Why a One World Government makes perfect sense

[solve_et_coagula]

Why a One World Government makes perfect sense - The Concept of a Pan-World

http://www.aussenpolitikforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=2052

[father ted]

You know what pan means don't you?

[auron]

You know what pan means don't you?

Yes, this cunt here:

http://www.occultopedia.com/images_/baphomet.jpg

[albie]

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/t0/t407.jpg

[tiswas]

Auron, you swear too much and please modify your language please. there are ladies present.
One World Government might be OK, cos it may bring plenty of good things to all. No royalty to bow down too.
This actually is the NWO, you're defending.

[auron]

Auron, you swear too much and please modify your language please. there are ladies present.
No. :D

[dondaz]

Why a One World Government makes perfect sense

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u39/dazp5/sidesplitter-small.gif

To a madman!

[synergy777]

auron, dondaz, keep doing your things bro.

[mk72]

I'm a lady and I'm saying you're out of your fucking mind to believe a one world order is a good thing.
See, people love to talk about freedom, but when it comes to the real deal they get scared - intellectual freedom is the hard road not the easy one. You have to think for yourself when you're free - which most people hate. You have to accept other people and their viewpoint which most people can't do, so they would rather take the easy road have a police state where they will feel save and looked after.

[chris]

I'm a lady and I'm saying you're out of your fucking mind to believe a one world order is a good thing.
See, people love to talk about freedom, but when it comes to the real deal they get scared - intellectual freedom is the hard road not the easy one. You have to think for yourself when you're free - which most people hate. You have to accept other people and their viewpoint which most people can't do, so they would rather take the easy road have a police state where they will feel save and looked after.

So true, it's very difficult to just keep government out of your head, was it Jefferson who said 'The price you pay for freedom is eternal vigiliance.' That guy knew freedom.

I'm reading a book at the moment called 'The ethics of liberty' and it's a good read because there are many excuses for government but you can see each of them comes with a problem outweighing the solution and the only solution for that problem is more government until very shortly, tyranny develops. Freedom takes no excuses, a country that is free is like a person in meditation, he must be highly concentrated at all times. In this society great creativity will evolve.

[thunda]

Got to distinguish between a World Government and a New World Order. A world government probably is a good thing .. IF and only IF its done for the people and not for the cronies at the top .. a New World Order is a version of a World Govenment for the cronies at the top with the people surpressed and as slaves.

[mk72]

Name me one goverment or world leader that was trustworthy in the last 1000years.

[gullick]

My dream system...

Every town/city has its own government, not local government/council, its own fully fledged government.

Each person has a computer linked up to a central computer and can vote on EVERY decision made within that government.

This would appreciate the diversity between regions and allow true power to the people.

Manchester could be communist, Liverpool could be capitalist, depending on what the people there choose. If you don't like your system, you only have to move a few miles to find a better one.

This idea isn't too thought out lol and hey, you may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.:D

[bigus_dickus]

You know what pan means don't you?

pan- (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pan&searchmode=none)
prefix meaning "all, whole, all-inclusive," from Gk. pan-, combining form of pas (neut. pan, masc. and neut. gen. pantos) "all," of unknown origin. Commonly used as a prefix in Gk., in modern times often with nationality names, the first example of which seems to have been Panslavism (1846, q.v.). Also panislamic (1881), pan-American (1889), pan-German (1892), pan-African (1900), pan-European (1901), pan-Arabism (1930).

[adimon]

My dream system...

Every town/city has its own government, not local government/council, its own fully fledged government.

Each person has a computer linked up to a central computer and can vote on EVERY decision made within that government.

This would appreciate the diversity between regions and allow true power to the people.

Manchester could be communist, Liverpool could be capitalist, depending on what the people there choose. If you don't like your system, you only have to move a few miles to find a better one.

Yours is an interesting idea, but I have a couple of questions:

1. How would the parliament/congress/council or whatever you wanted to call it function on a day to day basis? How would the website be constructed and updated, from which people are expected to vote? And for all of this, by whom?

2. How would these individual town-states ensure security?

Cheers

[chris]

My dream system...

Every town/city has its own government, not local government/council, its own fully fledged government.

Each person has a computer linked up to a central computer and can vote on EVERY decision made within that government.

This would appreciate the diversity between regions and allow true power to the people.

Manchester could be communist, Liverpool could be capitalist, depending on what the people there choose. If you don't like your system, you only have to move a few miles to find a better one.

This idea isn't too thought out lol and hey, you may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.:D

Instead of your town/city being a full fledged government, how about each individual being a full fledged government. Then you can easily make decisions and don't need to move anywhere if you don't like it.

[synergy777]

i think its a grand idea, especially if i am dictator, lol nicked that one of bush.

the fact is we humans need structure, its the people who operate in that structure that make it bad. why do they act bad, they want power, control, wealth, nwo. so we know who is behind the structure, the aim of who is behind the structure, hence thats why the results are negative.

its like people say esoteric knowledge is not bad, it how you use it.

govt/structure is fundamental to human devlopment/civilisation, its the aims, methods/systems and participants/politicians-think tanks, cfr etc that are bad. our bodies, nature are in fact systems of systems.

anarchy is no solution,

honest/transparent/intelligent governace is whats needed.

people who view it as a privilege to serve the masses.

imagine if we had intelligent people with humanitys best interest at heart, all working together, it would be awesome. we could have the best health, economic policies, energy, no war etc

the world will not function in global anarchy or as a ashram, we need structure.

[lydia78]

i think its a grand idea, especially if i am dictator, lol nicked that one of bush.

the fact is we humans need structure, its the people who operate in that structure that make it bad. why do they act bad, they want power, control, wealth, nwo. so we know who is behind the structure, the aim of who is behind the structure, hence thats why the results are negative.

its like people say esoteric knowledge is not bad, it how you use it.

govt/structure is fundamental to human devlopment/civilisation, its the aims, methods/systems and participants/politicians-think tanks, cfr etc that are bad. our bodies, nature are in fact systems of systems.

anarchy is no solution,

honest/transparent/intelligent governace is whats needed.

people who view it as a privilege to serve the masses.

imagine if we had intelligent people with humanitys best interest at heart, all working together, it would be awesome. we could have the best health, economic policies, energy, no war etc

the world will not function in global anarchy or as a ashram, we need structure.

Nice one Syn! Again!!! lol...it's all about the intention behind the action that really matters.

[bigus_dickus]

the world will not function in global anarchy or as a ashram, we need structure.

yeah. but the way we think, we always have the following evolving scenario that never fails:

democracy -> aristocracy -> oligarchy -> monarchy -> dictatorship -> democracy

[not always in that order]

(where in democracy i include socialism, capitalism and communism)

this can change if we all start caring for our fellow man with no discriminations.

[kblood]

A one world government could be and maybe even will be a great thing for us. If only it consisted of good and honest people... :o

Hopefully this will happen some day, so that information will be free to all, instead of being kept secret. We wont ever know about what is really going on, what energy sources each nation might have to share, technological advances kept secret because nations distrust each other.

I do not see how a one world government can be made possible as it is now, but if there is to be one, it will hopefully be one that does not even need a military. Far fetched maybe, but why waste time on training soldiers if we are at peace?

If only our nations could work together there are many technologies that could be put to much better use today. Hopefully better ways of cleaning water could come to the middle east and South Africa, and energy sources that would make it easier to for Africa to not be a 3rd world country.

Alot to ask for though. I would not mind a one world government. Either way I see it as more transparant as it is today. At least we would know who is actually hiding it all from us, and watching us ;)

[synergy777]

All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
Albert Camus

By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more.
Albert Camus

Every revolutionary ends up either by becoming an oppressor or a heretic.
Albert Camus

[albie]

A one world government would make no difference to the world. Unless it brought about a more balanced approach to economic growth in all countries.

The world leader would have a direct responsibility to each and every person. He couldn't just blame tyrants for the wrongs in the third world, because that tyrant would be under him.

A one world government is not what favors the greedy and power mad.

There would be far too much criticism going his way.

Do you think a true satanist would want to solve the problems in every little corner of the world? Surely he would favor a broken leadership. Lots of little tyrant states all suffering and none of his direct responsibility.

[Anders Lindman]

When it comes to world governments, we need three big governments: Americas, Europe and Asia. The same with operating systems: MS Windows, Mac OS X, Linux. This is called tripolies. A tripoly is the smallest number of players needed for competition to remain a driving force.

[albie]

Isn't that what we mostly have anyway? Two or three super powers?

Would a satanist care about titles such as "world leader"?

Mum-Ra might have.

Probably Skeletor too.

[Anders Lindman]

Isn't that what we mostly have anyway? Two or three super powers?

Would a satanist care about titles such as "world leader"?

Mum-Ra might have.

Probably Skeletor too.

No, not two. At least three dominant players are needed to uphold competition, i.e. a tripoly, such as Google, Yahoo! and MSN.

The reason is very simple. If there are only two dominant players on a certain market, then they can make a deal which will make both of the players benefit and maintain their position. But if a third dominant player enters the market, such deals can no longer be made for any lasting period of time. The three players may have agreements with each other that make them all benefit and hold other competitors at bay. But the dominant players are paranoid, and rightly so, because it's tough competition we are talking about here, and consequently, each of the three dominant players will sooner or later begin to suspect that the other two dominant players are working together to remove the the third player, and indeed they may certainly do so, so three dominant players will not be able to cooperate for longer periods of time and thus they will start to compete with each other.

[Anders Lindman]

No, not two. At least three dominant players are needed to uphold competition, i.e. a tripoly, such as Google, Yahoo! and MSN.


Another reason why not two, is that two dominant players would just hinder each other. A monopoly is much more easy to manage. So what we will find are monopolies, tripolies and markets with more than three dominant players.

A monopoly can go on for a long time, but maybe not indefinitely. Microsoft has a monopoly when it comes to its Office suit for example. But on the video console market we have the tripoly PS3, Wii and Xbox.

A big tripoly is the banking system, governments and the business world. These are three separate and competing players.

There is a move towards increase globalization, but there is no longer any single elite you can point the finger at, maybe never even has been.

[kblood]

Another reason why not two, is that two dominant players would just hinder each other. A monopoly is much more easy to manage. So what we will find are monopolies, tripolies and markets with more than three dominant players.

A monopoly can go on for a long time, but maybe not indefinitely. Microsoft has a monopoly when it comes to its Office suit for example. But on the video console market we have the tripoly PS3, Wii and Xbox.

A big tripoly is the banking system, governments and the business world. These are three separate and competing players.

There is a move towards increase globalization, but there is no longer any single elite you can point the finger at, maybe never even has been.

This happens just to control one country most of the time. F.ex. in my country, it is the judging, the ruling and the executive department I think it is called roughly. They all watch each other to balance it all out. If something is done illegal in the political scene, there is the judging and executives to stop them. I do not really remember who the judging are, besides judges I guess, but the executive is the police force and other kinds of public protection services (or whatever they can be called). The ruling is the politicians and whoever else might be in power I think. Like monarch or something like that. If a country has a dictator though, then there is no circle of balance though, and the dictator probably has the final call in all decisions.

Nice to compare it with companies though, monopolies and so on :) The thing is a monopoly usually makes too high prices, or begins doing it as they like to do it, instead of the way that would be best for everyone.

[albie]

There is a move towards increase globalization, but there is no longer any single elite you can point the finger at, maybe never even has been.

Well, Bush seems to get a the flack for any mistake maken by any of the players. Presidents are dispensible though.