One World Government Is A Dangerous Idea

Examiner.com ^ | Oct. 28, 2013 | Bruce Deitrick Price

[BruceDeitrickPrice]

Subtitle: And Intellectuals Are Really Dumb-----

The topic for today is one world government. The main group of people who claim to think this is a swell idea are intellectuals. That’s how you know intellectuals are not that intelligent.

As George Orwell noted, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”

The theory, much hyped throughout the 20th century, is that the world would be better off if it had only one government managing everything.

Instead of dispersing power to many parts of the world, there would be a central tribunal composed of superior humans, wiser and more benevolent than ordinary humans. We sometimes see this image in sci-fi movies, where an all-wise council rules perfectly. Hollywood, full of intellectuals, loves presenting the idea of one world government.

People pretend we can find god-like leaders to control everything. History shows this is hard to do.

And would you take that job yourself? It might be more dangerous than you imagine.

What invariably happens when power is centered in one person or small group? People one step on the outside work ever harder to seize power, precisely because it is there to be seized.

If the UN did run the world, the most vicious people would conspire to control or replace the person nominally in charge. The UN’s Secretary-General would be the target of scheming Russians, ambitious Muslims, militaristic Chinese, lethal crime lords, all equally eager to intimidate, bribe, or assassinate everyone in their way.

Consider for a moment how cleverly the United States dispersed power for most of the years before Obama. There were a dozen major power centers: Wall Street, academia, business...

[PLEASE PASS ON TO TEACHERS FOR POSSIBLE CLASSROOM USE]

..

[jsanders2001]

> The topic for today is one world government. The main group of people who claim to think this is a swell idea are intellectuals. That’s how you know intellectuals are not that intelligent.

They focus on one topic and study and intellectualize and can make it sound good on paper to other like minded people but the can’t see the forest for the trees. They are missing common sense and lack critical and objective thinking skills. Their intellect is a fabricated illusion.

[Mike Darancette]

The U.N. General Assembly voting record should convince anyone of that.

[PapaNew]

One World Government Is A Dangerous Idea

Unless you don't mind being under a totalitarian dictatorship and no freedom to speak of.

[codder too]

This is the goal of COMMON CORE. Making the US a third world nation. Dumbed down, easily controlled populace.

[JmyBryan]

Yep. Separation of powers was, possibly, the greatest of the ideas of our nation’s founders. Unfortunately, many do not appreciate how important this is.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Conservatives would tend to be against one world government.

Libertarians, counter-intuitively, might be in favor of it. After all, wouldn't they want a free flow of goods and people regardless of artificial borders? Wouldn't they want corporations to work under the same taxes, laws, and regulations regardless of where their plants were located?

Neoconservatives might also like a one world government. They tend to be the nerdy math types that would be just the sort of people to run the global welfare system more efficiently and intelligently. And don't they want, nay demand, that everyone live under a democracy?

And what about Christians? Don't Christians believe that pretty much everyone should obey the same laws?

What conservatives/neocons/libertarians/Christians are against is the one world government that would be created if it were created now or in the near future. A one world government that would be a very left-leaning welfare state.

But I think that all ideologues (which excludes traditional conservatives) if they were forced to follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions would want to have a one world government ... so long as it all was governed the way they would have it run.

[GeronL]

You think traditional conservatives are distinct from Christians?

[Billthedrill]

The devil is in the details. Maximum freedom for the individual is found where government is small and local. Maximum efficiency for government is found when the government is large and authoritarian, at its reductio totalitarian. Efficiency is, therefor, not necessarily a good thing.

The Founders knew this. Since then the track record of statist approaches to government has proven them correct with respect to the declining level of individual liberty. The idea is discredited; unfortunately it's only discredited in the eyes of the population that last tried it. The rest turn out to be gullible as ever only one generation hence.

There is, at the other end of the continuum, the idea that freedom is maximized where there is no government to speak of at all - anarchist theory is at least as well-developed as statist theory and just as persuasive. It tends to have an equally sorry record of performance in practice, however.

Hamilton made the point for central government: yes, there are concomitant dangers, but nations that do not have them tend to be dominated and exploited by nations that do. That's as far as practice takes us: there is no answer other than managing a dynamic between these two poles. There does come a time when it is less manageable and swings roughly to one pole or the other: the chaos of the French revolution giving way to a Napoleonic authoritarian state, for example. The trick's in the managing. We're not as good at it as we used to be, IMHO.

[Teacher317]

To keep it simple for the Low Information Voters (LIVs):

Power corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

Government, ALL government, is Evil... but it is a necessary Evil (no shortage of evidence on how terrifying life is without it).

So, as our Forefathers taught us through the Federalist Papers, a strong Constitution that limits the power, and thus the corruption and its potential for large-scale horrors, is at least minimized. Anything else is folly.

[Teacher317]

To keep it simple for the Low Information Voters (LIVs):

Power corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

Government, ALL government, is Evil... but it is a necessary Evil (no shortage of evidence on how terrifying life is without it).

So, as our Forefathers taught us through the Federalist Papers, a strong Constitution that limits the power is needed, and thus the corruption and its potential for large-scale horrors, is at least minimized. Anything else is folly.

(Somehow deleted two words in that previous post. Hope the meaning wasn't lost.)

[B4Ranch]

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. [The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it’s perceptions. “
Henry Kissinger
Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel,
April 19th 1994.

“This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”__Zbigniew Brzezinski

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller, p. 405

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” — David Rockefeller - New World Order globalist

“Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a New World Order – can emerge. . . Now, we can see a New World Order coming into view. A world in which there is a very real prospect for a New World Order. . .A world where the United Nations, freed from a Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.” — George H. W. Bush told the U.N. on September 11th 1990

Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched.” — George H.W. Bush to reporter Sarah McClendon in 1992

“We shall have one world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” — CFR member James Warburg before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee February 17, 1950

[who_would_fardels_bear]

I think there were times in our past when Christianity and Conservatism overlapped: when what was being conserved was Christendom.

We no longer live in Christendom. I think that Christians will need to become radicalized, as they have been throughout huge spans of history. Christians will be the outsiders looking in on an increasingly odd society combined of a weird mix of atheism and paganism.

I can already sense the beginnings of a division between some conservatives and some Christians. The Tea Party, when it is emphasizing "good government" rather than the social conservative agenda is an example. The libertarian conservatives who don't want us to waste a lot of energy on moral issues. The conservatives who opposed the war in Iraq and believe that part of the reason the US went in was due to a messianic thread in some Christian political theory. And yes maybe "Christian Political Theory" should be an oxymoron, but it seems to exist regardless.

It's going to be odd going forward. Some are going to want to isolate themselves more and more from a culture that will begin to shun them anyway. Others will try to live among the unbelievers finding it harder and harder to make the necessary adjustments. Others will just modify their beliefs to find more and more stuff that they once found intolerable to be at least stomachable.

Are the Christians in Europe fighting pitched battles to protect what little remains of Christendom there? The most avid foes of the governments there are more nationalist than religious. "Vive La France," not "Jésus est Seigneur".

[GeronL]

good luck winning after dumping at least a third of your party, sounds like a winning strategy.

I can already sense the beginnings of a division between some conservatives and some Christians. The Tea Party, when it is emphasizing "good government" rather than the social conservative agenda is an example."

Well, if that is the case, good luck getting any fiscal conservatism with social liberalism, because social liberalism requires MASSIVE amounts of other peoples money.

. The conservatives who opposed the war in Iraq and believe that part of the reason the US went in was due to a messianic thread in some Christian political theory

Not even close.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Good luck living in denial of the obvious.

[GeronL]

If you think I should change my principles because I might not be in the majority, then you don’t understand what principles are.

I would rather be right than win.

If the GOP nominates a lefty/libertopian I will stay home. I really don’t care who wins and loses if I don’t have a candidate I can support.

[reasonisfaith]

Divisions will come. But the struggles within society arise from the foolish pursuits of the various coalitions of men. The price we pay is to ignore ultimate truth.

It’s easy to be caught up in ideological battles while neglecting the most important questions. I know I’ve done this a lot—in fact, the majority of my posts on this site in years past have been the product of strife. I’m sorry for the offense I’ve caused others.

If God doesn’t exist, the best laid plans of men will be devised by man alone.

But if God is who he seems to be, God will have the final word. It’s a good idea to figure this one out first.