User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 4:44:20 AM EDT
[#1]
up until about 1865 we had a pretty good system right here....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 4:52:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Hell yeah! All those one world systems are flawed. Look at the countries of the people who are in it and ask yourself if you'd like to live there.
As bad as it gets here with a Liberals and Demonrats it's still light years ahead of some of these other so called civilized nations. Cheers, Chris P.S. I forgot to add that the U.N should be paying the U.S.A. for being part of it not the other way around! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 4:58:47 AM EDT
[#3]
Yes, the concept of a world government is inherently flawed. If such a system were workable, no doubt it would be a positive step, but it will never be. The problem is the human factor. Being far from perfect it is simply beyond us to properly govern. There has never been an ultimately successful human government. The United States has done pretty well, undoubtedly, but was never able to solve the key societal problems before the nation reached it's apex and started down the long slope of decay. No government ever has, and it certainly doesn't look like they ever will. "Man has dominated man to his own injury", this was said over 2000 years ago and hasn't appreciably changed. If municipal government is a mess, state government is a bigger mess, and national government is a collossal train-wreck, would not a world government be just more corrupt, more slow-moving, more heavy-handed, and more unchangeable? Tinfoil hat or not, one has reason to be scared of the megalithic and by definition imperfect force that a fully implemented UN would wield. Such a question cannot really be answered by us petty humans, yet a study of the last bible book shows the United Nations described as a "wild beast", slated for destruction. Once they declare victory, once they say they have attained "peace and security", well, then it's time to take cover. The only suitable world government will be one sponsored, established, and operated by God himself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:06:35 AM EDT
[#4]
Hell yeah! All those one world systems are flawed. Look at the countries of the people who are in it and ask yourself if you'd like to live there. I wouldn't want to live in California but that doesn't make me want to dissolve the United States. [;)] (Granted, I would like to have a less intrusive federal government, but I don't think that the "United States" is inherently unworkable.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:08:53 AM EDT
[#5]
ive wondered about this myself. i view some sort of world government as both necessary and inevitable.
necessary in the same sense that a federal authority is needed to coordinate and mediate between the states of the US. inevitable because power accrues more power to itself, eventually resulting in one centralized authority. so yes, let's design a better system. the issue i see is the extent of intrusion allowed to it into national sovreignty. we as americans are rightfully resistant to interference with our rights as US citizens, but have little problem (except you funny isolationist guys) about putting down genocide or providing disaster relief. so my question would be, would we accept world government under any conditions at all, say if we started with the Constitution with some similar federal model (either pre- or post-1865)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:13:10 AM EDT
[#6]
Why you don't want it.
2 REASONS....... 1. Like taxation without representation, your areas tastes should be controlled by you. Do you want France to decide how YOU do something? Heck no...... 2. Too Much Power, and the individual so few rights. Inherently unsafe. It allows a few humans (and humans aren't always honest) to set up another third reich. Give me liberty or give me death..... M4-AK World Govt sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:14:22 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: so my question would be, would we accept world government under any conditions at all, say if we started with the Constitution with some similar federal model (either pre- or post-1865)? Your proposal will [b]never[/b] happen. Serious oppression/tyranny would be automatic under such a system. We will never see a world-wide USA. You guys better fight for sovereignty, as there's only one way to go--farther down. [:(] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:14:53 AM EDT
[#8]
Fly American Airlines.....you get on and the stewardess says...Welcome to American,,the ONE WORLD AIRLINE[puke]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:17:46 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Fly American Airlines.....you get on and the [red]stewardess[/red] says...Welcome to American,,the ONE WORLD AIRLINE[puke] You mean the [i]flight attendant[/i]--it's off to the re-education camps for you, Comrade!! LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:18:09 AM EDT
[#10]
The problem is the human factor. Being far from perfect it is simply beyond us to properly govern. There has never been an ultimately successful human government. What would you consider "proper" government? And what is your standard for "ultimate" success? Personally, I don't view government as a mechanism to achieve any sort of "ultimate" goal. It's just a means to keep violence and disorder at a tolerable level. It's like the furnace in my house: I'll never have "ultimate" warmth, and it's not because the furnace is flawed. Heat, by its nature, dissipates from warmer to cooler areas and that's something I've learned to accept. I just pay my gas bill each month and enjoy the comfort of staying warm in cold weather. The United States has done pretty well, undoubtedly, but was never able to solve the key societal problems before the nation reached it's apex and started down the long slope of decay. No government ever has, and it certainly doesn't look like they ever will. What are the key societal problems? Tinfoil hat or not, one has reason to be scared of the megalithic and by definition imperfect force that a fully implemented UN would wield. Such a question cannot really be answered by us petty humans, yet a study of the last bible book shows the United Nations described as a "wild beast", slated for destruction. The name "United Nations" appears in the Bible? [>:/] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:18:34 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: so my question would be, would we accept world government under any conditions at all, say if we started with the Constitution with some similar federal model (either pre- or post-1865)? Your proposal will [b]never[/b] happen. Serious oppression/tyranny would be automatic under such a system. We will never see a world-wide USA. You guys better fight for sovereignty, as there's only one way to go--farther down. [:(] that's a possibility. i'd like to see more opinions tho. to automatically dismiss world government strikes me as ostrich-like. i'd rather have a hand in shaping it than be dictated to by it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:20:26 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: that's a possibility. i'd like to see more opinions tho. to automatically dismiss world government strikes me as ostrich-like. i'd rather have a hand in shaping it than be dictated to by it. I promise it is a true Pandora's Box. Stick around--don't die soon--you'll probably see it. You will spend your days wishing for the "good old days." [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:25:21 AM EDT
[#13]
Let's see, USA has one vote then Gabon, then Iraq, then Iran and so on. Sure hope not but in the future?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:39:54 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: snip And if it's a historic inevitability snip World Government is not inevitable in the short term and in the long term we all die, so long term speculation is moot. World Government would not be stable and would have to be ruthlessly created and enforced to be maintained for even a short duration. Get the picture? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:48:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Whaat about if we were to conquer the world and make American states out of all the other countries?
All our enemies could live in states ending in -ahoma, (Iranahoma), while the Euroweenies... Francohoma Germanifornia North Korealina South Korealina Iraqifornia Think about it. [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:52:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: What would you consider "proper" government? And what is your standard for "ultimate" success? Personally, I don't view government as a mechanism to achieve any sort of "ultimate" goal. It's just a means to keep violence and disorder at a tolerable level. It's like the furnace in my house: I'll never have "ultimate" warmth, and it's not because the furnace is flawed. Heat, by its nature, dissipates from warmer to cooler areas and that's something I've learned to accept. I just pay my gas bill each month and enjoy the comfort of staying warm in cold weather. Ultimate success would mean exactly what you state, but carried further. The total elimination of real crime paired with the absolute preservation of personal liberites. That's a combination no human congress or jury could ever achive, of course. Proper government would not extort it's citizens. Would not create unjust laws. Would not aquit a guilty man. Would never imprison or execute an innocent individual. Would not impinge on the freedoms of it's citizens. Would not tolerate internal corruption. What are the key societal problems? How bout crime, poverty, war, famine, disease, and human oppression? No government has conquered all of these at any time. The name "United Nations" appears in the Bible? [>:/] It is reffered to symoblically, in the same sense that "AR15" is not included in the constitution. Daniel 7:1-8, 8:20 establishes the equation of "beasts" to governments, and through extension the muti-headed, multi-horned wild beast described at Revelation 13:1-8, 17:7-14, etc can clearly be equated to the League of Nations and it's successor, the UN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:55:23 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Whaat about if we were to conquer the world and make American states out of all the other countries? ... [:)] there's another possibility! hey, alexander tried, genghis tried, napoleon tried, hitler tried, maybe we'll get lucky! [:)] personally, i dont want to die subjugating france. they aint worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 5:57:17 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: Fly American Airlines.....you get on and the [red]stewardess[/red] says...Welcome to American,,the ONE WORLD AIRLINE[puke] You mean the [i]flight attendant[/i]--it's off to the re-education camps for you, Comrade!! LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:03:08 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Is the concept of world government inherently flawed or are the wannabe institutions like the United Nations screwed up for some other reason? And if it's a historic inevitability, should we be trying to design a better system? Long term and hopefully very long term we must move to a world government if we are to survive as a people. Long term survival dictates we move first to the moon and Mars and eventually beyond to the stars. In order to accomplish this move we must allocate the scarce resources of this planet and only a world government can accomplish the allocation. As a conservative I detest the thought of a one world government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:05:58 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: personally, i dont want to die subjugating france. they aint worth it. Your greatest danger would come from falling French weapons. Simply give the surrender order, stand clear and you should be safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:26:40 AM EDT
[#21]
Let's be more concrete here for a second: government is about people regulating the actions of people, and people basically suck. Therefore, governments all suck, to one degree or another.
It barely works here. There is no way one form of govenment could work with everyone in the world. Why try? We're destined to muddle along, I think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:30:59 AM EDT
[#22]
If you think too much of our money goes to other countries now, just think what it will be like if there were one world gov't. You see, the rest of the world would see it as only fair that we pay them back for our "lavish" lifestyle over that past 50 years. The fact that since this country's founding Americans have worked harder and smarter than the rest of the world means nothing. That was cheating.
I think we have to have seperate governments to prevent what M4-AK referred to, a rise of Hitler type figure to power. WHile the chances of that occurring may seem remote, a one world government makes it difficult to have organized opposition, in the form of other countries - like the Allies in WWII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:32:01 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Let's be more concrete here for a second: government is about people regulating the actions of people, and people basically suck. Therefore, governments all suck, to one degree or another. It barely works here. There is no way one form of govenment could work with everyone in the world. Why try? We're destined to muddle along, I think. Yeah, what he said. [^] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:40:25 AM EDT
[#24]
What made this nation great was a common work ethic, language, culture, morality and ideals.
Among them, the ideas of personal responsibility, personal freedom, hard work and strong yet civilized moral behaviors. The notion of a decentralized Gov't authority for governing the people and yet a strong centralized Gov't for national cohesion and defense is a delicate balance that requires constant vigilance. In short, a system of self-government of a people guided by a common culture of freedom, ambition, common sense and moral discreetness. A very rare conjunction indeed. What is destroying this nation is the fragmentation and "Balkanization" of our culture and ideals, and the growing insidious attitudes of common disrespect, crassness, irresponsibility, hostility and slothfulness. A one-world Gov't would be no improvement in the factors eroding our nation. The fact that the vast majority of the world has very little interest in personal freedom and personal responsibility - which are needed for prosperity - is the major reason the USA is so vilified throughout the world. I'd hate for the majority of laws that affect ME to be imposed by a Governmental body composed of people representing a billion ChiComms, a billion Hindus, a billion Muslims, a billion third-world savages and a billion socialists. It's bad enough people like Ted "MaryJo Who?" Kennedy, Hitlery Klinton, Diane FineSwine, Maxine BlackWaters, and Barney Fag have anything to say about my life. [%|] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:50:12 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: I'd hate for the majority of laws that affect ME to be imposed by a Governmental body composed of people representing a billion ChiComms, a billion Hindus, a billion Muslims, a billion third-world savages and a billion socialists. This is exactly what Ted Turner, Hanoi Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite, etc., want to happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:56:35 AM EDT
[#26]
I agree with Pontius.
There has never been and never will be a perfect government that is established by man. Man is just incapable of ruling himself. If we take history as an example we can look at the Roman civilization, the Greeks, and all the other civilizations that in their time were the top rung of the proverbial ladder. Still look at what is left of both of the fore mentioned. All you see now is carcass of what used to be. I will go as far to say the United States government is the closest that we have ever and probably will ever come. But in the end it will do what all the other governments have done. Just decay away. R4M[sniper] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 6:59:38 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: I'd hate for the majority of laws that affect ME to be imposed by a Governmental body composed of people representing a billion ChiComms, a billion Hindus, a billion Muslims, a billion third-world savages and a billion socialists. This is exactly what Ted Turner, Hanoi Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite, etc., want to happen. HellsBells - that's exactly what Bill Clitoris and Al Gore wanted too! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 7:20:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Let's be more concrete here for a second: government is about people regulating the actions of people, and people basically suck. Therefore, governments all suck, to one degree or another. It barely works here. There is no way one form of govenment could work with everyone in the world. Why try? We're destined to muddle along, I think. I understand your point but let's look at some other conclusions that can be drawn from the "People suck" premise: Since people suck, they cannot be trusted to govern themselves (or to own weapons). The best government is the one that involves the smallest number of people, i.e., a dictatorship. (Better yet would be rule by an intelligent computer.) -or- Since people suck, we must quit trying to make our own rules and must rely instead on the guidance of God as revealed by his prophet, Mohammed. -or- Since people suck, the only morally sound course of action is to make ourselves extinct before we hurt any more panda bears or spotted owls. [whacko] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 7:49:27 AM EDT
[#29]
-Since people suck, particularly at regulating the actions of other people, the weapons are required and necessary to level the playing field and keep things on the balance.
-Since people suck, we must quit trying to make our own rules and must rely instead on the guidance of God as revealed by his prophet, Jesus. Read the Koran, it's a hateful, divisive book that couldn't possibly be the word of a loving god. Conversely, to paraphrase Ghandi, "If christians actually practiced what was in the Bible the world would be a much better place." Still not perfect, but on the right track. But of course, barring some divine upheaval that will never happen. -Since people suck, the only morally sound course of action is to go on with our lives, because God (or Evolution, take your pick) put us here, knowing quite well that we would have an impact on our enviroment. "Fill the earth and subdue it" are the words in Genesis. The spotted owl will have to get out of the way of the more intelligent being. Renamed, you are quite the thinker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 7:52:42 AM EDT
[#30]
I wonder if we're not already ruled mostly by dictators ??
The military is a dictatorship, corporations are dictatorships, the leadership in Congress is a dictatorship,................... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 7:54:25 AM EDT
[#31]
The response of your freindly branch of the UN to dissension. Or perhaps to non-payment of the 60% "World Equalization Tax" that must be sent to developing nations:
[(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:04:20 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: I wonder if we're not already ruled mostly by dictators ?? The military is a dictatorship, corporations are dictatorships, the leadership in Congress is a dictatorship,................... A CEO who's subject to the demands of his company's shareholders and to a board of directors isn't much of a dictator. And in what sense is the leadership of Congress a "dictatorship"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:22:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] Shouldn't they have blue helmets?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:32:29 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: And in what sense is the leadership of Congress a "dictatorship"? Perhaps the worst example of corrupting the constitution is congress. No where in the constitution is there any place I know of where one congressman or any one senator is more important than the other. However, with the committee chairmanships and the seniority system certain congressmen and senators are plainly more important. A committee chair runs a mini-dictatorship within his/her committee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:34:09 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: A CEO who's subject to the demands of his company's shareholders and to a board of directors isn't much of a dictator. And when the CEO is also the controlling shareholder ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:37:11 AM EDT
[#36]
UN peacekeepers of the Rodham Brigarde arrive to discuss The_Macallan's reluctance to perform his duties as a global citizen.
[img]http://www.welcome.pl/05/img/un2.jpg[/img] Knock, knock... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:40:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: A CEO who's subject to the demands of his company's shareholders and to a board of directors isn't much of a dictator. And when the CEO is also the controlling shareholder ?? Then you have a fantastically rich CEO. [;)] In that situation, you would have a sort of dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:45:35 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: There has never been and never will be a perfect government that is established by man. Man is just incapable of ruling himself. If we take history as an example we can look at the Roman civilization, the Greeks, and all the other civilizations that in their time were the top rung of the proverbial ladder. Still look at what is left of both of the fore mentioned. All you see now is carcass of what used to be. So the fact that no government has lasted forever means that humans are incapable of governing themselves? You musta flunked that logic class in college. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:45:43 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A CEO who's subject to the demands of his company's shareholders and to a board of directors isn't much of a dictator. And when the CEO is also the controlling shareholder ?? Then you have a fantastically rich CEO. [;)] In that situation, you would have a sort of dictatorship. As you know the growth in employment is from small companies as most of the larger companies have been shrinking employment for a good number of years. Many if not most of these small companies are run by CEO's who are also the only or controlling shareholder. Yes some are rich but most are 'trying' to be rich ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:48:19 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: You musta flunked that logic class in college. Nawww. I was sick the day of the final ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:50:00 AM EDT
[#41]
I think that the nature of any proposed world government and who runs it would determine how benign or malevolent it would be.
A world government that operates by fiat and gives backward-ass Third-World countries the same votes as industrialized nations, and micromanages the internal affairs of the various states would be malevolent and very undesirable. A world government that simply asked every nation of the world to voluntarily accept a minimum set of standards for human rights and representative government using the carrot of mutual defense and the stick of trade sanctions wouldn't be so bad. I think that, barring a collapse of civilization, one or the other form of world government is inevitable in the very long run. I would be very shocked if there weren't some sort of world government within two centuries from now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 8:56:36 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: I would be very shocked if there weren't some sort of world government within two centuries from now. I believe it will happen this century and probably within 50 years. This government will resemble communism in that we will all be equal. Of course those at the top will be a little more equal. Just as was the case with communism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 9:15:42 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Your proposal will [b]never[/b] happen. Serious oppression/tyranny would be automatic under such a system. We will never see a world-wide USA. You guys better fight for sovereignty, as there's only one way to go--farther down. [:(] Pretty much how I feel. The problem with global government is this. Freedom and liberty will be averaged. For countries under harsh dictatorships, they will improve. Their citizens will enjoy new freedoms. But as the US is one of the leaders in freedom and liberty, our freedoms will be curtailed. Especially firearm freedoms. The "other" guys sure as hell ain't about to arm their peasants in order to have uniform social structure across the globe. So anything denied to the "other guys" will be denied to us. Utopias never work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 9:19:13 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: I believe it will happen this century and probably within 50 years. I don't think so. I can't see it happening that soon. I think a century, minimum...it will be that long before the Middle East situation is solved enough to make a world government practical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 9:20:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: The problem with global government is this. Freedom and liberty will be averaged. For countries under harsh dictatorships, they will improve. Their citizens will enjoy new freedoms. But as the US is one of the leaders in freedom and liberty, our freedoms will be curtailed. Especially firearm freedoms. The "other" guys sure as hell ain't about to arm their peasants in order to have uniform social structure across the globe. So anything denied to the "other guys" will be denied to us. That depends on how the government works. If the government consists of an agreement to meet certain MINIMUM standards WRT human rights and representative elections, then freedom wouldn't have to be curtailed anywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 9:25:36 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: I believe it will happen this century and probably within 50 years. ...it will be that long before the Middle East situation is solved enough to make a world government practical. You may be right here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 9:29:05 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: UN peacekeepers of the Rodham Brigarde arrive to discuss The_Macallan's reluctance to perform his duties as a global citizen. [img]http://www.welcome.pl/05/img/un2.jpg[/img] Knock, knock... No problem! Everyone knows that bullets from assault weapons "can go through three people at a time, all wearing bulletproof vests". [uzi] [XX(][XX(][XX(] Hell, those BlueHeads even lined up nice and neat for me - four bullets and all 12 are toast![;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 9:34:36 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: That depends on how the government works. If the government consists of an agreement to meet certain MINIMUM standards WRT human rights and representative elections, then freedom wouldn't have to be curtailed anywhere. Wishful thinking. Since when did ANY Gov't institution stay within the scope it was originally agreed upon? (e.g. income tax, ADA, EPA, the "Commerce Clause" etc.) What makes you think a NWO Gov't would be any less susceptible to incremental intrusiveness and oppression? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 9:34:39 AM EDT
[#49]
Rik, I'm glad you are a optomist. It's refreshing. But never forget those who would create and operate this "new" government won't be nearly as enlightened as you.
Think of your local DMV. Now imagine them ruling the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2002 9:35:32 AM EDT
[#50]
Well, whenever a one world government is finally imposed, I won't be around to see it.
Even if it were tomorrow, I will go down popping blue helmets in defense of the USA. [img]http://www.welcome.pl/05/img/un2.jpg[/img] Pop! Pop! Pop! [USA] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
