🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BsvGz4.MC9@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.002637.14449@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com  writes:
>>
>>> In article <BstxFE.C88@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>> >In article <1992Aug11.145521.29060@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>>> >...
>>> >>World govenrment is closer at hand now than in the 60's and yes I will
>>> >>not hide it Frank can speak for himself but I will stand proud and say
>>> >>I AM IN FAVOR OF WORLD GOVERNMENT AND I REFUSE TO FEEL ANY ALLEGENCE TO
>>> >>ANY SUBUNIT OF THE WHOLE COMMONLY KNOWN AS A COUNTRY!!!!
>>> >
>>> >    Do you realize that if the New World Order takes hold,
>>> >    there will be no place to hide?
>>> 
>>>    This is correct.   The single biggest problem with one world
>>>    government is that if you don't happen to agree with it or
>>>    like it you're still stuck with it.  Note that this is a 
>>>    problem even if it's not some sort of totalitarian police
>>>    state.   And what if is IS some sort of totalitarian police
>>>    state?
>>
>>Proof, I beg you-- PROOF!  I say that if you don't agree with the one
>>     world government, then change it.  You're allowed to do that
>>     in the U.S.; why not with a body that governs the world?
>
>   So I take it you agree with everything the US government does.  
>   (else you would have changed it; you're allowed to do that, you
>   know)  I hope you realize this makes you, personally, responsible
>   for the federal budget deficit.   (Let's get him, boys!)
>
>
>>The biggest (not the only) problem I see in implementing a body
>>     that would serve the world happens to be religion.  Beyond
>>     that (and some other problems, such as language), I see no
>>     evil in placing a government that would serve the needs of
>>     our Earth.
>
>   Who gets to decide what those needs are?   Why do you assume
>   that what the majority (I assume you have in mind some form 
>   of democracy) would want is what's good for the Earth?  Why
>   are you so sure that people won't just want what's good for
>   them, personally?   In America people vote for pork-barrel
>   projects to bring jobs, wealth, etc to them, by raising taxes
>   on everybody else.  Why wouldn't this just happen on a worldwide
>   scale?     Anyway, what gives a a bunch of French, Indians,
>   Argentinians, Chinese, or Swedes, the right to make laws and
>   decisions affecting *my* life?   
>
Ok the same thing that gives Texans Nevadans Vermontans etc..
what is the difference ? You seem to accept other americans
voting for a common government why not cut the atificial boundaries
and let all human beings do this. Or are you an Anarchist?
>---peter
>
>
>


ALEX