Pope wants “World Political Authority”, aka New World Order

Page 1 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

13 Jan 2010, 5:12 pm

Quote:
The Pope ... now wants the United Nations to play a central role in policing a new global agreement on the environment and disarming the nations of the world. As dangerous as this may sound, this objective is consistent with his endorsement of a “World Political Authority,” a key recommendation from his Caritas in Veritate encyclical.

In that controversial document, the Pope explained that a “World Political Authority” was necessary in order to “manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration…”


http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/01/po ... overnment/



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Jan 2010, 6:51 pm

leejosepho wrote:
Quote:
The Pope ... now wants the United Nations to play a central role in policing a new global agreement on the environment and disarming the nations of the world. As dangerous as this may sound, this objective is consistent with his endorsement of a “World Political Authority,” a key recommendation from his Caritas in Veritate encyclical.

In that controversial document, the Pope explained that a “World Political Authority” was necessary in order to “manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration…”


http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/01/po ... overnment/


What else would one expect from the Panzer-Pope. Today Rome, Tomorrow the World! I wish he would say Amen when in prays, instead of jawohl.

ruveyn



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

13 Jan 2010, 7:38 pm

yay finally. this guy got my vote. It is about time to instaurate the new world order. to be honest the current one blows and well, nationalistic a-holes have gotten boring if not complete freaks that must be shot. Let's screw frontiers up this world needs true leadership instead of morons that only care about their own country.

Though the illuminati in me distrusts this guy. The world would be better not only without frontiers but also without religion. The only tradition we should teach to our children is to throw traditions to the old trash bin.


_________________
.


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

13 Jan 2010, 7:39 pm

Aw, shucks. I was hoping somebody would accuse the Pope of switching to a tin hat ...



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Jan 2010, 9:44 pm

OK, some people advocate some form or other of global governance. I don't see how this corroborates the typical NWO fantasies. You'll notice the Pope is not a Freemason, and he's not saying he wants to kill 95+% of the world population (like NWO tinhatters like to say will happen).

What exactly is the objection to global government anyways? Is it just based on the assumption that a global government would be evil and corrupt?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

13 Jan 2010, 9:46 pm

Wouldn't it be Old World Order? 8)



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

13 Jan 2010, 10:09 pm

Orwell wrote:
What exactly is the objection to global government anyways? Is it just based on the assumption that a global government would be evil and corrupt?

Ok I'll bite,
Soverign nations allow different systems to evolve and compete. With one system, it is possible for it to stagnate indefinately, or become corrupt, and given it's a global government, nothing is large enough to oppose it.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

13 Jan 2010, 10:25 pm

It could easily still be a single leadership, but with a senate of sort with a rep from each region. Etc. US governors exist and they have power over a lot of people. The India president probably has power over a lot more people than any leader before 1800...

It is well possible the world would one day act as a block, it is not that far-fetched, even now there are cases in which only a few single outcast countries don't agree with something. It will probably help when we figure out about other civilizations... Anyway, frontiers are already quite nonexistent, and they are only going to fade more and more... The only way to stop this will be by disabling the internet. I don't think protecting my nation's existence is worth that...


_________________
.


ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

13 Jan 2010, 10:32 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
yay finally. this guy got my vote. It is about time to instaurate the new world order. to be honest the current one blows and well, nationalistic a-holes have gotten boring if not complete freaks that must be shot. Let's screw frontiers up this world needs true leadership instead of morons that only care about their own country.

Though the illuminati in me distrusts this guy. The world would be better not only without frontiers but also without religion. The only tradition we should teach to our children is to throw traditions to the old trash bin.



What if the people of the prosperous "region X" want the profits made in region X to remain in the hands of the citizens of region X. They would certainly opt for secession. Seek independence.

A global government can only use brute force to stop this. And if they don't, well, other regions will secede and stop having their wealth be taken to be "redistributed" and to finance the infrastructure planning of other neighboring regions(like it happens today with provinces/states and central/federal governments).

Wealth redistribution is not only theft but it leads to economic instability, dependence and conflict.



I agree on you about not having frontiers, but let me specify it. I don't want any economic frontiers.



LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,087

13 Jan 2010, 10:33 pm

Wow... This is bad.


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Jan 2010, 10:38 pm

Asmodeus wrote:
Orwell wrote:
What exactly is the objection to global government anyways? Is it just based on the assumption that a global government would be evil and corrupt?

Ok I'll bite,
Soverign nations allow different systems to evolve and compete. With one system, it is possible for it to stagnate indefinately, or become corrupt, and given it's a global government, nothing is large enough to oppose it.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

Today, virtually all world powers support a system of representative democracy as not only the ideal, but as a mandatory baseline to which they insist all nations must ascribe. Other systems (theocracy, fascism, command-economy socialism as in Cuba and Korea) are looked down upon and opposed by the rest of the world. So I don't see our current arrangement allowing different systems to evolve and compete, since there is a push from all directions to embrace liberal democracy.

Anyways, a global government would likely be federal rather than unitary, since administrative matters would be infeasible to conduct from a global level. The same benefits you are claiming for having sovereign nations is also a claimed argument in favor of federalism. So again, I don't see a benefit to divided government across the world.

I can see your point with regard to possible corruption, stagnation, and the difficulty of reversing such inertia. But I also tend to think that most global-government proponents would only want the global level of government to have control over a few specific areas that are not already handled by national governments.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Jan 2010, 10:41 pm

ASPER wrote:
What if the people of the prosperous "region X" want the profits made in region X to remain in the hands of the citizens of region X. They would certainly opt for secession. Seek independence.

A global government can only use brute force to stop this. And if they don't, well, other regions will secede and stop having their wealth be taken to be "redistributed" and to finance the infrastructure planning of other neighboring regions(like it happens today with provinces/states and central/federal governments).

I don't see how this argument applies to a hypothetical global government and not the current national governments. Even a country as small as Yemen has people whinging about such things.

Quote:
Wealth redistribution is not only theft but it leads to economic instability, dependence and conflict.

Wealth redistribution is kind of a misleading term- all taxation is wealth redistribution to some extent. Unless you're an anarchist (are you?) you can't really oppose the basic principle of taxation.

But then if you are an anarchist your objections make somewhat more sense.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Jan 2010, 11:32 pm

There is a world government. It is not formally recognized as such but commerce and interdependency has forced all so-called sovereign states to conform to certain rules in order to participate. There are exceptions and these areas either suffer for their lack of cooperation or are so powerful that they are permitted to act differently but it is all a pattern of consistent interaction which is, in effect, a world government.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

13 Jan 2010, 11:40 pm

Orwell wrote:
OK, some people advocate some form or other of global governance. I don't see how this corroborates the typical NWO fantasies. You'll notice the Pope is not a Freemason, and he's not saying he wants to kill 95+% of the world population (like NWO tinhatters like to say will happen).

What exactly is the objection to global government anyways? Is it just based on the assumption that a global government would be evil and corrupt?


The objection to global semi-sanity is that the Old World Order (war prone nation-states and imperial superpowers) plays to quite a few people's tribalistic feelings. Plus a united global front would be able to reign in some of the excess of border free capitalism - something the business elites don't care for to much.

There may be some serious objections - namely over how much control the corporate elites would yield over the governing body - but by and large much of the voficerious rhetoric is simply due to people's ultra-nationalistic silliness.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

13 Jan 2010, 11:42 pm

LiberalJustice wrote:
Wow... This is bad.


Evidence please!



ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

14 Jan 2010, 1:09 am

Orwell wrote:
I don't see how this argument applies to a hypothetical global government and not the current national governments. Even a country as small as Yemen has people whinging about such things.


The fact that you don't think that it could happen does not mean the measures the global govt will take in such events will be any different from those I mentioned(violence).


Orwell wrote:
Wealth redistribution is kind of a misleading term- all taxation is wealth redistribution to some extent. Unless you're an anarchist (are you?) you can't really oppose the basic principle of taxation.

But then if you are an anarchist your objections make somewhat more sense.


If I'm an anarchist my objections would make more sense?
My objections are separated from any label I could put on myself, focus on my objections not on what I could call myself.