That is the best gift to a society...just think if everyone did that...
Posted on 08/02/2009 7:44:04 PM PDT by george76
I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.
A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws.
Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.”
Barack Obama... In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.”
The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.
A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta... Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.
The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for ...
These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
right. so I guess they win, 'cause no "conservative" will take up the cause, eh?
Nope, no pictures of the founders on my office walls. I work outside in a desert climate. Work 12 hour days. Up at 4 am.
I have not had to sacrifice my fortunes and opportunities to protect myself, but believe we are coming to the point I may have to. And I didn’t say “screw everyone, but me.” I said I take responsibilty for myself and they should for themselves. This life owes no one anything.
Not a big reader of the Bible, though I do believe. Into liberation theology are you?
I get enough oxygen, my simple question to you is, “why am I responsible to others?”
Not saying that...just that there is a fine line between a hand up and a hand out...being "your brother's keeper" to me doesn't mean hobbling your "brother" so they can't do for themselves or forcing your "brother" to live the life you think they ought to live because you think you know better. This applies to individuals or other governments and everything in between.
And who said anything about "paying" for anything or anyone.
Are you referring to a global government scenario, or independent governments of other sovereign countries?
That is the best gift to a society...just think if everyone did that...
Thats my only point. Just that people should be responsible for themselves.
And a great only point it is...:o)
I would hate to think that a world government is inevitable, and I emphatically disagree with that it is desirable.
A government that protects the individual liberty of its citizens and their right to pursue their own happiness, but subject to the rule of law, can only succeed with the consent of the governed. The thirteen colonies that agreed to accept the US Constitution were like - minded about our concept of limited government.
I can’t imagine that Western Europe, to whom it is axiomatic that the government should be responsible for the health, welfare, and employment of their citizens, would accept our system. On the contrary, our Northeastern and West Coast States are becoming more like Europe. But then try to imagine the Muslim World, or India or China voluntarily agreeing to accept European multiculturalism.
The only way we’ll get a world government would be for it to be forcibly established. This would have to start with dissent being obliterated in the U.S. (probably by our own federal government) in States that insist retaining our traditional limitations on government power.
A “Social Democrat” government will inevitably become a dictatorship. Free speech is already being attacked as “hate speech” the Europe and Canada and by the Socialist left in the US when it gets in the way of the “reforms” of those in power. The Constitution has become a historical curiosity to our judiciary. And the assault on our property rights in recent years has been an embarrassment even to some of those on the left.
“Applying world government here will be a tumultuous affair.”
I agree there will be no complete world government as long as there are true God fearing, US Constitution loving patriots! Destroy the Constitution and it’s defenders and you might have something.
I think it was Dr. Kissenger that said Obama was being groomed to be the head of the United Nations. I have heard several of our congress critters and a couple of USSC Justices say they agree with a world government, and had the audacity to go on by saying we are at a point in time that our Constitution is irrelevant and we should abide by International law. I HEARD them say it during an interview on ABC. Justices O’conner, and Stevens. A few months ago, I heard Barbara Boxer say we need to hurry up and give the UN control over America. With traitors like them in office, things definitely look bad for Americans.
“Laughable.
Urban city councils/school districts can’t get along. In fact they fight like children. What makes anyone think “diverse” nations/ethnicities/religions/cultures/economies can manage ANYTHING as “one”?
They can’t, won’t, ain’t gonna happen, never will.”
When the right charismatic leader comes along, it will.
Shakespeare spelt his name twenty different ways, but people did (and still do) take notice of him.
In the final analysis, surely the ideas and thoughts of a man are more important than the way he executes them.
Im with you. A world united under communism would be misery eternal. One united under Islam would be terror eternal. One united under iberalism would be a permanent madhouse (actually it wouldnt stay united very long). OTOH, one united under a compact like the “constitution of the United States” might work very well.
Personally, I’m pulling for a world government as envisaged by Gerry Anderson. That would be quite fun.
Actually, it's the opposite, but thank you for your admission of total ignorance as to why. We need it less because of technology. It's the concentration of capital that is driving this, not technology, It is a corporate feeding frenzy at the expense of socialized risk.
I think barbituates might help you. But only in moderation.
That would be "barbiturates." If you're too inept to use a spell-check in the box in which you are posting, I suggest you refrain from trying to make a point by ad hominem attack, much less advocate how everybody else should accept the suicidal idea of acceding to a global police state.
The central reason global governance is inherently disastrous is that it is unrestricted power without recourse, one stop shopping for every power freak with money on the planet (which is why it was proposed by global financial interests in the first place). Global government is in no way subject to the moderating influence of competition. It is by nature corrupt, irreversible, incompetent, unaccountable, and tyrannical.
Apparently you like that idea, just like every other would-be-pig throughout history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.