's Manifesto and other works, imagine the following; The Sugar Companies come along and say "Hey, we are under attack from foreign companies! Mr Government, please subsidise us." "<Sigh> Sure, ok." Under Paul's philosophy, that's wrong because it's the Sugar Companies looting from the tax payer. He uses this very example.

Bare with the relation here; I buy a plot of land to build a Tennis Court. On the land used to live a load of badgers, squirrels, foxes, five old oaks and a rather perplexed beaver. I build my Tennis Court and go about my merry way. This creates an imbalance; the reprecussions are clear, the lack of the foxes as predators leads to a boom in rat populations, which leads to further problems of rat infestation, etc, so on. I have, in a regard, "looted" from "the animals" and environment.

I don't wish to go on a greeny rant here, I am by no means a green, but it's obvious really that if Humans are given freedom - complete and utter freedom to do whatever they wish so long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of other human beings, the environment will suffer. The environment is NOT human being, and does need to be protected.

The 'NWO' agenda is one of the only ways to try and ensure the protection of the environment from the actions of man.

What do you think?

-CuriousOnlooker :)

[Carson]

Is One World Goverment so bad after all?

So how is it working out for you so far?

It seems to be the reason the borders are being violated illegally all around the world.

How is the crashing of the economies of the countries that used to lead the world working out for you?

How is the dividing up of property and infrastructure that was paid for by the public working out for you? So far for me I haven't gotten a dime from it. It is like a company that you and your friends built up over the years being sold and the executive officers split up the money for themselves.

Lets go back to what I see as the beginning for a minute.

I'm sure you met the kind of people in your life that wanted to start some sort of business with you. To make a long story short they turned out to be the type that had a business philosophy that made every cost yours and every profit theirs.

I think our country came across that sort when the Federal Reserve was bribed into existence.

I suspect that for nearly a hundred years we have been responsible for every cost incurred. Building the buildings, the presses the ink, the first gold that was loaned against, and all of the maintenance for building and machine.

I imagine that all of the interest has gone to the group of men that keep the books.

Just this year alone we have transferred out of the country to them about $360,000,000,000 on a national dept of $9,000,000,000,000 at a 4% interest rate. Actually we don't owe it all directly to the Federal Reserve. Some of the IOU's or bonds are owned by countries like China.

That is only a tiny part of what they brought in. Since 1914 I believe they have grown and their banking system is in nearly ever country of the world. Looking at our interest owed is like looking at one credit card holder’s account at a place like Visa.

How has that worked out for you!

If we would have our turn as partners each one of us would bring in over a thousand dollars a year just from the national debt. Think of all of the other interest that has been loaned out, out there. Can you imagine the world economy back on even footing and the interest distributed to the rightful partners for the next 100 years? And I'm talking rightful partners worldwide.

Anyway thinking about the money that they are raking in could help explain just why the world is in the straights it's in. It also helps understand the motive behind much of what is happening.

I'm not totally against the world being concurred (note spelling). It just needs to be done from the, "We the People" of the world. Not conquered from the top down.

[Hiki]

I'm not totally against the world being [B]concurred (note spelling). It just needs to be done from the, "We the People" of the world. Not conquered from the top down.

You said it yourself.

[loveshiscountry]

Bad idea. One size doesn't fit all. People are different. The best form of government is when the local government is in control. The ones who are the most knowledgeable to the needs of the people they represent.

[Hiki]

Bad idea. One size doesn't fit all. People are different. The best form of government is when the local government is in control. The ones who are the most knowledgeable to the needs of the people they represent.

That's my point also. I'm not saying that this "government" should decide what to do all around the world, instead practical stuff should be decided on a local level. What I mean is a world without countries but instead with one global community, where you would still have local authorities taking care of local business, but you wouldn't have government A getting hostile and angry because of government B.

[Leroy_Jenkems]

OWG sounds good on paper....:rolleyes:.......:rolleyes:........that's about it.


I think that Hiki, the thread starter, and a few others here have been clicking on the Scientology banner ads near the bottom of pages around these forums a bit too much...screw the Thetans, USA #1!!!!!!!

[driller80545]

Another layer of Government isn't necessarily a bad thing so long in (your) opinion if it's small. A caramel wafer bar has many many layers more than a cake, yet you cannot deny the cake is larger and more fattening and wasteful.

Those "Orwellian nightmare" components may be to a degree means to an end. If you need to use subversion, cloaks and daggers to bring about a "Global Society", then so be it; it is far more efficient than trying to persuade people to give up their national sovereignty freely and to see each other as humans rather than Americans, Britons, French, Germans, Libyans, Russians, etc.

I suppose when humanity is in balance with nature you can encourage freedom again. The problem with freedom to breed is that any species, with complete freedom and a complete monopoly to breed, will suffocate out the other species. Imagine for a moment Lions can breed a hundred times more and without the limitations of predators. The world would be overrun and the food cycle would be buggered. The same is happening with humanity. We can breed freely and act as a super predator, not held in check by old age, disease (currently anyway), virus, etc.

Roll with this for a moment. Having read Paul's Manifesto and other works, imagine the following; The Sugar Companies come along and say "Hey, we are under attack from foreign companies! Mr Government, please subsidise us." "<Sigh> Sure, ok." Under Paul's philosophy, that's wrong because it's the Sugar Companies looting from the tax payer. He uses this very example.

Bare with the relation here; I buy a plot of land to build a Tennis Court. On the land used to live a load of badgers, squirrels, foxes, five old oaks and a rather perplexed beaver. I build my Tennis Court and go about my merry way. This creates an imbalance; the reprecussions are clear, the lack of the foxes as predators leads to a boom in rat populations, which leads to further problems of rat infestation, etc, so on. I have, in a regard, "looted" from "the animals" and environment.

I don't wish to go on a greeny rant here, I am by no means a green, but it's obvious really that if Humans are given freedom - complete and utter freedom to do whatever they wish so long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of other human beings, the environment will suffer. The environment is NOT human being, and does need to be protected.

The 'NWO' agenda is one of the only ways to try and ensure the protection of the environment from the actions of man.

What do you think?

-CuriousOnlooker :)


Interesting argument. I will say this, nature does not need man, man needs nature. Man cannot manage nature anymore than he can manage the universe. Man cannot survive without nature, but nature can survive just fine without man. Attempting to manage nature is a futile exercise in self importance and a mistake in the perception of time. It is himself that man needs to learn to manage if he wants to survive as a species. Nature will be just fine.
Is this what you are saying?

[rpfan2008]

Imagine a british empire, with all those nuclear weapons, automatic(robo) guns, chemical-bio weapons, radiation weapons and only one enemy----"unnecessary population".

And what is unnecessary, you are not going to decide. Now take for instance US as the example, where middle class is burdened with extra taxes and big businesses are relaxed from the same. Democracy is only needed where there is oil. Govt. funds the same countries which they are going to bomb next, both with tax dollars(Soviet/Libya etc).

Do you think these people have anything to do with morality or humanity ??
One World Govt.?? Are you kidding? How about 'one family' world or a city block. Send in your gf to my place, cuz we are a family. Sounds good??

[rpfan2008]

The 'NWO' agenda is one of the only ways to try and ensure the protection of the environment from the actions of man.



-IdiotDicksucker :)

"Western populace will accept serfdom if it's binded with protection of environment"

Wenever thought of that.:rolleyes:


What do you think?

You are wasting your time.

[Crickett]

Yes, the elements about RFID, Security Cameras on every corner, policestate and so on are exactly the Orwellian nightmare. And if/when a global community is instituted, people should fight tooth and nail to prevent it from getting these elements. Rather it should be as limited as possible, but still strong enough to hold everything in it together. If I was to decide, I would like Ron Paul to be the main architect in forming it :D

Of course your Constitution and Bill of Rights have good stuff in them ('thou I havent read them:p). But in a practical sense, when world moves on, you cant hold on to them forever. As I said, when new situations arise which cant be dealt with the C and BoR, you shouldn't jam with them but analyze the situation with modern means.

This thread is just so sorry, to me. Half the time it sounds like foreign countries are trying to "advise" the US that we should just merge back into the British Empire and give up all of the freedoms and sovereignty of the ONLY country in the world that is intended to be run by The People. Sorry, but, there is no other country like us, no other Constitution like ours, and no, we ain't got NO intentions of joining with foreign countries who would love to have us back. We fought for our independence and if I have anything to say about it, it is being KEPT. If Canada and Mexico want to merge, they better build a big bridge.

[CuriousOnlooker]

"Western populace will accept serfdom if it's binded with protection of environment"

Wenever thought of that.:rolleyes:



You are wasting your time.

I post on these forums seeking honest discussion and honest debate in a friendly environment and atmosphere. There was no need to resort to petty name calling; it shines badly on you and the Ron Paul movement as a whole. His whole Philosophy is built around the freedom of expresion of the individual; no where have I tried to stifle yours, or anyone elses, and by resorting to just insulting others it makes others think less of you. Not for your opinions, but how you present them and your lack of respect for others.



Back to the issues, though. The poster who refered to man handling himself is dead on. I was at a nature talk when I was younger, where a man who spent his whole life training and breeding birds said how terrible it was the local forest authority would cut down old trees and place new ones, because the dead trees themselves provide a habitat and nutrients for so much of the rest of the local eco-system.

Nature has had a funny knack of, for hundreds of thousands of years, of taking care of itself. The same can be said for man. Intervening to protect nature doesn't, generally, work. It's man's intervention to protect, and destroy, nature that leads to problems.

Nature has had 'freedom' before man's agricultural development. We are constantly meddling and intervening in nature; were animals and trees to, as an extreme, have equal rights of human beings, no Libertarian could argue for the subjugation of Birch trees for Paper at the expense of their liberty.

We could debate over the ramifications for the environment if man does not change his ways until the sun goes down; suffice to say, I don't think many people can agree that the current proceedings are sustainable. It is the number of human beings and the rapid rapid rate we are breeding that is part of the core of the world's problems.

[AgentOrange]

I read a book about this premise in the early '90's (I don't remember the name). Theoretically, the premise is great...it's no different than the 50 states in the US forming one country. A government could be set up the same way, each country having the same rights that a state in the US has. Practically though, I don't think it would ever work, for the reasons given elsewhere in this thread. So I would agree, that theoretically one-world government could be great, I just don't think it will be because of megalomanical humans.

[anaconda]

I suppose if we had a U.S. Constitution ruling the world we would be fine. And no income tax.

Immigration and the demand for U.S. resources would pose very tricky problems however. We are free to move about within our republic. Everyone from New Delhi and Rwanda would want to move to North America.

It struck me as an interesting imperialist alternative: to accept other nations into the U.S. as states if they adopted the U.S. Constitution and dollar. Peacefully.

[Leroy_Jenkems]

This thread is just so sorry, to me. Half the time it sounds like foreign countries are trying to "advise" the US that we should just merge back into the British Empire and give up all of the freedoms and sovereignty of the ONLY country in the world that is intended to be run by The People. Sorry, but, there is no other country like us, no other Constitution like ours, and no, we ain't got NO intentions of joining with foreign countries who would love to have us back. We fought for our independence and if I have anything to say about it, it is being KEPT. If Canada and Mexico want to merge, they better build a big bridge.

Damn straight!

[NH4RonPaul]

Ahh for christs sakes did you even read it? I know you're all drowning in fear of the Orwellian idea of world government. But THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! I already said that if it is not made in the way of the oppressive, big-brother system, it could very well be a great thing.

Sorry NEVER!



Of course the time for one is not now. If we do it now, with people like Bush in charge, then it will become that Orwellian nightmare. If/when we have contact with extraterrestials, then it might be time for a global system to unite us all.


OMG are you some sort of idiot? The whole UFO thing is like the Global Warming hoax -- intended to scare people into world government. Aliens failed to scare people so now they are using GW. It's all about fearmongering to get YOUR MONEY.

Um, why do you fall for all the crap that the UN puts forth to dupe you into this nonsense?

DEATH TO THE NWO, and anyone who doesn't see that ONE of anything is bad, can't be too bright.

http://www.oneworlddemocracy.net/

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[NH4RonPaul]

I certainly hope moderators will delete this thread and all the nonsense in it.

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Dude politiicans are stupid, corrupt, and out of touch.

Quebec wants to secede from Canada.

Parts of America want to change the landscape of America.

Basque seperatists have fought for years about parts of Spain and France.

And those groups are close geographically and culturally.

To think that the whole world can be one group and work together using the same goals is just preposterous. The Irish vote away from the EU should tell you that. If 27 countries cant vote on even being in a group how will 200+ countires vote about abortion, gay marriage, food, water, electricity and other things?

Do you actually think Bush Sr. talked about the New World Order 200 times because he cares about the people in Ecuador, Zimbabwe, or even Iowa? He doesnt care. He is a megalomaniac.
The markets decide best and the markets should be as local as possible.

[Hiki]

I certainly hope moderators will delete this thread and all the nonsense in it.

Yeah, don't listen to the opposite arguments but let's live in our little boxes.
Btw, I did not read any UN propaganda to achieve this position. I thought it over all by myself.

In fact, i've seen the Zeitgeist, Endgame and Esoteric Agenda. But you have to realize that this is only one side of the argument, and you're right in a way that this whole idea is a bad thing if it comes in a way that those documentaries show it. Was John Lennon an evil UN NWO conspirator when he wrote about this in his song "Imagine"?

I know that people will never know how to live in harmony, but piping down countries and those borders might aswell help it. In fact I'll apologize for saying that the U.S Constitution is an old document, it would be the perfect foundation of a global community.

[jon_perez]

Yeah, don't listen to the opposite arguments but let's live in our little boxes.
Btw, I did not read any UN propaganda to achieve this position. I thought it over all by myself.Like a point I made earlier, the United States itself is composed of a union of different States and that seems to have worked out pretty well so far...


In fact, i've seen the Zeitgeist, Endgame and Esoteric Agenda. But you have to realize that this is only one side of the argument, and you're right in a way that this whole idea is a bad thing if it comes in a way that those documentaries show it. Was John Lennon an evil UN NWO conspirator when he wrote about this in his song "Imagine"?Yeah, he was a brainwashed Manchurian Candidate indoctrinated by reptilian aliens to create songs to convince the masses to believe in 1-world government... ask David Icke... chuckle...

[jon_perez]

Imagine a british empire, with all those nuclear weapons, automatic(robo) guns, chemical-bio weapons, radiation weapons and only one enemy----"unnecessary population".

And what is unnecessary, you are not going to decide. Now take for instance US as the example, where middle class is burdened with extra taxes and big businesses are relaxed from the same. Democracy is only needed where there is oil. Govt. funds the same countries which they are going to bomb next, both with tax dollars(Soviet/Libya etc).The principle to keep in mind here is that "government" is supposed to be "of, by and for" the people. It doesn't really matter if it's a big one world government or a city government, as long as that principle applies. Certainly, a good case can be made for the fact that the further away removed a government is from the people, the less it tends to serve the latter, which is one argument against "world government".

On the other hand, at least on paper, agreeing on common principles and laws among a group of people does tend to prevent the costly horrors of war. Look at the United States for example, individual US states are in fact bigger than many other countries in the world and have their own individual autonomous interests, and yet no wars have been fought among the States within the Union for a long long time. Did this particular Union work? I'm sure almost everyone will say it did.

Although perhaps a fair number of Texans and other Southerners may disagree... ? ;)

[jon_perez]

If we have one world government, then criminals will not be able to flee to other countries to escape punishment, because there would be a single world police. :D

Kind of like how before the FBI was created, criminals in the US could easily cross state lines to escape prosecution.

We all understandably fear the abuses that go along with too much power concentrated in one body. One does not even have to have world government to see how such excesses occur. The sordid actions engaged in by bad, corrupt elements within the CIA, FBI and other national agencies are enough of a lesson. But one must also acknowledge that these organizations have their fair share of positive accomplishments. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, similarly, the price of good government is _also_ eternal vigilance. Small government is no guarantee of good government (it may arguably more manageable, but at the same time, it cannot take advantage of any "economies of scale"), nor does big government, per se, mean bad government (although the concentration of power that big government, on paper, implies, does tend to have a bias towards wastefulness and tyranny).

The problem with having too closed and narrow (not to mention paranoiac) mindsets among those who oppose the idea of extranational governments, is that they may become marginalized in the discussion because their obvious lack of rationality makes it too easy for people to dismiss them as kooks.

Observe how Ron Paul makes his case, he can always make a well reasoned point that takes a lot of serious thinking to contradict. Paul may have controversial ideas but he himself has never come across as a kook for me. Unfortunately you can't say the same about many of his followers. The difference is in the amount of foam around the mouth.

[jon_perez]

Great post, you made my point. I guess we're zooming on the same frequency here.
It truly is the natural step to get rid of the nations and become a global community, next stop would be colonizing other planets and one day you're "eartborn" or "marsborn" :D Just imagining here...What we want is one intergalactic government, headed by a single Emperor... that's how you achieve order... :p

[jon_perez]

Govts are a natural thing, they always happen. Wishing them away is an utopia.Yes.


The bully is the govt, because he has a monopoly on violence. He makes rules, and people do not dare to disobey them for fear of the violence he will unleash for crossing him.Yes, but this is supposedly the archaic form of government, e.g. Feudalism. Remember, we are now supposedly operating on the enlightened principle of government, of, by and for the people. The price we have to pay to get that is eternal vigilance (it cannot be just about blindly saying we want "smaller" government, "small", in fact, being a very relative term).

Anywa, this is the kind of vigilance that people like Ron Paul are, in fact, engaging in, and we should be very thankful that there is such a figure capable of removing the apathy of people when it comes to government, and arouse their passions for reclaiming it for themselves.

[Hiki]

Like a point I made earlier, the United States itself is composed of a union of different States and that seems to have worked out pretty well so far...

Yeah, he was a brainwashed Manchurian Candidate indoctrinated by reptilian aliens to create songs to convince the masses to believe in 1-world government... ask David Icke... chuckle...

Exactly. USA is an example of the OWG on a smaller scale and of course in a lot more simplified form.

David Icke, haha. No, the guy has some good points but yeah all that reptilian stuff :D But, you always have to listen, no matter what crazy stuff is being spoken.


What we want is one intergalactic government, headed by a single Emperor... that's how you achieve order...

http://www.ptank.com/catsynth/images/palp.jpg :D

[DriftWood]

Yes.

Yes, but this is supposedly the archaic form of government, e.g. Feudalism. Remember, we are now supposedly operating on the enlightened principle of government, of, by and for the people. The price we have to pay to get that is eternal vigilance (it cannot be just about blindly saying we want "smaller" government, "small", in fact, being a very relative term).

Anywa, this is the kind of vigilance that people like Ron Paul are, in fact, engaging in, and we should be very thankful that there is such a figure capable of removing the apathy of people when it comes to government, and arouse their passions for reclaiming it for themselves.

A little theory of mine that has been bouncing around in there..

I think we people need more than vigilance to keep the govt in its place. They also need money:

If the world works as i think.. that in civil war people pay protection money to the militia with the most guns.. and then end up with a dictator.. that treats its people as slaves.. the people work hard for themselves and manage to hide away some of the money they make.. they use the money to bribe their way to more rights.. the dictator gets dependent on the bribes / taxes of its people.. the govt makes sure it does not hurt the hand that feeds it to bad. It does not bleed it to death, it just takes a little cut. So thats pretty much where most western societies are today. The people have the govt eating out of its hand, its pretty harmless. The people do not kill off the govt, because they still need its protection service. But the only thing that keeps the govt in its place is the fact that it is dependent on the tax money from its people. As long as people keep wealthy they will have economic power, and they can feed this beast and keep it domesticated. Well what heppens if the people suddenly become poor, and loose their economic power unable to feed it taxmoney? What happens if the govt finds another source of getting money? Just look at the corruptive power of oil. Oil producing nations govt dont need people to feed it money, they get money growing out of the ground. The govt with all its guns no longer has much of a reason to be kind to its people. It does not need them for feed itself. I think this theory could explain why oil rich countries like saudi arabia, and russia have such nasty and corrupt govts.

So in the end i think people need to stay vigilant and stay rich in order to keep the govt in its place. This is why economic freedom is so important for political freedom. If people loose their economic power, they will probably soon loose their political freedom as well. (A little tax money or bribe money goes a long way to keep the govt at bay.)

Cheers

[Andrew-Austin]

Was John Lennon an evil UN NWO conspirator when he wrote about this in his song "Imagine"?



lol no of course not, its a good song. He might have recognized this dream to be unrealistic though, or perhaps he never thought that a one world government would do a piss poor job of representing all the different peoples/views.

Ignoring the fact that all the politicians today who push for a one world are corrupt and have malicious intentions in mind.... I'm simply against a one world government because I think it would not be able to represent each group of people's desires. Say for instance a group of people in Asia have "always" been apart of this constitutional one world republic, and they manage to be unhappy with this system. Someone from this Asian region crafts a socialist like government plan, and he gains support from the people but cannot implement the plan. This would prevent the Asian people from testing the socialist system and learning how crappy socialism is, they would never have a comparison in which to appreciate liberty. The world would never have a comparison to see that socialism is garbage (outside what has happened in the forgotten past). Most people need to learn by direct experience, not everyone is smart enough like you and me, to know that a limited constitutional government which grants full liberty is the best option.

Sure I want all peoples of the globe to have liberty, but I want them to consciously arrive at it, not have it compelled upon them via a benevolant one world government.

[LibertyEagle]

You know how you feel you have little control over what the federal government does? Imagine what it would be like if it was WORLD government. The corruption would be far worse than it is today and you would have very little to no way to influence it. Our founders understood all this. That is why the majority of the power was intended to be close to us; it was left to the states and the people, and they tried, through the Constitution, to strictly limit the role of the federal government.

Also, you know that Constitution that we want reinstated? With world government, you can kiss that goodbye.

[Mini-Me]

I post on these forums seeking honest discussion and honest debate in a friendly environment and atmosphere. There was no need to resort to petty name calling; it shines badly on you and the Ron Paul movement as a whole. His whole Philosophy is built around the freedom of expresion of the individual; no where have I tried to stifle yours, or anyone elses, and by resorting to just insulting others it makes others think less of you. Not for your opinions, but how you present them and your lack of respect for others.



Back to the issues, though. The poster who refered to man handling himself is dead on. I was at a nature talk when I was younger, where a man who spent his whole life training and breeding birds said how terrible it was the local forest authority would cut down old trees and place new ones, because the dead trees themselves provide a habitat and nutrients for so much of the rest of the local eco-system.

Nature has had a funny knack of, for hundreds of thousands of years, of taking care of itself. The same can be said for man. Intervening to protect nature doesn't, generally, work. It's man's intervention to protect, and destroy, nature that leads to problems.

Nature has had 'freedom' before man's agricultural development. We are constantly meddling and intervening in nature; were animals and trees to, as an extreme, have equal rights of human beings, no Libertarian could argue for the subjugation of Birch trees for Paper at the expense of their liberty.

We could debate over the ramifications for the environment if man does not change his ways until the sun goes down; suffice to say, I don't think many people can agree that the current proceedings are sustainable. It is the number of human beings and the rapid rapid rate we are breeding that is part of the core of the world's problems.

[Quick note: I'm responding to your overall arguments, not just the ones in the quote above.]

You're operating from the false premise that we're breeding at an astronomical rate and that this expansion needs to be stopped. However, consider the fact that all of the overbreeding occurs in underdeveloped nations. Western, industrialized nations are tending closer and closer to a "replacement rate" of population growth. I imagine this might be because kids are probably considered "worker bees" to some extent in poorer nations (where children can be coerced into labor), whereas the richer a population gets, the more certain segments tend to focus on other things in life besides procreation and family (not that everyone does). The only real reason industrialized western populations are even still growing is because of immigration from poorer countries. If we get rid of excessive government and let the free market work, wealth around the world will slowly tend toward equilibrium, and eventually, population growth will stop.

In addition, if socialism was ended and personal responsibility reintroduced, people in industrialized nations would be even less likely to have kids they can't afford. If the population grows to a level that cannot be sustained by our resources, prices will rise and make it tougher for people to make ends meet - which will discourage them from having more kids that they cannot feed.

In other words, the population problem can, does, and will solve itself through economic means, without any government intervention. We don't need China-like controls on reproduction. We don't need the NWO to kill off 90% of the population through manufactured famine, disease, and war so we can start expanding again.

Also, I agree that if we regarded animals and even plants as having the same fundamental rights of humans, laws would certainly be much different - and it would be quite difficult for you to find food unless you learn to photosynthesize. However, the day is quite far away when vegetarians and vegans convince the majority of the population to share their basic assumptions, and I think we can disregard this for now. If we can agree for now that our laws should be constructed solely to protect the rights of human beings, the problem becomes much simpler.

Do I agree that our current course is not "sustainable?" Yes, I do - and that's exactly why it can and will change of its own accord without intervention from some monolithic world government. Local and national pollution concerns can and should be handled on the basis of property rights - if you dump waste in a river, you should expect to be literally be sued out of existence (Does this happen today? No, it doesn't - but that's why our government is called "corrupt," and another layer of government and/or more centralized government can only exacerbate that problem.).

Furthermore, the idea that global environmental problems can only be solved by a supranational one world government is a complete myth born from a complacent lack of imagination. Just a few poorly illustrated examples:

Rainforests? That's simply not our problem - that's South America's problem. They can deal with their rainforests however they please, depending on how much they value them - they certainly have a much more vested interest than we do. Back in the day, we thought that without rainforests, we'd be starved for oxygen. We've since learned that this is in fact not true, and rainforests contribute little net oxygen to the atmosphere. All of the oxygen we need to breathe is recycled locally, and as far as I know, development and deforestation have not in fact depleted oxygen levels in the atmosphere. Why is rainforest deforestation actually our problem? Furthermore, assuming it is our problem, why does this in any way necessitate world government? Can it not be solved in another way?
Endangered species? Seriously, species die out ALL the time. Are we the cause for that? Sometimes we can be, but before us, other species caused it. Most species that have ever lived are already extinct, and it's just not any government's responsibility to protect them (if you care about a species, protect it yourself, but it's not the government's problem). It's called natural selection. Species that are strong and well-adapted to their environment multiply. If ecosystems change due to human influence, the plants and animals will not just all die out. Rather, populations will adapt to their new circumstances and become more hardy and resistant. In a lot of ways, humans are doing other species a favor by contributing to their further evolution and not letting them get too complacent. ;)
Global warming? Let's assume for now that it's true - I honestly have no idea. Just a couple decades ago, the head honcho environmentalists were completely convinced of "global cooling." Now it's global warming. I imagine it's possible that humans are affecting the environment via excessive CO2 production from industry...but look at it this way: We're probably not going to have a definitive answer until we're pretty much out of fossil fuels anyway, at which time the problem will become moot. If we REALLY need to cap CO2 levels and/or other emissions, which I think is probably a poor idea, it can easily be handled by treaties between sovereign nations. If it's truly the grave existential threat it's made out to be, treaty-countries can agree only to trade with each other as an incentive for others to join in. Either way - no one world government necessary.
Plastic in the ocean: Yeah, it's frickin' gross, I agree...and it'd be nice if we could find someone in particular to answer for it. It's already illegal to dump plastics into the ocean, though - and although this is hard to enforce, world government wouldn't make it any easier - unless of course you're advocating a camera watching every man, woman, and child. What do you suggest world government can do to clean it up or prevent its further growth that nation-states cannot do now? I don't know if it's possible to clean it up or not - if not, the only thing we can do is try to restrict its growth. However, this can only be done by becoming more conscientious as human beings, and that's a social and cultural change that government cannot accomplish. If it IS possible to clean up....then if it starts to kill out marine life to a degree that drastically affects humans, I have a feeling that nearby nations with large fishing industries will start doing something about it all by themselves, because it's hurting their livelihood! Once it actually becomes a problem that threatens people, the people most threatened will solve it. Furthermore, there will always be concerned people donating to environmental charities, and private charities have a history of doing a much better job than government anyway. If it truly becomes a HUGE problem, it can easily be handled by cooperation between affected countries.


Once again, you plain and simply do not need world government for world community. It's just not necessary, but those that would benefit from their own idea of one world government would certainly like to convince you otherwise. Similarly, you just do not need world government for voluntary global cooperation in mutually beneficial endeavors. If sovereign nation-states want, they can demolish trade and travel barriers, and this can and will happen if America gets back on track as a free nation. After the United States was created, other nations around the world started trying to follow in its example, slowly and gradually...but because we were derailed, we could no longer lead by positive example.

Anyway, I find it exceedingly naive that world government proponents see the police state argument as only "one side" of the argument. Is the mere possibility of a worldwide inescapable police state not enough to end further debate? I mean, seriously...you can say "the Constitution would be a good starting point," but look at where the United States started, and look where it's headed now! How can you guarantee this wouldn't happen again? You can put safeguards in place (such as making the Constitution enforceable on government officials under pain of death ;)), but there are never any guarantees. That's why it's such a good idea for the world to have many sovereign nations - national boundaries are the strongest check possible against absolute consolidation of power (and now that all other checks and balances have been eroded, they are finally being attacked). The slow downward spiral in the United States has everything to do with greater centralization of power. It might be possible to stop that from happening again if we started anew with the same Constitution (except amended to be enforceable), but as I mentioned, there are never any guarantees. Also, such a better outcome would be much less likely with world government...and "if" it did end up in tyranny (and it would, even if it started as a true "people's movement"), it would be utterly inescapable for a long time. World government proponents are offering the mouth-watering possibility of utopia, yet they're ignoring the astronomically greater probability of tyranny. As much as I hate today's world, I'd much rather freeze-frame the world of today than gamble the entire fate of humanity on the fidelity of a single government.* (Thankfully, there's a better option than either.)

Throughout world history, tyranny has been the rule, and freedom has been the exception. When there is no other sovereign nation to run to, and when terrestrial government is as far from the people as it can possibly be, do you think it will be easier or harder to keep it accountable to the people? When laws are one-size-fits-all, do you think the reduced jurisdictional competition will be beneficial or detrimental? When laws are one-size-fits-all, do you think the majority of people will like the uniform laws they have no choice but to follow, or do you think they will wish they had more local control?

*Come to think of it...I'm starting to see the primary difference between advocates of national sovereignty vs. world government: Advocates of world government are willing to gamble the fate of the entire world based on the hope that everything would turn out okay, provided there are some safeguards. On the other hand, advocates of national sovereignty are less trusting and more wary of the fallibility of safeguards (and the greater tendency for them to fail under more centralized frameworks). Since there are no guarantees, the risk of a horrendous and nigh-inescapable Orwellian state is a prohibitive danger to advocates of national sovereignty. Plus, even disregarding practical concerns, many advocates of national sovereignty (such as myself) also believe in it on principle.

[driller80545]

The laws of nature are not concerned with one world government or national sovereignty. But man's ability or inability to exist harmoniously within nature's balance will decide whether or not nature will allow mankind to continue to exist at all.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

One world government is bad. The goal should be one world, no government

[[HAF]Foxtrot]

I read the first post and I'm putting in my two cents. Someone like Ron Paul is rare. This country was founded with values like Ron Paul. Who is to say that a One World Government would work perfectly as stated in the beginning.

There are to many greedy selfish people in the world that are power hungry. These people would find a way to power and that would be the turning point in which it goes from vast democracy to slavery of the Human race.

History has shown us time and time again, these kinds of people, no matter whats put in place to prevent them, find a way in and it just goes down hill from that moment on.

[demolama]

I don't know why people obsess over consolidation. Consolidation constantly shows that liberty takes a backseat for conformity and unity. Look at all the things the people of the United States disagree on. Once the union of individual states were consolidated into one nation the people of California had to conform to the standards set forth from the Federal Government 3000 miles away.

The notion that a group of politicians 3000 miles away knows whats best for the local towns of California is not only ridiculous its an impracticality. Standards that work in NY might not work in LA or SF; yet, blanket legislation from Washington will force conformity.

Now take the US on a grand scale. A government in Geneva dictating to the United States to conform to China standards of living. Who determines the standards and why should something that might work well for China work well for the United States? People in all corners of the world disagree on things a lot. Do you really want someone else telling you that you can't protect yourself with a gun? One World government will do that... they will take away your guns and use their authority to promote unity and conformity with their own guns.

Consolidation is never the answer. Liberty always dies with its formation.

[demolama]

Furthermore, the idea that global environmental problems can only be solved by a supranational one world government is a complete myth born from a complacent lack of imagination. Just a few poorly illustrated examples:

want a better example? The federal parks are the worst run and worst kept parks in the country. States do a better job at protecting the environment and running the parks. The local people see the day to day activities. Bureaucrats 3000 miles away just see money and what ways can they cut the budget without getting an environmentalist or local people angry

[jon_perez]

So in the end i think people need to stay vigilant and stay rich in order to keep the govt in its place. This is why economic freedom is so important for political freedom. If people loose their economic power, they will probably soon loose their political freedom as well. (A little tax money or bribe money goes a long way to keep the govt at bay.)Sure. Except that in a laissez faire playing ground, not all the people get rich at the same time or end up having the same level of wealth. And the people who end up richer WILL TEND TO ESTABLISH THE RULES and evolve to gain some form of punitive authority.

The idea behind socialism/communism is exactly to prevent this sort of situation from coming about, that people can agree on certain collective ideals that go beyond wealth.

The idea behind government of/by/for the people is also to prevent those with the most money from establishing rules that work only for themselves.

None of this is intended to say that Ron Paul's ideas are invalid. Just that if you take them to their logical limit, that you will come full circle.

[Leroy_Jenkems]

I have only one thing to state to Hiki, the OP:

Fuck aliens.

[NH4RonPaul]

Just made this thing up last night inspired by the game Mass Effect. What do you think about it?

I think this is exactly the purpose of this bull**** you are hearing on TV, seeing in the news and being exposed to in the educational system.

It's part of the massive propaganda and it worked on YOU. :mad:

Here is something you ought to consider. Only RON PAUL would have had the guts to stop it. Somehow I think that future generations are going to have to rise up and oppose this themselves if they don't want to be absorbed.

If you think this is good, you can KISS FREEDOM GOODBYE.

---
There are significant issues mentioned in Robert A. Pastor's "North America: A Partial Eclipse and a Future Community" (highlights added):

1) Pastor wrote: "NAFTA became the first draft of a constitution of North America, but it was defined in very narrow and business-like terms." (p.3)

2) Pastor discusses Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. citizens' opinions about formation of a "North American Union," "one state or a union," "a union in a new North American entity," "continental political union," and "reconfiguration of the North American political system" (see p.13)

3) Written in the endnotes: "In the 1970s, the Carter Administration proposed a number of possible agreements to minimise trade disputes, and Ronald Reagan, during his campaign and his Administration, also proposed a 'North American Accord,' a free trade agreement." (p.15) (Take note that Pastor served with the National Security Council (Carter Presidency) as the Latin American and Caribbean Affairs Director.)

And there is more -- read excerpts below or download pdf:

http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/workingpaper5_rp_hussain.pdf

Page 5:

An evaluation of NAFTA should not be confined just to trade and investment criteria or the side agreements. One needs to view NAFTA as the center of a unique social and economic integration process and of an effort to redefine the relationship between advanced countries and a developing one.

The flow of people, cultures, food, music, and sports across the two borders have accelerated even more than the trade in goods and services. . . .

Page 6-7:

Some proponents of NAFTA argued erroneously that free trade would reduce the flow of migrants, but the opposite happened because the development strategy implicit in NAFTA encourages foreign investment near the border, which serves as a magnet to attract labor from the center and the south of Mexico. Surveys suggest that roughly 90 percent of all Mexican illegal migrants leave jobs to come to the United States; they seek higher wages. Illegal migration is unlikely to shrink until the income gap begins to narrow.

Page 7:

It is time to stop debating NAFTA and start addressing North America's new agenda. We need to begin by articulating a vision of a North American Community . . .

Page 8:

North America is different from Europe, but it should learn from the experience, and establish a North American Investment Fund that would invest $20 billion per year for a decade to build roads to connect the south and center of Mexico to the United States. Mexico should provide half of the funds; the U.S., 40%, and Canada, 10%. The funds should be administered by the World Bank.

[. . .]

To compete against China and India, the three leaders need to help North American businesses to become more efficient by negotiating a Customs Union in five years. This would eliminate costly "rules of origin" procedures and needless inspections, . . .

Page 9:

The three leaders [of Mexico, Canada, U.S.] should hold annual summits, but to make sure the meetings are not just photo-ops, a North American Advisory Council should be established. Unlike Europe's Commision, the Council should be lean, independent, and advisory. It should prepare the agenda with proposals on North American transportation, the environment, education, and other issues. The Europeans provide about $3 million each year to support 10 EU [European Union] Centers in the U.S., but the three governments of North America provide no support for North American studies anywhere.

Page 12:

In the 1990 world values survey, about one-fourth of the Canadian and Mexican population were in favor of erasing the border with the United States, and nearly half (46 per cent) of Americans favored eliminating the border with Canada. 27 In 2000, a survey of American attitudes found Americans still evenly divided about doing away with the Mexican border. The Mexicans agree with the Americans on this issue. Fifty-five per cent of Mexicans oppose doing away with the border with the United States, and only 36 per cent favor it. 28

Page 13:

When Mexicans, Canadians, or Americans are asked whether they are prepared to give up their cultural identity in order to form one state or a union, all overwhelmingly reject the proposition. But when the question is asked whether they would be prepared to form a single country if that would mean a higher quality of life for their country, a majority of the people in all three countries answer affirmatively. 29

Forty-three per cent of Canadian think it 'would be a good thing to be part of a North American Union in ten years,' and only 27 percent think it would be a bad thing. Moreover, nearly one-half (49 per cent) think North American Union is likely to happen. As with the Mexicans, Canadians are much more willing to contemplate a union in a new North American entity than to be part of the United States. A majority (57 percent) would oppose joining the United States while only 23 percent would consider it.30 When asked whether Canada and the United States should have a common currency, the Canadian public split 45 per cent in favor, and 44 per cent opposed. 31 This suggests that Canadians are much further along than their leaders in thinking about some of the practical, but sensitive, questions of integration.

For the American public, a relatively higher percentage favor continental political union than is true of Mexicans and Canadians. Support for union soars when the contingency options e.g., if that would mean a better quality of life, etc. are included. In 1990, 81 per cent of Americans said they would favor forming one country with Canada if it meant a better quality of life, and 79 per cent agreed if it meant the environment would get better. 32 These numbers declined a bit in 2000 but remained relatively high 63 per cent approved of forming one country if it would improve the quality of life, and 48 per cent if the environment would get better but they remained high. 33 When one disaggregates the data, younger and wealthier Americans are readier to contemplate political union than older or poorer citizens. 34


What should one conclude from this data? First, the majority of the people in all three countries are prepared to contemplate a reconfiguration of the North American political system provided they can be convinced that it will produce a higher quality of life and handle problems like the environment more effectively than if these are done by each country. Secondly, the principal motive is economic, the approach is pragmatic, and the main drawback is the fear of its effect on culture and identity. To the extent that people perceive their cultures at risk, they resist integration. Third, younger people are more connected and ready to experiment with new political forms and so the prospects for future integration are likely to get better. Fourth, as Karl Deutsch predicted a half century ago, more contact and trust among peoples can facilitate integration, which, in turn, can increase trust. In disaggregating the data on a regional basis, one finds greater support for integration among those regions with the most contact - i.e., the southwest of the United States and the northern part of Mexico and on the Canadian border. 35 The underlying basis of a community exists. Provided people are not threatened by a loss of culture or identity, and incentives for productivity and improvements for standard of living are evident, the three peoples of North America are ready to listen to ideas, including political union, on how to accomplish those ends.

A North American Community is an idea so compelling that it will, sooner or later, emerge as a frontier issue. . . .



Also:
The Future of North America: Replacing a Bad Neighbor Policy

by Robert. A Pastor

(this is only a partial article since you have to be a member)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87406/robert-a-pastor/the-future-of-north-america.html
---

Once again, using "racial identity" as the issue most likely to cause people to balk at this (phony of course) they are trying to sell this poison to the Generally Dumb Public by making them feel guilty. (I have been told that anyone who doesn't want open borders is a racist...)

I wonder if they asked the GDP if they would mind losing their CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS in this process, and the fact that Congress would no longer be in charge (not that it has been at this point for a very long time) and some NGO elitists would be making all the decisions?

WAKE UP AMERICA. :eek:

[tribute_13]

A OWG is an absolutely horrible idea. There is no government that can support 6 billion people. It's a completely ludicrous idea. If our government can't support 300 million people, then how can any government support more than that? Won't happen in a positive way. If it happens then it will happen like all past empires happened, ruled by fear, oppression, and poverty and an elite few at the top.

[NH4RonPaul]

I recently realized that it should not surprise us that Ron Paul, being from Texas, would have a strong streak of independence-from-federal-government in his thinking. He certainly makes his case very well most of the time, but it does not mean alternative points of view are necessarily wrong.

Anyone who thinks 'ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT' is a good idea should NOT be supporting Ron Paul or even on these forums spreading this poison.

Have you no shame?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

A OWG is an absolutely horrible idea. There is no government that can support 6 billion people. It's a completely ludicrous idea. If our government can't support 300 million people, then how can any government support more than that? Won't happen in a positive way. If it happens then it will happen like all past empires happened, ruled by fear, oppression, and poverty and an elite few at the top.

um, but what about the Galactic Republic, in Star Wars?

[NH4RonPaul]

When people talk about global community, why do they always assume governments?I want us to engage in peace, commerce, and trade with the global community, however I have no interest in paying taxes to someone who sits in Geneva.


APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (now here is a smart person!)




The best time is to destroy it is now.

I agree... and apparently others are finding out how dangerous it is.. This just in from our fearless leader:

A Major Victory for Texas
"I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway. According to the Texas Transportation Commissioner, consideration is no longer being given to new corridors and other proposals for a new highway footprint for this project. A major looming threat to property rights and national sovereignty is removed with this encouraging announcement."

Click here for the full article: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst062308.htm

[NH4RonPaul]

Obviously its not so easy to arrange, and its more a dream than reality, but its a pretty cool concept. Not being a citizen of any country is really as free as anyone can get.

Edit: There is even a name for such free world citizens and tax evaders.. "perpetual traveler" aka "permanent tourist" aka "prior taxpayer".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler

Cheers

I prefer to form and live in a country with a government that is based on freedom, not on the 'god' being the centralized state as OWG would be. Sorry...but it is shocking that any of you would even suggest something like this.

[NH4RonPaul]

The end of the United States, the Constitution, and the bill of Rights.

A world government, complete with a world army, a world court, global taxation, and powers to control education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, and the environment.

Welcome to your "Brave New World."

You left out one other thing: power to exterminate/euthanize

AutoDas and others promoting world government are either stupid or trolls.

[NH4RonPaul]

One more thing:

Consolidation, Centralization and Control...

Consolidating governments makes for centralization, and centralization makes for better control, OF YOU. You would have less control and say in what goes on, even less than you do now.

This is why it is so important to keep our State's Rights and this is what we here in NH understand and why we are trying so hard to keep NH independent of the Feds as much as possible.

The Feds have taken control over education and the Feds have been taken over by the UN and thus, the UN propaganda for 'world gov't' is rampant in the schools, thus poisoning the minds of the young people you are reading here.

[NH4RonPaul]

YWas John Lennon an evil UN NWO conspirator when he wrote about this in his song "Imagine"?


He was just stupid and believed in the brainwashing.

[NH4RonPaul]

Even a true communistic system would be wonderful, but it is utopistic.

I think I just lost my breakfast.


At first I thought you were just being a MAJOR troll but now I think you ARE nuts.

The main reason we support Dr. Paul is because he supports our freedom and sovereignty and is opposed to OWG.

Why are YOU here?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

what about the Federation in Star Trek?

[NH4RonPaul]

I used to want a one world government, thinking there would be no war lets just be humans not americans,mexicans,germans,ect......


Um but you see, we have the RIGHT to be Americans, Mexicans, Germans.

You suggest that someone should force us to give up whatever way we have organized ourselves to some central authority???

NUTS.

No war? How about the people vs the government? There is going to be a HUGE civil war if these one worlder nuts decide to speed up this utopian dream any faster than they are. Read the lastest sewage coming from the CFR. I just wrote to a friend who speaks to the CFR to ask him why he even gives these people any credibility in light of the trash they write.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

We have a right to be individuals. That's about it.

[NH4RonPaul]

I believe if we came into contact with Aliens, people would unite pretty quick. Odds are they would have their own tribes/packs/nests/hives as well.

And so do the the OWG proponents!

Which brings up the subject of all the different things they have used over the years to SCARE people into accepting a totalitarian WORLD GOVERNMENT.

They have tried to scare us with invasions by aliens, AIDS, poverty, threat of pandemics, global warming, war, 'terrorism', lack of oil (not) etc etc etc, all used to make you think that consolidation is the answer.

I'm really laughing now.

[NH4RonPaul]

I do support one world government, theinory.

-Basing society upon the soil that we were born makes as much sense as the starsign that we were born under. We should see each other as human beings.

This hasn't got a lot to do with it...



-A global society based upon multiple individual nation states each pursuing their own aims and goals at the loss of other nation states is not a peaceful, nor humane, one.

Oh so you feel we need to have ONE way of doing everything and have ONE authority to impose it upon us? You are promoting totalitarianism here. Who says YOUR way is the best?


Having one global supernational power to hold all individual nations in check would be ideal;

GASP! This is exactly what we are fighting against. May I ask what you are doing on this forum if not to troll?


so long as the balance between "nation" and "Super-Nation" power can be kept. Hypothetically, if every nation agreed to be part of a "United States of Earth", then there wouldn't be conflicts between nation states (assuming there isn't some Civil War style calamity). Minnesota doesn't declare war on Ohio now, they don't have militaries. France wouldn't declare war on Cyprus in this new order.

So you have swallowed all this UN nonsense? The UN is run by the same people who drove Hitler's ideas. God forbid you should be physically inferior -- you'd be voted off the planet and exterminated.




-One can't deny the huge problems this world faces; Overpopulation is the big one.

That's curious. Population is declining - everywhere. This is more propaganda you've swallowed.


Every extra human being on this planet leads to extra resources being consumed, more pollution (ideally, we wouldn't have pollution because it's an infringement upon property rights. This can't be enforced by individual nation states though. Under Ron Paul's philosophy of America, if China starts pumping crap into the atmosphere, there's nothing America can / should do about it.) I'm not talking about Global Warming here; look at the rainforests, look at the polluted rivers and seas, look at the giant swirl of plastic in the ocean. This isn't good, and individual nation states can't deal with this. A global framework does need to be in place. The planet can't deal with more people than it has allready.

Patently false...everything above.




-We have moved from individual tribes to towns, to cities, to counties(/states), to nations. It's a natural next step to move to a single global community. I do not suggest we strangle out culture; no matter what "culture" you "are", you can agree that this planet needs to be saved.

(btw, I do not really agree with Global Warming so much. I am more ponderous than skeptical. :))

Totalitarianism is NEVER 'natural'.

You have taken the Orwellian pill. You have been assimilated. You would be of no use to the cause of freedom.

See folks, it's people like this that prove we need to buy more guns. ;)

[NH4RonPaul]

However, they are not cohesive with trying to work with a supernational one world Government.

As was intended. The Constitution is about freedom not totalitarianism as you are promoting. The Constitution was to protect us FROM what you are proposing, a very dangerous 'final solution'.

Shame on YOU.

[NH4RonPaul]

We have a right to be individuals. That's about it.

Really? So I don't have the right to organize myself under the Constitution as my law and follow that law?

So what you are saying is, Americans don't have a right to have a country?

I think Ron Paul would have serious issues with that.

And once again I ask, why are you trolls on here arguing with people who are definitely AGAINST world government?

[NH4RonPaul]

Another layer of Government isn't necessarily a bad thing so long in (your) opinion if it's small. A caramel wafer bar has many many layers more than a cake, yet you cannot deny the cake is larger and more fattening and wasteful.

Those "Orwellian nightmare" components may be to a degree means to an end. If you need to use subversion, cloaks and daggers to bring about a "Global Society", then so be it; it is far more efficient than trying to persuade people to give up their national sovereignty freely and to see each other as humans rather than Americans, Britons, French, Germans, Libyans, Russians, etc.

I suppose when humanity is in balance with nature you can encourage freedom again. The problem with freedom to breed is that any species, with complete freedom and a complete monopoly to breed, will suffocate out the other species. Imagine for a moment Lions can breed a hundred times more and without the limitations of predators. The world would be overrun and the food cycle would be buggered. The same is happening with humanity. We can breed freely and act as a super predator, not held in check by old age, disease (currently anyway), virus, etc.

Roll with this for a moment. Having read Paul's Manifesto and other works, imagine the following; The Sugar Companies come along and say "Hey, we are under attack from foreign companies! Mr Government, please subsidise us." "<Sigh> Sure, ok." Under Paul's philosophy, that's wrong because it's the Sugar Companies looting from the tax payer. He uses this very example.

Bare with the relation here; I buy a plot of land to build a Tennis Court. On the land used to live a load of badgers, squirrels, foxes, five old oaks and a rather perplexed beaver. I build my Tennis Court and go about my merry way. This creates an imbalance; the reprecussions are clear, the lack of the foxes as predators leads to a boom in rat populations, which leads to further problems of rat infestation, etc, so on. I have, in a regard, "looted" from "the animals" and environment.

I don't wish to go on a greeny rant here, I am by no means a green, but it's obvious really that if Humans are given freedom - complete and utter freedom to do whatever they wish so long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of other human beings, the environment will suffer. The environment is NOT human being, and does need to be protected.

The 'NWO' agenda is one of the only ways to try and ensure the protection of the environment from the actions of man.

What do you think?

-CuriousOnlooker :)

I think you are certifiably insane and have fallen for/ are using the 'environment' to control people politically.

Go back under the rock from where you came.

[NH4RonPaul]

I post on these forums seeking honest discussion and honest debate in a friendly environment and atmosphere. There was no need to resort to petty name calling; it shines badly on you and the Ron Paul movement as a whole. His whole Philosophy is built around the freedom of expresion of the individual; no where have I tried to stifle yours, or anyone elses, and by resorting to just insulting others it makes others think less of you. Not for your opinions, but how you present them and your lack of respect for others.

The only thing I see as nasty here is your idea we need totalitarianism.




Back to the issues, though. The poster who refered to man handling himself is dead on. I was at a nature talk when I was younger, where a man who spent his whole life training and breeding birds said how terrible it was the local forest authority would cut down old trees and place new ones, because the dead trees themselves provide a habitat and nutrients for so much of the rest of the local eco-system.

Blah blah. People are more important, but not to you human secularists who think humans are 'capital' to be manipulated and used for your profit and gain.



I don't think many people can agree that the current proceedings are sustainable. It is the number of human beings and the rapid rapid rate we are breeding that is part of the core of the world's problems.

I think it's people like you who are at the core of the world's problems...and I think you belong on the UN or CFR forum, not here.

I guess to you it's ok to kill people for the benefit of the 'planet' and nature but not because men are naturally competitive and might engage in wars.

It's going to happen whether you try to initiate force to stop it or not.

GET some nuts and get over it already. :p

[NH4RonPaul]

If we have one world government, then criminals will not be able to flee to other countries to escape punishment, because there would be a single world police. :D

So it's all about control for you, I see.


I

Kind of like how before the FBI was created, criminals in the US could easily cross state lines to escape prosecution.

Not exactly.


I

We all understandably fear the abuses that go along with too much power concentrated in one body. One does not even have to have world government to see how such excesses occur. The sordid actions engaged in by bad, corrupt elements within the CIA, FBI and other national agencies are enough of a lesson. But one must also acknowledge that these organizations have their fair share of positive accomplishments. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, similarly, the price of good government is _also_ eternal vigilance. Small government is no guarantee of good government (it may arguably more manageable, but at the same time, it cannot take advantage of any "economies of scale"), nor does big government, per se, mean bad government (although the concentration of power that big government, on paper, implies, does tend to have a bias towards wastefulness and tyranny).

World Police is just a horrid thing to even SAY on this forum.


I
The problem with having too closed and narrow (not to mention paranoiac) mindsets among those who oppose the idea of extranational governments, is that they may become marginalized in the discussion because their obvious lack of rationality makes it too easy for people to dismiss them as kooks.

Yes we are thinking you are a kook because of your narrow-minded ONE way of thinking that ONE world government might be good.


I

Observe how Ron Paul makes his case, he can always make a well reasoned point that takes a lot of serious thinking to contradict. Paul may have controversial ideas but he himself has never come across as a kook for me. Unfortunately you can't say the same about many of his followers. The difference is in the amount of foam around the mouth.

Ron Paul no matter how reasoned you think he is, would listen to you then turn to me and shake his head. He would NEVER agree to a one world government to 'keep the peace, save the enviromnent, protect us from aliens' or any of the other nonsense you anti-freedom KOOKS are suggesting!

Pease, go on the Dennis Kucinich forums and let us be. Thanks.

[NH4RonPaul]

[Quick note: I'm responding to your overall arguments, not just the ones in the quote above.]

You're operating from the false premise that we're breeding at an astronomical rate and that this expansion needs to be stopped..... et al

Thank you Mini-Me for being one of the few people making SENSE here.

Unfortunately there is no law against trolls which this thread has plenty of.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Really? So I don't have the right to organize myself under the Constitution as my law and follow that law?

So what you are saying is, Americans don't have a right to have a country?

I think Ron Paul would have serious issues with that.

And once again I ask, why are you trolls on here arguing with people who are definitely AGAINST world government?

I've been here longer than you, paleocon.

[NH4RonPaul]

Sure. Except that in a laissez faire playing ground, not all the people get rich at the same time or end up having the same level of wealth.

SO WHAT!

Your Marxism is showing!


And the people who end up richer WILL TEND TO ESTABLISH THE RULES and evolve to gain some form of punitive authority.

Not true. The truly 'rich' are very small percentage. Someone who has worked all his or her life with a few million in the bank is NOT RICH and has no more control than a person living from day to day on $50K per year.




The idea behind socialism/communism is exactly to prevent this sort of situation from coming about, that people can agree on certain collective ideals that go beyond wealth.

Like wealth is a bad thing. Allocate not accumulate? Baloney. I say, accumulate so you won't be a burden to society.




The idea behind government of/by/for the people is also to prevent those with the most money from establishing rules that work only for themselves.

None of this is intended to say that Ron Paul's ideas are invalid. Just that if you take them to their logical limit, that you will come full circle.

If we take your ideas to the logical limit, there would be a limit on how much money one could make and heavy taxation to redistribute the wealth.

[NH4RonPaul]

I've been here longer than you, paleocon.

I'd like to remind you that if not for me in January of 2007, there would have been NO Ron Paul candidacy.

I'm not sure how people can call themselves 'libertarians' and yet, advocate for world government.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'd like to remind you that if not for me in January of 2007, there would have been NO Ron Paul candidacy.

I'm not sure how people can call themselves 'libertarians' and yet, advocate for world government.

who the hell are you?

[Lord Xar]

I tend to agree with NH4RonPaul to a large degree.

Having been here, the forums, for a bit and doing some grassroots endeavors - I have watched the posting habits of many here. Seen, or lack thereof, their participation in "real ron paul endeavors'.

A true libertarian would fully understand that ANY world government is a HUGE NO NO. Yet, here we are - having Ron Paul republicans/libertarians agreeing with a one world government. That right there should tell us EVERYTHING we need to know about their motivations.

It seems to me that some socialists/communists have locked onto libertariansim to further promote their agenda by proclaiming this "individualism" as the end all/be all of an argument to wave away all other considerations.

Anyways. FUK one world government.

Oh, and Jon Perez --> the welfare line and "give me give me" complain department will be found in the Obama forums, please visit them. We advocate personal responsibility and the rule of law here. We do not abide by victimhood that seems to be prevalent in your line of thought. I guess you enjoy to be a victim, I don't. I was raised differently.

Jon_perez I suggest you put away the kool-aid and stop watching star-trek. You are embarrassing yourself with your collective mindset. Contrary to what you think, it is ur line of thinking that is Kooky. Also, "kooky" is a media generated keyword used by shills to paint a picture. Get lost, beat it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What about the Galactic Republic? It consisted of like...thousands of star systems

[Leroy_Jenkems]

I think I just lost my breakfast.


At first I thought you were just being a MAJOR troll but now I think you ARE nuts.

The main reason we support Dr. Paul is because he supports our freedom and sovereignty and is opposed to OWG.

Why are YOU here?

To take advantage of the timing (with the utmost respect) of George Carlin's passing, as he said, there are three kinds of people:

1. Stupid
2. Full of sh*t
3. F*ckin nuts

Dan Quayle is all three...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oboyox3L_MI

[Hiki]

I find it funny on these forums, that a place like this which advocates freedom of speech and thinking, calls people who bring up new and different ideas "MAJOR TROLLS!" and "NUTCASES!"
I know Ron Paul is against the topic of this thread, but that doesn't deny me the right to think and write about it. For the starters, I was against all this OWG stuff having seen documentaries like Zeitgeist and Endgame. But yes, these docs also use fear as an tactic to make you against the concept of OWG, offering the nightmare-version of it.

Now rather than having this issue discussed in a way where the elites drive it to further their agenda and a bunch of conspiracy theorists claiming that it's some illuminati-conspiracy plan to enslave the entire world. How about open public discussion?

And NH4RonPaul, I have not said in any point that the OWG has to be a totalitarian big brother-system. It can become one, but it doesn't have to. You just have the presumption that this is the only form of it.

And if this is utopistic, then so be it, "But I can dream can I?" -George Carlin

[Leroy_Jenkems]

And if this is utopistic, then so be it, "But I can dream can I?" -George Carlin

Yes, you can...just tell your space alien buddies to get bent.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What about the Galactic Republic? It lasted for a long time.

[Paulitician]

How come when it’s us, it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken, it’s an omelette?
:D

Well one difference is we're not eating the fetus :p

/offtopic

[Trance Dance Master]

Countries and nations don't do nothing but separate us, us humans.
Nations are just lines on a map. What separates humans from other humans as well as animals is genetics. Sound mind in a sound body in a sound society in a sound environment must be the goal of any worldwide government, and genetics determines those eligible for citizenship, not nationality.

[Hiki]

:D

Well one difference is we're not eating the fetus :p

/offtopic

Expect Tom Cruise :D

[Mini-Me]

Thank you Mini-Me for being one of the few people making SENSE here.

Unfortunately there is no law against trolls which this thread has plenty of.

Thanks :) Unfortunately, the OWG proponents here seemed to ignore that post rather than go through the pains of rebutting it (or conceding the argument). :(


What about the Galactic Republic? It lasted for a long time.

It lasted for a long time because it's easy for a fictional story to say that "this lasted for a million bajillion years." However, the inevitable happened, and much later in the timeline than it would in real life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpatine

I mentioned earlier in the thread:


Let's use your Star Wars example, by the way - you briefly made mention of the Galactic Republic. However, did you forget that, because there was only one Galactic Republic that needed to be taken over, Senator Palpatine was able to consolidate power and create the Galactic Empire? This would not have been nearly so easy to achieve if he had to take control of the 1001 Galactic Republics. ;)