By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Are you for or against a one world government or "New world order"? *Rant warning*

 

One world government.

For it. 30 21.90%
 
Against it. 90 65.69%
 
Undecided. 9 6.57%
 
No opinion....comments....results.... 8 5.84%
 
Total:137

Who would benefit from this government system? And is the NWO as simple as you make it to be?

That's what matters.



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Around the Network

Even with a one government system there will be wars as you will have one set of countries being bled dry and the gdp going to wealthy countries. The distribution of wealth, health and resources will be heavily stacked against the likes of Africa, parts of Europe, parts South America and America.

The best example I can think of is the original Pakistan. They took the wealth from the Bangladesh part of Pakistan but redistributed 70% to what is now known as Pakistan. The biased treatment led to activism, student uprising and eventually war.now we have 2 countries instead of the one.



Oh please no. We see in too many countries that their governments are hardly doing their job on a satisfactory level, the idea that we will have some guy in, let's say Brussels make decisions for people in Tokyo is a nightmare. One world government is not going to end war cause the differences will still exist, just look at the US where racial-tensions are higher than in years



A one-world government is a logical end point for democratic nations; dictatorships and monarchies would likely have to join the modern world for a OWG to function. I could see it working for managing trade, disaster relief and mediation of disputes between nations, but standardized legal and political systems among nations will likely never occur apart from participating in the selection of representatives in the OWG.

Optimistically, it would probably function as the US aspires to be; States (in this case, entire nations) functioning autonomously (sovereign) wherever possible, but with the OWG capable of setting the terms in certain areas. This would probably be the most attractive model; it has the appeal of both participating in global cooperation (ensuring maximum influence) while retaining a national political identity.



The ONLY future solution is one where computers rule our daily lives and laws. They are impartial and not swayed by emotion or status. A system that is 100% transparent and incorruptible. That is the only way humanity will ever progress!!



Around the Network

So many governments, where laws are all legal in different places shows that law is subjective and isn't obsolete and quite stupid.

If the law of the land was literally the full earth I think it'd be easier to justify them and get people to follow.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Do you want an Empire or a Republic?

 

 



I don't know if it's a good idea, but a one world government isn't automatically Satanic.



Can't wait for The Zelder Scrolls 3: Breath of The Wild Hunt!

Not really keen on the idea. I've seen enough history and seen how corruption spreads to know that the idea of a OWG wouldn't benefit every single person of country on the planet, if anything it turns any situation where you don't adhere to the OWG to "us versus them" scenario easily.

Also while we're using "inevitability" as an argument, we could also argue that all life in the universe will one day come to a complete end with no salvation, but I doubt you're willing to argue any sort of solution as it's going to happen anyway so we should really get over it. a OWG however has many possibilities to not happen or become destabilized. One is an absolute given, the other is not.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

John2290 said:

What does it matter if countries are renamed as states if they still hold sovereignty? The majority of "Western world" people are already wage slaves, the banks already own us, the police in (most countries) will still turn from protectors into minions of the militery in times of unrest and disaster. Nothing changes but in this case war may decrease as a move away from leaning on a militery economy. The intelligence community (10,000 strong in the US alone) will slowly fall away. There will be no need for warfare when trade routes are open and the only enemies to fight will be closed nation states such as North Korea.

At least this way the rich folk and the corporations won't push for militery actions against countries that don't agree with their money making agenda and possibly leave to war.

In my opinion Putin is correct and war is coming. The world reserve currency (dollor) will be replaced with gold, giving power to the east. The US will enter marshal law and this will destabalised the entire western world. The finncial crisis of 2008 was only a flesh would that the global banks confined to the EU which they couldn't treat, yet only postpone become a gangrenous  mess for the west.

After stuxnet unleashed who knows what cyber warfare is going on, unseen but one thing is blatently obvious and that actually warfare is on its way and if the world can agree on a one world system of government it may avert disaster. Maybe its a case of fucked if we do, fucked if we don't but I sure hope its a "do".

Tin foil hat not needed. Please take a look at the state of the world on a global scale, economically and otherwise and come to your own conclusion before commenting with tin foil hat comments. There is no conspiracy. Just events that are becoming more apparant.

Rant end. 

Are you using "wage slave" as a mindset or as in people who could not live without the wages they are paid?

Regardless, this rant doesn't make much sense either way. Putin is upset that NATO is placing missiles in Europe and is blowing hot air about it, threatening a nuclear war if things keep going the way they are. The US already has the ability to nuke any site in Russia if they so desired. Even if Russia was to start nuclear war, they would be retaliated against so quickly it would be over before it could start. The "war" would last days, at most.

If Russia was to nuke some other country, however, the rest of your post would go right out the window. Martial law certainly wouldn't be put into place, because the military would be focused on everything besides what's going on inside its own country's borders. The dollar certainly wouldn't be replaced by gold barring a complete global collapse, in which case all currency dissolves and neither East nor West has power; it'd be Africa of all places.

The bigger issue though is Mutually Assured Destruction. Basically, as long as the West and Russia both have nuclear weapons, neither one will be willing to nuke the other. It would mean assuredly having your own country devastated, at the very least. And despite however little you may think the wealthy care about the poor in society, the rich don't get paid if there are no poor/middle class individuals to keep the economy running. The last people who won't want a war are the upper class, because they're the ones with the most to lose should society become unstable.