27 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

www.thenewamerican.com said:

The website promoting the film indicates it was set up by “researchers and communicators from some of the leading scientific research institutions on global sustainability.” The solution to these disastrous elements, according to the film, is global government. Read more...

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

frankly, i agree with them. frankly, i think "Democracy" is absolutely hopeless at getting anything done. i note it seems to be American Patriots that seem to be most paranoid about a "One World Government"; possibly because they see such a thing as a potential threat to America's Manifest Destiny to rule the world. Who can say.  

"the true agenda behind the climate change propaganda was one-world government and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries like the United States to poorer nations"
I love how they see it as a bad thing!

[Paracelse]

747400, on 06 April 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

frankly, i agree with them. frankly, i think "Democracy" is absolutely hopeless at getting anything done. i note it seems to be American Patriots that seem to be most paranoid about a "One World Government"; possibly because they see such a thing as a potential threat to America's Manifest Destiny to rule the world. Who can say.  

"the true agenda behind the climate change propaganda was one-world government and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries like the United States to poorer nations"
I love how they see it as a bad thing!

reductionism is a bad thing

[Karlis]

747400, on 06 April 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

~~~ ...

... the redistribution of wealth from rich countries like the United States to poorer nations"
I love how they see it as a bad thing!

It may be something like the olden-time parable of you having a mattress of feathers, re-distributed to people without a feather mattress.

:hmm:Everybody gets one feather.

[FLOMBIE]

But there are people with way over 1.000.000 mattrasses, who still need only one to sleep on. I guess it would be up to them to share.

[Karlis]

FLOMBIE, on 06 April 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

But there are people with way over 1.000.000 mattrasses, who still need only one to sleep on. I guess it would be up to them to share.

Maybe you got that spot on ... if that's what the UN Think-Tank agenda is all about.

[Paracelse]

FLOMBIE, on 06 April 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

But there are people with way over 1.000.000 mattrasses, who still need only one to sleep on. I guess it would be up to them to share.

During the Greek era, people lived in City States and life was difficult but without insurmontable difficulties (except assaults from other city states)  Today each country has difficulties that are unsurmontable what make you think that a UN world wide government who can't tie its own shoes alone could solve all the ills of the world?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Paracelse, on 06 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

During the Greek era, people lived in City States and life was difficult but without insurmontable difficulties (except assaults from other city states)  Today each country has difficulties that are unsurmontable what make you think that a UN world wide government who can't tie its own shoes alone could solve all the ills of the world?

Oh, the UN is useless, certainly. The reason it's useless is that it has no authority at all; any nation can either Veto it or decide to simply ignore it. And the only thing it can do, if everyone does manage to agree, is issue Resolutions and strongly worded protests. The UN is hardly a basis for any effective Global government.

[FLOMBIE]

Paracelse, on 06 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

During the Greek era, people lived in City States and life was difficult but without insurmontable difficulties (except assaults from other city states)  Today each country has difficulties that are unsurmontable what make you think that a UN world wide government who can't tie its own shoes alone could solve all the ills of the world?

I never stated I believe the UN could fix world's problems. I certainly do not see a world government at this time. But I do see people who stack everything they can get there hands on, this includes money, houses, cars and really everything, way beyond there personal needs. I was just pointing that out.
I think a little redistribution of wealth could be quite helpful, especially for those at the bottom and top of the pyramid of wealth. And it's just an idea and utopia, I am aware of that. I do not have a "master plan" how this could actually be achieved, and I indeed do not see the UN doing this, nor would I want them too.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Paracelse, on 06 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Today each country has difficulties that are unsurmontable

Rubbish. There is no problem that man cannot or will not in the future come to a solution for. Sometimes that problem requires a sacrifice that the people who hold the reins of power don't want to make that's all.

[acidhead]

Whenever the concentration of power is reduced to a minority of hands abuse is sure to occur.  This is the ultimate threat of a one world government.

[Paracelse]

Wearer of Hats, on 06 April 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Rubbish. There is no problem that man cannot or will not in the future come to a solution for. Sometimes that problem requires a sacrifice that the people who hold the reins of power don't want to make that's all.

This is absolutely true .... but first Man has to have power over corporation and from the look of it, the most dangerous corporations wont relinquish their power soon.

http://thestoryoflib...wns-blackwater/

[mrbusdriver]

I have some issues with the UN's Agenda 21...

"Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole."

This seems just too ripe for abuse. Think of the UN writing the zoning codes for cities...that's what's basically implied here.

[OverSword]

747400, on 06 April 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

frankly, i agree with them. frankly, i think "Democracy" is absolutely hopeless at getting anything done. i note it seems to be American Patriots that seem to be most paranoid about a "One World Government"; possibly because they see such a thing as a potential threat to America's Manifest Destiny to rule the world. Who can say.  

"the true agenda behind the climate change propaganda was one-world government and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries like the United States to poorer nations"
I love how they see it as a bad thing!

You may be correct about the whole manifest destiny thing, but do you really believe there could ever be a one world government that is not at least initially brought to fuition by force?  Who would be the nation most capable of bringing that about?  I put it to you that the one world government, should it ever be brought into existence, will mainly be the product of an imperialistic United States, probably partnered with China.

Edited by OverSword, 11 April 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[Corp]

Paracelse, on 06 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

During the Greek era, people lived in City States and life was difficult but without insurmontable difficulties (except assaults from other city states)  Today each country has difficulties that are unsurmontable what make you think that a UN world wide government who can't tie its own shoes alone could solve all the ills of the world?

The slaves of those city states would disagree. As would the people who died in the constant wars between the cities. Then there's the issue of complete lack of education, no medical care, and next to no political power. It just seemed like they had no real problems because as long as people weren't dying off by the thousands and weren't harshly treated they were happy. The same could be said of the well run empires of the era. Doesn't mean a city state is better than a national state.

On the topic of world government I just don't get why it automatically has to be evil and wanting to kill/enslave everyone. I think a properly run world government would be great.