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

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

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Jan 2010, 1:33 am

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?


Exactly, the term NWO is normally linked to such groups as the illuminati, or is at least perceived as a group of unelected powerful individuals or corporations, running the world separate from national interests. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a centralised world administration, in fact this is what I hope for, of course in my world this administration is dictated to from the bottom up, starting with workers committees. All the same for a capitalist not to want a world governing body is idiocy, the contradiction between national states and the need for globalisation of capital, is the major weakness in capitalism, and has been, and will continue to be, the cause of just about every war in the last 200 years.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Jan 2010, 1:37 am

Sand wrote:
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.


Well this is not quite true, once things start to deteriorate these corporations run back behind national borders. As we saw at the start of 2009, all the world leaders were desperately trying to convince us that they would not support such a move, whilst at the same time getting the barriers ready.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jan 2010, 8:18 am

ASPER wrote:
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).

Perhaps I was unclear- I meant that the same objection you raised applies to nations currently, so I don't see it as a legitimate criticism of a world government. Saying a proposed new system will still have some of the flaws of the current system isn't a very powerful argument for the status quo.

Quote:
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.

Well, if you're an anarchist your objections are at least consistent with your beliefs. Otherwise they're just nonsense that you can't realistically uphold. My point was that you can't claim a moral opposition to taxation (which you call theft) unless you are an anarchist or a hypocrite.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

14 Jan 2010, 9:48 am

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.


I'm not an anarchist, but the problem isn't the principle of taxation, it's how it's used. Income taxation was never legal in the USA. It's still against the Constitution (the Supreme Court stated plainly that the constitutional amendment granted NO NEW taxing authority to the government). The government got money by taxing CORPORATIONS (legal entities without inalienable rights) on their NET profits and having import/export taxes. The institution of the individual income tax has been the key to crippling economies and sealing the fruit of individual labor. Individuals are taxed on their GROSS income, not their NET gain (as businesses are).

The problem with world government is that it favors a simple majority, and even then, a vast majority of people in the world would readily vote to steal from those who have and give to those who don't. People leave nations with that philosophy to go to nations that reject it because they aren't content with forced equal poverty with their neighbors.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

14 Jan 2010, 10:34 am

I used to want a world government, but now that the pope does, I've changed my mind.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jan 2010, 10:54 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Income taxation was never legal in the USA.

Blatantly false. You've been reading propaganda from tinfoil nuts. Check the actual legal documents before spreading such lies and misinformation.

Quote:
It's still against the Constitution (the Supreme Court stated plainly that the constitutional amendment granted NO NEW taxing authority to the government).

I will bet any amount of money that you have never once read the legal decision to which you're referring. If you had, you would know that the next sentence in the decision stated quite plainly that the government ALREADY had the authority to tax income. The 16th Amendment merely relaxed some of the restrictions on how the government was to administer an income tax.

Quote:
The institution of the individual income tax has been the key to crippling economies and sealing the fruit of individual labor.

Because our economy is worse than it was in 1900? Surely you jest.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

14 Jan 2010, 12:02 pm

Orwell wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Income taxation was never legal in the USA.

Blatantly false. You've been reading propaganda from tinfoil nuts. Check the actual legal documents before spreading such lies and misinformation.


Do your own research. If it was always legal, they wouldn't claim a need to amend the Constitution. The nature of the income tax is unconstitutional. The Constitution permits a "per head" tax, but that then requires a census to be carried out. Taxing a person based on his earnings is strictly prohibited.

Businesses are not "people" so they were exempt. Taxing imports and exports was perfectly legal. Even a federal sales tax would be constitutional, but income tax was not allowed.



DemonAbyss10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,492
Location: The Poconos, Pennsylvania

14 Jan 2010, 12:38 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



I am kinda fiddling around with this in a book I am writing. I also partially agree with you. Instead of one world government, I am more towards the old greek system of City-states.


_________________
Myers Brigg - ISTP
Socionics - ISTx
Enneagram - 6w5

Yes, I do have a DeviantArt, it is at.... http://demonabyss10.deviantart.com/


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jan 2010, 2:13 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?


No. My personal objection is simply against being considered some kind of "terrorist" or other type of undesireable unless willing to conform as a pluralist. However, that does not seem to bother the Pope either for himself or for anyone else.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

14 Jan 2010, 2:20 pm

leejosepho 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?


No. My personal objection is simply against being considered some kind of "terrorist" or other type of undesireable unless willing to conform as a pluralist. However, that does not seem to bother the Pope either for himself or for anyone else.


Right, well, I dont think a head of state could be a terrorist by any measure of the term. And maybe thats part of the problem. Politicians dont get judged by the same rules as the masses.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

14 Jan 2010, 2:27 pm

A world political authority is likely necessary in order to exert regulations and control over dictatorships and countries where nuclear threats are being used to manipulate the rest of the world, and which a lot of their people are suffering under such regimes, while the rest of the world has little or no power to do anything about it.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jan 2010, 2:27 pm

Fuzzy wrote:
I dont think a head of state could be a terrorist by any measure of the term.


More precisely: Only a pluralist could ever be a head-of-state.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jan 2010, 2:31 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Orwell wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Income taxation was never legal in the USA.

Blatantly false. You've been reading propaganda from tinfoil nuts. Check the actual legal documents before spreading such lies and misinformation.


Do your own research. If it was always legal, they wouldn't claim a need to amend the Constitution.

I like the partial quote. You snipped out the part with the embarrassing facts that refuted your claims. I already told you what the amendment did. I don't imagine you looked up the court case and saw that I was correct? I can find a link for you if you want it.

Quote:
Taxing a person based on his earnings is strictly prohibited.

Where?

Quote:
Businesses are not "people" so they were exempt.

That's not what the courts say. For legal purposes, a corporation is considered to be a person.

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you think a federal sales tax would be a good (or at least acceptable) idea while an income tax would be a bad idea? I can give you all kinds of economic reasons why an income tax is a much better and fairer solution.

leejosepho wrote:
No. My personal objection is simply against being considered some kind of "terrorist" or other type of undesireable unless willing to conform as a pluralist. However, that does not seem to bother the Pope either for himself or for anyone else.

And you think a world government would accuse you of being a terrorist?

Pluralism, in the context of political discussions, generally means a tolerance for beliefs that are not your own. That is, you as a Christian should not harass mosques and synagogues, and you shouldn't advocate (or practice) violence against people with different political and/or religious beliefs than your own. If you are not a pluralist, ie you are violent towards people who do not share your beliefs, then quite frankly you are a terrorist.

Unless of course we're still using different definitions of pluralism.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jan 2010, 2:33 pm

Meadow wrote:
A world political authority is likely necessary in order to exert regulations and control over dictatorships and countries where nuclear threats are being used to manipulate the rest of the world, and which a lot of their people are suffering under such regimes, while the rest of the world has little or no power to do anything about it.


If all states were sovereign and the sovereignty of each was being respected, then yes, nobody could ever interfere without being a bully ... but a global governance cannot exist until sovereignty is gone.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jan 2010, 2:37 pm

Orwell wrote:
And you think a world government would accuse you of being a terrorist?


I have no idea. I only know pluralists treat me as an undesireable.



Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

14 Jan 2010, 3:06 pm

leejosepho wrote:
Meadow wrote:
A world political authority is likely necessary in order to exert regulations and control over dictatorships and countries where nuclear threats are being used to manipulate the rest of the world, and which a lot of their people are suffering under such regimes, while the rest of the world has little or no power to do anything about it.


If all states were sovereign and the sovereignty of each was being respected, then yes, nobody could ever interfere without being a bully ... but a global governance cannot exist until sovereignty is gone.


A move to build on what has already been established with the UN would be a move in the right direction, IMO. Fear is at the root of much evil and it's very hard to move forward when so many want to hold us back because of their fear of everything, including change.