XPost: alt.illuminati, alt.freemasonry, alt.politics.democrats
XPost: alt.politics.republicans
From: aw@ke.com
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:34:58 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote:
> This is The Awakened One's brain on drugs:
> >A one-world government is almost inevitible given human nature. Is
> >there something about the concept itself that's such a negative thing
> >to you, or just the way it seems to be unfolding in this particular
> >history?
>
> I would agree that there is a trend towards one world government. Big
> nations and small, overlapping membership in international groups,
> multinational corporations, rapid travel and instant communication
> from any part of the globe to any other all ensure an increasingly
> homogenous planet.
>
> But those groups and smaller ones down to local governing levels will
> remain in place. While all might sign on to certain basic precepts of
> global oversight or control, nations will continue to hold their
> internal law supreme in their space.
>
> One example might be the Bill of Rights. Americans are not likely to
> give it up or modify it and the rest of the world cannot be expected
> to honor all of it (though one hopes that most of it becomes part of
> the governing philosophy of any hypothesized global government).
>
> An American living under a global government should be ceded their
> right to keep and bear when within US jurisdiction (Would "Global
> Citizens" from outside the US be protected by and exercise the 10?)
> but obviously would not be allowed to exercise that particular US
> right when it conflicts with local laws in other countries. Just as
> states have internal laws that conflict, so nations can under a global
> government.
I agree with this - by "one-world government", I didn't exactly mean a
single government with a single constitution or laws or what have you.
What we are becoming via governmental cooperatives such as the UN or
the EU is a world governed very loosely by only a few governing
bodies, bodies which will quite likely continue growing & merging
until they themselves are as one. The governments of the individual
nations will continue as they are (or change as they tend to do via
coups & such), at least for a time.
Yet a one-world government of the type refuted here is still not at
all a far-fetched notion. Sure, people alive NOW wouldn't go for it.
But as cultures & civilizations change, so to do the views of those
who live within it. As governmental cooperatives become increasingly
prevalent, it's going to eventually become obvious to people that a
true "one-world government" is simply too profitable an idea on a
corporate level for resistance to stand forever. Corporations tend to
control everything already and it is in their best interests to have
things flowing between nations with as few restrictions as possible.
Many corporations are already doing what they can to promote the
notion of a one-world government. Sure, it's not going to be any time
"soon", but attitudes & ideas change - especially when corporations
get involved and begin actively working to -make- them change. By the
time such a government actually becomes possible, we won't see the
same world we see today. Those countries mentioned as being countries
which could never get along - they won't be that way by the time the
world is ready for a one-world government.
Again, I don't mean anytime soon - probably not within the lifetime of
anyone alive today, or even the lives of their children &
grandchildren. It's taken thousands of years for the world to become
as integrated as it is, and there doesn't seem to be any slowdown in
the rate at which this integration is happening. It changes individual
societies as it changes their governments - I don't see anything that
could possibly stop such an integration from occurring within the next
few hundred years.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
