NWO Opponents: What's Wrong with a One-World Government?

[He Who Pawns]

I have never understood this fixation with "NWO" conspiracies or the "threat" of an impending world government. Isn't that obviously what's coming? Isn't that the obvious next step for humanity? History is nothing but a consolidation of humans coming closer and closer together. English is already spreading around the globe as the world language.

As Carl Sagan once said, from space, there are no borders visible on earth. Borders are phony props that lead to nationalistic wars.

Certainly a world government would end most wars. Sure there might be a few countries who don't join, and that's up to them.

For example, what would be wrong with a world government based on a clone of the US Constitution that starts from scratch and adopts the gold standard? :D

[pcosmar]

:confused::confused:
Are you serious?

[He Who Pawns]

Yes.

[Mahkato]

If your school district does something you don't like, you get 12 angry parents and $100 together and get it changed.

If your town does something you don't like, you get 120 angry voters and $1000 together and get it changed.

If your state does something you don't like, you get 12,000 angry voters and $100,000 together and get it changed.

If your country does something you don't like, you get 12,000,000 angry voters and $100,000,000 together and get it changed.

If the world government does something you don't like, you aren't going to get it changed.

[Dripping Rain]

World government is the anti freedom. World government means youll have to force many nations to follow one doctrine. Americans want to follow the constitution of the founding fathers, Muslims want to follow sharia law, Europeans want to follow their own monarch and consitutional monarch laws, Russians want to follow their own constitution. you will have to force people to join your NWO by killing hundreds of millions if not billions. the NWO pushers want to ban all religion and have a Utopia of a one world religion to control the masses which wont fly with any Christians and im sure the Muslims too. A liberal facist utopia if I may use that term. A one world order would also be an empire. An Empire that stretched itself too thin(like America today). The Romans, Greeks, Ottomans etc tried it and it didnt work and no it never will. If a new world order works why did all the previous empires fail?
If youre serious about helping bring about a new world order then start by reading Proffessor Carroll Quigley's Tragedy & Hope & David Rockefellers memoirs. thats a good place to start. if you like the idea of their utopia then please tell us. Tell me now. Ive opted out and swore to fight it

edit: links to books i mentioned by NWO promoters
DRS memoirshttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PX9TQZ5NL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-David-Rockefeller/dp/0812969731/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237437410&sr=8-1

Tragedy & Hope by Carroll Quigley(the most honest NWO promoter)
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51458BPRMWL._SL500_AA240_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237437506&sr=1-1

[axiomata]

With the problems we face, right in front of our face, on a platter for all to see, we should prioritize. Why should our primary concern be what evil machinations globalists are planning when we have evil being done by our own government, right under our noses?

[pcosmar]

For example, what would be wrong with a world government based on a clone of the US Constitution that starts from scratch and adopts the gold standard? :D

Oh, I missed the part about wild fantasy utopia. :rolleyes:
The people could not even be bothered to defend the Constitution here. How do you get the whole world to do it?
Besides the infrastructure for a Socialist system is already in place. The world Government is coming, but it will be nothing like our Constitution. :(

[He Who Pawns]

If your school district does something you don't like, you get 12 angry parents and $100 together and get it changed.

If your town does something you don't like, you get 120 angry voters and $1000 together and get it changed.

If your state does something you don't like, you get 12,000 angry voters and $100,000 together and get it changed.

If your country does something you don't like, you get 12,000,000 angry voters and $100,000,000 together and get it changed.

If the world government does something you don't like, you aren't going to get it changed.

Well this proposed world government would have a 10th Amendment.

As far Muslims not wanting to join the world government, that's fine with me. They have some issues they need to get over first anyway.

Any nation that does not want to join does not have to.

[trey4sports]

i will concede that world government is the next step for humanity however at this point, our government is not respecting our rights nor our libertys therefore until they do, global government presents an exacerbated encroach on liberty

[donnay]

With the problems we face, right in front of our face, on a platter for all to see, we should prioritize. Why should our primary concern be what evil machinations globalists are planning when we have evil being done by our own government, right under our noses?

Who do you think are pulling the stings of our illegitimate government? Do you honestly think Obama is making policy?

If you research it you'll find it is very small group of elitists who hate us and everything our Constitution stands for.

We are the last bastion of liberty...what little we have left.

[Invalid]

The only ting that restrains the government AT ALL is the occasional currency meltdown and competition.

Governments need to fail. Actually government gets larger and larger until it does fail no matter what. No corporation lasts forever. Eventually they get overrun by labor unions, poor management, poor planning, get to big and top heavy. The same can be said of governments. Governments extract more and more and more until eventually they destroy themselves. It's their nature. Just like in forests we need an occasional forest fire so we can start over iwht fertile ground.

The only recourse the people have is that they can flee to other governments, and also use the threat of fleeing as leverage over their own government. Government hates competition!

Just think Einstein had to flee Germany when it got too screwed up.

Kind of like that. Ideally people need to be able to choose their government and find the least oppressive one.

[FreeMama]

It's kinda like if we had NO states. . . just one big state! You wouldn't be able to just move to NH because you like it's taxes more, or whatever.

The more you break something into pieces, the more VARIETY you have. The more CHOICES you have.

Who wants to go to the supermarket and see nothing but ONE type of fruit and ONE type of veggie?

We should have ALL types of governments with everyone picking which one they want to live under if you ask me ;)

The sucky thing is there is nowhere to live for Libertarians right now. . . Libertarians don't mind if there is a place that wants socialism, but socialists DO mind if there is a libertarian place. That is the difference between us :(

[Dripping Rain]

it's kinda like if we had no states. . . Just one big state! You wouldn't be able to just move to nh because you like it's taxes more, or whatever.

The more you break something into pieces, the more variety you have. The more choices you have.

Who wants to go to the supermarket and see nothing but one type of fruit and one type of veggie?

We should have all types of governments with everyone picking which one they want to live under if you ask me ;)

the sucky thing is there is nowhere to live for libertarians right now. . . Libertarians don't mind if there is a place that wants socialism, but socialists do mind if there is a libertarian place. That is the difference between us :(

+2012

[donnay]

In a nutshell; the NWO is nothing but total totalitarian control. Our Constitution and our liberty will cease to exist.

[Invalid]

Communists used to like to prevent their people from being able to leave and especially wouldn't let them take their money. Normally they would just starve them since they weren't a benefit to the state like when they starved 7 million ukrainians in one year to quell dissent.

Imagine a world government with no where to escape!

[specsaregood]

Well this proposed world government would have a 10th Amendment.


Maybe in fantasy world, but in reality you will just end up with an official aristocracy that you have no ability to vote out of power and that will rule you like the peasant they already see you as.

[donnay]

Communists used to like to prevent their people from being able to leave and especially wouldn't let them take their money. Normally they would just starve them since they weren't a benefit to the state like when they starved 7 million ukrainians in one year to quell dissent.

Imagine a world government with no where to escape!

A Prison Planet.

[Invalid]

A Prison Planet.


Ya I never really thought about that name. I still don't believe in 9/11 truth though!

I just want to smash the government.

[Dripping Rain]

Well this proposed world government would have a 10th Amendment.

As far Muslims not wanting to join the world government, that's fine with me. They have some issues they need to get over first anyway.

Any nation that does not want to join does not have to.

do you have anything to prove Christians will voluntarily join a NWO?
as a matter of fact what makes you think the Russians and the Chinese will go along with your NWO?

[pcosmar]

With the problems we face, right in front of our face, on a platter for all to see, we should prioritize. Why should our primary concern be what evil machinations globalists are planning when we have evil being done by our own government, right under our noses?

We won't have that concern for long, The United States will( for all intent and purpose) cease to exist within 2 years. This country is being sold off, piece by piece.
The economy is being systematically destroyed, the social structure is crumbling.
The UN will have to step in.
Watch for Blue Helmets within 2 years. :(

[UtahApocalypse]

let me make this simple with just one word:

Sovereignty

[Invalid]

Also the thing with border...in a 100% libertarian society, there is no government property so all property is private even the roads. You ouse is treated as a nation state essentially.

In illinois, they have privatized the roads and it works great. You pay a small fee or you pay like 100 dollars for a five year pass or a 10 year or whatever and it scans the card as u drive through.

The point is, you couldn't just SHOW UP UNINVITED.

Of course we'll never have a 100% libertarian society. We'll have the "country club" version of it where u pay a fee to be part of the government, and you might get so many entitlements etc for it.

Just like any other country club, people can't burst in uninvited. That doesn't mean we can't be welcoming, but I don't think anything goes is good either.

[He Who Pawns]

do you have anything to prove Christians will voluntarily join a NWO?
as a matter of fact what makes you think the Russians and the Chinese will go along with your NWO?

Well it would essentially be founded by Christians, if you assume the US, Europe and maybe Russia would be the first main countries joining, along with Australia, Canada, etc. Japan would certainly join. Many countries in Asia would sign up.

As far as the Chinese, it might take them some time, because they would resist giving up control and granting human rights, but the enticement that would get them in the end would be trading, peace and prosperity. The same reasons the US and EU were founded.

Hell, if it's a federal republic, you might be able to set up a little libertarian enclave in the rocky mountains or something. :)

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

if you still have questions about the NWO being not such a bad idea, then your research is lacking.

the people who are trying to set up a NWO have murdered LITERALLY billions of people and you are saying "yeah, maybe not so bad"

what the fuck...

[RSLudlum]

Well this proposed world government would have a 10th Amendment.

As far Muslims not wanting to join the world government, that's fine with me. They have some issues they need to get over first anyway.

Any nation that does not want to join does not have to.


Have you not even been paying attention to what's going on in the EU lately? Is that what you really want on a global scale?

Just one recent idiotic example to have an overbearing global governance: EU bans use of 'Miss' and 'Mrs' (and sportsmen and statesmen) because it claims they are sexist (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162384/EU-bans-use-Miss-Mrs-sportsmen-statesmen-claims-sexist.html)

Come on, do you really think a world democratic republic would allow liberty to flourish when you see what has happened in our plot of land in North America...err I mean our Empire?

[donnay]

We won't have that concern for long, The United States will( for all intent and purpose) cease to exist within 2 years. This country is being sold off, piece by piece.
The economy is being systematically destroyed, the social structure is crumbling.
The UN will have to step in.
Watch for Blue Helmets within 2 years. :(


We still have time to stop it. But people better wake up and start saying "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! You're fired!

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Well it would essentially be founded by Christians, if you assume the US, Europe and maybe Russia would be the first main countries joining, along with Australia, Canada, etc. Japan would certainly join. Many countries in Asia would sign up.

As far as the Chinese, it might take them some time, because they would resist giving up control and granting human rights, but the enticement that would get them in the end would be trading, peace and prosperity. The same reasons the US and EU were founded.

NWO is not a Christian institution. It is a pagan sun worshipping institution that uses Christianity as a tool.

[donnay]

Well it would essentially be founded by Christians, if you assume the US, Europe and maybe Russia would be the first main countries joining, along with Australia, Canada, etc. Japan would certainly join. Many countries in Asia would sign up.

As far as the Chinese, it might take them some time, because they would resist giving up control and granting human rights, but the enticement that would get them in the end would be trading, peace and prosperity. The same reasons the US and EU were founded.

Hell, if it's a federal republic, you might be able to set up a little libertarian enclave in the rocky mountains or something. :)


China is the NWO model for global government.

[RSLudlum]

China is the NWO model for global government.

Does the NWO operate in Hong Kong sipping on tea? :p

[Dripping Rain]

Well it would essentially be founded by Christians, if you assume the US, Europe and maybe Russia would be the first main countries joining, along with Australia, Canada, etc. Japan would certainly join. Many countries in Asia would sign up.

As far as the Chinese, it might take them some time, because they would resist giving up control and granting human rights, but the enticement that would get them in the end would be trading, peace and prosperity. The same reasons the US and EU were founded.

Hell, if it's a federal republic, you might be able to set up a little libertarian enclave in the rocky mountains or something. :)

If youve been reading some news lately Putins talking a lot like Ron Paul. Im led to believe hes been influenced by Ron Paul. The russian media is in a Ron Paul frenzy. the countries youre speaking of are run by Secular anti Christian zionists and Usurpers. No true Christian will succumb to the NWO. only the fake ones
Putin and a few Eastern Bloc countries will resist. I think its going to be WW3 all over again. its unfair to say Christians will go with the NWO just because some of the elite call themselves Christian

[He Who Pawns]

Have you not even been paying attention to what's going on in the EU lately? Is that what you really want on a global scale?

Just one recent idiotic example to have an overbearing global governance: EU bans use of 'Miss' and 'Mrs' (and sportsmen and statesmen) because it claims they are sexist (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162384/EU-bans-use-Miss-Mrs-sportsmen-statesmen-claims-sexist.html)

Come on, do you really think a world democratic republic would allow liberty to flourish when you see what has happened in our plot of land in North America...err I mean our Empire?

Again, this model I am talking about is based on a clone of the US Constitution. So there would be 1st Amendment rights to strike down any nonsense like that.

Also consider that a one-world government like I am suggesting would not require a large standing army or huge nuclear arsenal, especially as more nations join. This new world government could abolish the personal income tax and move to a simple 10- or 15% worldwide sales tax. In fact, you could write that into the Constitution, banning any income tax.

[Invalid]

Most people lived in squalor with the exception of the West and ESPECIALLY in the newly formed U.S.A.

There are a lot of countries in the world, but most of them suck. People flee to the good ones. Once the government in the case of the USA gets to big and burdensome and destroys its currency etc etc, people flee to other countries that are free.

[pcosmar]

Also consider that a one-world government like I am suggesting would not require a large standing army or huge nuclear arsenal, especially as more nations join. This new world government could .

Nice fantasy,
http://www.josephinewall.co.uk/surreal/fantasy.jpg

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Again, this model I am talking about is based on a clone of the US Constitution. So there would be 1st Amendment rights to strike down any nonsense like that.

Also consider that a one-world government like I am suggesting would not require a large standing army or huge nuclear arsenal, especially as more nations join. This new world government could abolish the personal income tax and move to a simple 10- or 15% worldwide sales tax. In fact, you could write that into the Constitution, banning any income tax.

Our Constitution guaranteed a lot of great things and it worked out so well that all of us flood this forum everyday in hopes of taking back our country. It does not matter how well intended something is. Tyranny will always find a way to rear it's ugly head and it is going to be a MAJOR struggle just to take this country back. Imagine what would happen if the whole world was up for grabs!

[RSLudlum]

This new world government could abolish the personal income tax and move to a simple 10- or 15% worldwide sales tax. In fact, you could write that into the Constitution, banning any income tax.


Oh yeah brother, you just might get what you want. They've been working on a World Tax Organization for a while now:

http://www.amazon.ca/Developing-World-Tax-Organization-Forward/dp/1906201064


Just hope you get proper representation in your government in distant lands oceans away.

[Theocrat]

There is a new world order occurring, and it's coming from the bottom up. As the Gospel is being taken into other nations by missionaries, people and their cultures are being changed for the better and to the glory of God. Jesus made it clear that all authority is given to Him in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), so therefore, Christians ought to go into all the world and make disciples of the nations. In several places in Scripture we're told that Christ's throne is in heaven and the earth is His footstool (Psalm 2; Acts 7; et. al.), so all of His enemies will eventually be defeated.

We Christians have nothing to fear from a Godless, greedy new world order because God will see that those people are destroyed. We can boldly build God's kingdom here on earth and make the world a better place, until Jesus comes. That's what thousands of missionaries are doing in other nations as we speak, and they are even facing some of the most deadliest of odds. Nevertheless, God promises they will be victorious because His word never returns to Him void (Isaiah 55:11). After all, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

The so-called Illuminati who thinks it will succeed in its "tower of Babel" over men's souls, property, and pocketbooks will be torn down. Wickedness will only endure for a season, but then comes God's judgment. God will vindicate His people to be governed rightly in all nations, at His own appointed time. Therefore, the only one-world government that will prosper is one governed under God through a relationship to Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. America was once a foretaste of that reality, but it will happen again on a global scale.

[donnay]

Does the NWO operate in Hong Kong sipping on tea? :p

No they operate in the shadows drinking cognac. :p

[LibertyEagle]

This thread is depressing.

Pawns, if you don't think you have much control over our federal government, imagine what it would be like at the world level. On top of that, even though much of our Constitution is being ignored, it still is hanging on by a thread in various regards. With world government, no more Bill of Rights. Gone. Finite.

We didn't get here by accident. Natural progression. pffttt. Hardly.

Again. Depressing. If our own people don't know better than this, we seriously have no hope.

[LibertyEagle]

Our Constitution guaranteed a lot of great things and it worked out so well that all of us flood this forum everyday in hopes of taking back our country. It does not matter how well intended something is. Tyranny will always find a way to rear it's ugly head and it is going to be a MAJOR struggle just to take this country back. Imagine what would happen if the whole world was up for grabs!

Imagine what it would have been like WITHOUT the Constitution. And by the way, a whole lot of us are here because we want to REINSTATE that thing you seem to hate. The Constitution didn't fail. It was the apathy and laziness of the PEOPLE, who didn't stay vigilant. NO document can keep you free. If you honestly believe that it should, please go read some of the letters by our Founders and learn what it was really designed to do.

[He Who Pawns]

This thread is depressing.

Pawns, if you don't think you have much control over our federal government, imagine what it would be like at the world level. On top of that, even though much of our Constitution is being ignored, it still is hanging on by a thread in various regards. With world government, no more Bill of Rights. Gone. Finite.

We didn't get here by accident. Natural progression. pffttt. Hardly.

Again. Depressing. If our own people don't know better than this, we seriously have no hope.

Any world government would have to be federal system, and would have to have strong provisions to protect the autonomy of its various regions, or people would not join it in the first place. In fact, this could be an opportunity to establish a libertarian enclave, for example. You might be subject to a 10- or 15% global sales tax, but that's a small price to pay. Right now we are getting raped by our own government, and things are going downhill fast with Obama and his predecessor. A world government might actually have a stronger 10th Amendment than our own, because various regions on earth would demand it before joining.

See, you gotta look at the bright side. This thing is coming whether you like it or not.

[LibertyEagle]

Any world government would have to be federal system, and would have to have strong provisions to protect the autonomy of its various regions, or people would not join it in the first place. In fact, this could be an opportunity to establish a libertarian enclave, for example. You might be subject to a 10- or 15% global sales tax, but that's a small price to pay. Right now we are getting raped by our own government, and things are going downhill fast with Obama and his predecessor. A world government might actually have a stronger 10th Amendment than our own, because various regions on earth would demand it before joining.

Oh geez. You HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING.

You are seriously living in a dream world. Don't you get that the people pushing this thing are doing so to enslave us? The RP movement is all about trying to drastically reduce the size of government and return largely to the self-government that our Founders envisioned. We don't want a one-size-fits-all. That is what's behind the idea of states' rights. You, on the other hand, seem to be petitioning for going in the exact opposite direction and you are playing right into the hands of a bunch of power hungry elite, whose dream has been for a long time to take us to world government. :eek:


See, you gotta look at the bright side. This thing is coming whether you like it or not.
Listen and listen closely.

OVER.

MY.

DEAD.

BODY. :mad:

[trey4sports]

Any world government would have to be federal system, and would have to have strong provisions to protect the autonomy of its various regions, or people would not join it in the first place. In fact, this could be an opportunity to establish a libertarian enclave, for example. You might be subject to a 10- or 15% global sales tax, but that's a small price to pay. Right now we are getting raped by our own government, and things are going downhill fast with Obama and his predecessor. A world government might actually have a stronger 10th Amendment than our own, because various regions on earth would demand it before joining.

See, you gotta look at the bright side. This thing is coming whether you like it or not.


cmon man, you think we pay high taxes? look at all the other developed nations and tell me how socialized their economy is....

A. we are moving toward a system of socialism all throughout the world, theres absolutely no reason or evidence to point a global government would be more capitalist/free than what we have now.

B. the more you consolidate power, the less freedom each individual has, thats why global government automatically supports tyranny, regardless of the laws in place.

[pcosmar]

Listen and listen closely.

OVER.

MY.

DEAD.

BODY. :mad:

It's not here yet. We still fight,
But IF the Revolution fails.
The Resistance Begins.:mad:

[RSLudlum]

Also consider that a one-world government like I am suggesting would not require a large standing army or huge nuclear arsenal, especially as more nations join.


You would loooove this 1961 Dept of State report I just dug up from my stacks of printed material (which never seems to get any smaller :( :D )


Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmamnet In A Peaceful World (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Freedom_From_War-Disarmament-1961-GOV.pdf)

[Dripping Rain]

Listen and listen closely.

OVER.

MY.

DEAD.

BODY. :mad:

Add my Dead body to the list :mad:

[He Who Pawns]

cmon man, you think we pay high taxes? look at all the other developed nations and tell me how socialized their economy is....

A. we are moving toward a system of socialism all throughout the world, theres absolutely no reason or evidence to point a global government would be more capitalist/free than what we have now.

B. the more you consolidate power, the less freedom each individual has, thats why global government automatically supports tyranny, regardless of the laws in place.

Again, you guys are failing to take into account the federal nature of the system I am discussing. Here in the US, the 10th Amendment is treated like toilet people. You are failing to address what I am saying about the fact that a world government would have to be more federal and less centralized than the American system is now, so that is a net GAIN in liberty. Eliminating the income tax = gain in freedom. Reducing wars = gain in freedom.

If the world continues on its current path, we will all be wiped out within 50 years anyway by wars.

[donnay]

Take a look at some of these quotes, NWO means population reduction--be careful what you wish for...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -Maurice Strong (U.N. environmental leader)

"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification." -Brock Chisholm, while director of UN World Health Organization

“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegance.”
President George Herbert Walker Bush Addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations, February 1, 1992

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a New World Order - can emerge... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." - George Bush (September, 1990)

“The United Nations is the greatest fraud in history. It's purpose is to destroy the United States.” John E. Rankin, a U.S. Congressman from 1923-1953

"The UN provides cover almost the same way the Taliban does. It serves as the laboratory, the linchpin for legitimizing incendiary rhetoric (against the West in general and America in particular)."
- Harvey Kushner, Long Island State University Professor of Criminology (terrorism analyst)

"The total world population should be not more than 2 billion, rather than the current 5.6 billion." --Cornell University professor David Pimentel, speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994

There was very strong agreement that religious institutions have to take primary responsibility for the population explosion. We must speak far more clearly about sexuality, about contraception, about abortion, about the values that control the population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. cut the population by 90 percent and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.” -Dr. Sam Keen, philosopher, at the 'State of the World Forum', sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation and attended by many world leaders, San Francisco, 1995, as quoted by William Jasper in 'Global Gorby', The New American, Oct. 30, 1995

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history." -David Rockefeller 1973 (NY Times 8-10-73)

"One-fourth of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death." - Psychologist Barbara Marx Hubbard - member and futurist/strategist of Task Force Delta; a United States Army think tank

UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the famous Emmy award winning film producer and ambassador for the environmental movement, said in 1991,

"It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."

Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon Magazine said, "A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," and is using his purported $1Billion "gift" to the UN to further global depopulation programs.

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund - quoted in "Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?," Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December '95

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.

"Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics." - Frederick Osborn

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Imagine what it would have been like WITHOUT the Constitution. And by the way, a whole lot of us are here because we want to REINSTATE that thing you seem to hate. The Constitution didn't fail. It was the apathy and laziness of the PEOPLE, who didn't stay vigilant. NO document can keep you free. If you honestly believe that it should, please go read some of the letters by our Founders and learn what it was really designed to do.

I think you misunderstood my point... maybe I put it wrong... The point was that the people became lazy and just assumed that the constitution would protect them. Years passed and we were dumbed down to the point that now your average person on the street cannot tell you what the bill of rights are.

We in this movement recognize the value and beauty of our founding documents and wish to see it followed but that does not stop the tyrants in Washington and on Wall Street from ignoring it and doing what they want anyway. It is up to US to take it back and we can but it is going to be one hell of a fight! If we were forced to go along with a one world government than it would be almost impossible to ever change things even if they did follow our constitution like the OP suggested.

So no... I was not bashing our Constitution,

[pcosmar]

"Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics." - Frederick Osborn

They always change the name when programs become unpopular. They don't stop, just change the name.

[LibertyEagle]

I think you misunderstood my point... maybe I put it wrong... The point was that the people became lazy and just assumed that the constitution would protect them. Years passed and we were dumbed down to the point that now your average person on the street cannot tell you what the bill of rights are.

We in this movement recognize the value and beauty of our founding documents and wish to see it followed but that does not stop the tyrants in Washington and on Wall Street from ignoring it and doing what they want anyway. It is up to US to take it back and we can but it is going to be one hell of a fight! If we were forced to go along with a one world government than it would be almost impossible to ever change things even if they did follow our constitution like the OP suggested.

So no... I was not bashing our Constitution,

Ok, my bad. I wondered, because I had never seen something like that from you before.

Sorry. :o

[RSLudlum]

If the world continues on its current path, we will all be wiped out within 50 years anyway by wars.


And what path is that? There seems to be alot of centralization going on at the moment.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Ok, my bad. I wondered, because I had never seen something like that from you before.

Sorry. :o

Thats o.k... this is a passionate subject and I understand. BTW, you can add my body to the list of those that will have to dead for my country to surrender to a one world government!

[almantimes2]

No One world government untill Humanity begins to colonize other planet's and creates governments on those planets. So Essentially Never.

I mean seriously Im on Ron Paul forums right?
As for your claims that it would work because we would have some sort global constitution.
Give me a break.

Man's sinful Corrupt nature and need for more power will bring about the Erasement of said constitution, Just as it continues to happen in America. With a NWO
Where are you going to go? The whole world has been drowned by the sinful power mongering nature of man and they control every Inch of the earth. So you are trapped in a controlled Planet by a group of elites who love to control are of the underclass.

[pcosmar]

Ok
This shit stirs some "less than peaceful' emotions in me. :mad:

No one wants to see my ugly side. I don't even like it. ( no fitting emoticon available)

[Liberty Rebellion]

I have never understood this fixation with "NWO" conspiracies or the "threat" of an impending world government. Isn't that obviously what's coming? Isn't that the obvious next step for humanity? History is nothing but a consolidation of humans coming closer and closer together. English is already spreading around the globe as the world language.

As Carl Sagan once said, from space, there are no borders visible on earth. Borders are phony props that lead to nationalistic wars.

Certainly a world government would end most wars. Sure there might be a few countries who don't join, and that's up to them.

For example, what would be wrong with a world government based on a clone of the US Constitution that starts from scratch and adopts the gold standard? :D

The obvious next step for humanity? LOL omg. How about the federal government of the US representing the people and respecting individual liberty? How's that working out? How about the EU? How about the history of government and authoritarian bodies murdering people along with pillaging, plundering, and raping?

What would be the benefits of having world government?

Worst idea ever.

[He Who Pawns]

Again, it would require an iron-clad Constitution with a rock-solid Bill of Rights and strong federalism for the various regions. If government breaks that Constitution, then you overthrow them. It's as simple as that.

[donnay]

Again, it would require an iron-clad Constitution with a rock-solid Bill of Rights and strong federalism for the various regions. If government breaks that Constitution, then you overthrow them. It's as simple as that.

LOL! Geez, and nobody has stormed DC yet? :eek:

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Again, it would require an iron-clad Constitution with a rock-solid Bill of Rights and strong federalism for the various regions. If government breaks that Constitution, then you overthrow them. It's as simple as that.

Overthrow them with what???? There would be no nations left on earth to rally the troops and it would be up to a small group of resistance fighters who the one world media would portray as terrorists to all the worlds sheep!

[RSLudlum]

Again, it would require an iron-clad Constitution with a rock-solid Bill of Rights and strong federalism for the various regions. If government breaks that Constitution, then you overthrow them. It's as simple as that.

Would this include a World Supreme Court 'interpreting' the ironclad Constitution? We all know how it's turned out with our own Constitution, don't we? And how about the States' own Constitutions constantly being subverted by our very own national government.

[almantimes2]

Again, it would require an iron-clad Constitution with a rock-solid Bill of Rights and strong federalism for the various regions. If government breaks that Constitution, then you overthrow them. It's as simple as that.

Overthrow them? There is no other military force besides the Government. They would easily take the Guns of the people away.

[pinkmandy]

You will never, ever have all the people of this country willingly submitting to a world government in our lifetimes. So how is that consenting? You count the US in as a sure thing, like that's what we all want. I'd wager that about 50% of avg Americans (most repubs, most independents, all libs, all constitutionalists and some dems) don't want this and would fight any kind of enforcement. Literally. How many would die, just here, for the 'peaceful' idea of world govt?

World govt supporters really need to stop trying to impose what *they* think is best for the world on everyone. Some of us just want to be free and left the hell alone.

[He Who Pawns]

Overthrow them? There is no other military force besides the Government. They would easily take the Guns of the people away.

No they would not. America would never join unless we were allowed to keep and bear arms individually.

BTW, I want to make clear that I am not arguing in favor of NWO, I am just making arguments for what could be a "successful world government," and what types of protections we would need to ensure before joining.

In terms of "how would we overthrow them?" How did Luke Skywalker and his gang do it? By kicking ass! :D

[LibertyEagle]

Again, it would require an iron-clad Constitution with a rock-solid Bill of Rights and strong federalism for the various regions. If government breaks that Constitution, then you overthrow them. It's as simple as that.

You are suggesting freely handing complete and total power over to a small group of individuals. Once you do that, all bets are off. You will have no say about what the new Constitution is, or whether there is one at all. What don't you understand about that?

And your apparent belief that we could just topple a world government if it wasn't what we wanted is ludicrous. While our own military might not fire on the American people, do you honestly believe that several million Chinese or Russians would hesitate? There would be NO overthrowing a world government. You are seriously deluded if you believe so.

[RSLudlum]

In terms of "how would we overthrow them?" How did Luke Skywalker and his gang do it? By kicking ass! :D


I got ya, but Luke Skywalker is a fictional character many galaxies away where lightsabers are weapons. God help us if this is our only hope against the NWO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU



:p

[LibertyEagle]

No they would not. America would never join unless we were allowed to keep and bear arms individually.

BTW, I want to make clear that I am not arguing in favor of NWO, I am just making arguments for what could be a "successful world government," and what types of protections we would need to ensure before joining.

In terms of "how would we overthrow them?" How did Luke Skywalker and his gang do it? By kicking ass! :D

May I ask how old you are? I notice you have just recently joined, Pawns. No offense or anything, but I seriously think you could benefit by going over to mises.org, jbs.org and fee.org and doing a whole lot of reading.

[almantimes2]

No they would not. America would never join unless we were allowed to keep and bear arms individually.

BTW, I want to make clear that I am not arguing in favor of NWO, I am just making arguments for what could be a "successful world government," and what types of protections we would need to ensure before joining.

In terms of "how would we overthrow them?" How did Luke Skywalker and his gang do it? By kicking ass! :D

No you don't understand what Im saying.
Perhaps it's initial conception would be based upon liberty. But that is an oxymoron if it self. It was created with the good intentions as you say. It is doomed to turn in to a Tyrannical Government just as all countries are. And yes then you need revolution. These revolutions are indeed possible within governments that's power does not extend across the world. But when you have a government that's power that extends across the world it becomes unstoppable.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Any world government would have to be federal system, and would have to have strong provisions to protect the autonomy of its various regions, or people would not join it in the first place. In fact, this could be an opportunity to establish a libertarian enclave, for example. You might be subject to a 10- or 15% global sales tax, but that's a small price to pay. Right now we are getting raped by our own government, and things are going downhill fast with Obama and his predecessor. A world government might actually have a stronger 10th Amendment than our own, because various regions on earth would demand it before joining.

See, you gotta look at the bright side. This thing is coming whether you like it or not.

Are you kidding me? Have you been to the EU lately? Don't even get me started on my EU vacation last summer. Sales tax was 20%, and on top of the rest of the socialism that was involved, everyone seemed to be pretty much miserable, and poor or just barely making it compared to what we have in the US. We may be getting it in the ass right now, but the peeps in the EU whether they realize it and admit it or not, are getting it 10 times worse. The NWO is all about the ELITE having the power over people like you and me and everyone else. This is about slavery and oppression, not a Utopia like many ignorant and naive people believe.

[Carole]

do you have anything to prove Christians will voluntarily join a NWO?
as a matter of fact what makes you think the Russians and the Chinese will go along with your NWO?

Seems to me it is Christians who are currently speeding the NWO agenda.

[He Who Pawns]

No you don't understand what Im saying.
Perhaps it's initial conception would be based upon liberty. But that is an oxymoron if it self. It was created with the good intentions as you say. It is doomed to turn in to a Tyrannical Government just as all countries are. And yes then you need revolution. These revolutions are indeed possible within governments that's power does not extend across the world. But when you have a government that's power that extends across the world it becomes unstoppable.

Well right now, the US government has a military twenty times larger than a world government peacekeeping force would need to be. Do we need thousands of nuclear warheads? Seven carrier groups? So which is harder to overthrow or secede from? A superpowehouse like the US military concentrated here, or a worldwide peacekeeping force stretched out across the globe? I think the answer is obvious.

I think some people here need to to rethink things from the ground up. It's good to question what you think you know every once in a while. Ask yourself: Why is a world government good or bad? Could it work? Could it work better than the current mess?

You see, humans have been at war for tens of thousands of years, but now our weapons have become powerful enough to end our species. One biological agent whipped up in a basement by a PhD student could wipe out the human population in a week. So we need to move to a system that encourages less warfare, more more peace, more liberty, and more prosperity across the globe.

[Carole]

Again, this model I am talking about is based on a clone of the US Constitution. So there would be 1st Amendment rights to strike down any nonsense like that.

Also consider that a one-world government like I am suggesting would not require a large standing army or huge nuclear arsenal, especially as more nations join. This new world government could abolish the personal income tax and move to a simple 10- or 15% worldwide sales tax. In fact, you could write that into the Constitution, banning any income tax.
You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the globalists have already nearly destroyed our Constitution.

[Carole]

You speak idiocy.

[JeNNiF00F00]

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the globalists have already nearly destroyed our Constitution.

They are in part trying to push for this Agenda 21 and Codex bullshit. Not to mention the national farming bill which is connected to the 2 which will technically prohibit you from growing food on your property.

[almantimes2]

Well right now, the US government has a military twenty times larger than a world government peacekeeping force would need to be. Do we need thousands of nuclear warheads? Seven carrier groups? So which is harder to overthrow or secede from? A superpowehouse like the US military concentrated here, or a worldwide peacekeeping force stretched out across the globe? I think the answer is obvious.

I think some people here need to to rethink things from the ground up. It's good to question what you think you know every once in a while. Ask yourself: Why is a world government good or bad? Could it work? Could it work better than the current mess?

You see, humans have been at war for tens of thousands of years, but now our weapons have become powerful enough to end our species. One biological agent whipped up in a basement by a PhD student could wipe out the human population in a week. So we need to move to a system that encourages less warfare, more more peace, more liberty, and more prosperity across the globe.

You are under the delusion that the reason man fights each other because there is more then one government. You are correct in the statement that war will end.

Oh yes war will end. But the alternative that will be created in this one world government will be much worse. No it will not technically be war because with war you see you need to 2 groups of people killing each other. But what if the other group does not have the ability to fight back? The government has took there guns, and dumbed them down. I already explained the impossibility of avoiding this. Now the government bears the ability to strike down anyone they want. Don't tell me they won't "Because there's no reason" History has shown governments will do this. millions have been killed by non one world governments within small amount of times. Can you imagine how bad this would be if a one world government were to do this?
It's annoying to debate with you because you argue utopia. man will still kill each other at a high rate in any political philosophy. It's just with your philosophy There would Be no way to resist when the government turns Tyranical.


They WILL murder people as they ALWAYS DO THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

[Liberty Rebellion]

So we need to move to a system that encourages less warfare, more more peace, more liberty, and more prosperity across the globe.

Exactly! A system of less government, not more government on a global scale. Governments are the antithesis of everything you just listed you want more of. You haven't studied the history of the State if you think otherwise.

[LibertyEagle]

Pawns,

You are essentially advocating world communism. :(


Socialism, the Utopian economic and political system that promises equality, prosperity, and universal peace through the workings of a collectivist state, has repeatedly been exposed as a colossal failure. Its history, marked by failed societies and brutal dictatorships, is quite literally littered with the bodies of millions of innocents, and yet in the United States we stand on the brink of a socialist abyss, the edge of which looms ever closer as time passes. The conflict between individual and collective rights rages on, but despite socialism's historical failures, it remains attractive to those vulnerable to its false promises of egalitarianism and economic equality. Instead of being relegated to its own proverbial "dustbin of history," it continues to entice well after its failures and crimes have been laid bare for all to see.

Quoted in The Black Book of Communism, Bulgarian philosopher Tzvetan Todorov lays out the paradox that faces those that voluntarily accept the inevitable servitude that comes with socialism:

"A citizen of a Western democracy fondly imagines that totalitarianism lies utterly beyond the pale of normal human aspirations. And yet, totalitarianism could never have survived so long had it not been able to draw so many people into its fold. There is something else — it is a formidably efficient machine. Communist ideology offers an idealized model for society and exhorts us toward it. The desire to change the world in the name of an ideal, is after all, an essential characteristic of human identity.... Furthermore, Communist society strips the individual of his responsibilities. It is always "somebody else" who makes the decisions. Remember, individual responsibility can feel like a crushing burden.... The attraction of a totalitarian system, which has had a powerful allure for many, has its roots in a fear of freedom and responsibility."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/world/628-socialisms-broken-promises

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Pawns,

I'm glad you asked about a one world government. However, in the course of this thread you have advocated for it. I'm wondering then, what brought you over to Ron Paul Forums? (since the NWO is the complete opposite of what he stands for) If it was something about Ron Paul, what was it?

Thanks,
ForLib.

[He Who Pawns]

Pawns,

You are essentially advocating world communism. :(


Wrong. I would set a Constitutional limit of something like 10% sales tax globally (maybe half goes to local), not to ever exceed that amount, and any income tax would be banned outright in the Constitution, as it should be in our US Constitution, so there is no wiggle room.

Not only would that NOT be communism, it would be more free market and more libertarian than our current US system, by a mile.

[He Who Pawns]

Pawns,

I'm glad you asked about a one world government. However, in the course of this thread you have advocated for it. I'm wondering then, what brought you over to Ron Paul Forums? (since the NWO is the complete opposite of what he stands for) If it was something about Ron Paul, what was it?

Thanks,
ForLib.

There are many rational libertarians who believe in a world government, my friend. It is inevitable. I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue, but I also do not agree with him on abortion. Still, I love the man and support him. I maxed out on donations to his presidential campaign. I hope you are not trying to imply that I am not welcome here because one of my views might differ from yours?

When was the last time you rethought and re-examined your views on this world government topic? Have you ever thought about it in depth? From the ground up?

[LibertyEagle]

Well right now, the US government has a military twenty times larger than a world government peacekeeping force would need to be. Do we need thousands of nuclear warheads? Seven carrier groups? So which is harder to overthrow or secede from? A superpowehouse like the US military concentrated here, or a worldwide peacekeeping force stretched out across the globe? I think the answer is obvious.

I think some people here need to to rethink things from the ground up. It's good to question what you think you know every once in a while. Ask yourself: Why is a world government good or bad? Could it work? Could it work better than the current mess?

You see, humans have been at war for tens of thousands of years, but now our weapons have become powerful enough to end our species. One biological agent whipped up in a basement by a PhD student could wipe out the human population in a week. So we need to move to a system that encourages less warfare, more more peace, more liberty, and more prosperity across the globe.

You are advocating world communism, plain and simple. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if you're simply deluded, or if you are a shill. So perhaps you might want to answer the question already posed to you. Why are you here? What attracted you to Ron Paul and this movement? Because as already said, what you are advocating is a complete 180 from what Ron Paul is all about.

[LibertyEagle]

Wrong. I would set a Constitutional limit of something like 10% sales tax globally (maybe half goes to local), not to ever exceed that amount, and any income tax would be banned outright in the Constitution, as it should be in our US Constitution, so there is no wiggle room.

Not only would that NOT be communism, it would be more free market and more libertarian than our current US system, by a mile.

Bullshit. It IS Communism. There is nothing free market about it.

[He Who Pawns]

Bullshit. It IS Communism. There is nothing free market about it.

Explain how that is communism. I call bullshit on YOU.

[lucius]

//

[LibertyEagle]

There are many rational libertarians who believe in a world government, my friend.
"Rational" and "world government" are two words that do not go together. It's only my opinion, but if someone believes in world government, I am extremely hard pressed to see how they could call themselves a libertarian.


It is inevitable.
If it is inevitable it is only because the same group of elites that you want to hand all our liberty, have been manipulating events to get us to this point. That, and the useful idiots who have praised them all the way.


I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue, but I also do not agree with him on abortion. Still, I love the man and support him. I maxed out on donations to his presidential campaign.
The thing is, a belief in world government stands in TOTAL opposition of the very crux of everything Ron Paul is all about. He works to return government back to the people and the states. Certainly not to go the complete opposite direction.


I hope you are not trying to imply that I am not welcome here because one of my views might differ from yours?

One? Why don't you name some things you agree with him on. I'd like to see them.


When was the last time you rethought and re-examined your views on this world government topic? Have you ever thought about it in depth? From the ground up?
You are seriously deluded and have drunk some mighty kool-aid.

[He Who Pawns]

LE, explain your claim that I am promoting "communism".

I'm waiting.

Good luck with that.

[almantimes2]

Wrong. I would set a Constitutional limit of something like 10% sales tax globally (maybe half goes to local), not to ever exceed that amount, and any income tax would be banned outright in the Constitution, as it should be in our US Constitution, so there is no wiggle room.

Not only would that NOT be communism, it would be more free market and more libertarian than our current US system, by a mile.

My god when will I get this through your head! IT WILL LEAD TO FASCISM. I have already explained in previous post's that this will happen and it will be Nearly impossible to defeat as it is the only government.

[hillbilly123069]

I won't take the time to go through what other have wrote,but to address the original question,to look at the world and know the "elite" are responsible through manipulation makes it obvious that the elite eager for the control over the planet lack the ability to use that power for a purpose of other than their own ideology.

[He Who Pawns]

My god when will I get this through your head! IT WILL LEAD TO FASCISM. I have already explained in previous post's that this will happen and it will be Nearly impossible to defeat as it is the only government.

Again, which is more difficult to defeat, the current supermegapower US military concentrated here where we live, in complete and total control of us, or a far more weak and scattered global peacekeeping force? The peacekeeping force would only have to be 1/5th the size and power of the current US military, especially as more nations join. Again, which would be tougher to fight and overthrow? Which would be tougher to secede from?

ANSWER ME!!

[almantimes2]

Example of He who pawns "Utopia"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Rows_of_bodies_of_dead_inmates_fill_the_yard_of_La ger_Nordhausen%2C_a_Gestapo_concentration_camp.jpg/768px-Rows_of_bodies_of_dead_inmates_fill_the_yard_of_La ger_Nordhausen%2C_a_Gestapo_concentration_camp.jpg

[jack555]

I have never understood this fixation with "NWO" conspiracies or the "threat" of an impending world government. Isn't that obviously what's coming? Isn't that the obvious next step for humanity? History is nothing but a consolidation of humans coming closer and closer together. English is already spreading around the globe as the world language.

As Carl Sagan once said, from space, there are no borders visible on earth. Borders are phony props that lead to nationalistic wars.

Certainly a world government would end most wars. Sure there might be a few countries who don't join, and that's up to them.

For example, what would be wrong with a world government based on a clone of the US Constitution that starts from scratch and adopts the gold standard? :D


OK this is a really stupid question to ask on a libertarian forum but no question is stupid and we were all there once. expect a lot of hate from people though.


OK.

Look at local vs state vs federal government. Where state power is stronger then federal power you have more say in your government. Where local power is stronger than state power you have even MORE say in your government. This is easily seen here where Washington is making huge decisions for us far away that people don't want.

Another perfect example is the Europian Union. I recently heard the president of the Czech Republic say something about how the EU is bad because democrazy is lost in the distance. He had a really nifty term for it but I forget. It was essentially what I am telling you.

Now if you make world government you will have even less say.



Hope that helps. BTW this is Ron Pauls view or very close to it as well. The bigger you make the government the easier it is for them to take away your rights.

[He Who Pawns]

Example of He who pawns "Utopia"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Rows_of_bodies_of_dead_inmates_fill_the_yard_of_La ger_Nordhausen%2C_a_Gestapo_concentration_camp.jpg/768px-Rows_of_bodies_of_dead_inmates_fill_the_yard_of_La ger_Nordhausen%2C_a_Gestapo_concentration_camp.jpg

Actually, that is the result of the current world system we have lived with all this time.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, explain your claim that I am promoting "communism".

I'm waiting.

Good luck with that.
Wait no more.

I understand (or hope) that Communism is not what you believe to be advocating, but that is what world government is. If you do not understand that, you need to avail yourself of Agenda 21, the IMF, the World Bank, the BIS, the World Court, the WTO, and a multitude of other UN plans. You think it would be ok, because you think you could control it. That's the fallacy. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. That is why you do not want to centralize power. Yet, this is exactly what you are advocating. If you do not realize that there are already plans to reallocate all the natural resources, you have some reading you need to do. And just as our own government is nationalizing banks and corporations, the same thing is happening across the globe. If we allow ourselves to be taken to world government, that world government would own all the banks, corporations, and natural resources, worldwide. That, is Communism and it is exactly what you are advocating.


In its simplest form, the definition of communism is a formal economic system in which property, particularly capital property (e.g. factories, machines, tools, etc.), is commonly owned and scarce resources are allocated through planning as opposed to price signals in a free market.


Communism, then, is not merely an economic theory; in fact, it hardly has anything to do with economics given that resource scarcity is not meaningfully addressed. Communism is the tyranny of all over one, of society over the individual. Communism does not merely seek to abolish property; it seeks to abolish the family, nationality, culture, religion, and every flourish of individuality. Its aim and end is to make the individual and society one and the same.
http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-communism.html

[almantimes2]

Again, which is more difficult to defeat, the current supermegapower US military concentrated here where we live, in complete and total control of us, or a far more weak and scattered global peacekeeping force? The peacekeeping force would only have to be 1/5th the size and power of the current US military, especially as more nations join. Again, which would be tougher to fight and overthrow? Which would be tougher to secede from?

ANSWER ME!!

The people will only rebel once your government reaches it fascist state. By then it WILL be a global police state and your "Global peacekeeping force" will be Oppressing the whole world. 1/5 the size of the US military? Really? When Your government becomes a fascist state there will be a Global draft sent to THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE WORLD.

[He Who Pawns]

OK this is a really stupid question to ask on a libertarian forum but no question is stupid and we were all there once. expect a lot of hate from people though.


OK.

Look at local vs state vs federal government. Where state power is stronger then federal power you have more say in your government. Where local power is stronger than state power you have even MORE say in your government. This is easily seen here where Washington is making huge decisions for us far away that people don't want.

Another perfect example is the Europian Union. I recently heard the president of the Czech Republic say something about how the EU is bad because democrazy is lost in the distance. He had a really nifty term for it but I forget. It was essentially what I am telling you.

Now if you make world government you will have even less say.



Hope that helps. BTW this is Ron Pauls view or very close to it as well. The bigger you make the government the easier it is for them to take away your rights.

Well then, this would be an argument against creating the United States in the first place. And I don't buy it.

Again, the system I am advocating would be stronger in terms of guaranteeing local and regional control than our CURRENT US SYSTEM.

Again, I am calling for a federal system that allows greater local control than the US SYSTEM.

Can I be any more clear about that?

[almantimes2]

Actually, that is the result of the current world system we have lived with all this time.

I thought you were blaming it all on war :rolleyes:. This was caused by a government murdering it's own people. But God forbid It happens in He who Pawns Government. No That would never happen would it?:rolleyes:

[He Who Pawns]

The people will only rebel once your government reaches it fascist state. By then it WILL be a global police state and your "Global peacekeeping force" will be Oppressing the whole world. 1/5 the size of the US military? Really? When Your government becomes a fascist state there will be a Global draft sent to THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE WORLD.

But you see, technology is the great equalizer. If the world government becomes too opressive, as you are predicting, then you can simply smuggle small tactical nukes to all the military and government sites and BOOOM.... government GONE. Start over.

As technology increases, large standing armies and aircraft carriers and tanks become irrelevant.

Governments will be MORE accountable to their people, and less likely to cause trouble.

[jack555]

Again, this model I am talking about is based on a clone of the US Constitution. So there would be 1st Amendment rights to strike down any nonsense like that.

Also consider that a one-world government like I am suggesting would not require a large standing army or huge nuclear arsenal, especially as more nations join. This new world government could abolish the personal income tax and move to a simple 10- or 15% worldwide sales tax. In fact, you could write that into the Constitution, banning any income tax.


Your talking about a hypothetical situation that will never happen. If the world wants a republic with all sorts of super rights even better than the constitution then why dont they do it. Why is the world moving away from freedom instead of towards it.

In your wet dream of course it would be great.

In reality your wet dream will never happen and you would more likely be anally penetrated by the socialists and/or fascists. sorry for the imagery

[almantimes2]

Well then, this would be an argument against creating the United States in the first place. And I don't buy it.

Again, the system I am advocating would be stronger in terms of guaranteeing local and regional control than our CURRENT US SYSTEM.

Again, I am calling for a federal system that allows greater local control than the US SYSTEM.

Can I be any more clear about that?
But they can't break of from Pawns union can they? No they have to stay aligned with the global system or they will be destroyed. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

He Who Pawns,

I'm still waiting for you to specifically list what you agree with Ron Paul about and what brought you to this movement.

[jack555]

Well then, this would be an argument against creating the United States in the first place. And I don't buy it.

Again, the system I am advocating would be stronger in terms of guaranteeing local and regional control than our CURRENT US SYSTEM.

Again, I am calling for a federal system that allows greater local control than the US SYSTEM.

Can I be any more clear about that?


Your system SOUNDS good. But it will never happen. The system being implimented is socialist/communist. Look at the UN and the EU to see what a NWO would look like. The UN wants to abolish property rights. The UN constitution is a joke as far as rights are concerned. The people in the EU don't even have free speech.

[almantimes2]

But you see, technology is the great equalizer. If the world government becomes too opressive, as you are predicting, then you can simply smuggle small tactical nukes to all the military and government sites and BOOOM.... government GONE. Start over.

As technology increases, large standing armies and aircraft carriers and tanks become irrelevant.

Governments will be MORE accountable to their people, and less likely to cause trouble.
OF COURSE Because all the regular people are like fucking tom clancy there james bond THEY COULD EASILY smuggle tactical nukes into heavly guarded government locations and blow the bastards up PROBLEM SOLVED.:rolleyes:
Edit:
Oh Yea and your argument was that your one world government would eliminate war. Now your ADMITTING that you need to have a global war every once and a while to make a new one world government.

[He Who Pawns]

He Who Pawns,

I'm still waiting for you to specifically list what you agree with Ron Paul about and what brought you to this movement.

Why don't you try reading through all my posts here.

[hillbilly123069]

This country was founded because people in power did as they pleased at the expense of others with no gratitude.It was molded to prevent abuses of power and inequality in an effort of prevention of it reoccurring.Over the last century,coincidently around the time of the creation of the Fed,that has been twisted and perverted under the noses of all that bask in the freedoms the US Constitution provides.This document and God's will turned this country into the most powerful civilization this planet has ever seen.With the utter disregard of the Constitution since George wiped his ass with it,look what it has done to the world,not just Our nation.The complete restoration of the Constitution is the only answer.We screwed up letting DC fix what wasn't broken a 100 yrs ago.

[LibertyEagle]

Why don't you try reading through all my posts here.

Are you unable to answer the question? It's pretty simple.

[hillbilly123069]

I seen a quote about what would we do against our own military?We out number them 3,000 to 1.

[He Who Pawns]

OF COURSE Because all the regular people are like fucking tom clancy there james bond THEY COULD EASILY smuggle tactical nukes into heavly guarded government locations and blow the bastards up PROBLEM SOLVED.:rolleyes:
Edit:
Oh Yea and your argument was that your one world government would eliminate war. Now your ADMITTING that you need to have a global war every once and a while to make a new one world government.

Back in 1996, it was not legal to ship a Cray supercomputer to Iran, because it could used to design nuclear weapons. Right now, your iPod has more computing power than that Cray computer. Technology is increasing at an exponential rate. Thus, it will become increasingly simpler to wage asymmetrical warfare, like designing and building small nuclear devices. Or like I said earlier, whipping up a biological weapon in the basement.

[He Who Pawns]

Are you unable to answer the question? It's pretty simple.

Do your own homework. I don't answer to you.

[almantimes2]

I seen a quote about what would we do against our own military?We out number them 3,000 to 1.

We would only be able to win in a government that is not globally controlled.

[Doktor_Jeep]

One world government would be great.

Only one tyranny to destroy.

[LibertyEagle]

Do your own homework. I don't answer to you.

Well, ya see, I'm trying to figure out if you're a shill who needs to be banned, or simply deluded. From what I could see by quickly scanning your posts is that 1. You like Peter Schiff and 2. You think Jesse Benton should take over for Rachel and that 3. Lew Rockwell "should put a sock in it".

Beyond that, I can't tell what you DO believe, beyond your push for world government here tonight. So me asking you what attracted you to this movement and what Ron Paul stands for that you agree with, is trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[He Who Pawns]

One world government would be great.

Only one tyranny to destroy.

See, that's the spirit! :D;)

[He Who Pawns]

Well, ya see, I'm trying to figure out if you're a shill who needs to be banned, or simply deluded. From what I could see by quickly scanning your posts is that 1. You like Peter Schiff and 2. You think Jesse Benton should take over for Rachel and that 3. Lew Rockwell "should put a sock in it".

Beyond that, I can't tell what you DO believe. Therefore, my question to you. If you refuse to answer, I guess that explains a lot.

Don't try to the threaten me, pal. :mad:

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

There are many rational libertarians who believe in a world government, my friend. It is inevitable. I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue, but I also do not agree with him on abortion. Still, I love the man and support him. I maxed out on donations to his presidential campaign. I hope you are not trying to imply that I am not welcome here because one of my views might differ from yours?

When was the last time you rethought and re-examined your views on this world government topic? Have you ever thought about it in depth? From the ground up?

"There are many rational libertarians who believe in a world government."

whoa! really? i've never met one.

"It is inevitable."

You sound like a neo-con

"I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue, but I also do not agree with him on abortion."

And what do you support him on?

"Still, I love the man and support him."

Yet you haven't said why

"I maxed out on donations to his presidential campaign."

Awesome!

"I hope you are not trying to imply that I am not welcome here because one of my views might differ from yours?"

Not implying that at all. I am implying that you need to rethink world government as it relates to Libertarianism.

"When was the last time you rethought and re-examined your views on this world government topic? Have you ever thought about it in depth? From the ground up?"

Oh yes, more than I can speak about right now. But I honestly don't think you have. To get a decent grasp on the subject you need to look at the history of the world and who has been in control of it. You mentioned that all the atrocities of war would go away with a world government, but you fail to mention that the people committing these atrocities are the ones calling for a NWO.

Problem-Reaction-Response

Problem=war
Reaction=war is bad
Response=One government (no one left to fight)

seems like logic to the simple man, but wisdom ...you know what, not even wisdom, just a little bit of knowledge will show you this is false.

For you to come on to these forums recently, and then start a thread advocating a NWO raises lots of red flags for me. Why don't you quote Dr. Paul and tell me why he is wrong.

[almantimes2]

Back in 1996, it was not legal to ship a Cray supercomputer to Iran, because it could used to design nuclear weapons. Right now, your iPod has more computing power than that Cray computer. Technology is increasing at an exponential rate. Thus, it will become increasingly simpler to wage asymmetrical warfare, like designing and building small nuclear devices. Or like I said earlier, whipping up a biological weapon in the basement.

You are correct. But This is Irrellevent. The government will have the greater military power. They will have this same technology so It really does not matter.

And once again your saying that there would be a need for war to defeat your government when it without a doubt turns fascist. You main arguments at first is that a nwo would end war. But now your saying when the government goes fascist you have to wage war against it.

Do you understand how many people would die?
And Im not saying it's wrong for a people to rebel against it's evil government. But less people die when this is not a global matter.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Don't try to the threaten me, pal. :mad:

trollish behavior

[almantimes2]

Don't try to the threaten me, pal. :mad:

Obvious troll is obvious

[LibertyEagle]

Don't try to the threaten me, pal. :mad:

It wasn't a threat. It was reality. :)

[He Who Pawns]

You are correct. But This is Irrellevent. The government will have the greater military power. They will have this same technology so It really does not matter.

Right, like I said, the technology is an equalizer between the people and the government.

As for those asking which issues I agree with Dr Paul on, here is my answer: ALL THEM, except abortion, world government and evolution. Everything else I agree with.

So quit trying to question my f$cking credentials.

[He Who Pawns]

It wasn't a threat. It was reality. :)

So is the reality that you will lose your moderator job if you continue to attempt to intimidate members here who disagree with your views. :mad:

[hillbilly123069]

[QUOTE=almantimes2;2023932]We would only be able to win in a government that is not globally controlled.[/QUOTE
Legal gun owners # in excess of 100 million in this country.That's at least 75 to 1 against the UN and it's member nations.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

So is the reality that you will lose your moderator job if you continue to attempt to intimidate members here who disagree with your views. :mad:

i highly doubt that. You're outgunned here bucko. All we are asking is why you are here in support of Ron Paul. That's all we want to know. Understand that Ron Paul is seriously against the NWO just like everyone (i'll bet) at RPF, except you of course. So in an effort to give you the benefit of the doubt before Josh comes in with his hammer, .... redeem yourself.

[almantimes2]

Right, like I said, the technology is an equalizer between the people and the government.

As for those asking which issues I agree with Dr Paul on, here is my answer: ALL THEM, except abortion, world government and evolution. Everything else I agree with.

So quit trying to question my f$cking credentials.

The people will always be able to defeat a government. But they are not going to be able to defeat 195 governments made into one. That is what you are Suggesting.

[jack555]

So is the reality that you will lose your moderator job if you continue to attempt to intimidate members here who disagree with your views. :mad:



The question is if you are here as a liberty minded person or someone else intentionally posing as a liberty minded person. This is not a forum for collectivists and if you troll collectivist ideas you may have a problem with the moderators. You are appearing to be a troll (meaning you are just here to stir up trouble).

[almantimes2]

[QUOTE=almantimes2;2023932]We would only be able to win in a government that is not globally controlled.[/QUOTE
Legal gun owners # in excess of 100 million in this country.That's at least 75 to 1 against the UN and it's member nations.
The bloodshed could all be avoided if we don't go for a one world government. Do you agree with that?

[He Who Pawns]

i highly doubt that. You're outgunned here bucko. All we are asking is why you are here in support of Ron Paul. That's all we want to know. Understand that Ron Paul is seriously against the NWO just like everyone (i'll bet) at RPF, except you of course. So in an effort to give you the benefit of the doubt before Josh comes in with his hammer, .... redeem yourself.

Again, what part of this don't you understand:


As for those asking which issues I agree with Dr Paul on, here is my answer: ALL THEM, except abortion, world government and evolution. Everything else I agree with.

Can I be any more clear for you?

I have 320 posts here. READ THEM IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

I guess this is how imtimidation works: if you find my arguments to be too difficult to dealwith, then simply yell, "Troll". :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

So is the reality that you will lose your moderator job if you continue to attempt to intimidate members here who disagree with your views. :mad:

You are a new forum member who has come on this board advocating world government. You not only just mentioned it, you have pushed hard for it. Since this stands against nearly everything that Ron Paul has stood for his entire life, it follows that suspicions are raised. Therefore, I and others have asked you nicely to say what brought you to this movement and since you mentioned that you agree with Ron Paul on some things, exactly some of those things are.

You are the one choosing to get mad. It's a pretty simple question that you were asked. Why not just answer it?

[almantimes2]

Again, what part of this don't you understand:


As for those asking which issues I agree with Dr Paul on, here is my answer: ALL THEM, except abortion, world government and evolution. Everything else I agree with.

Can I be any more clear for you?

How is evolution a political issue. If Ron paul believed in evolution how would his policy's change?:confused:

[He Who Pawns]

You are a new forum member who has come on this board advocating world government. You not only just mentioned it, you have pushed hard for it. Since this stands against nearly everything that Ron Paul has stood for his entire life, it follows that suspicions are raised. Therefore, I and others have asked you nicely to say what brought you to this movement and since you mentioned that you agree with Ron Paul on some things, exactly some of those things are.

You are the one choosing to get mad. It's a pretty simple question that you were asked. Why not just answer it?

Again....

As for those asking which issues I agree with Dr Paul on, here is my answer: ALL OF THEM, except abortion, world government and evolution. Everything else I agree with.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

This thread has been a great example of what a world government would be like for people who disagree with the status quo.

HWP is a very small minority on a forum that for all intents and purposes is run by a dictator (Bryan). He's a nice guy, very lenient, and picks his people well. But the dictatorial structure exists. Now HWP comes in here trying to change some minds, becomes a threat to the system, and soon (i think) will be kicked out.

What's good for him is that when he is kicked out there will be plenty of other places for him to go. In a world government where would you go if they "kicked you out."

[He Who Pawns]

What a pathetic display of attempted intellectual intimidation has been revealed here.

What a disgrace.

I guess it goes to show that people do not like to have their little dogmas challenged. What an embarrassment to the libertarian cause to see such intimidation tactics being used on Dr Paul's forum. Threatening to ban me because I don't share your NWO views?

Fucking PATHETIC.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Again....

As for those asking which issues I agree with Dr Paul on, here is my answer: ALL OF THEM, except abortion, world government and evolution. Everything else I agree with.

this is obnoxious. you are the only one here freaking out. as a forum member here for over a year i can tell you if you continue to freak you'll get booted. I've seen it happen many times. if you want to stay, please rethink your approach about the way you go about convincing people the NWO is good.

[almantimes2]

This thread has been a great example of what a world government would be like for people who disagree with the status quo.

HWP is a very small minority on a forum that for all intents and purposes is run by a dictator (Bryan). He's a nice guy, very lenient, and picks his people well. But the dictatorial structure exists. Now HWP comes in here trying to change some minds, becomes a threat to the system, and soon (i think) will be kicked out.

What's good for him is that when he is kicked out there will be plenty of other places for him to go. In a world government where would you go if they "kicked you out."

Yeah exactly he could always go Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/)

[He Who Pawns]

this is obnoxious. you are the only one here freaking out. as a forum member here for over a year i can tell you if you continue to freak you'll get booted. I've seen it happen many times. if you want to stay, please rethink your approach about the way you go about convincing people the NWO is good.

NWO is different from world government.

and I will not be threatened by some two-bit moderator because he has different views on some political issue than I have. i won't stand for it, and neither should you.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

What a pathetic display of attempted intellectual intimidation has been revealed here.

What a disgrace.

I guess it goes to show that people do not like to have their little dogmas challenged. What an embarrassment to the libertarian cause to see such intimidation tactics being used on Dr Paul's forum. Threatening to ban me because I don't share your NWO views?

Fucking PATHETIC.

you won't get banned for simply sharing your views and engaging in honest and open discussion. This thread started out that way, but you and only you have allowed it to deteriorate. It was your thread anyway. You could get banned for using obnoxious and abusive language and for going after a moderator. Granted, if you had 5,000 posts moderators would be more lenient because they'd know you better.

[almantimes2]

Look your intention is good I like that.

But it is doomed to fail. Your argument for it is that it will end war. But if it goes crazy The people are forced to wage war to get rid of it. It is so much easier to get rid of smaller governments that go crazy. But no you need a global one. More people will die through war just to get rid of the crazy global government and then create a new one.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

NWO is different from world government.

and I will not be threatened by some two-bit moderator because he has different views on some political issue than I have. i won't stand for it, and neither should you.

you lost the high ground a while ago. If i were you i'd try and regain it.

please explain the difference between the New World Order and World Government.

[He Who Pawns]

you won't get banned for simply sharing your views and engaging in honest and open discussion. This thread started out that way, but you and only you have allowed it to deteriorate. It was your thread anyway. You could get banned for using obnoxious and abusive language and for going after a moderator. Granted, if you had 5,000 posts moderators would be more lenient because they'd know you better.

I wasn't even talking to "Liberty Eagle" until he came right out and literally threatened to ban me. Then I simply responded that I would not be intimidated by him. What else could I do? He was threatening to ban me for no reason.

[He Who Pawns]

you lost the high ground a while ago. If i were you i'd try and regain it.

please explain the difference between the New World Order and World Government.

NWO is a conspiracy issue I know nothing about and care nothing about. I am simply trying to discuss how a libertarian world government could be established successfully. Perhaps my title was misleading.

I didn't know people were going to go apeshit over this, and that I would be threatened with a banning just for discussing this topic.

[LibertyEagle]

The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES

* Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
* Property should be owned by people, not government.
* All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
* The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
* Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
* The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.


Which of these do you believe world government to be congruent with?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I wasn't even talking to "Liberty Eagle" until he came right out and literally threatened to ban me. Then I simply responded that I would not be intimidated by him. What else could I do? He was threatening to ban me for no reason.

Well, according to the rules set down by Bryan, a moderator who engages in a thread can't moderate that thread. So if anyone makes a call about your future here it won't be LE. (i think that's how it works, please correct if i'm mistaken).

And she was not threatening to ban you, but there is a reason to. I was trying to tell you that people have been banned for the conduct you are displaying tonight. I did this in order for you to get the hint so you might have a future here.

[He Who Pawns]

I'm through with you, Eagle. Don't address me anymore.

[He Who Pawns]

Well, according to the rules set down by Bryan, a moderator who engages in a thread can't moderate that thread. So if anyone makes a call about your future here it won't be LE. (i think that's how it works, please correct if i'm mistaken).

And she was not threatening to ban you, but there is a reason to. I was trying to tell you that people have been banned for the conduct you are displaying tonight. I did this in order for you to get the hint so you might have a future here.

I appreciate your advice.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Libertarianism is for limited government. You can't have a world government that is small. It would be ineffectual and unable to sustain itself. Limited local government is the way to go. World government would abolish all local governments.

Libertarianism does not and cannot equal world government.

[He Who Pawns]

Libertarianism is for limited government. You can't have a world government that is small. It would be ineffectual and unable to sustain itself. Limited local government is the way to go. World government would abolish all local governments.

Libertarianism does not and cannot equal world government.

The exact same argument could be used to argue against the forming of the United States of America.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

The exact same argument could be used to argue against the forming of the United States of America.

You are right, but if you study the founding of the U.S. you'll know that many if not most of the people involved were not Libertarians. In fact the Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights at it's inception, which is why they are amendments.

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers in order to understand the conflict that resulted in our Constitution.

[almantimes2]

He who pawns. I think I need to understand this to debate you further.

Why do you want world government? All you said was that there would be no war but I have already explained to you war would not go away.

What are you are your other reasons?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Constitution = September 17, 1787
Bill of Rights = December 15, 1791

[He Who Pawns]

You are right, but if you study the founding of the U.S. you'll know that many if not most of the people involved were not Libertarians. In fact the Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights at it's inception, which is why there are amendments.

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers in order to understand the conflict that resulted in out Constitution.

I've read them cover to cover twice, thanks.

If you want me to continue discussing these issues with you, please don't be condescending.

[He Who Pawns]

He who pawns. I think I need to understand this to debate you further.

Why do you want world government? All you said was that there would be no war but I have already explained to you war would not go away.

What are you are your other reasons?

Less war is the main reason. A rebooting of Constitutional government would be nice, too. And we will not get that here without either a revolution, or a shift to an entirely new system, like world government. And really, it does seem possible to me that a less centralized system could result from a world government, because you would have each region, like Turkey, or Peru, or Nepal, etc, asking for very strong autonomy, much stronger federalism than we enjoy now under the shredded 10th Amendment.

[almantimes2]

Less war is the main reason. A rebooting of Constitutional government would be nice, too. And we will not get that here without either a revolution, or a shift to an entirely new system, like world government. And really, it does seem possible to me that a less centralized system could result from a world government, because you would have each region, like Turkey, or Peru, or Nepal, etc, asking for very strong autonomy, much stronger federalism than we enjoy now under the shredded 10th Amendment.


There would not be less war. Ask yourself why does war happen? War occurs For multitudes of reasons. People wanting more power, land, money, Or the sick desire for the murder of people. Now with your world government the same people who would incite these wars in a regular Timeline outside yours would still exist and would still attempt to make the moves to reach the goals that they want. People in power will become corrupt some regions would break off from your union to wage war. Countries don't start war's that's what you seem to think. It's individuals. It's mankind. You will not lessen war. A rebooting of constitutional government? And what if that fall's apart? You will then say the people would start a revolution. But that would have to be a global revolution. Meaning more people would have to die to get there right's back then if it was just one country did.
Im done with this argument im going to sleep.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I've read them cover to cover twice, thanks.

If you want me to continue discussing these issues with you, please don't be condescending.

Sir, i've been more than patient with you during your tirade against LE and the apparent "intellectual intimidation" which you claim to have endured. But if you continue in the manner in which you have; trying to incite forum members into a caps lock fight, then i will cease my dialogue with you, and will no longer make attempts to keep you from getting penalized for your actions. Thanks.

[He Who Pawns]

Sir, i've been more than patient with you during your tirade against LE and the apparent "intellectual intimidation" which you claim to have endured. But if you continue in the manner in which you have; trying to incite forum members into a caps lock fight, then i will cease my dialogue with you, and will no longer make attempts to keep you from getting penalized for your actions. Thanks.

Sir, I am going to bed. So good night! :D

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Less war is the main reason. A rebooting of Constitutional government would be nice, too. And we will not get that here without either a revolution, or a shift to an entirely new system, like world government. And really, it does seem possible to me that a less centralized system could result from a world government, because you would have each region, like Turkey, or Peru, or Nepal, etc, asking for very strong autonomy, much stronger federalism than we enjoy now under the shredded 10th Amendment.

We need a revolution to go back to the type of Constitutional government we had 200 years ago. Not to throw it out completely for something else.

[He Who Pawns]

We need a revelution to go back to the type of Constitutional government we had 200 years ago. Not to throw it out completely for something else.

I did not say to throw it out. I said we should use it as the model for the world government. But make it even stronger! We can learn from the mistakes we have suffered here, by making the new 10th Amendment even more bullet-proof, for example. With the 2nd Amendment, we would be very explicit in defining an individual right to bear arms, as another example.

I am arguing for strengthening the Constitution and decentralizing power, globally.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I did not say to throw it out. I said we should use it as the model for the world government. But make it even stronger! We can learn from the mistakes we have suffered here, by making the new 10th Amendment even more bullet-proof, for example. With the 2nd Amendment, we would be very explicit in defining an individual right to bear arms, as another example.

I am arguing for strengthening the Constitution and decentralizing power, globally.

sounds like a good idea, except how will you force the other 6 billion people to accept your style of government. What if a nation wants to be a monarchy? How will you bring them into a WG?

[He Who Pawns]

sounds like a good idea, except how will you force the other 6 billion people to accept your style of government. What if a nation wants to be a monarchy? How will you bring them into a WG?

well, people like freedom and liberty and peace and prosperity. if you offer them those things, they will probably sign up. of course, they don't have to. but over time, if you stick the Constitution, then more nations and regions would join, I think.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

well, people like freedom and liberty and peace and prosperity. if you offer them those things, they will probably sign up. of course, they don't have to. but over time, if you stick the Constitution, then more nations and regions would join, I think.

Here, you and Ron Paul agree. We should not spread American ideals through force, but by setting an example. If America works her stuff out and is able to maintain a republic, I believe there will be people who will want to emulate what we do.

In another universe, this would be nice. The truth about this universe though is that there is a small group of bankers who are conspiring to conquer the world via murder, theft, and lies. They are behind all of the major wars of our time and currently are executing a major property grab via economics. As long as they exist the human race will never have true freedom, nor will any ideas of peaceful world government come to fruition. Therefore, our goal needs to be national sovereignty and states rights. To assume that your idea is right for the world is to assume you possess control over it. The very first step toward freedom is letting go of any notion of control over others. Allowing them to think and feel the way they want. This may (and inevitably will) lead to thoughts and feelings contrary to your own.

The only true peaceful world government is world non-government.

[Liberty Rebellion]

Less war is the main reason. A rebooting of Constitutional government would be nice, too. And we will not get that here without either a revolution, or a shift to an entirely new system, like world government. And really, it does seem possible to me that a less centralized system could result from a world government, because you would have each region, like Turkey, or Peru, or Nepal, etc, asking for very strong autonomy, much stronger federalism than we enjoy now under the shredded 10th Amendment.

Why should they need to ask for stronger autonomy? They have plenty of it on their own without appealing to a higher authority.

A less centralized system IS less government, not another layer of it for nation-states to look to for approval.

I don't see any benefit to having world government. Violence would still occur unless people are locked in cages. As you said, technology would advance so everybody has suitcase nukes and then white supremacists from America nuke India. Now India wants revenge and the world-government demands the perpetrators be handed over. Since Americans cannot be trusted to keep a lid on their extremists groups, they now have to turn over their fire-arms which we were allowed to keep. America refuses and breaks from the union. Then the world government invades America and burns it to the ground since Americans won't surrender their firearms.

Other than your hope that world-government would end war, exactly what other benefits do you see? I don't see any and thinking after the past 100 years of government atrocities and politicians that lie through their teeth to obtain power, I don't see how you can even be serious.

Libertarians are vastly outnumbered by socialists in this country and the world. If a world government was created it would be one where 51% of people vote into legislation that oppresses the minority - the individual. If the world government is not to have the power to create legislation that the world nation-states must comply with then there is no need for a world government in the first place.

It's a nice thought though.

[apropos]

Wow, popular thread here. Someone might have said this on one of the previous pages, but the problem with world government is that it further insulates the leadership or representatives from their constituents. I think the ratio of citizens to elected official is something like 50,000 people to 1. Those are a lot of viewpoints potentially not being represented.

This is why the Founders intended local government to take the lead in governance, because there was more accountability and if you didn't like what the leaders of your community were doing, you knew where to find them and give them a piece of your mind. Today, I don't know if my federal senators listen to me and I am sure they don't know who I am or what is important to me. Global governance would simply remove your average citizen further from the place decisions are made.

One centralized government also means a single point of failure. If someone can take over that apparatus, he controls the all the power that government wields. Very risky situation. Less war *might* accompany one world government, but historically less conflict is most readily achieved by complete domination of one's enemies. That doesn't jive well with individual freedom and liberty to make one's own course in the world.

[Truth Warrior]

A Very Real New World Order (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin487.htm) 1-27-09
More On The New World Order (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin488.htm) 1-30-09

[silverhawks]

The main reason I've always opposed world government is quite simple.

Look at the UK government, look at the US government. Both of them are supposedly elected into office via democratic process to represent their respective populations best interests.

Do you think that either of them is responsible enough to actually do that, and represent their constituents and protect their rights as citizens and human beings? Look at how both governments are selling out to special interests and corporations - case in point, Monsanto, the agricorp that sues farmers for having crops growing next to its GMO crops. Now imagine Monsanto paying off enough representatives to quietly be given the contract to provide food for every human being on Earth.

Look at the EU - it has a relatively small number of very corrupt people responsible for the rights and lives of hundreds of millions, which it obviously is not capable, or willing, to do.

The EU touts itself as "post-democratic"; I've seen people over there who are so deluded that they don't know why not having a democratic representative system is a bad thing. Look at the proposed system of EU representatives for its member states once the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified; it doesn't provide for representation for entire countries over a 5 year period, while still handing down laws. Literally, laws being given to a country with no recourse. New Labour politicians claim this is the future we should embrace, that sovereignty is an outmoded concept? I say bollocks to them.

And of course, the political elite of each country is already being paid enough backhanders to block opposition on taking said countries out of the EU - including Britain. That would get infinitely worse when the true EU state comes into being.

Now imagine the lives and rights of 6 billion in the hands of a relative few.

Is any human being THAT incorruptible and responsible?

And as many people have pointed out in this thread, do you seriously think there is ANY way to take that power back once it is handed over?

[silverhawks]

This is why the Founders intended local government to take the lead in governance, because there was more accountability and if you didn't like what the leaders of your community were doing, you knew where to find them and give them a piece of your mind. Today, I don't know if my federal senators listen to me and I am sure they don't know who I am or what is important to me. Global governance would simply remove your average citizen further from the place decisions are made.


This is a great explanation, Apropos.

Taking it one step further, look at the current EU system. I'm sure that the Europeans BELIEVE they are represented, when they are not...how can they when their "representatives" believe democracy is an outmoded social concept?

In reality, everything is passed down from the non-elected EU commission to the elected EU Parliament, which rubber-stamps laws into being with virtually no review. The people have no say in this process, but they are required to comply. If they do not, they are breaking the law, and now their livelihood is entirely subject to the will of the state. Then again, since the EU follows the Napoleonic model of law, the people are guilty until proven innocent; laws tell them what they can do, instead of laying guidelines for what they cannot do. And corpus juris is non-existent in the EU.

The majority of EU MEP's not only do not know their constituents, they are being paid enough to not care about them. An MEP not only gets paid a huge amount of money, they also have legal immunity for life...nothing wrong with lawmakers being immune to the very laws they create, eh?

[Mesogen]

Certainly a world government would end most wars. Sure there might be a few countries who don't join, and that's up to them.

How are you so certain of this?

If there were one world government, then do you suppose there would be one world military? If so, this military would have a near monopoly on military power. If any country (a province of the world govt) were to start acting out in its own defense, then what kind of police action would the one world military have to take? Would there be any counter or check to this? Probably not much of one.

[silverhawks]

How are you so certain of this?

If there were one world government, then do you suppose there would be one world military? If so, this military would have a near monopoly on military power. If any country (a province of the world govt) were to start acting out in its own defense, then what kind of police action would the one world military have to take? Would there be any counter or check to this? Probably not much of one.

More importantly - who would they owe their allegiance to?

Right now, the British army swears allegiance to the crown and country, which represents the people and the nation's sovereignty, not the monarch directly. Even if the monarch wants to trade away the sovereignty of Britain, they cannot. If they attempted to, the army and the people would be quite within their rights to remove and replace them. NO-ONE can legally give away the sovereignty of Britain; yet progressive steps are being taken to do this under the public radar.
Patriotism is equated with racism and nationalism, and the concepts of sovereignty and patriotism are being directly eroded.

The US Army swears to uphold the Constitution, and defend America from enemies foreign and domestic.

In a global government scenario, I'm guessing that the global military would owe their allegiance to the state (this has already been suggested as a "change" in Britain, if you follow the news there closely enough), and be at the beck and call of politicians, protecting their interests and making sure the people comply with their directives; in other words, a global police state.

[AdamT]

In a perfect world without evil, controlling, and greedy people, world government could work, which I'm absolutely opposed to. That being said, the type of world government these criminals want is tyrannical and fascistic in nature, the likes no one has ever seen.

That's what's wrong with it.

[ChaosControl]

Ultimately it comes down to consolidation of power.
Too much power in one source is a threat to freedom to everyone, that is how tyranny is born.

The US government already has too much consolidated power. We were set up to have sovereign states under a common language and economy, effectively 50 smaller governments with a connection under the constitution. The problem is that the state government powers got absorbed by the federal government, power hungry politicians have been doing that since really the beginning of the nation.

Say we set up a world government similar to how the US government was set up, as in we were still all sovereign nations, but had a single language and currency for sake of convenience. Well ultimately power hungry people would absorb powers and consolidate them centrally and you'd eventually have some elite circle of world dictators.

IF such was not a threat and we could ensure that a loose connection, then sure I'd have no real problem with say a world currency backed by gold and silver and a common language, but the problem is that we've seen it happen in the US, we know it'd happen on a world scale government too.

I think that soon you'll see the EU become more and more centralized in power until the countries that make it up are more just countries in name only kind of like how we're all just states in name only.

[lucius]

//

[Truth Warrior]

To: He who is a Meat-puppet.

Utopean Dreams are always psychotic...educate yourself or NOT...it is way past the 11th hour...nobody running anything except lucifer.

More light, more light, more light--worshipful master!

;) :) Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

[He Who Pawns]

Utopean Dreams are always psychotic...educate yourself or NOT...it is way past the 11th hour...nobody running anything except lucifer.


I'm sure that's what the naysayers told the Founding Fathers, too. :rolleyes:

[tribute_13]

When mankind grows up and can learn to respect each other as well as respect other peoples opinions and lifestyles I will be the first to welcome a OWG. But honestly, we're no where close to be being ready for a global government. As a species we are immature and egocentric.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm sure that's what the naysayers told the Founding Fathers, too. :rolleyes: Did the FFs promise you Utopia? :rolleyes:

[paulitics]

I'm sure that's what the naysayers told the Founding Fathers, too. :rolleyes:

It wasn't a utopean dream, it was a cynical dream. The founding fathers were extremely cynical, perhaps paranoid, but rightfully so. Your mindest comes from what I see in the universities from utopean delusional professors who have no idea how the real world works. My guess is that you are quite young and suggestible to these delusional ideas. I'm glad you found Ron Paul, but you should do much more independent study.

[jrich4rpaul]

English is already spreading around the globe as the world language.

Apparently it's spreading everywhere but America. I can't walk into any store in the country without seeing every sign in 3 different languages. Before Circuit City shut down we had more and more customers coming in who demanded they be helped by someone who spoke Spanish because they didn't know more than 3 words in English. Before you know it, it will be a requirement to be bilingual just to get a job at McDonald's because people refuse to learn the language of the country they are in.

[Bossobass]

Right, like I said, the technology is an equalizer between the people and the government.

As for those asking which issues I agree with Dr Paul on, here is my answer: ALL THEM, except abortion, world government and evolution. Everything else I agree with.

So quit trying to question my f$cking credentials.

"Technology is increasing exponentially".

That's the best laugh I've had all week.

This morning, I was stuck in a traffic jam of 10s of thousands of drones in their automobiles, moving slower than an ape can walk. Vehicles with internal combustion engines, each sitting on 4 rubber tires, each burning gasoline.

In the late 40s, some 60 years ago, the textbooks will confirm that binary code, fiber optics, laser, digital to analog conversion, pulse width modulation, rocketry, etc., were discovered and understood by practical science.

60 fucking years later we have iPods and cell phones? Some exponential evolution.

Steel, rubber, oil, natural gas, timber, textiles and food. Media and advertising. Banking and credit. One giant time warp. One drives the urge to consume the same products in a different package, one drives the means to consume those products (debt) and one provides what you'll consume, over and over, in a different package.

You're confusing the theory of evolution with consolidation.


First built in 1947, this home challenged nearly every assumption about housing construction, it was built around a central "mast" which contained plumbing and other essentials, it was heated and cooled naturally, made its own power, was earthquake and storm proof, and was made of permanent, engineered materials that required very little maintenance.

Hmmm, sounds pretty evolutionary. Problem was, it eliminated the energy, insurance and banking monopolies and prevented the US' "evolution" into a service economy full of junk-consuming, energy-wasting drones who can't find Louisiana on a map. That's why it ended up in a museum or a bank vault with every other "evolutionary" invention.

Wake the fuck up. One world government, one world energy, one world bank, one world military. This horse shit isn't evolution, it's consolidation. Seeing this NWO cheerleading in a Ron Paul Forum is embarrassing.

"Competition is a sin". “I would rather earn 1% off a 100 people's efforts than 100% of my own efforts.” John D. Rockefeller, 100 years ago.

Under the "evolution" of education through a trillion dollars spent by government, the US has fallen from number 1 to number 17, just above Mexico, in basic education. Sounds like DEvolution to me. And, wait until that model gets implemented through a One World Government. The apes will be teaching the humans.

Bosso

[Kraig]

I have never understood this fixation with "NWO" conspiracies or the "threat" of an impending world government. Isn't that obviously what's coming? Isn't that the obvious next step for humanity? History is nothing but a consolidation of humans coming closer and closer together. English is already spreading around the globe as the world language.

As Carl Sagan once said, from space, there are no borders visible on earth. Borders are phony props that lead to nationalistic wars.

Certainly a world government would end most wars. Sure there might be a few countries who don't join, and that's up to them.



It's the nature of how it is being done. Global cooperation may be the next step for humanity, but global slavery isn't. They are attempting to create the NWO through force and deception rather than volunteerism and cooperation, that isn't a step forward, that's a step back to the dark ages and feudalism.


In a pure laissez faire system the world would work towards a system of more and more global cooperation, government has nothing to do with it - it only destroys.

The nationalistic wars you speak of were not caused by the idea of borders, they were caused by governments and the men who run them, for the benefit of a few. The NWO is just a more powerful version of that same monster.



For example, what would be wrong with a world government based on a clone of the US Constitution that starts from scratch and adopts the gold standard? :D

The same things that are wrong with this current country, it would continue to grow more and more powerful and more and more destructive.

[Philmanoman]

No matter what rules or laws they had with this NWO,just in my opinion,very good chances that quite alot of innocent people would have to die.If everything in a NWO went absolutely perfect...maybe not so bad...but even that would be a far stretch...

I remember this one word..."blowback".

[LibForestPaul]

Britain
1. No guns
2. Mandatory id cards - including DNA sampling
3. A less than efficient police force
4. Nationalized health care, that is failing, with low cost foreign doctors

Australia
1. No guns
2. National firewall - secret list of banned websites that are unknown, but linking to one will result in a fine.

Israel
1. Id cards specifying religion.

Who do you think all these mil and gov spooks will turn on when they aren't eyein each other?


Thanks, but no thanks. US may have liberty problems, but as least it is a problem. Most countries, liberty no longer exists.


P.S. Do we adopt parliamentary system and scrap our constitutional government.
Do we scrap our constitution all together, Australia has no written freedom of speech, no constitution. Which court system do we adopt? Israel has a rabbinical court.


Note: I listed the three countries above since they are close allies and considered democracies. Imagine now including Japan, China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Kenya...

[He Who Pawns]

"Technology is increasing exponentially".

That's the best laugh I've had all week.

This morning, I was stuck in a traffic jam of 10s of thousands of drones in their automobiles, moving slower than an ape can walk. Vehicles with internal combustion engines, each sitting on 4 rubber tires, each burning gasoline.

In the late 40s, some 60 years ago, the textbooks will confirm that binary code, fiber optics, laser, digital to analog conversion, pulse width modulation, rocketry, etc., were discovered and understood by practical science.

60 fucking years later we have iPods and cell phones? Some exponential evolution.

Steel, rubber, oil, natural gas, timber, textiles and food. Media and advertising. Banking and credit. One giant time warp. One drives the urge to consume the same products in a different package, one drives the means to consume those products (debt) and one provides what you'll consume, over and over, in a different package.

You're confusing the theory of evolution with consolidation.


http://i41.tinypic.com/4rpxt2.jpg

I was talking about the computational power required to design and build nuclear and biological weapons, and the cost and availability of that computational power.

[lucasfrom]

http://i41.tinypic.com/4rpxt2.jpg

I was talking about the computational power required to design and build nuclear and biological weapons, and the cost and availability of that computational power.

any idea what that graph would look like if inflation was accounted for?

[LATruth]

Note: I listed the three countries above since they are close allies and considered democracies. Imagine now including Japan, China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Kenya...

Yep , they have a Democracy. I do NOT support democracy. I will never have a say in a "democracy". I live in a REPUBLIC. I have real rights, whats left of them.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I have never understood this fixation with "NWO" conspiracies or the "threat" of an impending world government. Isn't that obviously what's coming? Isn't that the obvious next step for humanity? History is nothing but a consolidation of humans coming closer and closer together. English is already spreading around the globe as the world language.

As Carl Sagan once said, from space, there are no borders visible on earth. Borders are phony props that lead to nationalistic wars.

Certainly a world government would end most wars. Sure there might be a few countries who don't join, and that's up to them.

For example, what would be wrong with a world government based on a clone of the US Constitution that starts from scratch and adopts the gold standard? :D

You fail to take into account the thousands of years that it took to develop the theory of positive government in the Western Hemisphere starting with the founding father Socrates. Prior to him, we all lived in a one world tyranny where a master class pimped a slave class of whores.
The purpose for borders and treaties in the United States is to draw a line between the lower uncivilized tyrannies of pimps and whores that exist outside of our borders. On the other hand, the purpose of a one world government is to erase this border and to devise treaties to reestablish and consolidate the prior business of pimping and whoring.

[Truth Warrior]

You fail to take into account the thousands of years that it took to develop the theory of positive government in the Western Hemisphere starting with the founding father Socrates. Prior to him, we all lived in a one world tyranny where a master class pimped a slave class of whores.
The purpose for borders and treaties in the United States is to draw a line between the lower uncivilized tyrannies of pimps and whores that exist outside of our borders. On the other hand, the purpose of a one world government is to erase this border and to devise treaties to reestablish and consolidate the prior business of pimping and whoring.

When asked by a reporter what he thought of western civilization, Gandhi once replied, "I think it would be a good idea". :D

[almantimes2]

Bump.

I wonder if pawns still defends this.

Let me compound the point I was trying to make.

A one world government will End war as pawns was trying to say when asked what advantages would a world government bring.

Man does not need multiple countries to wage war.

Also he said it would be fine just as long as it was a constitutional republic.

There are a few problems here. 1st of all because of the fact that the entire world is under the control of a single government it would be very difficult for the entire world to keep itself under this system.

And what if it turns tyrannical? Sure any government throughout history eventually makes it move to towards this path.
You could say because we have a version second amendment we could simply have a revolution and everything will be sunshine and daisy's.

But it doesn't matter.

Lets say Brazil turns into a crazy Dictatorship Nazi society. And the people there have to overthrow there government. Probably about 20- 30 thousand people would die in the process I don't know. And sure Perhaps the good side wins.

Lets take this situation on a global scale. 1 billion people die.
Oh. Yea and the good side wins.

What's the point pawns? there's no advantage here.

More people die in revolutions.
War does not end.

[Anti Federalist]

I have never understood this fixation with "NWO" conspiracies or the "threat" of an impending world government. Isn't that obviously what's coming? Isn't that the obvious next step for humanity? History is nothing but a consolidation of humans coming closer and closer together. English is already spreading around the globe as the world language.

As Carl Sagan once said, from space, there are no borders visible on earth. Borders are phony props that lead to nationalistic wars.

Certainly a world government would end most wars. Sure there might be a few countries who don't join, and that's up to them.

For example, what would be wrong with a world government based on a clone of the US Constitution that starts from scratch and adopts the gold standard? :D

Nice resurrection bump.

He Who Pawns = He Who Knows Shit.

[CCTelander]

Again, it would require an iron-clad Constitution with a rock-solid Bill of Rights and strong federalism for the various regions. If government breaks that Constitution, then you overthrow them. It's as simple as that.

Constitutions don't stop bullets.

As far as the "overthrow them" pipe dream goes, riiiggghht.

[revolutionisnow]

http://blogderandy.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/dontfeedthetrolls.jpg

[Liberty4life]

the main problem with a one world government is there will be no competition with it, and then there will be no one who can oppose something that it does and is disliked

[andrewh817]

Again, this model I am talking about is based on a clone of the US Constitution. So there would be 1st Amendment rights to strike down any nonsense like that.

Also consider that a one-world government like I am suggesting would not require a large standing army or huge nuclear arsenal, especially as more nations join. This new world government could abolish the personal income tax and move to a simple 10- or 15% worldwide sales tax. In fact, you could write that into the Constitution, banning any income tax.

If American politicians are already not held accountable for disobeying the Constitution, how in the hell are global leaders If the Constitution is not followed in America right now, how do you expect people even farther removed from you to have any sense of accountability if they don't follow it??