Pat Buchanan's nightmare

Great Debates
21

Arnold, it seems to me that people did go in to stop it in those examples. You used Pol Pot as an example…Pol Pot was ousted from power by Ho-Che-Minh, who decided that the events in Cambodia was his business (You may make the arguement that he did it to install a puppet goverment in Cambodia, but he still stopped Pol Pot.)

Oh, and you other examples only go to prove it. Your one world goverment decides that anyone whos family has a history of heart disease can’t reproduce. What chance have you got in protest? Go to another country and try to raise a consensus to do something about it? Nope, can’t do that there are none. Rebel? Good luck getting it started, the majority probably consider it ‘none of their business.’ and would actively support the cause against your rebellion.

There are a lot of things to be said against our current system, but to paraphrase, ‘The options are worse.’. At least the current system allows outside preasures to change things. Do you think Ghandi would have managed to get the British to leave India if it weren’t for the fact that it was giving Britain a black eye in the views of other countries? Do you think that the US would have refrained from using atomic weapons in Korea if it weren’t for the fact that the court of world goverments wouldn’t have condemned it? (There were a number of generals who pushed for their use, BTW, luckily the politicians prefered not to deal with the global opinions that would have shifted.) A one world goverment, could quite easily have little compunction about using a bazooka to kill a fly, they don’t have to consider the politics of it the same way.

>>Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say your sorry…unless the other guy is bigger than you.<<

—The dragon observes

22

Yes, I see revolution as the solution to oppression, but then it would be the solution to those examples you named above, wouldn’t it? Although for many people in those countries the solution was to leave. Can’t flee the world government.

You mention Yugoslavia, and I’ll throw in the USSR. These were nations made up of many ethnic groups and smaller states, held together by oppressive central governments. Yes there is much violence since they’ve been broken up, but was it worth the oppression to prevent that violence? How much oppression would be neccessary to hold together the “United States of the Middle East” constituting Israel, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al?

23

Just being a good ol’ boy’s devil’s advocate here, but . . .

how much oppression did it require to keep the USA intact? I used to live in a building in Atlanta that still had burn scars from Sherman’s march. . .

-andros-

24

I can’t believe that some of you think a one world government would be a good thing. It’s a nice idea, but it’s really very illogical at this point in time. In the '60s, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana tried to instigate a one-governmental system for Africa. Why didn’t it work? A zillion reasons, mostly that it’s a very diverse place, with many languages and religions and cultural values, a very large place geographically, and not unimportantly, a lot of people thought that Nkrumah was just trying to get power for Ghana. It’s true, Africa is not the world’s most organized place, and you can see that this sort of unification is working (somewhat) in Europe (a much smaller area). But the entire world is much more disorganized than Africa by itself.

The world is getting a lot smaller, but it’s wrong to think that countries are larger today because of globalization, hence increasing the likelihood of a one-world government. The largest empire ever was the Mongol empire, and that wasn’t exactly recent. I’m not going to say that a one-world government will never be possible, but not for a long time.

And, FTR, Pat Buchanan is nuts.

~Kyla

25

Arnold: You’ll get no argument from me that there are despotic governments. Perhaps something should be done about them. How this justifies a world government is beyond me.

If we had a world government, my sincere belief is that we would lose a lot of our freedoms, since the majority of the world’s population lives under oppressive regimes today. I for one don’t want to put the 330 million people in North America in the same democracy as the populations of India, China, and the Middle East. How about if they decide that women actually shouldn’t have the vote? That it will be a criminal offense to open a store on the Sabbath? That public floggings will come back?

I think most people who advocate a world government have this feeling that such a government will have their own values. And it’s almost certainly not true.

26

No argument from me, Kyla. :wink:

Thank you all for your contributions thus far. You are demonstrating for me that the concept at least merits serious thought, and is not just something that must be dismissed out of hand. I’m still a little confused, though.

Given that the subject is demonstrably complex, how is it that it has been characterized in the mind of Joe Sixpack (or at least, Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel), as so simplistic, so patently evil, that serious discussion of it is a redundant waste of time and intellectual resources? Is there some historical reason for the term “One-World Government” carrying the same emotional weight as “Master Race”, or “eugenics?”

Or am I just spinning my wheels in trying to plumb the so-called “thought” processes of paranoid whackos?

27

I think we’re arguing in circles here.

Arguments: with a one-world government you couldn’t flee the oppressive government.

I’ll point out that the same thing could happen now with an oppressive government that prevents people from leaving the country. Look at the Soviet Union after World War II. Emigration was not allowed.

With other countries there can be the chance of outside pressure in case a country decides to commit abuses.

What if it’s the case of a country where no one cares? Or else they have financial interests in the country that make it unprofitable for them to interfere? In Rwanda, nothing happened. Do you see the USA putting pressure on Saudi Arabia for equal rights for women? In the case of Pol Pot, he was in power for years before Vietname intervened. I don’t think that saving the population of Cambodia was their primary goal.

It’s illogical at this time.

Does that mean it might be logical later? If you notice my post, I didn’t say “one government now”.

You’ll get no argument from me that there are despotic governments. Perhaps something should be done about them. How this justifies a world government is beyond me.

Because a world government would have legal, approved authority to step in a country and make sure that human rights are respected. Right now interventions (if they happen) are on an “ad-hoc” basis, with some countries disputing it, others supporting it, and confusion as to the true mission.

What if the world government becomes oppressive?

I am assuming a benevolent world government, with a constitution based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Before you start calling me a fool, let me point out that many of my detractors are assuming a “benevolent” multi-country government where people come to each other’s aid, oppressive governments let you leave and you are granted refugee status in another country, etc… That’s just as naive.

Finally, if you carry it to extremes, a one-world government seems like a terrible idea.

But if you carry the “separate country” government to extremes, then you end up with a bunch of monkeys throwing coconuts at the next tree over. What is the smallest unit that can make a viable country? Should every city have its own independent government?

La franchise ne consiste pas à dire tout ce que l’on pense, mais à penser tout ce que l’on dit.
H. de Livry

28

>>Given that the subject is demonstrably complex, how is it that it has been
characterized in the mind of Joe Sixpack (or at least, Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel),
as so simplistic, so patently evil, that serious discussion of it is a redundant waste of
time and intellectual resources? Is there some historical reason for the term “One-World
Government” carrying the same emotional weight as “Master Race”, or “eugenics?”<<

It has to do with the Anti-Christ and stuff. I have no idea why people think this, actually, but apparently there’s an idea that the anti-Christ will instigate a one-world government. If you’re interested in this viewpoint, read Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind trilogy.

~Kyla

29

Well for one thing, it should not be surprising that the disenfranchised and marginalized are the ones most vehemently opposed to such a ‘conspiracy’.

After all, if you are fed in this government, you are going to be fed in the next, and maybe more so. And currently, the right wing is marginalized as hell. They are noisy, so a lot of people haven’t realized it yet (and leftists want to keep it that way) but the right wing (as it is CURRENTLY known) is almost dead.

30

Excuse me, but on what do you base this statement? Canada is one of the most decentralized countries in the world. When was the last time you heard of a Governors’ Conference in the US? Have you noticed that the premiers control health care up here?

In his book The Doubter’s Companion, John Ralston Saul, one of Canada’s pre-eminent political philosophers, and currently the husband of the Governor General, describes Canada as “the most decentralized country in existence, which causes Canadians to complain constantly about the power of the central government.”

I’ve racked my brains and I can’t think of a nation more decentralized than Canada. Will you please name one? And if you’re thinking of the US, just because they have more states doesn’t mean the states have more power.

31

Here are some interesting quotes about “The New World Order”…note how far some go back…

New World order

Yes its from sightings…still interesting reading.

If you can’t convince them, confuse them.
Harry S. Truman

32

Interesting reading, indeed. Of course, what I found interesting was that the quotes from the right were nearly all aimed at a Bolshevik/Marxist/Communist conspiracy, the quotes from the left were all aimed at a Capitalist Plutocracy, the quotes from the center frequently appeared to be taken out of context and with minimal citation, and the remaining quotes oozed out of the woodwork from racists and other hate mongers.
There are claims for a united religious leadership (with some nasty anti-Jewish hints) and claims for Satanic control. Heck, even the Illuminati got a mention, here.

Basically, these quotes are very clear evidence that the easiest way to stir up support for any hackneyed idea is to claim that it is in opposition to some grand conspiracy that will control the entire world.

Okie-dokie.
(Have you driven a fnord, lately?)

Tom~

33

Uh, every year. Mayors’ Conference, too.

“Come on, Phonics Monkey–drum!”