How Can So Few Have Taken So Much

[BVM88]

Quote from arealpissedgoy:

Why is a "New World Order" a bad thing?

Our very nature is to be free, so any Order with a premise of control and denial of basic liberties does not have our best interests at heart and should be rejected.

Charles Mingus in his song, based on Niemoller's poem, puts it beautifully:

One day they came and they took the Communists

And I said nothing because I was not a Communist

Then one day they came and they took the people of the Jewish faith

And I said nothing because I had no faith left

One day they came and they took the unionists

And I said nothing because I was not a unionist

One day they burned the Catholic churches

And I said nothing because I was born a Protestant

Then one day they came and they took me

And I could say nothing because I was as guilty as they were

For not speaking out and saying that all men have a right to freedom ...........

 

[arealpissedgoy]

Quote from BVM88:

Our very nature is to be free, so any Order with a premise of control and denial of basic liberties does not have our best interests at heart and should be rejected.

However, you are NOT free. The very concept of law and maintaining order in society means the transference of a certain amount of personal liberty to those who govern you.

As an example, Do you drive? well then you need to take a test, pay a fee and get a permit.

Do you vote? well then how many politicians are you allowed to vote for? Can you vote for your neighbor?

Even the epitome of freedom, the act of voting in the powers who govern you, is delimited to only the individuals who your rulers think are better suited to lead you.

The concept of "freedom" as you think it to be is a neo-liberal panacea and an anarchists dream.

For the average human, the urge to create disorder is much stronger than the urge to create harmony and order. That is why much of humanity is a heaving savage mass, it is occasionally fortunate enough to produce enlightened beings that help prolong its existence.

History has shown us that any human society, if left to its own means, will usually devolve to the lowest forms of existence. A recent prime example being Somalia.

If one is to bring order to this unstable mass, it needs to be allowed some illusory freedoms. Therefore those who provide order in society, provide illusory freedoms in exchange of actual freedoms.

Therefore, one can argue that certain forms of government that provide this illusion of "freedom" are marginally superior to other forms of government.

The concept of Democracy, by providing the illusion of "personal freedom", is able to quiet the savage bestial mass.

A new world order that makes some semblance of being a democratic entity would probably provide best form of government to help humanity evolve into the new millennium as a single race, instead of the petty tribal divisions that exist currently.

Think of how much resources each petty tribal nation pours into its military industrial complex. In a new world order, where nation/tribal governments are irrelevant, there will be a better allocation of resources. Without armies, tribes can not pursue war. The only solution then left is to pursue diplomacy and peace. Hope fully then the average member of the savage masses can slowly evolve to being a true human being.

 

[BVM88]

Quote from arealpissedgoy:

However, you are NOT free. The very concept of law and maintaining order in society means the transference of a certain amount of personal liberty to those who govern you.

As an example, Do you drive? well then you need to take a test, pay a fee and get a permit.

Do you vote? well then how many politicians are you allowed to vote for? Can you vote for your neighbor?

Even the epitome of freedom, the act of voting in the powers who govern you, is delimited to only the individuals who your rulers think are better suited to lead you.

The concept of "freedom" as you think it to be is a neo-liberal panacea and an anarchists dream.

For the average human, the urge to create disorder is much stronger than the urge to create harmony and order. That is why much of humanity is a heaving savage mass, it is occasionally fortunate enough to produce enlightened beings that help prolong its existence.

History has shown us that any human society, if left to its own means, will usually devolve to the lowest forms of existence. A recent prime example being Somalia.

If one is to bring order to this unstable mass, it needs to be allowed some illusory freedoms. Therefore those who provide order in society, provide illusory freedoms in exchange of actual freedoms.

Therefore, one can argue that certain forms of government that provide this illusion of "freedom" are marginally superior to other forms of government.

The concept of Democracy, by providing the illusion of "personal freedom", is able to quiet the savage bestial mass.

A new world order that makes some semblance of being a democratic entity would probably provide best form of government to help humanity evolve into the new millennium as a single race, instead of the petty tribal divisions that exist currently.

Think of how much resources each petty tribal nation pours into its military industrial complex. In a new world order, where nation/tribal governments are irrelevant, there will be a better allocation of resources. Without armies, tribes can not pursue war. The only solution then left is to pursue diplomacy and peace. Hope fully then the average member of the savage masses can slowly evolve to being a true human being.

Come back to me in 20 years when you are drowning in forms and petrified of doing the wrong thing in case the State calls on you.

 

[arealpissedgoy]

Quote from BVM88:

Come back to me in 20 years when you are drowning in forms and petrified of doing the wrong thing in case the State calls on you.

....and how different would that be from how the government acts today?

There is still no good reason offered as to why a new world order is a bad thing. The only one offered is a perceived loss of "personal freedoms".

The concept of personal freedom, as you would define it, does not exist today. As an example, all the governments intercept and listen to all your communications.

Today, you have limited personal freedom ( only enough to facilitate your engagement in productive taxable activities); which exist only to the extent where your activities do not diminish the governments control over you.

Even the concept of personal property is spurious. After paying off your home, you have to continue paying a fee ( property tax ) for the privilege of living in a safe and lawful society. Try doing a bonfire in your front yard.