The Left and One Party Rule

[apple0154]

apple, my apologies if you have answered this and I missed it. What would be the benefit in your opinion to having a one world government?

Thanks for asking. I was beginning to feel guilty monopolizing this thread responding to Classic Liberal. HA!

I see a number of benefits. For example, natural resources. Oil is used to make many products we use every day. There could be two-tier pricing for oil. One price when used as a fuel and one price for essentials such as drugs, etc. (Such as different lotions and creams which are made with pharmaceutical grade petrolatum (a yellowish or whitish, translucent, gelatinous, oily, semisolid, amorphous mass obtained from petroleum: used as a lubricant, rust preventive, in the manufacture of cosmetics, and in medicine as a protective dressing, emollient, and ointment base) or mineral oil (often used as bases for different topical medications). Also tar made from petroleum is used in topical medications for psoriasis. At least keep a reserve.

Then there's the natural medications associated with the rain forests. And, of course, the trees themselves being beneficial to cleaning the air.

Then there's the major disputes that occur between nations and the proliferation of weapons. The latter requires every country to keep a look out.

Then there's food production. Certain areas grow certain foods better than others. A more organized use of land as the population increases especially in countries where nothing is presently being farmed.

It's more a case of one world management. I don't believe such a "unit" needs to get involved in every day laws which are usually passed by communities. Enforcement can be done by a thorough embargo against such countries that don't co-operate. It certainly wouldn't be smooth sailing for at least a generation or two but it can be started.

Just as evolution started with families, then tribes, then countries, then alliances between countries I believe a one world government would greatly benefit mankind.

 

[cawacko]

Thanks for asking. I was beginning to feel guilty monopolizing this thread responding to Classic Liberal. HA!

I see a number of benefits. For example, natural resources. Oil is used to make many products we use every day. There could be two-tier pricing for oil. One price when used as a fuel and one price for essentials such as drugs, etc. (Such as different lotions and creams which are made with pharmaceutical grade petrolatum (a yellowish or whitish, translucent, gelatinous, oily, semisolid, amorphous mass obtained from petroleum: used as a lubricant, rust preventive, in the manufacture of cosmetics, and in medicine as a protective dressing, emollient, and ointment base) or mineral oil (often used as bases for different topical medications). Also tar made from petroleum is used in topical medications for psoriasis. At least keep a reserve.

Then there's the natural medications associated with the rain forests. And, of course, the trees themselves being beneficial to cleaning the air.

Then there's the major disputes that occur between nations and the proliferation of weapons. The latter requires every country to keep a look out.

Then there's food production. Certain areas grow certain foods better than others. A more organized use of land as the population increases especially in countries where nothing is presently being farmed.

It's more a case of one world management. I don't believe such a "unit" needs to get involved in every day laws which are usually passed by communities. Enforcement can be done by a thorough embargo against such countries that don't co-operate. It certainly wouldn't be smooth sailing for at least a generation or two but it can be started.

Just as evolution started with families, then tribes, then countries, then alliances between countries I believe a one world government would greatly benefit mankind.

What would the set up be? Would all countries maintain their sovereignty like they are now or (for example) would Canada, the U.S. and Mexico eliminate their borders and become one large 'country' or 'block' for lack of a better term? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how this would actually play out.

 

[apple0154]

For some reason, the left interpret "pursuit" to mean "acquire".

As Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” If we are to believe the goal of the Constitution was to benefit the people then anything that benefits the people must be constitutional. However, when deciding the benefit of something the question must be asked, "Does it benefit the citizens, the nation, as a whole?" Of course, there were things that were not possible for the Founding Fathers/government to do at the time the Constitution was drawn up and there was always the possibility government would enact laws without the people knowing or being able to voice their opinion so it makes sense they were either omitted or prohibited. How would a group of people a 1000 miles away know what laws were being implemented and how would the government know how those laws would affect those being governed? Those geographically closer to the government would have an unfair advantage. Until the government knew the people they were governing, their every day concerns, laws had to be few and general. Would the average New Yorker know what would benefit the average Georgian separated by 1000 miles as the crow flies horse gallops? As communication and travel improved different laws were enacted (Constitutional amendments).

I agree Constitutional amendments are necessary rather than simply instituting laws but ultimately, the power rests with the people and as Zappa and I have made clear the people spoke concerning ObamaCare. No one was unaware of Obama's stand on ObamaCare, if not in 2008 definitely in 2012. The strange thing about all this is it's the Right who talk about challenging the government when it's the left that has overwhelmingly spoken and the government has done nothing to change the Constitution. Even the Right don't challenge Medicare or Medicaid vigorously and the majority of US cictizens support both programs. Isn't it long overdue to have them included in the Constitution?

Times are changing. Didn't you hear O'Reilly say the days of the old white man are over? Don't go Rovian on us like we witnessed his public display of denial.

 

[apple0154]

Government is inherently corrupt because it is inherently authoritarian and the BIGGER the government the BIGGER the authoritarianism and corruption. A One World Government would be the BIGGEST government possible and thereby the MOST corrupt and authoritarian government possible.

Promoting BIG government and especially a One World Government is insanity beyond stupidity.

What about a one world government fashioned after the US government? The Constitutional Government of Planet Earth.

 

[apple0154]

They didn't have an incentive to work prior to welfare reform in the '90's. And today you still have to go through a complex system to get the true answer.


http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Government-credits-make-working-pay-off-4307848.php

From your link. (Excerpt) How much better varies widely. In general, able-bodied adults younger than 65 with no children have little to lose from taking a low-wage job. That's because they receive few benefits (other than unemployment, if eligible).

They cannot receive the government's main welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (called CalWORKS in California). They can get food stamps (now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or Snap) and a small earned income tax credit. In some states, indigent single childless adults can get general assistance payments. In California, these vary by county. San Francisco has the highest - $342 a month, or $422 if the person participates in work-related activities. (End)

$342/mth! What the hell is someone supposed to do with $342/mth? Does anyone believe there are healthy, sane people who choose to "live" (I use that word in the broadest sense possible) on that amount of money rather than work? Anyone?


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/netw...ake-working-pay-off-4307848.php#ixzz2M9tBdXII

 

[apple0154]

What would the set up be? Would all countries maintain their sovereignty like they are now or (for example) would Canada, the U.S. and Mexico eliminate their borders and become one large 'country' or 'block' for lack of a better term? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how this would actually play out.

Because of some people's reaction countries would have to maintain their sovereignty for a period of time, say 25 or 50 years, during which changes would slowly take place. Countries that objected to change would be ostracised by the world community similar to how North Korea is treated. However, countries assisting them would also be ostracised, like China. Again, it would be done slowly. The chances of any country staying the same over 50 years is slim considering the access to knowledge now available. There's no reason we can not teach other countries how to make toasters or assemble smart phones. Jobs could go to those countries instead of China but greed, rampant capitalism, the almighty buck is preventing that.

The change has to start here because what ever way the cookie crumbles the economy of the West is going to decrease due to the fact we either teach other countries how to make things or the Chinese will make them, sell them and make money. Right now we have the technology to raise the living standards of many countries. Instead of selling the technology while poor countries can only afford to buy a little at a time we should set them up. Give them a credit account, in a manner of speaking.

As time passes we grow closer together and maybe their country is more suitable to supply things we don't have. More suitable for growing a certain crop, for example. Or more of a mineral to make certain things. The idea being as time passes we become more equal so each country has something to offer the world.

As to laws each country would be like a community. If some countries insist women cover their head, so be it, just as some countries insist women cover their breasts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom (NSFW) The priority is the planet or, more accurately, the welfare of the largest number of people. How they wish to live their personal lives should not be of concern.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".

It is guaranteed...we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights" if that statement is true then it matters not where it's written...it is fact and therefore it's our Governments job to secure those rights.

The key word is pursuit of happiness. It doesn't mean you have a right to be happy.

It also infers that those rights are guarenteed as long as they do infringe on another's right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

Therefore the minute you impose upon me a tax to provide for your material well being against my will the you are infringing on MY right to life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

Additionally given your disdain for religion and if I am not mistaken a lack of belief in God, how do you reconcile that with "endowed by your Creator"

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So what you're saying is, no matter which form of Government the founding fathers chose to implement to govern over this nation, it was inevitably doomed to failure due to man's inherent corruption.

No I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying is that the Founding Fathers knew that government was a necessary evil. And the trick was for men to govern men when history showed it to lead to a tyrannical existence.

The founders predicated the formation of our government relying on moral men and society maintaining its morality. Without morality our government cannot survive not can our society.

It is why the goal of Marxists has been to tear down our society by making immorality appear normal

 

[Robo]

OK. That was funny. It did get a laugh. Congress working together to change the Constitution? They can't even agree on a general budget!

Are you in Congress? So you think the Constitution is funny?

 

[Robo]

Yes, it does and definitely an exception. Out of 50 states how many have implemented a state health care plan? And what would happen if a major catastrophe struck Mass? You can bet those in charge of governemnt would be going over benefits like vultures looking at what to chop. A federal plan is more stable.

The federal government is STABLE? Now that's funny I don't care who ya are? The President added 6 trillion $ to the national debt and the Senate hasn't passed a budget since Obama has been in office and you believe the federal government is stable.

 

[Robo]

Do you have any idea what welfare pays? To say someone doesn't have an incentive to work is more nonsense unless they're mentally or physically ill. Or an addict. Or was home schooled in Appalachia.

They get their housing subsidized, they get food stamps and even cell phones these days along with their check and extra money for every minor child they have. If they got a job like the Mexicans do, they wouldn’t be as wealthy having to fend for themselves because they ignored their education and training for a better job. So the left punishes the middle class and the most productive and successful among us for the laziness and stupidity of high-school dropouts, unwed teenage mothers and gangbangers by giving them OUR money.

 

[The Dude]

Neocons are not stable

 

[Robo]

Ah, yes. Those darn unwed mothers. And the Repub/Conservative solution is to ensure we have more of them by outlawing abortion. And those who lived in unfit homes with bums as parents, let's make sure they don't sneak off to school while receiving government assistance. They can stay home and have more kids.

I’m not a modern Republican I’m a Classical Liberal. I’m perfectly satisfied to leave the issue and judgment of abortion to God, not government and teenage unwed mothers to the judgment of their parents. Actually it’s the left that creates the incentive for the continuing impoverished single mother syndrome by encouraging it with social programs.

 

[Robo]

What about a one world government fashioned after the US government? The Constitutional Government of Planet Earth.

That’ll be the day!!! Our government doesn’t even follow our Constitution and the left is the biggest violator of it and the One World Government idea is a purely leftist idea. And you want people to think it would be an American inspired Constitutional government? Anybody that fell for that scam would have to be not just an idiot but insane as well!

Having said that, it’s also a fact that government of any kind is inherently authoritarian and corrupt no matter what its size. The difference is, “The BIGGER The Government, The BIGGER The Corruption And Authoritarianism.”

 

[zappasguitar]

They get their housing subsidized, they get food stamps and even cell phones these days along with their check and extra money for every minor child they have. If they got a job like the Mexicans do, they wouldn’t be as wealthy having to fend for themselves because they ignored their education and training for a better job. So the left punishes the middle class and the most productive and successful among us for the laziness and stupidity of high-school dropouts, unwed teenage mothers and gangbangers by giving them OUR money.

No that is just not true.

SOME PEOPLE get their housing subsidized and SOME PEOPLE get food stamps and SOME PEOPLE get cell phones but only the poorest of the poor get all of the above.

 

[cawacko]

Because of some people's reaction countries would have to maintain their sovereignty for a period of time, say 25 or 50 years, during which changes would slowly take place. Countries that objected to change would be ostracised by the world community similar to how North Korea is treated. However, countries assisting them would also be ostracised, like China. Again, it would be done slowly. The chances of any country staying the same over 50 years is slim considering the access to knowledge now available. There's no reason we can not teach other countries how to make toasters or assemble smart phones. Jobs could go to those countries instead of China but greed, rampant capitalism, the almighty buck is preventing that.

The change has to start here because what ever way the cookie crumbles the economy of the West is going to decrease due to the fact we either teach other countries how to make things or the Chinese will make them, sell them and make money. Right now we have the technology to raise the living standards of many countries. Instead of selling the technology while poor countries can only afford to buy a little at a time we should set them up. Give them a credit account, in a manner of speaking.

As time passes we grow closer together and maybe their country is more suitable to supply things we don't have. More suitable for growing a certain crop, for example. Or more of a mineral to make certain things. The idea being as time passes we become more equal so each country has something to offer the world.

As to laws each country would be like a community. If some countries insist women cover their head, so be it, just as some countries insist women cover their breasts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom (NSFW) The priority is the planet or, more accurately, the welfare of the largest number of people. How they wish to live their personal lives should not be of concern.

I'll admit this one world government is not something I can wrap my head around but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me.

 

[zappasguitar]

Because of some people's reaction countries would have to maintain their sovereignty for a period of time, say 25 or 50 years, during which changes would slowly take place. Countries that objected to change would be ostracised by the world community similar to how North Korea is treated. However, countries assisting them would also be ostracised, like China. Again, it would be done slowly. The chances of any country staying the same over 50 years is slim considering the access to knowledge now available. There's no reason we can not teach other countries how to make toasters or assemble smart phones. Jobs could go to those countries instead of China but greed, rampant capitalism, the almighty buck is preventing that.

The change has to start here because what ever way the cookie crumbles the economy of the West is going to decrease due to the fact we either teach other countries how to make things or the Chinese will make them, sell them and make money. Right now we have the technology to raise the living standards of many countries. Instead of selling the technology while poor countries can only afford to buy a little at a time we should set them up. Give them a credit account, in a manner of speaking.

As time passes we grow closer together and maybe their country is more suitable to supply things we don't have. More suitable for growing a certain crop, for example. Or more of a mineral to make certain things. The idea being as time passes we become more equal so each country has something to offer the world.

As to laws each country would be like a community. If some countries insist women cover their head, so be it, just as some countries insist women cover their breasts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom (NSFW) The priority is the planet or, more accurately, the welfare of the largest number of people. How they wish to live their personal lives should not be of concern.

Ya know...when you lay it out like that without the ridiculous hyperbole or the shrieking, hysteria-filled tantrums, then a cooperative, One World Government almost sounds like a GOOD IDEA.

 

[Robo]

Ya know...when you lay it out like that without the ridiculous hyperbole or the shrieking, hysteria-filled tantrums, then a cooperative, One World Government almost sounds like a GOOD IDEA.

Who would have ever thought a lefty wouldn’t like that stupid idea?

In the first place a One World Government is a human impossibility. Just look at the United Nations folly and its toothless incompetence, corruption and stupidity. Nobody pays any attention to those social drinking corrupt bastards and not even half the world belongs to that idiocy, and wisely so. That’s why I have no fear of a One World Government, it’s like wishing for Larry, Mo & Curly to become the World’s Gods.

 

[apple0154]

Are you in Congress? So you think the Constitution is funny?

No, I think expecting changes in the Constitution is funny. Well, sad considering the present gridlock. Don't you?

 

[apple0154]

The federal government is STABLE? Now that's funny I don't care who ya are? The President added 6 trillion $ to the national debt and the Senate hasn't passed a budget since Obama has been in office and you believe the federal government is stable.

The wealth of a country is based on the wealth of it's citizens. The exceptions are a few Middle East countries so this idea the US is broke is nonsense.