Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Apr '13 00:07
    Imagine the country you live in was the only populated land on the planet. Would that not be a "world order" of sorts?

    If all humans living on Earth had one government, no borders to fight over and all resources and information were shared openly, why would that be a bad thing?

    For the record, it's not something I advocate because frankly it would never happen. But why would eliminating man-made borders be a bad thing? We are all humans sharing the same planet we all depend on.

    Imagine we lived in the Star Trek era, would we end up being a united planet - perhaps waring with other planets over territory and natural resources?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Apr '13 00:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Imagine the country you live in was the only populated land on the planet. Would that not be a "world order" of sorts?

    If all humans living on Earth had one government, no borders to fight over and all resources and information were shared openly, why would that be a bad thing?

    For the record, it's not something I advocate because fr ...[text shortened]... ing a united planet - perhaps waring with other planets over territory and natural resources?
    Two basic reasons I can think of:

    1) Right now, we're just too diverse to have a single set of principles that we can agree to live under. Some may want to live under strict Sharia law while some others may not see the benefits of learning science and mathematics. Still other may want to have torture to death and caning as part of their judicial system. Yes, we have differences within countries too, but as it is, administering the entire US under one set of laws is a strain, as we see by our political climate. If the differences between the people of Jackson and Burlington are so stark that the government strains to reconcile their viewpoints, can New Yorkers realistically expect to come to terms with the people of Islamabad and Addis Ababa on the appropriate standards under which to live?

    2) The selfish reason is that if we share the wealth, the living standard of the first world will necessarily be dragged down towards the median. Even if this would be good for the planet in the long run, it would be hella painful for most of us RHPers in the meantime.
  3. 08 Apr '13 01:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Imagine the country you live in was the only populated land on the planet. Would that not be a "world order" of sorts?

    If all humans living on Earth had one government, no borders to fight over and all resources and information were shared openly, why would that be a bad thing?

    For the record, it's not something I advocate because fr ...[text shortened]... ing a united planet - perhaps waring with other planets over territory and natural resources?
    Like it or not, regimes go "bad". And when they do, usually another country is there to help "correct" them.

    To be honest, I cringe at the collective utopia you speak of. It's bad enough having one man dictate to me from everything from what doctor I see to how our children are educated. Like it or not, Obama does not have all the answers and never will. Centralized planning is a disaster.

    I do see this coming, however. It is the collectivist/globalist dream. Every day power is centrialized more and more around the world. It is only a matter of time. More than likely they will use economic influence to create your one world order utopia. Every day corporations grow larger and more intrusive and do not recognize political boundaries.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 Apr '13 02:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's bad enough having one man dictate to me from everything from what doctor I see to how our children are educated.
    In Indonesia there is no "one man" who dictates what doctor I see or how my children are educated. In fact no entity dictates such things. For the sake of argument only - if you had to choose - would you prefer the Indonesian model to the U.S. one for a 'single state world', on the basis of the issues of health and education you mentioned?
  5. 08 Apr '13 02:05
    Originally posted by sh76
    Two basic reasons I can think of:

    1) Right now, we're just too diverse to have a single set of principles that we can agree to live under. Some may want to live under strict Sharia law while some others may not see the benefits of learning science and mathematics. Still other may want to have torture to death and caning as part of their judicial system. Yes, ...[text shortened]... or the planet in the long run, it would be hella painful for most of us RHPers in the meantime.
    But the wealth is fleeing places like the US. Every day jobs go overseas, illegals cross the border and become instant citizens, and the US inflates its currency into oblivion.

    Whether it is due to a globalist cabal or simply incidental is beside the point.
  6. 08 Apr '13 02:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    In Indonesia there is no "one man" who dictates what doctor I see or how my children are educated. In fact no entity dictates such things. For the sake of argument only - if you had to choose - would you prefer the Indonesian model to the U.S. one for a 'single state world', on the basis of the issues of health and education you mentioned?
    I prefer the model that existed before the US federal government usurped state rights in the beginning of the 20th century. Once the federal government was given the power to tax incomes and created the Fed to oversee a planned economy for the fledgling federal Leviathan, Federalism was forsaken. Then the US adopted a one size fits all for pretty much everything.

    What we have today is a Federal Congress with only a 13% approval rating. Why? It's because everyone hates the Congressmen from other states that raid the treasury, but love their representative who raids it for their particular state. That way the same people keep getting elected, even though the whole country hates the institution. It was never meant to be this way.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 Apr '13 02:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    Whether it is due to a globalist cabal or simply incidental is beside the point.
    Surely if it is simply incidental and not due to a globalist cabal, as you seem to suggest it could be, doesn't it make your insistence that it's due to a globalist cabal beside the point?
  8. 08 Apr '13 02:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    Like it or not, regimes go "bad". And when they do, usually another country is there to help "correct" them.

    To be honest, I cringe at the collective utopia you speak of. It's bad enough having one man dictate to me from everything from what doctor I see to how our children are educated. Like it or not, Obama does not have all the answers and never will ...[text shortened]... day corporations grow larger and more intrusive and do not recognize political boundaries.
    Who dictates what doctor you see or what non-public school your kids go to?
  9. 08 Apr '13 02:14
    Originally posted by FMF
    Surely if it is simply incidental and not due to a globalist cabal, as you seem to suggest it could be, doesn't it make your insistence that it's due to a globalist cabal beside the point?
    I never insisted that it was a cabal. I think that it is simply human nature. Mankind innately seeks power and then seeks to secure that power, and then seeks even more power.

    God made us free. It is mankind that enslaves us.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 Apr '13 02:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    I prefer the model that existed before the US federal government usurped state rights in the beginning of the 20th century.
    This was not the thought exercise I was suggesting. have a go: Indonesia v U.S., and the issues of Health & Education (only), just for the sake of argument. If, as you say, in the U.S. one man dictates which doctor you see and how your children are educated, and this is not the case in Indonesia, would the Indonesian model in terms of health and education - hypothetically - be more preferable to you than the U.S. model?
  11. 08 Apr '13 02:22 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Who dictates what doctor you see or what non-public school your kids go to?
    Please. The federal government has increased its influence in both medicine and education. This will only get worse. Granted, they don't tell me what doctor to see but they do heavily influence my medical care. Medicare turns down more people than private insurance does for treatments. Lines to see doctors will grow longer and longer. The rich will simply outsource their medical care to either their own private doctors or countries overseas. There is a reason that Congress opted out of Obamacare. Obamacare will soon have people begging for a socialized system where the government will grab even more power over my medical treatment.

    In terms of education, if you are poor you will live in a poor school district. You will then be forced to put your kids into that public school which is more than likely subpar at best. As the middle class shrinks more and more, this scenerio will simply increase........or do you see Obama magically reversing course for a country whose standard of living has been dropping for some time?
  12. 08 Apr '13 02:25
    Originally posted by FMF
    This was not the thought exercise I was suggesting. have a go: Indonesia v U.S., and the issues of Health & Education (only), just for the sake of argument. If, as you say, in the U.S. one man dictates which doctor you see and how your children are educated, and this is not the case in Indonesia, would the Indonesian model in terms of health and education - hypothetically - be more preferable to you than the U.S. model?
    It sure sounds preferable, but then, I would have to study up on how things are done there.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 Apr '13 02:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    It sure sounds preferable, but then, I would have to study up on how things are done there.
    There is no one man who tells me what doctor I have to visit and no one man you dictates how my children are educated. You should look into it.
  14. 08 Apr '13 03:13
    Originally posted by FMF
    There is no one man who tells me what doctor I have to visit and no one man you dictates how my children are educated. You should look into it.
    You mean move?

    Considering the disgust I have for the US Federal government, with no hope in sight, it may come to that.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 Apr '13 03:22
    Originally posted by whodey
    You mean move?
    No. It was just a hypothetical. But if you adopted the Indonesian model in the U.S. you would be able to see any doctor you want and there would be no "one man" who dictated to you how your children were educated. Not even under the Soeharto regime did we have that.