Another "Union," This Time Asian

[freelance]

From Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=alygGdV_pLEw&refer=asia

[american.swan]

I am not surprised. I have heard of some "BeSeTo" talks also.

Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo in some form of union also.

[Voice]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?

[forsmant]

A one world government would be more susceptible to corruption. Take the USA for example, it started as a great idea and now is becoming a dictatorial police state. A one world government would not be sustainable until all humans embrace the same theory of governance and economic policy.

[FunkBuddha]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?

I'm against it for the same reason I'm against a big federal government.

Government should remain as local as possible to best serve its citizens.

Bureaucrats in Washington D.C don't know what's best for my community in East Tennessee. With a big federal government the needs of the big multi-national corporations will always be served first.

[brandon]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?


People don't agree on everything. People want different things.

The larger the size of government jurisdiction, the less the people are represented and get what they want.

In a democracy, 49% of the population has NO say if the other 51% voted against them. For this reason, small scale democracies create competition similar to how corporations compete in a free market. Dont like what is happening where you live? Then move to the next county where you do like what is happening. Not possible in one world government.

[brandon]

Voice:

Why do you support Ron Paul if you also support one world government? Surely any of the other globalist candidates would be better suited for your viewpoint.

[Lord Xar]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?


voice, this is not good. "A global community" is just a way to say control and no more individual rights. Collectivivsm is OPPOSITE indivualism. You cannot have true freedom or liberty with collectivism.

Also, when you "form" together, you MUST usurp the dictates and laws/rules of each land. AND it is in this that our Consitution will go away and to be replaced with what?

I for one, would never ever allow my country to absolve its sovereignty in place of a new one government. What civil liberty violations would take hold?

You 'say' there would be no wars, but perhaps it is the design of wars to promote this agenda?

Read this: This is a HUGE part of Ron Paul's campaign. Our founding fathers would NEVER allow the United States to be governed by non-americans, and part of laws that supercede American Laws. -- ie. LOST/NAFTA/CAFTA/NAU <-- yikes.

American Sovereignty and Independence
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=4

Our fore fathers didn't fight a revolution just to dissolve our constitution and rights to be formed by a "super global agenda". This idea of "global communities" is just a word for one world government. Who do you think is gonna control this? hmmm.

Forget it. Liberty and Freedom can never be had with collectivism. Individuals MUST be paramount else you will ultimately violate all rights for the betterment of the whole. And WHO decides what is better, what is right, what is appropriate. Domination.

Hasn't it always been the goal of conquest. Isn't this collectivism and globalism just another way to generate conquest? Sucking up independent soverign nations under the umbrella of some benevolent force? hmmm...

[267]

It is an example of the Sun Tzu Art of War. It is conducted as a part of conquest, which is war. This is the opposite of anything that could help foster the prosperity of liberty, property, happiness and the advance of civilization. Remember, too: Our Ancestors fought to rid the land of national political government, and they were victorious. All the survivors agreed to was an annual meeting of state delegates, and Articles of Confederation. It took one vote per state to obey the law, and unanimity to break it. If nothing else, we owe it to them to remain loyal to their wishes.

[267]

Another thing, these modern day unions have always been promoted by the CFR for world governing purposes, not for the advancement of anything remotely related to the benefit of the citizenry. The many acronymic non-governmental organizations installed are private firms designed and run by CFR members. CFR has long been associated with the Rockefeller interests that founded it. They have a tendency to advocate and promote rules and restrictions that are beneficial mainly to their own varied financial interests. Attaining special privileges at the expense of competitors is not generally beneficial to the prosperity of the citizenry. Special privileges by definition do not involve voluntary exchange that would be mutually beneficial. Thus wealth TENDS TO BE MERELY TRANSFERRED, NOT CREATED, as it would be in market transactions. You will note that enormous sums of taxpayer money and grandchildren credit are expended on these schemes which are universally promoted by overpaid executives, lawyers, and compliant politicians.

[freelance]

Voice, the thing isn't even formed yet, and already China is throwing its weight around. This is a huge grab for China.

[Malakai0]

Years and years ago before the EU I heard a theory on the web that the world was going to divide into 3-4 super alliances in preparation for the coming energy wars over the remaining oil.



One union down and 2 in heavy planning, I wonder....

We need to stop the NAU here and (get)stay free and sovereign with Ron Paul leading us. Keep us out of all the shenanigans.

[shida]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?


Have you seen Alex Jones" Endgame - Blueprint for global enslavement" - Google Video? I think you might seriously reconsider your views.

[freelance]

Years and years ago before the EU I heard a theory on the web that the world was going to divide into 3-4 super alliances in preparation for the coming energy wars over the remaining oil.



One union down and 2 in heavy planning, I wonder....

We need to stop the NAU here and (get)stay free and sovereign with Ron Paul leading us. Keep us out of all the shenanigans.

Make that three in planning--Africa.

[Mortikhi]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?

How close do you feel to your representatives? Your congressmen?

Do you think they listen to what little ol' you has to say?

Now imagine if you didnt have a representative or congressman, but a regional representative that consisted of the western fourth of North America. Who would listen to your complaints, worries, or even vote?

Thats my problem with a NAU.

[apropos]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?

If you want a serious answer to why collectivism is a bad thing, read F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom. He won a nobel prize off his findings. One of this big arguments is that collectivism cannot lead to anything EXCEPT tyranny - maybe not all at once, but gradually. The idea that 'central planning' that will supposedly lead to a more efficient economy is explored in depth.

The condensed version of the book is online. Check it out.

http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf


But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery. It has been well said that, in a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation.


To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems
has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be
combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable,
but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself. As has been aptly said: ‘What
has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.’

[Primbs]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?

What happens when the world government starts granting eminent domain for it's well healed friends at the expense of poor people?

This is already happening in the US. You will have government sanctioned abuses.

[Original_Intent]

Isn't this exactly what the Trilateral Commission was formed to accomplish? A European, American, and Asian Economic Union and from there One World government?

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


check out the membership list. If that doesn't look like the cream of the CFR, I don't know what is.

[austin356]

okay, this is going to piss some of you off..

What is your problem with collectivism? Groups of countries are more efficient. One world government would end war. England, then the UK, then a united Europe has become safer because their police forces are cooperating, they are not fighting each other, money conversion is no longer necessary, cultural misunderstandings are disappearing... wheres the problem here?

All the states joined together as the United States. Together they are far more powerful and efficient. While I strongly agree with states rights, the concept of seperate money, guarded borders, individual road systems for each state is ridiculous to me.

I, for one, would have nothing against America, Mexico, and Canada joining together as an economic unit.

I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. Conspiracy theories aside, what would be wrong with one world government?



What is wrong with it?

I would have to break out my assault rifle, thats what is wrong. I and 95% of the world population is "not ready" for world government.