Unified Planet

[DBTrek]

Omlettes and eggs...

True . . . It's a good deal if you're making the omlette (Stalin), bad deal if you're the egg (everyone else in the USSR).

If you're not already familiar with it, I suggest you do some reading on "game theory" and how it applies to humans. The abriged version? Left to their own devices, humans will happily screw over their neighbor to benefit themselves. Anarchy at it's finest.

An excellent point. The economic theory of the 'law of commons' is also demonstrates how each individual acting in their own self interest can unwittingly work counter to the interests of their community (and ultimately themselves). The best refutation I can offer is again the example of native American tribes like the Apache. They would certainly screw over the Navajo (or anyone else), but within their own community they would not screw over their 'neighbor'.

Unfortunately governments also act much like individuals, so the problem of people screwing over other people has not been solved with the introduction of government.

Ah but was that endemic to the system or the man? Would not those same advances have been possible under benevolent dictatorship? I can't see why not.

It would require millions of people to willingly give up their property and volunteer for work in gulags under that particular plan. Unfortunately we have yet to discover the secret of only allowing the 'benevolent' to be dictators. Once we solve that problem I may throw in on the side of government.

Those sailors were illegally in Iranian waters. Not that it matters, they're free now anyway.

Perhaps. Assuming that's correct let's break it down a little further: citizens from the area controlled by the British government were caught in waters claimed by the Iranian government. Once again we see governments flexing their muscles over individuals and using their lives as pawns in a larger game.

It's already that way NOW. And your precious second ammendment will avail you naught against a nakedly tyrannical government that can simply obliterate resistence at the push of a button.

Another excellent point. The advent of nuclear weaponry really puts a damper on the dreams of anarchists. Weapons of such power can hardly be trusted in the hands of a single individual. Yet another great 'advancement' governments have given us, the ability to obliterate millions at the push of a button. Lucky us.

I'm not thrilled with it myself but I prefer it to lawless, anarchical, primitive savagery.

If you believe that humans are, by nature, primative and savage then your position makes sense. If you believe (as I do) that humans are social creatures by nature, and that altruism and cooperation are part of our inherent nature then there's no reason to assume we'd all become a bunch of murderous maniacs without the strong arm of government restraining us.

-DBTrek

 

[CapnG]

Another excellent point. The advent of nuclear weaponry really puts a damper on the dreams of anarchists. Weapons of such power can hardly be trusted in the hands of a single individual. Yet another great 'advancement' governments have given us, the ability to obliterate millions at the push of a button. Lucky us.

Actually, I was referring to the plethora of non-lethal weapons now employed against protestors and other such rabble (not to mention whatever's currently being tested in labs) combined with the whole nintendo-pilot/armchair-general-in-a-sealed-bunker approach to modern warfare. Obviously nukes are there in the mix but more towards the end of the line, I would think. It's an interesting system you have in America, a populace theoretically empowered to resist government and a government legally bound to put down any and all attempts at rebellion or sedetion. Good luck.

If you believe (as I do) that humans are social creatures by nature, and that altruism and cooperation are part of our inherent nature then there's no reason to assume we'd all become a bunch of murderous maniacs without the strong arm of government restraining us.

This then would be the core difference in our respective ideologies. I believe the difference between a tyrant and a saint is money and/or power and that humans are base, cruel, predatory creatures whose vile nature is barely contained by a thin veneer of civilization.

 

[interestedINitall]

If you believe that humans are, by nature, primative and savage then your position makes sense. If you believe (as I do) that humans are social creatures by nature, and that altruism and cooperation are part of our inherent nature then there's no reason to assume we'd all become a bunch of murderous maniacs without the strong arm of government restraining us.
-DBTrek

My goodness! I know that I should just let this go and I really was planning to. I told myself that if some silly little nonentity wants to stamp his feet and curse the government, let him. Then I read his last post.

This is the bottom line of his argument?!? I think it was David who said that he sounds "...young for his age." somewhere else on the forum. How right he is.

Wow, pardon me if there are any errors in this. I can't stop laughing as I type it. This addled rube thinks that we "...don't need cities the size of New York...", people will just "cooperate" and we can rely on "altruism."!

He can't be serious!

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a silly little cater waitress. She was about 20 (so there's her excuse, what's DBtrek's?). She actually said - let me see if I can remember it properly - "Don't you think people would pay a little more for a shirt or a pair of pants if they knew that no one had been exploited during the manufacturing process?" I responded, "Of course, not!", "Some people might but most wouldn't even consider that factor."

This conversation took place before the middles made Wal Mart the mega-conglomerate it is today. Maybe that child has since rethought her position but for DBtrek, who I'm sure fancies himself intellectual and "in touch," to make a very similar statement is ridiculous.

As far as I'm concerned he has lost the credibility necessary to question anyone's claims on this message board. Really, if someone wants to come on here and say that Santa and the Easter Bunny kidnapped them and forced them to travel back in time to stage the fake moon landing, DBtrek should just "nod" and respond, "That's very interesting, tell me more."

Maybe if his singing voice is up to par DBtrek can attach a sound file of his rendition of Climb Every Mountain.

Really, how can anyone here countenance such a naive and just plain stupid comment (see QUOTE), especially after all his quasi intellectual claptrap?

I know I can't - I won't.

...and then there were ten.

HAPPY EASTER to all applicable members.

 

[DBTrek]

Again your post is pointless name calling.

You're the same one who came crying to me in private mail because all the 'believers' were against you. I told you then what I tell you now (minus the gentle phrasing), they're not 'against' you, they're tired of you because you're an abrasive loudmouth that adds almost nothing to the discussions on this forum.

Anarchistic philosophy is based in belief of the general 'goodness' of man. You obviously don't believe in that goodness. Fine. Feel free to explain why we all didn't murder eachother to extinction before the advent of fomalized government then. If we follow your presumption that everyone is selfish and basically evil explain how we managed to live this long as a species.

. . . or stick to your frustrated name calling. Really though, your inferioity complex is almost to the point of compelling pity from me.

-DBTrek

 

[David Biedny]

The "goodness of man"?



In the immortal world of Bill Hicks:

"Humans are just viruses with shoes".

dB

P.S. DBTrek, I actually applaud your optimism, but my years on the good Earth have shown me otherwise. Treasure the people who show you that they're good, you'll likely find that most people do not live anywhere near that ideal.

 

[CapnG]

Anarchistic philosophy is based in belief of the general 'goodness' of man. You obviously don't believe in that goodness. Fine. Feel free to explain why we all didn't murder eachother to extinction before the advent of fomalized government then. If we follow your presumption that everyone is selfish and basically evil explain how we managed to live this long as a species.

I'll field this one. The answer is fear. You ever see two guys size each other up for a fight? Sometimes, the big guy who looks like he can clean the other guy's clock will slink off without throwing a punch, simply because the other guy showed no fear. This causes the big guy to reconsider: "Is he armed? Does he know some crazy kung-fu move? What's he hiding?" Self-preservation balances the vicious intent, ie I won't attack you if it means I could get hurt.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, we have been murdering each other in the millions for every single decade of our existence. The fact we aren't extinct yet has simply been a matter of not being able to kill enough people fast enough. Nukes have evened that out though.

I'm not saying humans are deviod of noble impulses. Certinaly we can do good things when we try. My point is we actually have to try. Altruism is not automatic but savagery is.

 

[DBTrek]

I'll field this one. The answer is fear. You ever see two guys size each other up for a fight? Sometimes, the big guy who looks like he can clean the other guy's clock will slink off without throwing a punch, simply because the other guy showed no fear. This causes the big guy to reconsider: "Is he armed? Does he know some crazy kung-fu move? What's he hiding?" Self-preservation balances the vicious intent, ie I won't attack you if it means I could get hurt.

I'm afraid biological evolutionists agree more with me than with you. They have studied both chimpanzees and babboons to see if there is any indication that these creatures display cooperative behavior and advanced social interation; the idea being that if it is in our nature then it should also be in the nature of primates closely related to us (being ultimately from a common evolutionary ancestor) While I know the main focus of the replies has been on my statement about altruism I would point out that by nature human beings are cooperative creatures, as are other primates.

It is difficult to be both a cooperative creature and a self-interested entity that primarily bases its decisions on self-preservation and fear. Fear based social interaction fails to explain why a mother would sacrifice a life for her child. It fails to explain why people will assist a complete stranger without benefit to themselves. It fails to explain why people would make anonymous donations to charities. Certainly fear is a factor in any decision where it is present, however it falls far short of being the basis by which we conduct the majority of our interaction with others.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, we have been murdering each other in the millions for every single decade of our existence.

I have failed to notice that . . . especially since we would not exist as a species at all if we were killing millions of our own for the first several thousands of decades of our existence (the human population being well under a million during these times).

I'm not saying humans are deviod of noble impulses. Certinaly we can do good things when we try. My point is we actually have to try. Altruism is not automatic but savagery is.

Do you find this to be true personally? Without policemen patrolling the streets do you believe that you personally would go on a killing and raping spree? And if not . . . why would you assume the majority of others would?

As for my naivete . . . and I know some trolls will construe this as me simply 'touting' what a god of humanity I am, but this subject has been brought up multiple times and the following is simply my rebuttal:

I have lived some thirty-two years on this planet, travelled and stayed in six other countries (England, France, Korea, Canada, Panama, and Columbia), lived in nine different states (both coasts and middle america), and worked in a multitude of different sectors including military, entertainment, retail, fund raising, and technology. As naive as some of you may find me to be I assure that I have travelled more widely and experienced more economic and social diversity than the average American.

My general experience has been that people are not, by nature, evil. I have found that most people will respond to you in a friendly or helpful manner if you simply reach out to them. Why is that?

I believe it is because by nature our survival depends on cooperation, communication, and mutual support. Pound for pound we are among the physically weakest creatures on the planet. Our cooperative nature is something that ensures our mutual survival, something that is instinctual, and therefore something that does not require legislation.

Hence, a one-world government (or any government at all) is not necessary to keep us all from annihilating eachother.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to live in the Star Trek universe too, assuming I could still pursue my chosen fields of interest. That universe is a fantasy though, as they have eliminated the problem of scarcity (aka limited resources).

-DBTrek

 

[CapnG]

I'm afraid biological evolutionists agree more with me than with you. They have studied both chimpanzees and babboons to see if there is any indication that these creatures display cooperative behavior and advanced social interation; the idea being that if it is in our nature then it should also be in the nature of primates closely related to us (being ultimately from a common evolutionary ancestor)

Unless that's the evolutionary difference...

It is difficult to be both a cooperative creature and a self-interested entity that primarily bases its decisions on self-preservation and fear.

Patently untrue. If you can do something better than I can, it's in my own self-interest to co-operate with you rather than go it alone, since the odds of success are increased.

Fear based social interaction fails to explain why a mother would sacrifice a life for her child.

Post-partum depression causes many mothers to turn sucidal/homicidal. Motherhood's inherent hormonal surges cause plenty of anomalous behaviour.

It fails to explain why people will assist a complete stranger without benefit to themselves.

Peer pressure. Since we all want to believe we are good and kind and wonderful we do not want to appear callous and uncaring to others.

It fails to explain why people would make anonymous donations to charities.

Guilt. Plain, simple, societally enforced guilt.

Certainly fear is a factor in any decision where it is present, however it falls far short of being the basis by which we conduct the majority of our interaction with others.

I honestly don't think you're giving it enough credit.

I have failed to notice that . . . especially since we would not exist as a species at all if we were killing millions of our own for the first several thousands of decades of our existence (the human population being well under a million during these times).

A stastical misnomer on my part, for which I apologize. However, we've more than made up for any lack of muderous intent in the past with the events of the 20th century.

Do you find this to be true personally? Without policemen patrolling the streets do you believe that you personally would go on a killing and raping spree? And if not . . . why would you assume the majority of others would?

I honestly cannot say. I have a dark side, everyone does. Unrestrained, I cannot say for certain that I would be able to maintain a moral standpoint indefinitely. Certainly it would be a slippery slope.

My general experience has been that people are not, by nature, evil. I have found that most people will respond to you in a friendly or helpful manner if you simply reach out to them.

This has generally been my experience as well but I cannot believe for a moment that this is the natural mode of behaviour. Believe me, I would love to be able to think as you do but the evidence before my eyes forces me to conclude otherwise. Cooperation appears to be nothing more than a societally enforced, culturally maintained state of being, held in place by fear of punishment, personal shame and potential guilt. Without some sort of governmental structure, we are (as Lewis Black put it so aptly) "two hairs short of being baboons!"

Our societal co-operation is based on self-interest. Since we all cannot have what we want, we are forced to co-operate by necessity, not by desire.

 

[DBTrek]

Patently untrue. If you can do something better than I can, it's in my own self-interest to co-operate with you rather than go it alone, since the odds of success are increased.

Perhaps. Under this scenario what's my motivation for cooperating with you . . . especially if by not cooperating the odds are I will succeed and you will fail. Through failure (depending on the task) you may be eliminated leaving more resources for me.

Post-partum depression causes many mothers to turn sucidal/homicidal. Motherhood's inherent hormonal surges cause plenty of anomalous behaviour.

Exactly, such behavior is as you say, anomalous.

Peer pressure. Since we all want to believe we are good and kind and wonderful we do not want to appear callous and uncaring to others.

Supposing we are basically non-cooperative and selfish what is our motivation for caring what others think of us?

Guilt. Plain, simple, societally enforced guilt.

If we are non-altruistic by nature why would we feel guilt. Why would a society of non-altrustic beings feel guilt over non-generous acts? Would a society manifest values opposite of the beings that populate it?

I honestly cannot say. I have a dark side, everyone does. Unrestrained, I cannot say for certain that I would be able to maintain a moral standpoint indefinitely. Certainly it would be a slippery slope.

Tribesmen seem to be able to restrain themselves. I suspect you'd be able to do so as well . . . especially if there were no 'law' promising a slap on the wrist. Anything you did to another a member of society would leave you open to an ungoverned punishment.

This has generally been my experience as well but I cannot believe for a moment that this is the natural mode of behaviour. Believe me, I would love to be able to think as you do but the evidence before my eyes forces me to conclude otherwise. Cooperation appears to be nothing more than a societally enforced, culturally maintained state of being, held in place by fear of punishment, personal shame and potential guilt. Without some sort of governmental structure, we are (as Lewis Black put it so aptly) "two hairs short of being baboons!"

Yet we have presently, and for most of our history as a species, societies structured around tribes without policemen, jails, or written law. The advent of writing, agriculture, and metal tools (among other things) has allowed humans to evolve a new way to structure our societies (governments) . . . but for most of our existence we survived without this superstructure regulating our actions.

Our societal co-operation is based on self-interest. Since we all cannot have what we want, we are forced to co-operate by necessity, not by desire.

Perhaps. It is certainly a difficult task to prove the motivation behind our cooperative nature, but we seem to at agree that it is in fact our nature to cooperate. My point . .. reaching waaaay back to the beginning of this discussion is that government isn't necessary to force cooperation between people, we'll do it naturally. Society can survive the dissolution of government.

And yes, I realize it "ain't gonna happen". The best I can hope for is that people don't fall into this thought process where a one world government is not only inevitable (which it's not), but that it's also desirable. Government has killed far more people than anarchy ever has.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

The "goodness of man"?



In the immortal world of Bill Hicks:

"Humans are just viruses with shoes".

dB

P.S. DBTrek, I actually applaud your optimism, but my years on the good Earth have shown me otherwise. Treasure the people who show you that they're good, you'll likely find that most people do not live anywhere near that ideal.

Glad you stopped watching much tv. You'd really hate us then. Bad news gets more air than good.

But yeah, even when you find a "good" person, chances are they're stupid in many ways. Ignorance is bliss so there's a lot of people happy being stupid and doing stupid things. I'm an alien so this doesn't include myself of course.

 

[CapnG]

Perhaps. Under this scenario what's my motivation for cooperating with you . . . especially if by not cooperating the odds are I will succeed and you will fail. Through failure (depending on the task) you may be eliminated leaving more resources for me.

Your making my point for me by demonstrating your self-interest trumps co-operation. As to why you would co-operate with me in the first place, obviously some sort of enticement (read: bribe) would be necessary. I must appeal to your self-interest to co-operate with me to fullfil my self-interest.

Supposing we are basically non-cooperative and selfish what is our motivation for caring what others think of us?

Self-gratification. We like to feel smug and superior to our peers.

If we are non-altruistic by nature why would we feel guilt. Why would a society of non-altrustic beings feel guilt over non-generous acts? Would a society manifest values opposite of the beings that populate it?

Why would someone smoke cigarettes knowing full well they will suffer ill health as a result, perhaps even die? Humans do all sorts of stupid, contrary things.

Tribesmen seem to be able to restrain themselves. I suspect you'd be able to do so as well . . . especially if there were no 'law' promising a slap on the wrist. Anything you did to another a member of society would leave you open to an ungoverned punishment.

Doesn't that imply there is some sort of unspoken law? If there are no laws, how can there be punishments?

Yet we have presently, and for most of our history as a species, societies structured around tribes without policemen, jails, or written law. The advent of writing, agriculture, and metal tools (among other things) has allowed humans to evolve a new way to structure our societies (governments) . . . but for most of our existence we survived without this superstructure regulating our actions.

As evolution tends towards the improvement of the species, would that not mean rule of law is an improvement? And just to be pedantic, we have no real proof that these laws and structures didn't exist prior to the invention of writing, we simply have no record of their existence. That's two completely seperate things.

 

[interestedINitall]

The "goodness of man"
P.S. DBTrek, I actually applaud your optimism, but my years on the good Earth have shown me otherwise.

Honestly?

How can you "applaud" his particular brand of optimism when he's using it to support a cockamamie idea like disbanding existing governments and letting the "goodness of man" take over in their stead?

If he were asserting that we can feed the hungry or switch to 100% clean energy sources it would be the kind of well-meaning (if a bit unrealistic) idealism one might expect from a 15 year-old Quaker.

Let's not be fooled here. This "He's Not Heavy He's My Brother" flimflam is just the bright and shiny facade of the petulant "Whatever, I'll do what I want!" reality of the Anarchist / Libertarian philosophies, the philosophies of choice in parents' basements everywhere.

 

[DBTrek]

Let's not be fooled here. This "He's Not Heavy He's My Brother" flimflam is just the bright and shiny facade of the petulant "Whatever, I'll do what I want!" reality of the Anarchist / Libertarian philosophies, the philosophies of choice in parents' basements everywhere.

Do I even need to point out the irony here? This clown finds the idea that humans are basically good to be laughable, adolescent, all sorts of other derogatory things . . . yet he can't see why putting the entire species under the control of a few humans would be a bad idea.

To quote:

To this day, I don't understand why a One World Government is an intrinsically bad thing.

Just one item on a nearly endless list of things he doesn't understand I'm sure.

Let's review: Manhattan Genius thinks humans are not good creatures, yet he thinks a few of them should rule us all.
Brilliant!

"Let's all be put under the control of a few evil beings! I can't understand what's intrinsically wrong with it! Derrrr!"

HAHAHAhahahahahhah . .. . sweet Jesus . . .

-DBTrek

PS: If anyone's pushing for living in a parents basement it's the one-world government folks. The idea of any social diversity or personal responsibility terrifies them beyond words, as Manhattan Genius has demonstrated through his lack of ability to communicate with anyone not holding identical views. We must all have one view, one truth, and one government!

 

[interestedINitall]

Do I even need to point out the irony here? This clown finds the idea that humans are basically good to be laughable, adolescent, all sorts of other derogatory things . . . yet he can't see why putting the entire species under the control of a few humans would be a bad idea.

To quote:


Just one item on a nearly endless list of things he doesn't understand I'm sure.

Let's review: Manhattan Genius thinks humans are not good creatures, yet he thinks a few of them should rule us all.
Brilliant!

"Let's all be put under the control of a few evil beings! I can't understand what's intrinsically wrong with it! Derrrr!"

HAHAHAhahahahahhah . .. . sweet Jesus . . .

-DBTrek

PS: If anyone's pushing for living in a parents basement it's the one-world government folks. The idea of any social diversity or personal responsibility terrifies them beyond words, as Manhattan Genius has demonstrated through his lack of ability to communicate with anyone not holding identical views. We must all have one view, one truth, and one government!

Look, everyone - we have our very own Bill O'Reilly on the boards! Sit back and breathe in the spin.

Does anyone here advocate putting the affairs of this country or this planet in the hands of "a few people?" Did I suggest that a One World Government (which I never advocated, by the way. I said that I didn't see why it was "intrinsically bad" and then asked for pro and con views. "Bill" left that part out.) would be run by "a few people?" No, I did not. It's an asinine oversimplification of the very concept of government.

Note his conversational posturing when I said that I disagreed with his assertion that government is "intrinsically bad."

Fair enough. It's a matter of personal taste. Those who predominantly value personal freedom will tend toward despising government. Those who predominantly love communal participation and order will tend toward loving it.

Does anyone fall for such obvious spin? I've been warned that this mouth breather just likes to "win" arguments and I see how true that is.

This fool is so deeply immersed in and blinded by his lower-middle-class angst that he, on one hand, predicates an entire viewpoint on the "goodness of man" yet, on the other, states that he "despises" governments which are made up of - wait for it - people. *sigh* He's probably one of those seething little paranoids who thinks that a representative republic is a sham (it is when the people let it degrade into one) and therein lies his "few people" twaddle. Maybe he didn't make his gun quota this week.

The poor thing has transformed his own feelings of social impotence into an entire political (or would that be apolitical?) movement. Really, he should get some help and talk to someone about that inferiority complex of his.

I worry.

PS: Maybe I can help. It's obvious that you like to write paragraph after paragraph of rubbish designed to stir the heart of the Wal Mart, NASCAR set. You should use that and pen the Libertarian / Anarchist (really the same thing) version of the Left Behind books. Think of it - you'll thrill your fellow throngs, perhaps garner some of the attention you so desperately crave and you might actually achieve a tax bracket worthy of these vague tax resentments of yours.

Anything is possible.

 

[DBTrek]

Does anyone here advocate putting the affairs of this country or this planet in the hands of "a few people?"

Yes. You do. Unless your government is going to consist of a majority of the population. Or maybe in your grand scheme the planet is run by honey bees. We'll never know because you have yet to offer anything other than frustrated purile ranting.

Did I suggest that a One World Government (which I never advocated, by the way. I said that I didn't see why it was "intrinsically bad" and then asked for pro and con views.

. . . and then you had a petulant fit about me suggesting that humans are intrinsically good. Ergo, you fail to see what is intrinsically bad with a global governing body composed of beings you find to be inherently evil. That ranks a solid 10.0 on the dumb-assery scale, [please accept this gold medal].

Personally I find it hard to believe a thirty-eight year old can't see what's intrinsically bad about a global government, but I'll take your word for it.

This fool is so deeply immersed in and blinded by his lower-middle-class angst that he, on one hand, predicates an entire viewpoint on the "goodness of man" yet, on the other, states that he "despises" governments which are made up of - wait for it - people.

I think we've all seen who the fool is. Tell us again how you fail to see why an intrinsically evil species shouldn't hold consolidated power over the globe. Hahahhahahah! Yeah, that one is a real mystery. Ponder it for a few.

He's probably one of those seething little paranoids who thinks that a representative republic is a sham (it is when the people let it degrade into one) and therein lies his "few people" twaddle.

Paranoia doesn't arise from ones views on representative republics (thought it's nice to see you agree they're a sham). You might want to stick to words and concepts you can grasp. When you start stringing together unrelated topics and concepts in a feeble attempt to create the uber-insult, you just come off looking silly.

-DBTrek

 

[interestedINitall]

Hmm,

Let's see...

He misquotes.

He ignores all or part of people's statements in order to bolster his attacks.

He accuses people of traits they've pointed out in him early on in the discussion.

Wow, DBtrek, I hate to be the one to break this to you but you're not an Anarchist, you're not even a Libertarian.

...you're a Republican (a Neo-Con to be exact).

Poor thing

 

[DBTrek]

*Yawn*

Weren't you leaving this thread like . . . two pages ago or something?

Let's recap again:

1. You disagree that humans are intrinsically good but "To this day, [You] don't understand why a One World Government is an intrinsically bad thing." As any second grader could tell you, a one-world government run by beings that you consider "not good" will, by extension, be a bad thing for you. The power and influence of these sinister beings will only be increased when your personal sovereignty and freedoms rest in their hands. Ask the Jews, ask the Russians, ask the Armenians, or any other people that have been on the receiving end of a government perpetrated genocide what could possible go wrong when a government reigns supreme. Duh. It's elementary. It takes almost zero effort to figure out.

2. You don't know the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist. Now you apparently don't know the difference between an Anarchist and a Republican. Maybe you should read up on your political philosophies before wading in to conversations where you can't handle yourself. At the end of the day you'll feel a lot more secure discussing things if you possess some clue as to what you are talking about. You might even be able to add to the discussion instead of simply hurling personal insults . . . though I have enjoyed trading barbs with you.

3. You inability to grasp the concepts of others and absolute intolerence for opposing political views is a perfect example of what's wrong with global government. You react to 'believers' in this forum the same way you react to my political philosophies, basically: these ideas aren't identical to mine so these folks are all sub-humans idiots! Imagine a global government filled with supporters like yourself. DUH.

Do you see yet? Have you wrapped your mind around what could possibly be intrinsically wrong with the entire globe having a single set of masters . . . or is it still a big mystery to you?

-DBTrek

 

[Tom Levine]

He felt that we'd use technology to...sit around and talk...And screw like bunnies.

Gee. Kinda sounds like the internet

 

[CapnG]

Or maybe in your grand scheme the planet is run by honey bees.

Quite impossible... Honey Bees are going extinct. Seriously, Google it, it's very mysterious and somewhat alarming...

. . . and then you had a petulant fit about me suggesting that humans are intrinsically good. Ergo, you fail to see what is intrinsically bad with a global governing body composed of beings you find to be inherently evil. That ranks a solid 10.0 on the dumb-assery scale, [please accept this gold medal].

I believe the point he's attempting to make is that IF humans were (as you assert) inherently co-operative and socially responsible, then governments (which are comprised of humans) would logically support and enhance those traits by enshrining and protecting them. Historically, this is not the case, ergo your supposition is wrong, as demonstrated by this fact and the examples you site as support are in fact anomolies.

 

[The Hawk]

I'm very surprised that nobody has pointed out the PRIMARY reason for the fear of a one world government.

It's Biblical fear..
There are lots of Christians, Muslims and Jews out there and some fear a one world government because to many of them it means the rise of the anti-Christ or whatever other end time prophesy flavor that has to do with a united government. And many others fear it because they fear there might just be something to all the end time prophesy that has to do with a one world government. Though I find the majority of Christians act like they fear a one world government if you ask them about it, but in reality they are hoping for it so they can be raptured..

The secondary reason people fear a one world government is because they are conservative with government and want government to be more powerful on a local level so the community has more say. Also for diversity of nations and that nonsensical concept people call nationalism.