Shilling for the NWO: What's so bad about One World Government anyway?

[uke2se]

As I got a cut in my NWO paycheck this month for apparently being too lapse in my shilling, I thought this thread would score me some brownie points.

After a drunken conversation with a friend, it occurred to me that having a single governing body for the entire world population isn't such a bad idea after all.

We live in a world where there's not enough resources to sustain a living standard like the one we have in the West for all human beings. Our capitalistic system isn't a fair one, and it benefits some people at the expense of everyone else. I thought, with a single governing body there would be no needless separation of wealth between nation states, and everyone could have the same standard of living - less than the one we enjoy in the West, but higher than the one suffered by everyone else. A single governing body would make this possible by distributing wealth without answering to single parts of the population but rather the entire population.

I'd like to hear why this is a bad thing. It's not thought through, but I asked myself the question "would I willingly lower my living standards if it made it possible for everyone to gain the same living standard", and my answer - idealistically - was "yes".

I'm posting it here rather than in politics because I want to hear from other NWO shills as well as "freedom fighters" (conspiracy theorists). If it's deemed to not be on topic, a mod will surely oblige and move the thread.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People are scared that someone is going to tell them they can't do something stupid if they want to. The bigger the government, the bigger the chances they'll find out something the worriers don't want found out. It's a variation of "the wicked flee where no man pursueth".

 

[Sledge]

The only problem I see with it at the moment is that the population of the Earth doesn't share common values. Does this government follow Western democratic principles? Islamic? African dictatorship? All? None?

Aside from that, I think a one world government is inevitable given time.

 

[rjh01]

- What powers would it have?
- Where would it be based?
- How could its decisions be enforced?
- Who would lead it?
- Elections of members?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the one world government is a democratically elected representative government with the interests of humanity as its highest priority, then it can only be seen as a good thing. However, it should be recognised as axiomatic that any one world government will be ripe for takeover by plutocrats, conspirators, illuminati, depopulation advocates and, ultimately, reptilian shapeshifting aliens who view humanity as no more than a source of relatively well-educated food. Therefore, a benevolent one world government is a logical impossibility.

Dave

 

[uke2se]

If the one world government is a democratically elected representative government with the interests of humanity as its highest priority, then it can only be seen as a good thing. However, it should be recognised as axiomatic that any one world government will be ripe for takeover by plutocrats, conspirators, illuminati, depopulation advocates and, ultimately, reptilian shapeshifting aliens who view humanity as no more than a source of relatively well-educated food. Therefore, a benevolent one world government is a logical impossibility.

Dave

Because of the shape-shifting reptilians?

I recognize the many problems when it comes to representation and subsequently the problems with basic human nature, but we're discussing an ideal here, as well as a concept. We always hear from twoofers and other CTists that "- They - (being whomever the CTist hates at the moment) want to impose a One World Government", and I just want to discuss what's inherently bad about the concept.

 

[Horatius]

- What powers would it have?
- Where would it be based?
- How could its decisions be enforced?
- Who would lead it?
- Elections of members?

 

[Light23]

A+

I congratulate you on a superb effort.

 

[dtugg]

I think our capitalist system is perfectly fair. The reason that we in the West are so much richer than people in other countries is because we have a capitalist system along with a strong government that protects it and individual rights while the poor countries don't.

While the OP may be willing to allow a world government to confiscate most of the product of his labor in order to give it to peoples that cannot get their crap together, I am not. I would sooner die fighting against this tyranny.

But even if a one world government didn't confiscate wealth, I would still be opposed to it. Simply because I have no desire to have Iran or Pakistan have any say whatsoever over what goes on here.

 

[uke2se]

I think our capitalist system is perfectly fair. The reason that we in the West are so much richer than people in other countries is because we have a capitalist system along with a strong government that protects it and individual rights while the poor countries don't.

While the OP may be willing to allow a world government to confiscate most of the product of his labor in order to give it to peoples that cannot get their crap together, I am not. I would sooner die fighting against this tyranny.

But even if a one world government didn't confiscate wealth, I would still be opposed to it. Simply because I have no desire to have Iran or Pakistan have any say whatsoever over what goes on here.

The way capitalism works today is by allowing cheap products and exclusively beneficial trade in the western capitalist countries at the expense of everyone else. It's basically a relic of colonialism. Capitalism in it's basic free trade form wouldn't work in a global perspective simply because there aren't enough resources to go around.

The basic question is, as I said in the OP: "would I be willing to lower my standard of living if that meant everyone in the world could attain the same standard of living". My answer is "yes". I don't see such a thing happening without a centralized global government.

 

[Brainster]

The problem with a one world government is that there is no way to vote with your feet. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, many Jews left the country. When Bush won reelection in 2004, Alec Baldwin was able to move to France.

If you don't like the leader of the world government, you don't have a Plan B.

Oh, and if you'd like to share your resources with others who have less, feel free.

 

[Hans]

I believe the world average income is around 6,750 US dollars. If that were enforced this would mean the end of the west as we know it and the pouring of immense wealth into overpopulated undereducated places around the world. Of course once you reduced the major producing nations to chaos the worlds average income would drop like an emu walking off a bridge.

One world government is a good long term plan but the devil is in the details and we're not quite out of the nation state concept yet.

 

[uke2se]

I believe the world average income is around 6,750 US dollars. If that were enforced this would mean the end of the west as we know it and the pouring of immense wealth into overpopulated undereducated places around the world. Of course once you reduced the major producing nations to chaos the worlds average income would drop like an emu walking off a bridge.

One world government is a good long term plan but the devil is in the details and we're not quite out of the nation state concept yet.

Good answer. The devil is indeed in the details.

It's interesting that the concept of a one world government doesn't seem that bad for a few posters. That was basically what I was after.

 

[uke2se]

The problem with a one world government is that there is no way to vote with your feet. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, many Jews left the country. When Bush won reelection in 2004, Alec Baldwin was able to move to France.

You're kidding me. Alec Baldwin is French?!?!?

If you don't like the leader of the world government, you don't have a Plan B.

True. A one world government is per definition not a democracy in the way we see democracies.

Oh, and if you'd like to share your resources with others who have less, feel free.

Believe me, I do.

 

[Earthborn]

A One World Government is not just no-so-bad. It is starting to become absolutely necessary. There are global problems, such as climate change and overfishing that require global rules and global enforcement.

But even closer to home there seems to be a need. If you buy things online overseas you probably want some level of consumer protection rules to be harmonised across countries so that you can be reasonably sure that you get what you pay for and the seller is paid for what you get. And you may not care much that the thing you buy is made by someone who has to work harder and is paid less than what is considered acceptable in your own country, you probably would feel more comfortable if you knew that this person is paid and has his/her property rights protected. Capitalism can be great, but at the moment ironically leads to work being outsourced to places that are less capitalistic.

I'm not convinced by the "voting with your feet" argument. Most countries have strict immigration laws, so moving to another country isn't all that easy. Some countries even have laws preventing you from leaving them. It may even be that having a one-world government will make voting with your feet easier. It generally much easier to move from one city to another, or even from one state to another, if both have a single national government.

I don't see how such a government could function effectively as a democracy though. It is difficult to imagine thousands of millions of people just accepting a majority decision. We'll probably have to come up with something better before a world government becomes a reality.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

If there was one world government, we, in the rich and well off countries, would actually have to start doing something to help the poor and unfortunate in the slums of the world. Right now we can exploit them to our hearts content.

 

[Oystein]

I'll ignore the silly idea of introducing a world government with the express purpose of enforcing expropriations. That will not fly and decrease welfare worldwide.



Please consider:
The government of China rules over 1.34 billion people. That is about the world population of the year 1860, or one fifth of today's world population. It seems they manage quite well.
As a German citizen, I am already subject to 5 levels of government: City, County (Kreis), State (Land), Federal Republic, and EU.
A US citizen likewise elects representatives for community, county, state and union. When I studied in Athens, Georgia, I was amused about the presence of 3 levels of police (state, county and campus).

How is this managed? The general idea is to delegate each field of competence to the lowest level that makes sense, and leave only those policy fields to higher levels of government that make more sense there. So what issues would be best handled on a global scale that could not be as well handled on a national scale? That's the question global government propponents should ponder and answer. I believe that neither penal law nor taxation nor individual welfare nor policing belong there. Certainly, the management of global spheres, like the oceans, the upper atmosphere, Antarctica, the moon and space, would be appropriate competences. What else?

 

[uke2se]

I'll ignore the silly idea of introducing a world government with the express purpose of enforcing expropriations. That will not fly and decrease welfare worldwide.



Please consider:
The government of China rules over 1.34 billion people. That is about the world population of the year 1860, or one fifth of today's world population. It seems they manage quite well.
As a German citizen, I am already subject to 5 levels of government: City, County (Kreis), State (Land), Federal Republic, and EU.
A US citizen likewise elects representatives for community, county, state and union. When I studied in Athens, Georgia, I was amused about the presence of 3 levels of police (state, county and campus).

How is this managed? The general idea is to delegate each field of competence to the lowest level that makes sense, and leave only those policy fields to higher levels of government that make more sense there. So what issues would be best handled on a global scale that could not be as well handled on a national scale? That's the question global government propponents should ponder and answer. I believe that neither penal law nor taxation nor individual welfare nor policing belong there. Certainly, the management of global spheres, like the oceans, the upper atmosphere, Antarctica, the moon and space, would be appropriate competences. What else?

There you go getting lost in the details.

This is just about the concept of a one world government and what's inherently bad about that. When you think about practical details it's so hard to be idealistic.

 

[ICTimer]

It seems fair to me to dismiss those who decry the concept of one world government without a rational basis aside from "it's evil" as having simplistic views that contribute nothing to any argument.

However, in my experience (more in real-life than on the internet; on the internet many of us are lazy and fail to fully explain our positions on many issues) the number of crackpots who fall into this category are few. Most do have actual reasons - or "get lost in the details", as you put it - as to their opposition to a one world government. Those reasons, of course, could be rational or irrational, and we are best to discuss issue based on its own merits (except for space-shifting Reptilians that eat children stealing all of our resources - we all agree that's happening around the globe as we speak).

 

[dtugg]

The way capitalism works today is by allowing cheap products and exclusively beneficial trade in the western capitalist countries at the expense of everyone else. It's basically a relic of colonialism. Capitalism in it's basic free trade form wouldn't work in a global perspective simply because there aren't enough resources to go around.

The basic question is, as I said in the OP: "would I be willing to lower my standard of living if that meant everyone in the world could attain the same standard of living". My answer is "yes". I don't see such a thing happening without a centralized global government.

Please. Are you actually going to tell me that China, for example, does not benefit from western capitalist? It would be better for them if the west didn't have an enormous appetite for cheap crap? And I suppose it is purely coincidental that as the country has grown more capitalist and its government less oppressive that the country has grown more wealthy?

Nope it is not capitalism that is the problem. It is countries that either refuse to embrace it or do not have governments strong enough to protect it and basic human rights.