One World Government

Agent Ferris said:

Not in the U.S. due to total and partial incorporation of the bill of rights into the states.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the treaties are already signed which state that NAU law will supercede the constitution and canada's charter, and whatever laws exist in mexico.

You may not be able to smoke in a bar but you can vote for your leadership, there is universal suffrage, slavery is outlawed, being gay is not a criminal offense, discrimination based on race, creed, or religion is not permitted, you can't be hung for pickpocketing, child labour is not allowed, etc etc..

Click to expand...

Right... meanwhile they are the most heavily surveiled people in the world but the people can be arrested for filming the cameras.

----

I digress, here but what would be easier?? to bring the world to the standard of the US... or to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator?? Since we would need several planets worth of ressources to do the former, the latter option is all that's left... but add in the police state controls you see in london and a 'sustainable' population of 500million world wide, with everyone's every detail kept in 'chips' implanted on their hand or forehead and you've got a good idea what a 'new world order' might look like...

We're talking some sort of combination 1984, brave new world, logan's run, and (that movie with Tom Cruise dealing with 'precrime'??)

People will be taught to LOVE the system that abuses them...

BmanMcfly said:

Unfortunately, the treaties are already signed which state that NAU law will supercede the constitution and canada's charter, and whatever laws exist in mexico.

Click to expand...

Sure thing.

Right... meanwhile they are the most heavily surveiled people in the world but the people can be arrested for filming the cameras.

Click to expand...

That has more to do with acts of terrorism perpetrated by the IRA right up to the nineties than it does with population increase; furthermore, having surveillance on public streets pales in comparison to children being hung for petty theft or slave ownership or women not having the right to vote, so I reiterate that they are far more liberal of a society today than they ever have been, again population increase has had a positive correlation with liberalism.

I digress, here but what would be easier?? to bring the world to the standard of the US... or to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator?? Since we would need several planets worth of ressources to do the former, the latter option is all that's left...

Click to expand...

That's debatable things; such as, bioengineered food stocks and alternative fuel sources could solve the problem of resource scarcity.

but add in the police state controls you see in london

Click to expand...

Police state my ass, Nazi Germany was a police state, North Korea is a police state, the Soviet Union was a police state, London is not a police state and again they are more liberal and free today than ever before. The government clap-trap about going back to the good old days is a bunch rubbish both here and in places like the U.K. because in actuality liberty levels are higher today than in the past.

and a 'sustainable' population of 500million world wide, with everyone's every detail kept in 'chips' implanted on their hand or forehead and you've got a good idea what a 'new world order' might look like...

We're talking some sort of combination 1984, brave new world, logan's run, and (that movie with Tom Cruise dealing with 'precrime'??)

People will be taught to LOVE the system that abuses them...

Click to expand...

Why in the hell do all of the conspiracists pre-suppose that a one world government necessary implies a distopia? I don't think it will be a utopia either in actuality I believe it would look more familiar than one would think, probably something along the lines of a federalist system on a global scale in which individual nation states would be the equivalent of individual states within the framework of the U.S. Republic.

Agent Ferris said:

Not in the U.S. due to total and partial incorporation of the bill of rights into the states.

Click to expand...

I disagree, the state is more intrusive than ever, even in the US.

Today Germany has a larger population than it did when those wars were fought and they certainly are far more liberal than they have ever been.

Click to expand...

Its pretty much the same country and its position in the world has changed. I disagree it is the most liberal, it has plenty of PC laws and gov't interference. You cannot homeschool your children in Germany and it is a major backer of the EU, hardly liberal.

You may not be able to smoke in a bar but you can vote for your leadership,
there is universal suffrage,

Click to expand...

This is about democracy not liberal a atmosphere directly.

slavery is outlawed, being gay is not a criminal offense, discrimination based on race, creed, or religion is not permitted, you can't be hung for pickpocketing, child labour is not allowed, etc etc..

Click to expand...

Some of those are important but I'd hardly link them to large state, some are PC and are at least mitigated by the growth in state power. Let's not forget we are at a compromise, the stagnation of the past has been worn down while the traditional society still inputs its stability and liberty. The future does not seem to hold an increase in freedom if things keep going this way.

Wessexman said:

I disagree, the state is more intrusive than ever, even in the US.

Click to expand...

How do you figure that? In the bad old days we had things; such as, segregation and Jim Crow laws. I think the state enforcing which drinking fountain a citizen can drink from or what toilets they can use is far far more intrusive than anything we see today.

Its pretty much the same country and its position in the world has changed. I disagree it is the most liberal, it has plenty of PC laws and gov't interference. You cannot homeschool your children in Germany and it is a major backer of the EU, hardly liberal.

Click to expand...

When were they ever more liberal than today?

This is about democracy not liberal a atmosphere directly.

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you mean by this please explain.

One small point though, universal suffrage is just an example of full and equal rights.

Some of those are important but I'd hardly link them to large state,

Click to expand...

I didn't say that there was a causal relationship only a correlative relationship or in other words the large state isn't the cause of increased liberalism, however, as population has increased so too has individual liberty.

some are PC and are at least mitigated by the growth in state power. Let's not forget we are at a compromise, the stagnation of the past has been worn down while the traditional society still inputs its stability and liberty. The future does not seem to hold an increase in freedom if things keep going this way.

Click to expand...

Let's think of the world government in the context of a federalist system, each state could receive proportional representation within a global congress, now why would this body act any differently or more tyrannically (or for that matter be any larger) than say the U.S. Congress or the British parliament? And there could even be an equitable system for electing an this world government IE something along the lines of the electoral college and how seats within the House of Representatives are allocated for each state IE proportional allocation based on census data which insures that higher populated nation-states would not gain an unfair and disproportionate representation though I would say that it should be constantly updated as the U.S. system has not increased past 435 since 1912.

Agent Ferris said:

How do you figure that? In the bad old days we had things; such as, segregation and Jim Crow laws. I think the state enforcing which drinking fountain a citizen can drink from or what toilets they can use is far far more intrusive than anything we see today

Click to expand...

Like saying where you can smoke or who you can employ? That was also in one area based on social prejudice not simply random state action.

When were they ever more liberal than today?

Click to expand...

The word "liberal" is hard to pin down but there are times in the past when some areas have been better. We had healthier social institutions and more local control in general in Britain before the 19th century.

One small point though, universal suffrage is just an example of full and equal rights.

Click to expand...

Full rights to vote, it is about voting which is about governance and not necessarily freedom.

I didn't say that there was a causal relationship only a correlative relationship or in other words the large state isn't the cause of increased liberalism, however, as population has increased so too has individual liberty.

Click to expand...

Some liberties have increased, some have fallen. I'd say that the increase was due to the stagnation of traditional society being lifted but its benefits still largely being intacted. As centralisation has weakened the benefits I can't see even the gains made lasting indefinitely if there is not a change to more decentralism.

Let's think of the world government in the context of a federalist system, each state could receive proportional representation within a global congress, now why would this body act any differently or more tyrannically (or for that matter be any larger) than say the U.S. Congress or the British parliament?

Click to expand...

Because it is less accountable and further from the people. If I vote for one representative along with millions of other people then how can I really know him? How can I check up on him or his gov't? I'd have to be exceptional. The gov't would be an alien body with little relationship between myself and it, I would view it this way and an adversial relationship would grow up. It would simply be heightening the already mass society of our time.

And there could even be an equitable system for electing an this world government IE something along the lines of the electoral college and how seats within the House of Representatives are allocated for each state IE proportional allocation based on census data which insures that higher populated nation-states would not gain an unfair and disproportionate representation though I would say that it should be constantly updated as the U.S. system has not increased past 435 since 1912.

Click to expand...

It sounds monstrous, beyond the human scale by a gigantic amount. It would have little time for the individual, dealing only with the mass.

Agent Ferris said:

Sure thing.

Click to expand...

Did you ever hear of the 'SPP'?? That was a treaty to create a 'common border' between canada, US and Mexico. This treaty has been signed effectively turning the thre countries into a union of countries. It's almost 6 years now.

don't worry that's just conspiracy... if that makes you more comfortable.

That has more to do with acts of terrorism perpetrated by the IRA right up to the nineties than it does with population increase; furthermore, having surveillance on public streets pales in comparison to children being hung for petty theft or slave ownership or women not having the right to vote, so I reiterate that they are far more liberal of a society today than they ever have been, again population increase has had a positive correlation with liberalism.

Click to expand...

And how did those camera's fare when a real terrorist act hit (05-05-05)... all the relevent camera's weren't filming.

Whatever the 'excuse' to put so many camera's, the level of surveillance just acts as a 'police grid'... so rather then 'show your papers' the camera's have face scanning software.

That's debatable things; such as, bioengineered food stocks and alternative fuel sources could solve the problem of resource scarcity.

Click to expand...

I agree that bioengineering and alternative fuels COULD solve these issues indefinately.

What do you see with bioengineering?? You got sterile seeds, genetically built in pesticides, inadequate testing... GMO is about protecting profits above and beyond it's 'humanitarian' potential.

Alternative fuels... the oil cartels represent a monopoly and a tremendous profit potential only as long as people will burn their oil. These are VERY powerful entities to battle when trying to make alternative fuels a reality.

Police state my ass, Nazi Germany was a police state, North Korea is a police state, the Soviet Union was a police state, London is not a police state and again they are more liberal and free today than ever before. The government clap-trap about going back to the good old days is a bunch rubbish both here and in places like the U.K. because in actuality liberty levels are higher today than in the past.

Click to expand...

Canada, US, Britain and australia especially are all 'soft' police states... in that so much that you do in these countries can be tracked traced and databased... in Britain with as much detail as to say where you live, where you go, the car you drive, anything bought through a bank card...

All that's left for Britain especially is the 'enforcement' phase. Canada and the US are catching up to this... 'red light' cameras go up on a nearly monthly basis where I live.

Why in the hell do all of the conspiracists pre-suppose that a one world government necessary implies a distopia? I don't think it will be a utopia either in actuality I believe it would look more familiar than one would think, probably something along the lines of a federalist system on a global scale in which individual nation states would be the equivalent of individual states within the framework of the U.S. Republic.

Click to expand...

Because from the writings of the people that would implement such a system claim to be creating the world governent as the means to the end of the 'orderly extermination of the vast majority of the population'. They will call the majority of the population such endearing terms as 'useless feeders', 'dumb apes', 'weeds', etc...

It's dystopic because it's evil control freaks that envision and are working ceaselessly to this end. They represent the most vile and evil humanity has to offer... that they are also masters of deceit they are all to happy to make suggestions like 'I don't like that they have to die, but it's for the greater good.'... Rockefeller (a common name when discussing the new world order, of anything older then a year or two since the terms becoming ever more common) makes the claim that people will be made to love their enslavement.

It's about power and control... the ultimate power and control is the power over who lives and who dies and when.

Well there appear to be four ways in which the World Government can go: Unitary, Federal, Bipolar, Decentralized (no central authority). It seems most likely that it will be federal.

How democratic would it be? When a democracy has to serve a large populace, among the most basic things it does is to homogenize people into large manageable groups. The smaller ways in which people identify themselves will be lost. This can be dangerous if people identify themselves in commonly indentifiable terms, such as being black or white, or as a muslim or american, or as Palastinian or Israeli. This kind of conflict can be best averted by establishing communication networks and making people interconnected all over the world so that they can also see themselves and each other in terms of their other less visible identities. A study of the largest democracies in the world vis a vis the composition of the UN would be helpful. Other than that I`d say that it will be a system designed by some of the best minds in the globe and will be hard to argue with.

Liberal democracy will thrive in the form of an expanding and extending establishment.

It will be difficult in the future to attract global condemnation for the police state because the developing nations will be busy going va va voom over democracy and law and order after living under colonialism and despotic regimes for so long.