Why would a New World Order be so bad?

[Dan.Linehan]

Everyone seems so scared of a World Government. Why exactly?

Here are a few benefits I can think of right off the top of my head:

• The end of the US attacking other sovereign nations.
• One standard, stable international currency, hopefully not fiat.
• International standards for civil liberties and human rights. (No more waterboarding.)
• A probable end of the US war on drugs.
• A loss of control for bizarre Evangelical Christian lobbyist groups. (John Hagee for example.)
• An end to out of control federal spending and debt.
• Improved environmental and cultural awareness.
• International accountability.

Etc.

[mncz]

Eventually, in about 200-300 years it will come to that. But there is an awful lot of fear and national egos to overcome. Just think about all the tiny nations and their tiny greedy interests and tiny diplomatic issues they all feel so important about. Think about mentalities, tribe issues going back hundreds of years and, most importantly fear of unknown.

Also, one government to a 10 billion world would be awfully elitist. Given the democracy model (say, American type of democracy), how would you propose to form a reasonable representation? I am quite sure that a Congress that would consist of 2000 delegates would be pretty unable to function properly due to unability for consensus, among other things. Also, administrative costs would be outrageous.

But all in all, I like the idea. Perhaps, a rather decentralized model where there are quite autonomous centres (say, one for each continent) and then a government who does all the major decisions? I see major benefits for a world government, but I also think that, unless a major awakening takes place, it will either not happen due to the nature of man or will be terribly distorted ... due to the nature of man. Give or take, in large societies primal instincts always take over, especially where power is concerned.

[Mayo]

Sure, dream on...

When the NWO government comes into place it will be mostly probable that 50% of world population will starve to death because of oil shortage. Why do you think US is building containment camps for few million people?

Look, weep and prepare:
A_Crude_Awakening_The_Oil_Crash_Full_Version.wmv

ENDGAME- ALEX JONES - Blueprint for Global Enslavement

Not that NWO govs. are bad but they will be just a reaction to eminent near future catastrophe.

[mncz]

Originally Posted by Mayo

Sure, dream on...

When the NWO government comes into place it will be mostly probable that 50% of world population will starve to death because of oil shortage. Why do you think US is building containment camps for few million people?

Look, weep and prepare:
A_Crude_Awakening_The_Oil_Crash_Full_Version.wmv

ENDGAME- ALEX JONES - Blueprint for Global Enslavement

You people in industrialised societies have so forgotten how to live without foreign resources... I can think of a home setup that would be completely self-supporting (yes, including clothing and such (I know how to weave and knit, too), and I am not that much in sugar and other stuff we can't grow here, so that is not a problem), running on a green, self-sustaining energy source, that can be made real in a couple of years. If worst comes to worst and the bad stuff hits the fan, that will be what I will work on right away.

But seriously, I can understand why oil is such a big issue (it is big money), but the way America treats development of green energy just baffles me. With your money and your land and intellectual resources you could have had your entire country running totally oil-free a decade ago. Why do you allow a couple dozens of greedy individuals, corporations and totalitarian governments to take away your most basic freedoms?

[Brutha]

The term "New World Order", is pretty undefined and contains a lot of conspiracy allegations.

In general I see myself politically as a cosmopolitan and think that moving power to greater entites is a good thing.
At the present we have a lot of countries in the world that aren't democratic and don't have that high standards against torture (a lot of the countries in Africa or a big country like china).
With the present world I wouldn't want democratic decisions about standarts on torture because our Western standards on that topic and a few similar topics (which I hope will also be accepted in the future in the rest of the world) aren't held by the majority.
For that reason it's better to rather form organisations like the EU or Nafta at the moment.

I think the major reason why people oppose such organisations is patriotism with the souvereign state in which they are living and as mncz said, the fear of the unknown.

Also, administrative costs would be outrageous.

Paying a few billion on administrative costs doesn't compare to spending houndres of billons in interstate warfare.

[Amadeus]

I don't believe in a One World Government because I believe in individual responsibility. More power should be given to the the states and local communities, not less. You're distain for the Bush administration is even more reason you should be against a global government. Bush has done more to expand government and further erode our sovereignty than any other politician.

[coollikeme]

agenda Dan. A probable end of the US war on drugs. That will never happen as long as there are people there will be drugs. As Amadeus says individual responsibility. As little Government as possible.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by coollikeme

That will never happen as long as there are people there will be drugs.

Exactly, so why have a war on drugs?

[coollikeme]

and fight it, at least control it.

[sheffy4]

Exactly, so why have a war on drugs?

Wow Dan, I was just about to say that.
I think a big world government freaks me out because I think it will make it even harder for people to have control over our government. Currently the U.S. public hasn't been as active in government as I think is necessary, and it makes me sad and scared to think about. But (and maybe this is naive), I still like to think that if things get really out of hand, we still have the option of overthrowing the a corrupt government. How could we do that if it was a gigantic world government?

Also, I think having a world full of separate nations is better than one big nation. If there is no other countries to compare to, how will the people know if the government policies are good enough? I'm thinking in capitalistic terms here. Competition is supposed to make people strive to produce the best quality product (I know it doesn't always have this effect), so maybe its the same with government. People might think, "oh, that country seems to have a better system for (fill in the blank), maybe we should adopt a similar policy."
Where would the checks and balances be in a World Government?

[Mayo]

^ That is the whole point of multinational government: the economization of resources and control of population. The OWG will be made to rationalize existing resources that will be 90% depleted, by 2040. there will be no oil and the hunger will not only hit 3rd world countries but US & EU as well.
American gov. knew this long time ago since they peaked with oil in 70's, they knew they should prepare for NWO because there will be global depletion of everything (from phosphates to oil to uranium). There will be no more food to be produced in mass! As sooner you understand what awaits our race in near future when the oil is depleted the sooner i hope you will wake up and start building financial resources. If you stay middle class you and your family will be maybe forced to die from hunger and that is not a nice way to die. I would love to see people understand what waits them but most will go spending their life the way they had learned by their parents and that way goes into destruction.

[coollikeme]

like it or not. We can donate billions to Africa, to help the hungry. While we are at war in Iraqi. I know are economy isn't the greatest right now. No other economy in the world can do this. We can shoot satellites in outer space, and have an air missile defense that scares the crap out of a lot of countries. We are the New world order, that will never change.

[frankfortpost]

A World Government is absolutely a bad option.

The "tyranny of the majority" is something to be very scared of.

Just because a large swath of people believe something, gives zero credibility to whether what they advocate is true or false.

The idea of having states, was to act as a safeguard against centralized power. If you did not like the customs and practices of one state, you had the freedom to freely move to another as one example of this.

This is good. It's good if you are a business person, to know that Hong Kong has more economic freedom than the United States. It's also good to know that if everyone around me is Mormon, and I am Agnostic, that I can move freely to a place where Mormons do not dwell.

In essence, you get the ability to choose, which is paramount to freedom.
(nothing against Mormons, just using an example)

But, with a WORLD GOVERNMENT, how do you agree on the doctrine? Religious freedom, or no? Economic freedom, or Mixed (Controlled) Economies? Sharia Law, Common Law, Guns and Butter?

A world government would be subject to lobbying on a scale never before imagined. If you think that government is inefficient now, why in the world would people advocate making it bigger?

How many billions of dollars, (or would it be euros, or pesos, or yen), would we throw away in translation services? Or would everyone be forced to speak English?

The only power any government has is to make and enforce laws. With 6 Billion people under it's noose, you can be certain there will be MORE laws.

More laws = less freedom.

The idea of a World Government is quite untenable, and would require the use of force to bring it into being. It will fall apart at the seams as soon as it's attempted.

And, I do believe that there are those dumb enough to try it.

[Barcs]

I could definitely see SOME positive effects from doing this, like eventually ending war, and having the world united under 1 language could be good. Overall, I'm very sketchy though I wouldn't want to see a small group of people have absolute power over the world. I just do not trust it, plus how many more wars will have to be fought to ensure this global control even passes? Not every country is going to just sit on their ass and give in to it. If anything we already live under a secret NWO (well most countries).

[Erki]

"New World Order" comes naturally when people realise that competition is futile and begin building a new world together.

[frankfortpost]

Originally Posted by Erki

"New World Order" comes naturally when people realise that competition is futile and begin building a new world together.

Competition is futile?

Could you explain that?

[Tasaio]

Originally Posted by frankfortpost

Competition is futile?

Could you explain that?

WE ARE THE BUSH.

OPEN YOUR BORDERS AND SURRENDER YOUR SOVEREIGNTY.

WE SHALL ADD YOUR CRUDE OIL AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES TO OUR OWN.

YOUR CULTURE WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US.

COMPETITION IS FUTILE.

Everyone seems so scared of a World Government. Why exactly?

Here are a few benefits I can think of right off the top of my head:

* The end of the US attacking other sovereign nations.
* One standard, stable international currency, hopefully not fiat.
* International standards for civil liberties and human rights. (No more waterboarding.)
* A probable end of the US war on drugs.
* A loss of control for bizarre Evangelical Christian lobbyist groups. (John Hagee for example.)
* An end to out of control federal spending and debt.
* Improved environmental and cultural awareness.
* International accountability.


Etc.

For all those reasons you listed, I agree that a single governming body is becoming necessary. However,I don't think a world government on this grand scale is practical nor desirable.

It's impractical because this government would need some kind of military to keep countries in check. I'm no advocate of militarism, but I do regard the military as a sort of international police force. Trouble now is, too many different countries think they have the right idea about who should be doing the policing.

We saw the effectiveness of the UN's lawmaking when Bush invaded Iraq illegally. And it's not just the US. Canada and Australia appear to want to ignore its Native Rights treaty. And Canada's current...Prime Minister has refused to follow Kyoto, as he personally believes global warming is "a socialist scheme designed to suck money out of rich countries".

I also think this government is undesirable, because it could suffer the same problems of individual countries' governments--the threat of the religious right seizing control.

When the UN sponsored a moratorium on the death penalty, some members tried to draft a similar bill on abortion. Do we really want a pro-life president of the One World Government? "Any country that allows abortions shall be invaded and placed under martial law."

"All countries must enforce the death penalty for those who question the authority of the One World Government."

The current US president has been able to skirt the checks and balances--wouldn't that be even easier in a One World Government? This One World Government would have the ability to:

- Give vast public funding to the Vatican (Tony Blair is now Catholic, like Szarkozy and the Italian PM, and Canada's future PMs from Quebec). Bush started faith-based funding soon after he arrived in office.

- Enforce the OWG's President's home country's agenda.

- Exerting ultimate control over the world-wide media. One the few guarantees we have against media control is the ability of outside countries to monitor our countries' affairs. That's why I learn new things about Canada when reading the US news, or Japanese news, and vice versa.

I also wonder how voting fraud would be handled on a global scale, when it can't even be dealt with on a national scale in the US and Russia.

. . .

Now despite all these arguments, I would agree with you and Brutha that control should be given to external entities. The US either needs to stop policing the world...either that, or adopt the role formally by working with the UN.

Right now, the best thing we have to springboard a World Wide Government is the World Wide Web. Too many people enjoy the Internet to ever let it disappear (despite the fearmongering). Net neutrality is inevitable.

With the coming of the Internet, people have desired international peace more than ever before. They are no longer as enthralled by what their governments say, because they can find differing views on the Internet. Countries like China have successfully censored the 'net--for now. Someday that will end, because people will desire unrestricted access.

For this reason--people's desire for international collaboration, stronger than every before--I think that the UN will eventually take on the role of a One World Government that solves international crises, sets basic rights, and manages trade. Just not on the scale you're suggesting. It will--and should--be by the people, for the people.

[Mayo]

There will ALWAYS be abuse of power, now i would only like that the supernational continental "conglomerates" take the liberal pace of EU (and i hope that EU will not be abused as US state federation is abused now). Unfortunately we will have to adjust to new global needs and US citizens will suffer the most from what i see energy/political analysts are talking today.

I presume US will join Mexico and Canada into NAU by 2015.-2020. and Asia will unite by 2050. and only at the end of the century we will see centralization of global bureaucratic power that will serve to amass global financial resources for expansion into outer space domain(by end of this century all essential ores as i mentioned before will be depleted on earth and only off world mining colonies will be able to supply industrial materials).

[Raymond Fernando]

Wars can happen with or without a government. The US Civil War broke out between the south and the north on the basis of using slaves. We should also check out the reasons people are fighting the wars and what effects they have on the rest of the world. The United States has funded many foreign campaigns which blowback in bad ways.

Check out Mumia Abu-Jamal and how he explains why war begins:
Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Why does a war begin?

Dr. Martin Luther King mentions in one of his speeches (Beyond Vietnam) (usually not mentioned in the mainstream media when its Black History Month or Dr. King's birthday):
"...True Compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasy on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalisst of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South america, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries and say, 'This is not just."

[coollikeme]

Prime Minister has refused to follow Kyoto, as he personally believes global warming is "a socialist scheme designed to suck money out of rich countries". He is so right, that is so true.

[Brutha]

We saw the effectiveness of the UN's lawmaking when Bush invaded Iraq illegally. And it's not just the US. Canada and Australia appear to want to ignore its Native Rights treaty. And Canada's current...Prime Minister has refused to follow Kyoto, as he personally believes global warming is "a socialist scheme designed to suck money out of rich countries".

At the moment the UN doesn't fund itself and has in general not much options to exert influence on countries. There are a variety of non military options that a well funded and accepted UN could archieve.

I also wonder how voting fraud would be handled on a global scale, when it can't even be dealt with on a national scale in the US and Russia.

One a global scale small attempts to manipulate have a smaller effect in comparison.

Countries like China have successfully censored the 'net--for now.

I wouldn't call it successfull.

Too many people enjoy the Internet to ever let it disappear (despite the fearmongering). Net neutrality is inevitable.

No one knows how the net will be like in twenty years. Today it is possible for a small group of hackers to get a small country offline for 21 days.
It's not clear that the web can stay an anarchy and still work in twenty years.
In france and great britian there is at the moment lobbing to get ISPs to disconnect users who "pirate" without any trial. Once in place they can also disconnect you for any other alleged "crime".
Net neutrality is something that has to be fought for (politically).

- Give vast public funding to the Vatican (Tony Blair is now Catholic, like Szarkozy and the Italian PM, and Canada's future PMs from Quebec).

We Europeans, even those catholics, don't think much about public funding of religion.

"All countries must enforce the death penalty for those who question the authority of the One World Government."

That is just as likely as the US deciding to enforce death penalty for everyone who doesn't accept the authority of it's government.

The current US president has been able to skirt the checks and balances--wouldn't that be even easier in a One World Government?

I don't see why it should. A OWG can still have checks and balances. It would probably have even less power than the federal level has at the moment in the US.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Raymond Fernando

Wars can happen with or without a government. The US Civil War broke out between the south and the north on the basis of using slaves. We should also check out the reasons people are fighting the wars and what effects they have on the rest of the world. The United States has funded many foreign campaigns which blowback in bad ways.

Check out Mumia Abu-Jamal and how he explains why war begins:
Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Why does a war begin?

Dr. Martin Luther King mentions in one of his speeches (Beyond Vietnam) (usually not mentioned in the mainstream media when its Black History Month or Dr. King's birthday):
"...True Compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasy on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalisst of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South america, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries and say, 'This is not just."

Edit: whatever I was posting here made sense as I was thinking about it- it didn't when I posted it though ;P Sorry!

[Michael45]

Hey there Mic82.................... you are closer to the truth then what you think........... Eveyone else doesn't seem to get it yet....... but if you have lived and seen what is happening over the last 50 years you would have a clue. There was no energy crisis of the 70's....... that was a hoax to drive up the price of crude oil. Now we have wall street and oil futures to thank for driving up the price of crude. Wall Street is about to crash,. Just like it did in the late 80's. The stocks are over inflated and our economy is going down the tubes. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class is shrinking to the poor level. I really feel sorry for the next generation and the one after........ what is coming is not going to be pretty.

Oh and by the way.......... NAFTA is one of the biggest blunders for the American and Mexican people I have ever seen. But never fear......... We have CAFTA now, and the guatimalans will work even cheaper then the Mexican Nationals......... Look for those factories to move there next for cheaper wages....... that will drive Mexico into devistation so watch out America.

[Mayo]

Yep, CAFTA+NAFTA = New USA...

Well the fact is that almost all the production is out of western states. All that is left are banks that are so leveraged it makes me puke (on $1 they "produce" extra $9) and stores that sell cheap almost slave goods.

Oil is now through the roof because of almost artificially weak dollar, occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan(you got to feed all those heavy equipment & hundred thousand soldiers 24/7) and hedge funds pumping cheap money into oil commodity(most important reason of >$100 a barrel). But this is nothing compared to what is to come, another artificial war and the most of global economy will collapse(God save America..).

[Amadeus]

Oil is now through the roof because of almost artificially weak dollar, occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan(you got to feed all those heavy equipment & hundred thousand soldiers 24/7) and hedge funds pumping cheap money into oil commodity(most important reason of >$100 a barrel). But this is nothing compared to what is to come, another artificial war and the most of global economy will collapse(God save America..).

Chicken little the sky is falling. It's not even half as bad as it was in 1980 or a fraction as bad as it was during the Great Depression. The United States economy will continue to grow by leaps and bounds because we have acre upon acre of empty land to develop and only 1/5th of the population as say China with the same land mass and rescoures (Alaska, technology). Hell even Bill Gates the 2nd wealthiest man in the World said the US economy will continue to grow due to technology. Yes there will be major correction, food and energy costs will continue to rise, but this "sky is falling" mentality is just nonsense. We heard this same crap in 2000 with Y2K and the recession then.

[Michael45]

You would probably be better off reading this........... It's worse then you think...............

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007

This is an article from Vanity Fair. I think it gives a reletivly good picture for the outlook of the US in the next few generations.............

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Chicken little the sky is falling. It's not even half as bad as it was in 1980 or a fraction as bad as it was during the Great Depression. The United States economy will continue to grow by leaps and bounds because we have acre upon acre of empty land to develop and only 1/5th of the population as say China with the same land mass and rescoures (Alaska, technology). Hell even Bill Gates the 2nd wealthiest man in the World said the US economy will continue to grow due to technology. Yes there will be major correction, food and energy costs will continue to rise, but this "sky is falling" mentality is just nonsense. We heard this same crap in 2000 with Y2K and the recession then.

[Neblasian]

Sorry, but for some countries, New World Order means American World Order

Neblasian

[lantevigi]

hey guy's on this issue of "new world order" and a single global government, i watched a documentary the other week named "ZeitGeist" omg what an eye opener. so any way in the documentary it shows that america is moving forward to having no borders with mexico or canada and that they will merge into one. however this move has already began to take place in other countries/continents. Europe-Asia-Oceania-Eurasia-Africa for example. whats to stop all these seperate continents joining as one and becoming new world order or is that what "THEY" have been planning for a long time. it seems that the pieces of the puzzle will slot into place sooner than 200-300 years as posted in an earlier reply. probably the next 50-60 years!

[mncz]

Lantevigi, technically it can be done in 50 years, but for a OWG to function more or less properly, people have to be more advanced spiritually, otherwise if rushed, it will exist for couple dozens of years and then fall apart, because all the national and personal egos will just have to find a conflict.

Unity is first a state of mind and then it flows out as a fact of life, not the other way round, and given the current state of awareness of this world (majority in deep sleep) it is unlikely that a massive awakening can occur that soon, thus political unity is unlikely too.

[schola]

A one world government would not solve any of the problems you list.

In fact, big government is the reason for at least the first four problems in your list.

# The end of the US attacking other sovereign nations. (The Iraq war was waged illegally by the Executive Branch)
# One standard, stable international currency, hopefully not fiat. ( How? All nations have centralized banks and fiat money)
# International standards for civil liberties and human rights. (No more waterboarding.) (Torture is already banned in the US Constitution )
# A probable end of the US war on drugs. (Federal Government overstepping its bounderies.)