Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/3/2002 4:33:13 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:44:20 AM EDT
up until about 1865 we had a pretty good system right here....
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:52:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 4:58:11 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
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!
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 4:58:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 5:13:25 AM EDT by Pontius]
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:06:35 AM EDT
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.
View Quote
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.)
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:08:53 AM EDT
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)?
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:13:10 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:14:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:14:53 AM EDT
Fly American Airlines.....you get on and the stewardess says...Welcome to American,,the ONE WORLD AIRLINE[puke]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:17:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:18:09 AM EDT
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.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
The name "United Nations" appears in the Bible? [>:/]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:18:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By lurker: 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)?
View Quote
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. [:(]
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:20:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:25:21 AM EDT
Let's see, USA has one vote then Gabon, then Iraq, then Iran and so on. Sure hope not but in the future?
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:39:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: snip And if it's a historic inevitability snip
View Quote
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?
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:48:21 AM EDT
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. [:)]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:52:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 5:53:51 AM EDT by Pontius]
Originally Posted By Renamed: 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.
View Quote
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?
View Quote
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? [>:/]
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:55:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Spearweasel: Whaat about if we were to conquer the world and make American states out of all the other countries? ... [:)]
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 5:57:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By mags: Fly American Airlines.....you get on and the [red]stewardess[/red] says...Welcome to American,,the ONE WORLD AIRLINE[puke]
View Quote
You mean the [i]flight attendant[/i]--it's off to the re-education camps for you, Comrade!! LOL
View Quote
....OK..OK.. the stewardess or the gay guy.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:03:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: 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?
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:05:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: personally, i dont want to die subjugating france. they aint worth it.
View Quote
Your greatest danger would come from falling French weapons. Simply give the surrender order, stand clear and you should be safe.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:26:40 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:30:59 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:32:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: 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.
View Quote
Yeah, what he said. [^]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:40:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 6:46:59 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
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. [%|]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:50:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: 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.
View Quote
This is exactly what Ted Turner, Hanoi Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite, etc., want to happen.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:56:35 AM EDT
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]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 6:59:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: 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.
View Quote
This is exactly what Ted Turner, Hanoi Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite, etc., want to happen.
View Quote
HellsBells - that's exactly what Bill Clitoris and Al Gore wanted too!
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 7:20:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: 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.
View Quote
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]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 7:49:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2002 7:50:19 AM EDT by Pontius]
-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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 7:52:42 AM EDT
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,...................
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 7:54:25 AM EDT
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: [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:04:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: 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,...................
View Quote
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"?
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:22:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Pontius: [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)] [(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)][(:)]
View Quote
Shouldn't they have blue helmets??
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:32:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: And in what sense is the leadership of Congress a "dictatorship"?
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:34:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: 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.
View Quote
And when the CEO is also the controlling shareholder ??
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:37:11 AM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:40:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By Renamed: 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.
View Quote
And when the CEO is also the controlling shareholder ??
View Quote
Then you have a fantastically rich CEO. [;)] In that situation, you would have a sort of dictatorship.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:45:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Rifles4Me: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:45:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed:
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By Renamed: 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.
View Quote
And when the CEO is also the controlling shareholder ??
View Quote
Then you have a fantastically rich CEO. [;)] In that situation, you would have a sort of dictatorship.
View Quote
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 !
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:48:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: You musta flunked that logic class in college.
View Quote
Nawww. I was sick the day of the final !
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:50:00 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 8:56:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: I would be very shocked if there weren't some sort of world government within two centuries from now.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:15:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: 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. [:(]
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:19:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: I believe it will happen this century and probably within 50 years.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:20:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:25:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: I believe it will happen this century and probably within 50 years.
View Quote
...it will be that long before the Middle East situation is solved enough to make a world government practical.
View Quote
You may be right here.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:29:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: 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...
View Quote
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![;)]
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:34:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: 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.
View Quote
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?
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:34:39 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/3/2002 9:35:32 AM EDT
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]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top