Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New World Order

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 1:35:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This a thread to discuss the effects of a one world government.

I feel personally it would have some good effects:

- Better sharing of the Worlds resources (assuming it is slightly socialist).
- Stops wars from irrupting, and a world army would be better at quashing wars around the Earth.
- A one world currency would help the economy and virtually stop a recession.

Anyone else want to discuss the issue?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 1:41:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Interesting topic...

I would say that the greatest danger would be the very "consolidation of powers"

"absolute power corrupts absolutely"

there have been too many tyrants when placed in power that oppress the people (or starve them)..it is probably the leading cause of death in the world...

...the seperation of powers model seems to be the best way to go...the more nations the better!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 1:48:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 1:41:11 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Interesting topic...

I would say that the greatest danger would be the very "consolidation of powers"

"absolute power corrupts absolutely"

there have been too many tyrants when placed in power that oppress the people (or starve them)..it is probably the leading cause of death in the world...

...the seperation of powers model seems to be the best way to go...the more nations the better!

I never advocated a dictatorship. It could be a democracy based on broad representation from areas of equal population, which then has a congress from further subdivided areas. It could be an effective confederacy.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 1:57:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In your proposed model what would stop it from being hijacked?

For example: the Congress of the USA is supposed to represent what the people want...but with approval ratings of 10% (or less)....they aren't following what the people want to be done...the question then becomes.."Who's agenda are they following?"...or to quote Kucinich ..."We know you are working hard...but WHO are you working for?"

and if that particular government got hijacked (one in control of the whole world), there is no recourse, nowhere to run...the people could be full oppressed....there would be no checks or balances...the people's will could simple be ignored and the rulers do whatever they want....hmmm....kind of like what is happening in the USA today...most everyone opposed the bailouts and opposed the spending bill (with all the pork projects)...but the people's voice no longer matters much...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 2:39:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 1:57:44 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
In your proposed model what would stop it from being hijacked?

For example: the Congress of the USA is supposed to represent what the people want...but with approval ratings of 10% (or less)....they aren't following what the people want to be done...the question then becomes.."Who's agenda are they following?"...or to quote Kucinich ..."We know you are working hard...but WHO are you working for?"

and if that particular government got hijacked (one in control of the whole world), there is no recourse, nowhere to run...the people could be full oppressed....there would be no checks or balances...the people's will could simple be ignored and the rulers do whatever they want....hmmm....kind of like what is happening in the USA today...most everyone opposed the bailouts and opposed the spending bill (with all the pork projects)...but the people's voice no longer matters much...

If its a democratic system, then the people can simply vote in a new party/ politicians. All you're arguments are ones which go against democracies, which are proven rare/null in application.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 2:44:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

If its a democratic system, then the people can simply vote in a new party/ politicians.
Ambiguous collective fallacy.

All you're arguments are ones which go against democracies, which are proven rare/null in application.
What on earth do you mean?

The fact of widespread democracy makes me SHUDDER at the thought of adding the only voters that are more tyrannical than American voters-- the voters of the rest of the world-- to our system. The only thing that gives me hope for a one world government is that, without multiple systems to arbitrage out all the free parts of, the various "slightly socialist" systems, the one world "slightly socialist" system will collapse in those areas where it has slight socialism, leading whoever formed this empire to listen when told the only way they can maintain a one world government is if they switch to capitalism :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 2:45:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I was using democracies as the example of the BEST form of government...if you are interested in the other government types, they are historically even much worse as far as oppressing people...

http://www.warnthepeople.org...

By the way, out of curiosity have you read "1984" by George Orwell?
(Or "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley)
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 2:49:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 2:45:42 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I was using democracies as the example of the BEST form of government...if you are interested in the other government types, they are historically even much worse as far as oppressing people...

http://www.warnthepeople.org...

By the way, out of curiosity have you read "1984" by George Orwell?
(Or "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley)

Again, assuming a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Also, a single world currency would help poorer countries. This would increase world markets, and increase business.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 2:59:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Also, a single world currency would help poorer countries.
Depends who ran it. Not if THEY had a vote in it, it wouldn't (many of those countries got poor by electing massively inflationary leaders-- think Mugabe). Now if a dictator enforced a commodity backed currency the world over....

This would increase world markets, and increase business.
A direct theft from one party to another does not "increase anything" except the theft rate :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 3:48:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Again, assuming a dictatorship, not a democracy."

If we could assume that all the leaders would be righteous and have the people's best interest at heart it might make sense...

but the REALITY is that there are people out there who are seeking for power and gain...the motive of greed is too strong to discount...and because these people exist in actuality, I think that there needs to be a way to stop them...The checks and balances system and the constitutional protections in the USA doesn't even seem to stop corruption from happening completely, but those things are helpful and more seperation of power I think is a good thing. Also I wanted to mention that I recognize the USA is actually supposed to be a Constitutional republic (not a democracy)(I realized that I insinuated it was a democracy)
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 3:52:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 1:35:33 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
This a thread to discuss the effects of a one world government.

I feel personally it would have some good effects:

- Better sharing of the Worlds resources (assuming it is slightly socialist).
- Stops wars from irrupting, and a world army would be better at quashing wars around the Earth.
- A one world currency would help the economy and virtually stop a recession.

Yes, taking from the countries with a lot of resources and giving them to others will obviously have no negative effects. Wars, especially Civil, I believe will definitley erupt if said government were to pop up. One world currency would drag the richer nations down and the poorer nations up, which will hurt the economy.
Anyone else want to discuss the issue?
I never advocated a dictatorship. It could be a democracy based on broad representation from areas of equal population, which then has a congress from further subdivided areas. It could be an effective confederacy.

At the current time a worldwide democracy would be impossible because of the major differences in the world.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2009 2:00:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 3:52:50 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 4/18/2009 1:35:33 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
This a thread to discuss the effects of a one world government.

I feel personally it would have some good effects:

- Better sharing of the Worlds resources (assuming it is slightly socialist).
- Stops wars from irrupting, and a world army would be better at quashing wars around the Earth.
- A one world currency would help the economy and virtually stop a recession.


Yes, taking from the countries with a lot of resources and giving them to others will obviously have no negative effects. Wars, especially Civil, I believe will definitley erupt if said government were to pop up. One world currency would drag the richer nations down and the poorer nations up, which will hurt the economy.

A one world currency would simply make all countries even. It would simply show the huge difference between first and third world nations.

Local civil wars would be easily quashed.

Anyone else want to discuss the issue?

I never advocated a dictatorship. It could be a democracy based on broad representation from areas of equal population, which then has a congress from further subdivided areas. It could be an effective confederacy.

At the current time a worldwide democracy would be impossible because of the major differences in the world.

A confederation would be necessary. Federalism on the most local basis as possible whilst still maintaining a large area.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2009 2:32:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Local civil wars would be easily quashed.

More like religious civil wars. Where Hindus, muslims, Jews, and Christians will be the sides. That would not be so easy to stop.

A confederation would be necessary. Federalism on the most local basis as possible whilst still maintaining a large area.

Still a problem with religion and ethnic differences.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
burnbird14
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2009 2:43:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Would full world anarchy be a bad thing? I'm just curious, because it seems that every kind of government is able to be corrupted, so why not just resort to anarchy?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2009 3:04:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A one-world government would be great if it was done benignly. I think a world government modeled after the United States where every country in the world acted independently (like our state governments), yet followed a global constitution would be preferable. Though a few things would have to change given the fact even our U.S. system of government is flawed.

We would have to have a non-intrusive government. It would be there strictly for organizing and infrastructure purposes such as highways, parks, and sewage system construction. There would be a police force, but one that only acts when called upon. Not like our fascist gestapo police that throw you in jail for 5 years for having a bag of marijuana. The government will be nearly lawless, except for what's in the constitution. The social structure of the world would be classless with a resource based economy.

That would be an ideal global government for me.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PhreedomPhan
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2009 11:29:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/19/2009 2:43:43 PM, burnbird14 wrote:
Would full world anarchy be a bad thing? I'm just curious, because it seems that every kind of government is able to be corrupted, so why not just resort to anarchy?

The problem with anarchy is the power void it leaves. Chaos results. Groups organize to tyrannize the people and the people, in turn, seek a strong leader to protect them. This is a lesson learned well by those who seek power. The more chaos they create, the more people will turn to them to save them. Who better to save the people from chaos than those creating it?

I think an excellent compromise between anarchy and the totalitarian super states we have today is that suggested by Leopold Kohr in his book, "The Breakdown of Nations," copyrighted by Kohr in 1957. By breaking nations down into smaller units, we could actually have representative government, at least, if the people wanted to pay attention. Anyone who thinks Washington gives a damn about what we think is inexcusably naive. Elections are designed to make us think we have a say.

Of course, there would still be wars, but they would be on a much smaller scale than today. It would take centuries to reach the sorry state we're in today.

Unfortunately, historically, those who dominate the economy dominate the politics and always seek to pull political power to the level that will best protect and further their interests. Our own history illustrates that. For all intent and purpose, two major interests battled for power at the founding. Farmers and small merchants sought power at the State or local government level, but the economic powers of the North, for the most part, wanted a strong central government best suited to interstate commerce and banking. Look at the Constitution. As reported out of the Convention, it was a blueprint for a centralized tyranny. Only the alertness of men like Jefferson, Methacton Smith, and Richard Henry Lee saved some liberty for awhile by insisting on the Bill of Rights. Today, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have become jokes.

The worst news for the American people and, for that matter, the people of the world, is that those who dominate the economy now operate on an international level. This is why they are working to create a world government. If you are awake enough to realize how little say you have in Washington, imagine how much you'll have in Geneva, Paris, London, Moscow, or even New York which ever becomes the capital of the New World Monstrosity.
PhreedomPhan
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2009 11:55:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 2:45:42 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I was using democracies as the example of the BEST form of government...if you are interested in the other government types, they are historically even much worse as far as oppressing people...

http://www.warnthepeople.org...

By the way, out of curiosity have you read "1984" by George Orwell?
(Or "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley)

Heart, the most significant word in your post is "form." We have, as a people, become more interested in the form of things than in their substance. In the case of government, substance would essentially be the power it wields. The least power it can have and still maintain reasonable order would be the best.

Paralleling the drive to create regional super-states on a world level is a program to merge our States and local governments into larger units. Of course the argument is made that this would be more efficient and cost effective. My experience has shown me that there is no "economy of scale" when it comes to government. The bigger it is, the more remote it is from the people, and the higher the budgets the greater the graft and corruption.

During one attempt to set the stage for the merger of our county's townships and boroughs I was handing out opposition literature at a polling place. Some smart-assed lawyer yelled out, "Waddaya want" A horse and buggy government in Doylestown? (Modernizing is another euphemism used to promote the rape of our local governments.) I replied, "I'd rather have a horse and buggy government in Doylestown than a Cadillac government laying rubber on my chest.

When told the new government form (almost unlimited power) would have more representatives than the old form, I replied that I'd rather have a King on the Throne with limited power than a council of 5000 with unlimited power.

That's the main points of meaningful substance in government. Limit the power to run our lives and the power to spend our money.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2009 4:54:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Phreedomfan,

I agree with your post esp. "when it comes to government. The bigger it is, the more remote it is from the people, and the higher the budgets the greater the graft and corruption."

I also wanted to apologize for my link I posted...they changed video #8 into some Obama (or anti-Obama) clip...that is not what clip #8 used to be even a couple weeks ago...man, am I going to have to copy everything online to my computer so people don't change what I am trying to reference to?...the video I wanted to show portrayed the violence and mass murders that have happened in the past when there has been a large consolidation of power into 1 person's hands. In the video it said that state sponsored killings are the #1 cause of death historically throughout the world.

sorry I don't have much more to add, but I just felt the need to correct that dumb link switchover...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2009 4:01:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If we dislike big government, then we dislike world government. There is NO BIGGER GOVERNMENT THAN WORLD GOVERNMENT.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2009 5:11:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/28/2009 4:01:06 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If we dislike big government, then we dislike world government. There is NO BIGGER GOVERNMENT THAN WORLD GOVERNMENT.

This is technically a fallacy of equivocation. Those who dislike "big" government, properly speaking, if they have any conceptual rigor, are speaking of the extent of control the government has-- not the geographic size the government rules over.

North Korea is a very small country. But it has a very "big government" indeed.
Napoleon ran most of Europe at his height of power. Yet at his height of power, he significantly shrunk the influence of government on the lives of most citizens.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 2:56:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/28/2009 5:11:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/28/2009 4:01:06 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If we dislike big government, then we dislike world government. There is NO BIGGER GOVERNMENT THAN WORLD GOVERNMENT.

This is technically a fallacy of equivocation. Those who dislike "big" government, properly speaking, if they have any conceptual rigor, are speaking of the extent of control the government has-- not the geographic size the government rules over.

North Korea is a very small country. But it has a very "big government" indeed.
Napoleon ran most of Europe at his height of power. Yet at his height of power, he significantly shrunk the influence of government on the lives of most citizens.

I dislike both geographically big government and big interventional governments.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 2:58:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/1/2009 2:56:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I dislike both geographically big government and big interventional governments.

Why don't you like geographically big governments, even if it is a minimal-intervention, libertarian-paradise government?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 3:03:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Don't similar bodies already exist? EU, Nafta, African Union ring any bells? Such bodies are pre-existing, therefore representatives from each body need to be present at Congress/ parliament/ whatever. It would essentially be changing the U.N. into a governing power than a simple body.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 3:07:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/1/2009 3:03:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Don't similar bodies already exist? EU, Nafta, African Union ring any bells? Such bodies are pre-existing, therefore representatives from each body need to be present at Congress/ parliament/ whatever. It would essentially be changing the U.N. into a governing power than a simple body.

NAFTA is a trade agreement, not a ruling body. The African Union is too disorganized to be considered "ruling". The EU and UN are the only ones that can really classify as such, but the EU more. It is a trans-national parliamentary body that can set legislation and control trade and to a certain point, social and military policy. As it is the most successful trans-national body, because the UN is barely able to hold itself together and has no parliamentary proceedings and most of its "legislation" no one ever cares about, the EU would be the model for a world-wide government.
Lawsonishere
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 3:13:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/1/2009 3:03:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Don't similar bodies already exist? EU, Nafta, African Union ring any bells? Such bodies are pre-existing, therefore representatives from each body need to be present at Congress/ parliament/ whatever. It would essentially be changing the U.N. into a governing power than a simple body.

Well considering the Un has no respect it'd be pretty hard for that to happen. The African Union is working great ask the lost boys of Sudan about that. I just don't think world government is possible.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 3:14:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/1/2009 3:07:33 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/1/2009 3:03:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Don't similar bodies already exist? EU, Nafta, African Union ring any bells? Such bodies are pre-existing, therefore representatives from each body need to be present at Congress/ parliament/ whatever. It would essentially be changing the U.N. into a governing power than a simple body.

NAFTA is a trade agreement, not a ruling body. The African Union is too disorganized to be considered "ruling". The EU and UN are the only ones that can really classify as such, but the EU more. It is a trans-national parliamentary body that can set legislation and control trade and to a certain point, social and military policy. As it is the most successful trans-national body, because the UN is barely able to hold itself together and has no parliamentary proceedings and most of its "legislation" no one ever cares about, the EU would be the model for a world-wide government.

EU would be the best model to focus on, however, look at the passing of legislation. The EU couldn't pass the Nice & Lisbon treaty because Ireland (Only 1 or so % of the EU) because of Ireland rejection of it. Nice finally passed, and Lisbon is coming up for a second time.

However, consider this worldwide. If little 'ole Mongolia doesn't want a new law, or if Kuwait doesn't' want a tax increase on oil, we have to hold our breath on smaller nations.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 3:15:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/1/2009 2:58:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/1/2009 2:56:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I dislike both geographically big government and big interventional governments.

Why don't you like geographically big governments, even if it is a minimal-intervention, libertarian-paradise government?

Because the people in one region still essentially have a say in the lives of the people of another region.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 3:18:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/1/2009 3:14:11 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
EU would be the best model to focus on, however, look at the passing of legislation. The EU couldn't pass the Nice & Lisbon treaty because Ireland (Only 1 or so % of the EU) because of Ireland rejection of it. Nice finally passed, and Lisbon is coming up for a second time.

However, consider this worldwide. If little 'ole Mongolia doesn't want a new law, or if Kuwait doesn't' want a tax increase on oil, we have to hold our breath on smaller nations.

Very good point, and this has been discussed before too. There is several discussions on how to set up a system where there is broad consensus in a 'World Parliament', but without allowing every nation to have veto power. I'll direct you to this think: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 3:23:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/1/2009 3:15:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Because the people in one region still essentially have a say in the lives of the people of another region.

That's called globalization, and technically capitalism. What one people in the US do (risky financial moves, for instance) has a worldwide effect, essentially bankrupting at least one nation.

Ironically, that one nation that became bankrupt then elected a lesbian as its leader.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2009 3:31:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/1/2009 3:15:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/1/2009 2:58:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/1/2009 2:56:37 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I dislike both geographically big government and big interventional governments.

Why don't you like geographically big governments, even if it is a minimal-intervention, libertarian-paradise government?

Because the people in one region still essentially have a say in the lives of the people of another region.

At whenever, wjmelement's profile wrote:
War in IraqPro
War in IranPro
War in AfghanistanPro
War on TerrorismPro

Wut.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.