Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
R@ndomH3ro

What is wrong with the New World Order. The Global Government Debate Thread

Recommended Posts

Just wondering, what would be so wrong with a New World Order or a Global Government.

Imagine if you could a world where every nation was unified under one government with one currency.

There would be no need for visas, trade would be global, and fluctuating currency would not exist under unified global market.

 

So what is the negative? Maybe the fear of one totalitarian government? A global police state? What if the unified government was based on the UN model of representatives from each nation? What if the global government was based on the democracy that we have now?

 

 

Your thoughts and feelings on what would be so wrong or right about the unification all our governments into one.

 

/noIlluminati

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering that most national governments don't do a very good job of running their own country then I don't see them doing a very great job of running the whole world as one.

 

Then again I don't really see that much of an issue with it, in this modern world we live in all governments tend to work together and co-operate, apart from some rogue states like N.Korea and Iran.

 

But on a whoile I don't think it would work, western countries contribute more than say some backwater african nation, I wouldn't want to be paying taxes to a global government if my money isn't being used to benefit myself, I just see there being too many issues to overcome, I get free healthcare, USA doesn't. I wouldn't want to lose benefits like that.

 

It would be interesting to see how a proposal like this would work and how they would manage it on a worldwide basis, How would a poorer country manage, how would wages be worked out, we earn more than most poor countries workers do in a year, so would I be worse of or would they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

serious with this question? you must be really naive, no offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wondering, what would be so wrong with a New World Order or a Global Government.

Imagine if you could a world where every nation was unified under one government with one currency.

There would be no need for visas, trade would be global, and fluctuating currency would not exist under unified global market.

 

So what is the negative? Maybe the fear of one totalitarian government? A global police state? What if the unified government was based on the UN model of representatives from each nation? What if the global government was based on the democracy that we have now?

 

 

Your thoughts and feelings on what would be so wrong or right about the unification all our governments into one.

 

/noIlluminati

 

 

Losing our sovereignty, our right to arm ourselves, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casek, explain why losing national sovereignty is a bad thing.

 

And don't you make the complaint that it's already lost anyway? So what would be the difference.

 

 

....and Zig, you seem like a decent guy, as in you're not an arsehole or anything but I can't help but shake my head when I see you calling some one naive. Especially some on who has travelled the world, seen more than one side of life and got himself a quality education. Going by what you've said on this site I would wager that these are things that you do not have and have not done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Casek, explain why losing national sovereignty is a bad thing.

 

And don't you make the complaint that it's already lost anyway? So what would be the difference.

 

 

....and Zig, you seem like a decent guy, as in you're not an arsehole or anything but I can't help but shake my head when I see you calling some one naive. Especially some on who has travelled the world, seen more than one side of life and got himself a quality education. Going by what you've said on this site I would wager that these are things that you do not have and have not done.

 

 

It would be spitting in the face of my ancestors who fought and shed blood to ensure that I would grow up in a free and sovereign nation.

 

Why do we need other nations to dictate to us what we can and can't do? Can they do any better? Probably not. We still have our guns. Most other nations have lost that freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly related, I was listening to a good lecture at academicearth tonight about the beginnings of nationalism in europe in the 18th century. If anyone is interested, the link is here.

 

Global governance does not necessarily take the form that a nationally based government would. As far as I understand, most cosmopolitan thinkers suggest their preferred arrangement would be understood more like another tier on top of existing nation states. Though this tier would have the ability to intervene for specific purposes, particularly in relation to the abuse of human rights. Although, as a system of global governance would be created from the ground up, in order to hold legitimacy it would need to be created in such a way that the vast majority of nation states accept its institutions. Which means it is not likely that it would be afforded much power at least in the formative stages, however if it is possible to make a comparison to federated states a drift towards centralisation would most likely follow.

 

Nationalism is a strange concept to me anyway. If you acknowledge that it is built on a framework of collective myth and the willingness to support various nationally based institutions (in the vein of Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities), rather than explicit cultural or communal ties, then it is hard to object to a form of global governance which would essentially be built on the same premise.

 

My argument against global governance is essentially a conservative one, not so unlike the anti-NWO brigade, which is that we have built a stable (yes this is debatable!) system of international order under-which we, in the west at least, have relatively positive institutions that protect individual liberty . To begin to reshuffle this current arrangement leaves us open to the possibility that the outcome will be less beneficial for humanity generally, potentially through abuse of further centralised power, or through a select and unrepresentative group having a disproportionate amount of power. It is also very difficult to believe that in the creation of a system of global governance, prevailing national interests wont distort, and ultimately skew in the favour of those nations who the creators come from (which will more than likely be predominantly of western origin). However, if you look back at the history of nationalism to see how it was fostered from the top down in the interest of those in power, and eventually became a concept strongly held by the grass roots of various societies. It would not be hard to imagine that a similar process could occur with a unification around an global constitution, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be spitting in the face of my ancestors who fought and shed blood to ensure that I would grow up in a free and sovereign nation.
Hyperbole that has no real meaning. Maybe you pay too much attention to the past at the cost of the future.

 

Why do we need other nations to dictate to us what we can and can't do? Can they do any better? Probably not. We still have our guns. Most other nations have lost that freedom.

 

Most nations don't want them, mate. But, besides that to imagine that it would be one global regime is to be totally ignorant of reality. Look at the way things are now in a sovereign nation; federal govt has power over foreign policy, defense, immigration, deaths and marriage, etc. etc. States have power over education, water resources transport, etc. Local council has power over zoning, parklands, sanitation, roads, community issues, etc. [this is all generally speaking, of course]

 

The center doesn't wish to concern itself with smaller issues that need to regard local variance. The center doesn't give a shit about the 411 bus route waking up the nursing home ladies on Railway street in the middle of the night. Likewise local council doesn't have the vision or the ability to deal with how the country will respond to a coup in Comoros or nuclear swap deals in Turkey.

 

Likewise in the UN or the EU, there are powers that the center holds because these are issues that affect everyone equally and they are issues that have significant consequences both domestically and internationally that require the collection of large amounts of specific information and and expert knowledge to form policy. the rest is ceded to local powers that have the expertise for specific issues.

 

Why would global government be any different? Pollution/environmental degradation ignores sovereignty as do weapons of mass destruction and uncontained war. Why should the US, China or Moldova be allowed to make whatever environmental laws it wants when these actions affect the whole world?

 

Now I don't have an opinion on an idea of a global regime as I haven't done any reading on the issue and don't understand any of the for and againsts. But the issues that you've listed up there, Casek are redundant (as in the abstract cliché of spitting in the face of, or disrespecting the ideas of people who have been dead for so many generations really has zero effect on how we live every day. It's an abstract concept that has no basis in reality and if this concept was removed from consciousness there would be no tangible effect, which is basically the definition of the word redundant) or are matters that would be ceded to the localities as I'm sure that Belarus couldn't give a shit if the people in the United States go around shooting up schools, churches and families. It's a local issue, not global.

 

Have a deeper think about it, maybe base your response in reality by using real life models that already exist such as the UN (look at actual issues such as UNCLOS and so on), EU/Lisbon Treaty, WTO, NPT, Nuclear Suppliers Group and the myriad of other laws, multilateral agreements and transnational institutions that govern national behaviour already in place. Read their laws, learn about the negotiating process that lead to the agreements being sign and ratified and pay close attention to what their stated goals and effects are.

 

Then, take a look at how a lot of these issues, the NPT would be a great place to start, along with the UN and maybe by the end of the year Lisbon treaty as well how these agreements, mechanisms, laws, etc. usually fail anyway.

 

To think that this could actually happen is a little naive as he who has the biggest bombs has the power to do whatever the fuck he wants anyway and he will never give away power (who would??) and will only join a global regime if he could control it....., taking us right back to the start.

 

It's anarchy baby and always will be until it so starkly threatens our existence that militaries become redundant as we're all going to die sooner than later anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here[/url].

.

 

Frankie, you owe me a beer for not informing me of that site earlier.

 

Going to start a thread....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hyperbole that has no real meaning. Maybe you pay too much attention to the past at the cost of the future.

 

 

 

Most nations don't want them, mate. But, besides that to imagine that it would be one global regime is to be totally ignorant of reality. Look at the way things are now in a sovereign nation; federal govt has power over foreign policy, defense, immigration, deaths and marriage, etc. etc. States have power over education, water resources transport, etc. Local council has power over zoning, parklands, sanitation, roads, community issues, etc. [this is all generally speaking, of course]

 

The center doesn't wish to concern itself with smaller issues that need to regard local variance. The center doesn't give a shit about the 411 bus route waking up the nursing home ladies on Railway street in the middle of the night. Likewise local council doesn't have the vision or the ability to deal with how the country will respond to a coup in Comoros or nuclear swap deals in Turkey.

 

Likewise in the UN or the EU, there are powers that the center holds because these are issues that affect everyone equally and they are issues that have significant consequences both domestically and internationally that require the collection of large amounts of specific information and and expert knowledge to form policy. the rest is ceded to local powers that have the expertise for specific issues.

 

Why would global government be any different? Pollution/environmental degradation ignores sovereignty as do weapons of mass destruction and uncontained war. Why should the US, China or Moldova be allowed to make whatever environmental laws it wants when these actions affect the whole world?

 

Now I don't have an opinion on an idea of a global regime as I haven't done any reading on the issue and don't understand any of the for and againsts. But the issues that you've listed up there, Casek are redundant (as in the abstract cliché of spitting in the face of, or disrespecting the ideas of people who have been dead for so many generations really has zero effect on how we live every day. It's an abstract concept that has no basis in reality and if this concept was removed from consciousness there would be no tangible effect, which is basically the definition of the word redundant) or are matters that would be ceded to the localities as I'm sure that Belarus couldn't give a shit if the people in the United States go around shooting up schools, churches and families. It's a local issue, not global.

 

Have a deeper think about it, maybe base your response in reality by using real life models that already exist such as the UN (look at actual issues such as UNCLOS and so on), EU/Lisbon Treaty, WTO, NPT, Nuclear Suppliers Group and the myriad of other laws, multilateral agreements and transnational institutions that govern national behaviour already in place. Read their laws, learn about the negotiating process that lead to the agreements being sign and ratified and pay close attention to what their stated goals and effects are.

 

Then, take a look at how a lot of these issues, the NPT would be a great place to start, along with the UN and maybe by the end of the year Lisbon treaty as well how these agreements, mechanisms, laws, etc. usually fail anyway.

 

To think that this could actually happen is a little naive as he who has the biggest bombs has the power to do whatever the fuck he wants anyway and he will never give away power (who would??) and will only join a global regime if he could control it....., taking us right back to the start.

 

It's anarchy baby and always will be until it so starkly threatens our existence that militaries become redundant as we're all going to die sooner than later anyway.

 

 

It doesn't mean anything to you because you come from a continent that is a former prison colony. Your ancestors didn't fight for freedom and you don't have much left these days as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god, Casek. Read what I wrote and stop the tears, mate!

 

Your response or example is redundant in the true meaning of the word. Redundant means that as a part of the whole if one particular piece were removed the whole would still remain. Just like an air conditioner is a redundant piece of equipment in regards to the running of a car. Take it out and the car would still work.

 

So, let's just pretend that there wasn't the same process to creating the constitution in the US and it was more like Australia where it was just a political process and it came in to being. All the laws were the same, your freedoms the same and life no different. The country would still operate the same way, the issues you have to face when considering global regimes exactly the same, your sovereignty exactly the same, etc. etc.

 

The fact that people had an idea hundreds of years ago is redundant to the realities that we live in today. It's respectable that people fought and gave a future and all that but the emotions, which respect is, has no bearing on the decisions that get made in forming policy and how the mechanics of life work. Remove the emotion out of it and you still have to consider the EXACT same issues as would anyway. That makes your reason redundant, by simple and logical definition.

 

 

And as for your remark about Australia, I'm not nationalistic so I don't care what you say. however you do look rather ignorant as a result of it. I've been to both countries, studied the history, politics and have worked in politics in both. Trust me, you are showing your ignorance and superficial grasp on the reality of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for real though, It going to happen sooner or later. Whats going on now isnt going to cut it if we become space faring. Itll just be too ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh god, Casek. Read what I wrote and stop the tears, mate!

 

Your response or example is redundant in the true meaning of the word. Redundant means that as a part of the whole if one particular piece were removed the whole would still remain. Just like an air conditioner is a redundant piece of equipment in regards to the running of a car. Take it out and the car would still work.

 

So, let's just pretend that there wasn't the same process to creating the constitution in the US and it was more like Australia where it was just a political process and it came in to being. All the laws were the same, your freedoms the same and life no different. The country would still operate the same way, the issues you have to face when considering global regimes exactly the same, your sovereignty exactly the same, etc. etc.

 

The fact that people had an idea hundreds of years ago is redundant to the realities that we live in today. It's respectable that people fought and gave a future and all that but the emotions, which respect is, has no bearing on the decisions that get made in forming policy and how the mechanics of life work. Remove the emotion out of it and you still have to consider the EXACT same issues as would anyway. That makes your reason redundant, by simple and logical definition.

 

 

And as for your remark about Australia, I'm not nationalistic so I don't care what you say. however you do look rather ignorant as a result of it. I've been to both countries, studied the history, politics and have worked in politics in both. Trust me, you are showing your ignorance and superficial grasp on the reality of the world.

 

I'm not totally sure about that? I think that nationalism is a resource available to those who wish to bolster their political actions. It can be used from the top down through the exercising of national mythology to strengthen political legitimacy. It can also be used from the bottom up through the appeal to a wider community for a particular issue or cause.

 

I also think that nationalism is concept that bridges the political and the cultural, and although anyone talking about a 'national character' is guilty of essentialism, there is definitely some form of commonality amongst those who accept a nationalist identity. This commonality will effect the political actions of those who are born of any particularly nationalistic grouping.

 

Nationalism has been advancing in Australia over the last 10 or so years, but we have not even come close to the feverish pitch of American patriotism. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that this has a lot to do with the history of the USA and its ability to project national and idealistic concepts through its struggle for a liberal beginning. This history appeals to US citizens in a way that the federation of Australia could not to ours.

 

haha I already said I would buy you a beer mate. Another site like that I sometimes look at is Ted. Im guessing you already know this one though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But for real though, It going to happen sooner or later. Whats going on now isnt going to cut it if we become space faring. Itll just be too ridiculous.

 

 

You watch too much Star Trek. Go take pics of Defy's gf in the shower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't mean anything to you because you come from a continent that is a former prison colony. Your ancestors didn't fight for freedom and you don't have much left these days as a result.

 

I really don't see how Americans can claim to be so free, to me you have no freedoms I don't have, when it comes down to it, all you have is that you can own a gun, to me that is a negative not anything to be proud of.

 

Hell I could own a gun if I wanted to, legally as well, why the hell would I want to, guns have done more damage to America than good, so take them out of the equation and there is nothing different when it comes to freedoms.

 

This constant looking at the past as some great thing that America has is hilarious really when you should be looking forward rather than back, the world is not the same place it was 200 years ago. Things change, move with the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't see how Americans can claim to be so free, to me you have no freedoms I don't have, when it comes down to it, all you have is that you can own a gun, to me that is a negative not anything to be proud of.

 

Hell I could own a gun if I wanted to, legally as well, why the hell would I want to, guns have done more damage to America than good, so take them out of the equation and there is nothing different when it comes to freedoms.

 

This constant looking at the past as some great thing that America has is hilarious really when you should be looking forward rather than back, the world is not the same place it was 200 years ago. Things change, move with the times.

 

 

It keeps the government from totally running all over us.

 

Also: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But crime in America is rampant, gun crime is through the roof.

 

As a country you are not any more free than any other western country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But crime in America is rampant, gun crime is through the roof.

 

As a country you are not any more free than any other western country.

 

 

Can you still take pics in downtown London? Nope. Can you speak at Speakers Corner? Nope.

Gun crime is rampant? Nah.

 

Compared by nation:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

Gun crime drops reports FBI

 

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/stats_122109.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×