I support The New World Order

[Thunder]

Lets be honest. The NWO is not going anywhere..and will be victorious.

Why? Because, the New World Order means several actual things:

-worldwide expansion of free-market capitalism

-worldwide expansion of tarrif-free trade zones

-worldwide expansion of communication networks

along with the disalusion of regional borders, the growth of international institutions, and the reliance on international councils and mediations, the world is become more of a one-world system.

this..is what the people of the Earth want. the world is tired of petty disputes between nationalities and city-states. 3,000 years of history has shown that hundreds of nations, all with their own currencies, languages, laws, borders, international policies, colonies, etc...just leads to endless war, suffering, and outright havoc. there must be another way.

do you want to repeat the last 3,000 years of European and Asian history? I sure don't.

[Confuseling]

Couldn't agree with you more. I fully support global government. We already exist in an era of de facto global governance, and democratisation is the only way to control it.

The people that most benefit from fear of the NWO... are the people in charge at the moment. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they occasionally deliberately encouraged such fears.

[Jontg]

(Starts clapping slowly.)
...
(Waits for some idiot to quote Queen Amidala.)

[1337m4n]

We must unite for the Greater Good!

[Gazpacho]

Not exactly thrilled about the idea of people with no liberal tradition deciding what rights I will have.

[Confuseling]

One could make a plausible case that redistribution of global wealth and power is the only way to cultivate a liberal tradition where it's needed.

Besides, give it fifty years and it looks like China will be the main power. Do you think current Western culture will just swim on through? How do you propose to limit their anti-democratic element, besides enmeshing them in global institutions? Shouldn't these institutions be democratic?

[Thunder]

there is nothing un-democratic about a global government.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Confuseling

One could make a plausible case that redistribution of global wealth and power is the only way to cultivate a liberal tradition where it's needed.

Oh, please make this case.

Tell me all about the much-needed liberal traditions that were cultivated by wealth-redistribution in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Castro's Cuba, and Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

Because honestly? I'm an idealist at heart. I would love to see a better tomorrow for everybody. If someone ever actually did make the plausible case you describe, I'd be the first to sign up.

Have at it, please.

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Tell me all about the much-needed liberal traditions that were cultivated by wealth-redistribution in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Castro's Cuba, and Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

In Soviet Russia, wealth redistributes YOU!!!

[Thunder]

I should have added, that I support a much more integrated world, as logn as its democratic institutions remain infact. I DO NOT support the mass redistribution of wealth or abolition of private property or any other Communist schemes.

A social-democratic, capitalist society, with strong protections for personal freedoms and liberty, is my perfect world.

[Inertia]

LMFAO@@@@

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Inertia

LMFAO@@@@

is that the best response you can come up with? not surprising actually.

[Bobert]

Parky,
I saw the memo that was circulated regarding the details of why you started this thread.
Dont think that this makes up for the 2rtf0 violation!

[AvarianParakeet]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

http://www.battlefield40k.com/galler.../0/TauFlag.jpg

We must unite for the Greater Good!

I think you just won the Internet, while also making me feel nerdy for getting the reference

[Gazpacho]

Originally Posted by parky76

there is nothing un-democratic about a global government.

The issue I have is about rights, not about democracy.

Like not getting sent to a re-education camp at age 70 just for asking permission to protest, as recently happened in China. You know, that country that could outvote US and Europe combined.

[Old Bob]

1WO. won't work no matter how good it sounds, thieving cheating e-lite will do as they like with us. As it is now we can see the pigs in power,but a huge armed central gov( insert chip here,bend over) The only way we can slow it down is non compliance in every way. I won't fill in paper work except tax or cooperate with any buro-crap. To have to ask permission means you are not free.

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by Old Bob

I won't fill in paper work except tax or cooperate with any buro-crap.

Um...is there any other kind of paperwork???

[Confuseling]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Oh, please make this case.

Tell me all about the much-needed liberal traditions that were cultivated by wealth-redistribution in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Castro's Cuba, and Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

Because honestly? I'm an idealist at heart. I would love to see a better tomorrow for everybody. If someone ever actually did make the plausible case you describe, I'd be the first to sign up.

Have at it, please.

Easy there chap! I say "Democratising global institutions", you get "Leninism", somethings amiss.

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

The issue I have is about rights, not about democracy.

Like not getting sent to a re-education camp at age 70 just for asking permission to protest, as recently happened in China. You know, that country that could outvote US and Europe combined.

I don't think many people seriously suggest creating a global parliament overnight. But things like trade justice, I believe, should probably be wrangled out in a democratic forum. I don't think it's a fringe position to assert that increasing wealth in the third world empowers them politically, and reduces the number of tin-pot dictators.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Confuseling

Easy there chap! I say "Democratising global institutions", you get "Leninism", somethings amiss.

I don't think "[d]emocratising global institutions" is what you said at all.

Originally Posted by Confuseling

One could make a plausible case that redistribution of global wealth and power is the only way to cultivate a liberal tradition where it's needed.

(Bolding mine.) How is redistributing "global wealth and power" not Marxism-Leninism?

But okay, democratization is what you meant, why not make that plausible case?

[Confuseling]

Well, trade justice, for example, would come about by democratising global institutions. And isn't Leninism. And large wealth disparities, which make it considerably easier to oppress people, would be reduced. See?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Confuseling

Well, trade justice, for example, would come about by democratising global institutions. And isn't Leninism. And large wealth disparities, which make it considerably easier to oppress people, would be reduced. See?

I see bare assertions, unsupported by evidence or rational arguments. For all I know, your assertions are accurate, but they are not the "plausible case" I was was informed could be made. Consider me unplaused, so far.

For example, you could start be defining "trade justice", explaining why it's a "liberal institution", and why it's "much-needed". Then you could identify which "global institutions, specifically, you think should be democratized, how you would go about democratizing them (explaining, as you go along, what you mean by "democratize"), and the mechanism by which democratizing these particular institutions would bring about "trade justice".

I admit, it's kind of a tall order, so I'll happily stipulate the general case if you'll deign to make a plausible argument for this one specific case.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by theprestige

(Bolding mine.) How is redistributing "global wealth and power" not Marxism-Leninism?

You have to distinguish between "redistribution" and "forcible redistribution", I think. Taking money/factories/whatever at gunpoint is bad; establishing international trade rules that eliminate protectionist laws that favour established businesses over others (or whatever correction you might favour) isn't so bad. So long as you're not the established business

[Confuseling]

Frankly, I find your tone sneering and your record of interpreting what I've said questionable.

Liberalism and democracy tend to thrive where there's an established middle class. Democratising global organisations like the Bretton Woods institutions would improve third world returns to trade, by, for example, eliminating Western agricultural tariffs. Increasing third world returns to trade - particularly for decentralised primary producers - would probably strengthen the peasantry and middle class against dictators. That's a plausible case.

Not satisfied? Jump through your own damn hoops...

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Confuseling

Frankly, I find your tone sneering and your record of interpreting what I've said questionable.

Liberalism and democracy tend to thrive where there's an established middle class. Democratising global organisations like the Bretton Woods institutions would improve third world returns to trade, by, for example, eliminating Western agricultural tariffs. Increasing third world returns to trade - particularly for decentralised primary producers - would probably strengthen the peasantry and middle class against dictators. That's a plausible case.

Not satisfied? Jump through your own damn hoops...

Thanks! That's all I wanted, really. Something a little more detailed and specific.

[TMiguel]

The “New World Order” is one of the most used excuses for the conspiracy theory nut jobs, and consequentially leading to some interesting but rater contradictory implications.
Mostly associated whit the Masonic secrecy and a strange cluster of politicians has practitioners (especially because they usually help each other in obtaining professional success then other communities). Although they are well organized their practice is majority conceived out of rituals that an exterior element observing such practices would consider them “nuts”, and the people involved mostly not even smart enough to even dream of intricate plans for world dominations, must less be successful at it.
I personally would like to see an organization standing for what is right and unit the world, but facing reality that is not what’s happening at all.

Interesting point that I have observed is that in the USA there are raging debates and differentiation between Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Communists, etc… Not because they have any merit at all but mainly because Communism is Russian, and Russia is Evil or because of some other intricate reason that very few has to do whit what is best politic decision for a given case. If a communist policy favors best the community over a democratic decision, why not have it instead? Why don’t you chose the best of it and let the labels wroth? Has far has I’m concern even a Dictatorial Regime can be better then a Democratic or Republican policy, the only problem whit Dictatorial Regime is “Will we find the right person to get the right decisions that best benefits us has a community?”.
Interesting also is the fact that the majority of conspiracy theories are made in USA, which is by far the country whit, most access to technology but less specialized education to operate it. Might be related.

[PhantomWolf]

While I think that having one system of Government would be a grand idea, especially in that the ability to travel and live anywhere without having to deal with immigration, having the same rights and laws everywhere, the same currency and so on, the burning question is... whose system do we base it on? America's? Hell No! Sorry but the US political and worker's rights systems are terrible, as is their health care system, okay certainly not the worst in the world, but quite frankly there are other countries with way better ones. The trouble is, would American companies be willing to pay out the amounts of money they'd have too to incorporate say New Zealand's worker's rights law (including their 4 weeks paid holiday, their enforced minimum wage (no way around it for restaurants by having staff tipped), their legislated rest and meal breaks, their paid maternity leave etc)? I doubt it. On the other side, would those workers in the Scandinavian countries who have even better working conditions than NZ want to down grade? I seriously doubt that.

So this quickly becomes the issue. Who is willing to give up things they consider rights to merge with a different country? Who is going to give up what they consider legal protections because some other country doesn't want to give up what they consider a right? Consider gun ownership. In NZ all gun owners must be licensed through the Police, certain guns are illegal (fully automatics) and others require modification (semi auto clip sizes) or special licence requirements (any "military style weapon" and pistols.) Would the US agree to that sort of restriction? I serious doubt it. How about the UK? Handguns are illegal full stop. Would the US be willing to accept those laws? Again I really doubt it, but people in the UK, NZ, Aust and other countries with gun control have those laws to protect people against gun crimes and the statistics in those countries back that up, gun crimes being far lower that in the US.

See the problems? And this is just looking at Western Countries! How would you manage to merge the political systems of India and Saudi Arabia and Israel?

Sure a One World Govt sounds wonderful, but it wouldn't stop the fighting because instead everyone would be fighting about what laws that world should be run by.

[Inertia]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

While I think that having one system of Government would be a grand idea, especially in that the ability to travel and live anywhere without having to deal with immigration, having the same rights and laws everywhere, the same currency and so on, the burning question is... whose system do we base it on? America's? Hell No! Sorry but the US political and worker's rights systems are terrible, as is their health care system, okay certainly not the worst in the world, but quite frankly there are other countries with way better ones. The trouble is, would American companies be willing to pay out the amounts of money they'd have too to incorporate say New Zealand's worker's rights law (including their 4 weeks paid holiday, their enforced minimum wage (no way around it for restaurants by having staff tipped), their legislated rest and meal breaks, their paid maternity leave etc)? I doubt it. On the other side, would those workers in the Scandinavian countries who have even better working conditions than NZ want to down grade? I seriously doubt that.

So this quickly becomes the issue. Who is willing to give up things they consider rights to merge with a different country? Who is going to give up what they consider legal protections because some other country doesn't want to give up what they consider a right? Consider gun ownership. In NZ all gun owners must be licensed through the Police, certain guns are illegal (fully automatics) and others require modification (semi auto clip sizes) or special licence requirements (any "military style weapon" and pistols.) Would the US agree to that sort of restriction? I serious doubt it. How about the UK? Handguns are illegal full stop. Would the US be willing to accept those laws? Again I really doubt it, but people in the UK, NZ, Aust and other countries with gun control have those laws to protect people against gun crimes and the statistics in those countries back that up, gun crimes being far lower that in the US.

See the problems? And this is just looking at Western Countries! How would you manage to merge the political systems of India and Saudi Arabia and Israel?

Sure a One World Govt sounds wonderful, but it wouldn't stop the fighting because instead everyone would be fighting about what laws that world should be run by.

RONFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOOLLOOLLLL

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Inertia

RONFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOOLLOOLLLL

Glad to have entertained you, which bit did you find so funny?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Glad to have entertained you, which bit did you find so funny?

I think his cat just walked across his keyboard.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by parky76

-worldwide expansion of free-market capitalism
.

Poor old free market capitalism appears to be no more. What a disaster! The era of the delusionary belief in the sustainability of inifinite growth is drawing to a nasty, sticky end. Even the US has gone socialist (Socialism for the rich).

[PhantomWolf]

That's funny, since I'm in the US at them moment and last I saw there were still all of these private companies about.

And, Socialism for the Rich? Do you even have a clue what Socialism is? I'm guessing not. Socialism is where the money gets taken off the rich and distributed evenly to everyone by the Government, where the rich have their possessions removed and become like everyone else, poor. The sort of system you are wanting. There is no such things as socialism for the rich, heck at the moment in the US it's the rich that are suffering as their investments all go up in smoke.

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by parky76

Lets be honest. The NWO is not going anywhere..and will be victorious.

Why? Because, the New World Order means several actual things:

-worldwide expansion of free-market capitalism

-worldwide expansion of tarrif-free trade zones

-worldwide expansion of communication networks

along with the disalusion of regional borders, the growth of international institutions, and the reliance on international councils and mediations, the world is become more of a one-world system.

this..is what the people of the Earth want. the world is tired of petty disputes between nationalities and city-states. 3,000 years of history has shown that hundreds of nations, all with their own currencies, languages, laws, borders, international policies, colonies, etc...just leads to endless war, suffering, and outright havoc. there must be another way.

do you want to repeat the last 3,000 years of European and Asian history? I sure don't.

I know that it is eval time but come on this is a little over the top.
Remember we want to sell the NWO without people actually knowing we are trying to sell the NWO.
Have you gotten the 100 cases of NWO cookies to sell yet?
This is going to be the new gateway for our expansion plans going forward.
BTW you need to check your emails quicker then you have been.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

That's funny, since I'm in the US at them moment and last I saw there were still all of these private companies about.

And, Socialism for the Rich? Do you even have a clue what Socialism is? I'm guessing not. Socialism is where the money gets taken off the rich and distributed evenly to everyone by the Government, where the rich have their possessions removed and become like everyone else, poor. The sort of system you are wanting. There is no such things as socialism for the rich, heck at the moment in the US it's the rich that are suffering as their investments all go up in smoke.

Wouldn't Socialism for the Rich pretty much look like what Alex Libman kept saying was the ideal economic system?

[Jontg]

I think that by "Socialism for the rich," Jane means that big corporations are given government bailouts that smaller businesses can't even dream of; bailouts funded largely by taxpayers. In other words, she's saying that the Socialist policies we've adopted are really only being applied to the ultra-wealthy, which goes against the whole principle of Socialism.

[INRM]

There's a problem with one world government that people don't get.

What if it becomes corrupt? And I see no reason it wouldn't -- power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (I mean a government that has total control of Earth? That's pretty absolute) -- there is absolutely no place to run away to, or to go.

You're stuck here.


INRM

[Jontg]

As America herself pretty aptly demonstrated in '03, a global government pretty much runs on the goodwill of the people; if a decently powerful nation decides to defy them, there's not much even a vastly stronger UN could do about it.

[Confuseling]

INRM - the point world parliamentarians are trying to make is that we already exist in an era of global reach. Admittedly, there's a balance of power at the moment, but what about when there isn't? Will Pax whoever it is next have a counterpart keeping them in check? If not, will there really be anywhere to run to, paper borders notwithstanding?

Perhaps nation-states rely on fear of the other to maintain control of their own people. You might vote for a large defence budget for your country, but would you vote for a large defence budget for the world, with no other to defend against? Perhaps global institutions are the only way to tame and thereby demilitarise and de-intensify the discrete powers of present experience - and perhaps the only equitable way to run them is democratically.

[INRM]

Confuseling,

If there was no other nation, then there would be nothing holding that one remaining nation which now runs the whole world (assuming there is a one world government to happen) in check.

Without checks and balances you'd have a disaster either waiting to happen...


INRM

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by INRM

Confuseling,

If there was no other nation, then there would be nothing holding that one remaining nation which now runs the whole world (assuming there is a one world government to happen) in check.

Without checks and balances you'd have a disaster either waiting to happen...


INRM

A one world government doesn't mean a single party government, you can still have those checks and balances just like there already is in multiple party Governments now. Essentially your argument can be turned into the argument that all Government is bad because since they have power they are corrupt. Any Government put there by the will of the people can be removed by the will of the people, the bigger issues I see, and as pointed out above, is how exactly do you mesh all the current worldwide laws and beliefs in how a system should be run into something that everyone is willing to accept?

[Travis]

I think that trying to convince people who view all government as bad that a world government is good is an endeavor doomed to fail.