How can a 1 world gov't be attained?

1. 59

   qwarkposted 13 years ago

   What would be the benefit or detriment of a one world gov't?
   pls express your thoughts one way or the other.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      it is idealistic, and I would say not achievable. One person or groups idea of government would not work for another person or group. If tried I'd think it would lead to a last man standing scenario (fight to the death) over who gets to Govern it.
      
      No Good for mankind. I think our human history teaches us that it will not work.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Dutchman:
         As mankind presently exists, I agree with you. We are much too fragmented to be able to come together in concert with the idea of survival in mind.
         Human history, if it can be considered to be credible, is proof that man is such an immature life form that if it is to succeed, it must be governed by an "entity" that is dedicated to human survival.
         6.7 billion people seperated by such a diversity of beliefs and depths of abject ignorance, cannot be controlled
         Einstein said that our only hope of survival, as a species, is to be governed by a 1 world Gov't. I agree with him.
         To attain a 1 world gov't human population must be culled and organized, thru the processes of eugenics, to a number of us that can be governed with facility.
         Is it too late for that to happen? If you think it is or isn't, why?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
            
            If this is what you are refering to, it was tried in Natzi Germany, and failed, and will again..?
            
            As man is, from original man until now...as in Anthropological record... not History, it will not go forth. Survival of the Fittest.
            
            Unless we are all replaced psychologically as clones.  But that implies replacement of the world population...sooo who then is left to Govern, and if we are all alike biologically,  at cell level in the Brain I mean, then there is no need for a Government at all? All thoughts exactly the same, no problems, no need to Govern.
            
            But...natural evolution of humans as a species would still happen, so as it took time to remove or cull the population, it would constantly evolve back, you would get no-where except for a temporary moment in time? There would be constant objection due to evolving Humans,- (different thought) and thus constant un-rest….i.e. constant conflict. 
            
            That is Unless you develop a species that needs no brain…(a robot) and if it’s a robot, then by program design, no one needs to govern so again, no government necessary.  But then there is no life only machines who can not re-produce, so life ends.
            
            If that’s what was left, for me instant suicide would be a solution, who would want to live like that. A robot for a World Government…no way.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Hi Dutchman:
               Sure! Eugenics and genetic engineering after the diminution of human population.
               That's the only way a 1 world gov't could exist and function successfully.
               Hitler didn't have the ability to work with eugenics as it exists today and as it will advance in the years to come...IF...we don't suffer a cataclysmic reduction in population before the above can be realized.
               You are right tho, there is no possibility that man will survive, as he is, long enuf to pull together in concert to guarantee the viability of our species.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey qwark, I agree on the survival. Possibly though if science is fast enough, and we do not get caught in antiquated theories of proof, maybe it will be possible in the sense you say.
                  
                  It scares me a little, but I think by that time, much would be known to the public to make it a possible choice for people. I am not saying I would close my mind at all to this,  but, just go about it cautiously.
                  
                  Governments are not totally honest as we all know.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Hi Dutch:
                     We certainly have the potential but I'm afraid time has run out on us. There's no way we'll exist the way we do now and expect ourselves to progress to the point that we can continue evolving and progressing...none at all. My opinion.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        on that I'd say yes, I agree, I do not know a solution but
                        we are heading for a big clash it sure looks like, and it will be from passion of beliefs, and thats a real concern. We are not ready for it as a world I honestly think.

                        replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think a one world government would be feasible or beneficial. However, there is a need for more effective international institutions or mechanisms to deal with specific problems--trade, piracy, poverty, immigration, terrorism, genocide, disarmament, environmental issues and the like.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Ralph:
         You are correct. As humanity exists, a 1 world gov't isn't feasible...for all the reasons you enumerated.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It's nice to be correct about something around here!

            replyreport
            1. 59

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Ralph, I don't know if that is a pic of you but if it is , why is it that we "older" gentelmen can view what is obvious and others seem to be blind?...:-)

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Good question. (That is a picture of me taken a couple of years ago. My exact age is classified information. Suffice it to say, however, that all functions are still in working order.)

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     lol....OK, nuff said...:-)

                     replyreport
      2. 80

         Aficionadaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It's kind of amazing and energizing to see that I agree with Ralph Deeds about something in this forum category.
         
         It's kind of amazing and discouraging that others here are making these posts with a straight face - if that be the case.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      first of all that would be freaking impossible to achieve at this point in our life span, as there's too many freaking variables to consider.  Besides, the only way that's going to happen in the near future is if some super powered country takes over the freaking world.  with america's military tech, maybe that's what we should do.  take over the damn world.  (thinking deviously) mwahahahha!

      replyreport
   4. 69

      bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Quark, we already have a one world government, as I wrote in my hubpage. It is a financial order that rules most of the important nations.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Bga:
         Can't argue with that! The $ controls.
         I'm certain there is an international cabal dedicated to the Rothschilds theory of "management." lol
         The problem is that it is not dedicated to human survival. It is dedicated to greed and power. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
         This "corruption" may be our undoing. If that comes to pass, the "corrupters" will end up in the same boat.
         We're not a very viable species yet.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How true. It already hit the US with ponzi housing loans, as off balance sheet banking was allowed at Basel 2. Don't believe anything coming out of Base 3 either.

            replyreport
         2. 69

            bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How true. It already hit the US with ponzi housing loans, as off balance sheet banking was allowed at Basel 2. Don't believe anything coming out of Base 3 either.

            replyreport
   5. 71

      aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Loss of personal identity.
      Loss of civil liberty.
      Loss of sovereignty.
      
      Imposition of submission to state.
      Enforced reduction of population.
      Complete financial controls.
      
      Fascism, by any other name is still fascism.
      
      There will be a 1 world gov, for about three and a half years.
      
      The idea stinks, but the reality is it will happen, and faster than we can imagine.
      
      Hopefully I will not be here to witness it.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Aqua:
         True, man would lose all of what you say.
         His procreation rate would also be controlled and most likely would be genetically engineered to meet the needs of future plans.
         Man will learn to control his evolution.
         I couldn't imagine it happening in our lifetime.
         Eventually, necessity will be the cause of its creation if man is to become a successful species.

         replyreport
      2. 69

         alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I can agree with some of this - why do you think it will happen, 'even faster than we think' ?

         replyreport
         1. 71

            aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Because there is an agenda for it to happen, these things have been planned and operational for a long time already.
            
            Because I see the signs that indicate the 'push' is taking place...
            
            Emphasis on globalisation.
            Increased regional stife and wars.
            Massive manipulation of fiscal policy to deter free economy and encourage state economy.
            Eugenics practised in the form of 'birth control', abortion and chemical death caused by encouraged bad diets.
            
            These are planned events, and the ONLY thing stopping them taking over is the dogged stubbornness of some folk who hold onto the principals of free speech, individuality, sovereignty, free enterprise and personal morality.
            
            But it only takes one truly brainwashed generation for these folk to die out, they are referred to as 'dinosaurs'by those seeking to impose this agenda, and when this current generation dies out, the move would and could be completed, as by then the populace will stay silent as the dissenters are arrested and disposed of for being in opposition to 'humanities needs'.
            
            In other words to object to the plan will be treason against the new world order and seen as endangering their new world.
            
            Those are all the rational reasons I see it happening soon.
            
            But finally the reason it will happen is that it was clearly prophesied to happen in scripture, and the events described are being fulfilled exactly as they were defined.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Who do you think is planning all this evil stuff? The Bilderberg Group? The Club of Rome? The Club for Growth? The Koch brothers? Bill Gates?

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes.
                  
                  But they are the tip of the iceberg, the real nasties are totally hidden!

                  replyreport
            2. 69

               alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I personally don't buy into the conspiracy theory aspect - although I am sure there are loads of clubs and groups working together on ways to rip us off while they hold us down.
               
               But I can agree with the point of what you say just through the natural progress of things in the world, globalisation is the province of the super rich and their minions.  The dumbing down of the population is apparent even in these forums. as you know I think christianity is the primary vehicle that is used to try and dumb us down and so I oppose it. The reasoning ability and unbelievable ignorance (as in lack of any factual knowledge) that most posters display is clear.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  AP I agree, as a European believer and a well travelled human being, who spent the first 41 years as an atheist, I see the dumbness of many believers, but then it's not just limited to believers.
                  
                  Apparently less than 12% of Americans own a passport and have travelled abroad, which leaves 88% forming their opinions on scant knowledge of the world, mostly gained from media sources that promote a skewered world view reflecting their sponsors opinions.
                  
                  A long time ago I started watching Al Jazeera mid east TV to actually see a balanced viewpoint on 'news'.... I'm told they have dropped it from the feed in the USA now...
                  
                  So a dumbed down population effectively 'elects' (huh, what a joke) the leader of the free world who then uses force, coercion and manipulation to arrange things from an American perspective, and will invade your sovereign state if one presents a differing view of how your sovereign state should be run...
                  
                  In the film 'Conspiracy Theory' the Mel Gibson character (may we mention his name nowadays?) said that a conspiracy ¡ceases to be a conspiracy when the evidence is found.
                  
                  But that does not means there is not a conspiracy.
                  
                  I will grant that even the conspirators may not understand how they are conspiring together, or even what the outcome will actually be, but I do know that the end result will NOT be peace and harmony for the world and it's people, at least not for long (3.5 years) before the gloves come off and whoever is left standing will find themselves slaves to a technological master class, who only need them to keep the machine functioning.
                  
                  Our fathers fought and died to stop fascism, but it seems our society now welcomes it in the new branding and colours... maybe it's the smooth rounded edges that make it so alluring?
                  
                  Either way, forget the cosy image, and believe me it will bite you hard, if you survive the population reduction in the first place.
                  
                  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck.... it probably is.
                  
                  Take a long hard and impassionate look at the NWO Globalist agenda and actions, and see if Mr Hitler's Third Reich is not still alive and well and started up anew in his 'wife's' name!

                  replyreport
   6. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why do we need a world government? I don't see any benefit, in fact I'm seeing less and less benefit for the federal government! Isn't there enough corruption now? Imagine how much corruption there would be in a world government, and who would be the biggest losers, the people! It's an absurd idea a ridiculous notion, unfortunately it's a notion held by Obama and his friends as well as Ahmadinejad, the nut job from Iran that Obama seems to love so much!

      replyreport
      1. 64

         AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         I agree wholeheartedly with everything written by you here, with the exception of the idea that either Obama or Ahmadinejad want it. The Iranians have shown ZERO interest in world domination of ANY sort, and I see scant if any evidence that Obama wants the same. Nevertheless, as I say, I agree with the rest of what you said here.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Of course they don't want a one work govt because they wouldn't be the ones in charge

            replyreport
         2. 60

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Ahmadinejad spoke of world governance in his speech to the UN and Obama as well as others in his administration including Hillary have talked about it, indeed the carbon cap and trade bill establishes and international agency for governance over carbon credits, so maybe you haven't seen it because you haven't looked hard enough?

            replyreport
   7. 64

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The potential for abuse could be magnified. If such a thing were to be constructed it would be plagued with the kinds of problems that federally-organized states now have (United States, Canada, etc), ie there would be a constant push-pull between regional and central power (not necessarily a bad thing).
      
      In practice this seems unlikely ever to come about. For a start the United States would never permit it. But the US is hardly alone in wanting to maintain its self-determination: Britain, for example, still hasn't accepted the European currency, despite membership in the EU since 1973. Switzerland, Sweden and some other, similar examples have maintained as much neutrality as possible for as long as possible.
      
      In short, the way things are presently, where nation states must seek ways to get along via consensus, while hardly a perfect situation, is probably as good or as bad as any other arrangement...
      
      ...In any case, the real problem is less that of government, and more that of the naked power exhibited by certain, PRIVATE, super-corporations...

      replyreport
2. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   the US used to be 50 sovereign states who set up a UN-esque federal government to work out certain troubles.
   
   Lincoln abolished this system, and now we all see the US as a single state.
   
   ... Thus, the UN will be the catalyst. Surely the more that countries become dependent on UN money, the more they will bow to the demands of those countries supplying the money.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      To make it feasible from an organization like the UN, it would have to have an army stronger than any Countries, so thus none would dispute its authority, as the sole money source and Government head.
      
      As it looks, future, even third world countries would not agree to that
      Recommendations can only be accepted in spirit of fairness, and that lasts only as long as the perks and welfare keep coming.
      
      As for UN dollars, Countries would find a way around it, working together in blocks as power groups. Chaves is trying to  promote that now I believe.
      
      again, a source for world conflict.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The US army used to consist of only each state's army.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You're only hope is that somebody will invent a time machine.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               No, I time machine would not help - I don't think the past is what Evan thinks it is. Keep  time travel from Evan and allow him his beliefs.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  how can i be wrong if Connecticut refused to send troops to the war of 1812?
                  
                  That is a direct illustration of my point.
                  
                  ... but whatever....

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     Aya Katzposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     But on the other hand, we got pirates to fight for us in that war!

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        We have "pirates" fighting for us now - private contracts.
                        
                        Also I fail to see how pirates can disprove the states rights mantra

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           Aya Katzposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I wasn't trying to disprove it. I was just trying to bolster your argument!

                           replyreport
3. 91

   Pcunixposted 13 years ago

   While I firmly believe we HAVE to come to that eventually, I think we are a long, long way from it being possible.
   
   When and if it does happen, no doubt the flag waving inhabitants of the good old U.S. of A. will be the very last to see the wisdom of it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      PC
      
      honest question, please, if you care to, explain to me what you are seeing here, that indicates we will have to do that...
      
      I can see one common market, possibly a simplified and equal money exchange and much common interests, houses, medicine, transportation, pollution etc... very necessary common goals. Good life styles for all.
      
      also are you meaning like minds; no wars, not destroying each other...I would love that to happen also….
      
      would honestly like to see what you are seeing here, legit question no sarcasm intended at all. Please explain

      replyreport
4. 64

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   How would I be able to fear and hate foreigners?

   replyreport
5. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   Only one way - "You will be assimilated."

   replyreport
6. 61

   strutzasposted 13 years ago

   1. Problem
   2. Reaction
   3. Solution

   replyreport
7. 59

   qwarkposted 13 years ago

   Doug and Strutzas;
   Expand on those comments pls.....ty..:-)

   replyreport
8. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   You saw the Star Trek episodes with the Borg? There's a great line where Warf disagrees with the assessment that the Klingon species will be assimilated - "We like our Species the way it IS!"
   
   So it is with a world government. Everyone wants their culture unchanged. There's not a single set of rules that will be accepted - so even if it's a BETTER set of rules - it would have to be IMPOSED by force. Borg style.
   
   It's been tried. Alexander - Napolean - Hitler. It's never provided a benefit greater than the cost. And the highest price is always paid by the little guy, whether he/she is the victim of the hoards of Ghengis Khan or napalm from the sky.

   replyreport
9. 59

   qwarkposted 13 years ago

   Doug and Steven:
   To my way of thinking ya've both got it right.
   You are both younger than I am. I don't think it's possible in our lifetime, but I do think there will be a catastrophic reduction in human population during our lifetime. There are a myriad ways it could happen but I think the most likely is a nuclear holocaust perpetrated by the fanatically religious.

   replyreport
10. 60

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 13 years ago

    Let us be content with one UNO... it is the government of the so-called one-world.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Venugopal:
       you have to be kidding?
       The evolution of man has never known stasis.
       To be satisfied with life as it, is contrary to everything nature has prepared us for i.e. Earths prime predator.
       Man is much too curious, imaginative and vivacious to settle with the UN.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Does not expecting a one-world government look like kidding?
          
          Does not the stacking of all countries and all people into one government look like stasis?
          
          The relevance of UN to be considered as one world government is as illusive as any other dispensation.

          replyreport
11. 72

    Diane Insideposted 13 years ago

    I think this could happen, it may not be for a long time. But just look at how much smaller the world is because of the internet and technology.  I mean there could come a time when paper money is no more and everyone must use credit, or pay cards. Thus making it easier to unify the money systems, etc.  I may not happen for a while but it may very well happen.
    
    Then once the money, finance system is unified then other things could fall into place.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       alternate poetposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That is the aim of any new world order - unify the financial system so that we are all enslaved by credit.  Hard to have a revolution if your cardID stops feeding you and there is nowhere else to get food except the credit superdoopermarket owned by the same guys who own the transport and who also own the production of the food and the land it is produced on while local laws prohibit growing anything yourself becasue iit is bad for you and no animals because they are a hygeine risk wot !

       replyreport
12. 60

    MR.POINT OF VIEWposted 13 years ago

    Well ants do it. bees do it. guess we arent that smart yet.

    replyreport
13. 90

    Polly Cposted 13 years ago

    To me is sounds like too much control for one group of people, I'm not sure that's a good thing.

    replyreport