Skeptic Project

I'm interested to know what the responses are to these questions. I have my own personal opinions, but I'm curious as to other people's answers.

1. Governments are established to control and keep order over the people they govern. What makes you certain that these governments would not go so far as to not abuse their powers to try and create a One World Government that has absolute control over the people?

2. What makes you believe that the United States government will not abuse the powers given to it in the USA PATRIOT Act?

3. What would it take for you to consider something as proof of a conspiracy? (use any conspiracy)

4. How are free speech zones not evidence of loss of freedom? http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/secret-service-ordered-local-police-restrict-anti-bush-protesters-rallies-aclu-charges-u

Good questions, James. I'll do my best to answer them.

"1. Governments are established to control and keep order over the people they govern. What makes you certain that these governments would not go so far as to not abuse their powers to try and create a One World Government that has absolute control over the people?"

Three reasons.
First, "one world government" is an impossibility. There are too many people, too many cultures and too many competing interests for it to be administered capably by one authority. Rome had its hands full trying to administer a far-flung empire that bankrupted it and caused its own downfall. Napoleon won some battles but never got close to unifying Europe. Hitler's "empire" collapsed in 12 years. One world government simply is not possible.

Second, why would you want "absolute control over the people?" You'd have to spend so much time, effort and money to control them that what you'd get out of it wouldn't even begin to be worth it. It's easy to assume that power is a goal unto itself, and Hollywood and literature portray it that way. The reality is more complex, and people who try to gain large amounts of power usually have a broader program that they think their power would help them achieve. Without that program, power is meaningless. What would be the point of having "absolute power" when you know (A) you won't keep it for long, and (B) what can you really accomplish once you've got it, assuming you can even obtain it?

Third, even assuming my first point (one world government isn't possible) is not true, if a one world government was possible, in order to remain cohesive it would have to be so diffuse, multicultural and autonomous that "absolute control" would be an impossibility. In order to keep any semblance of cohesion, a one world ruler would pretty much have to leave most people alone and let them govern themselves by and large. That doesn't sound like "absolute control" to me.

"2. What makes you believe that the United States government will not abuse the powers given to it in the USA PATRIOT Act?"

I believe it has and continues to do so. Warrantless wiretapping is unacceptable. However, it's a far cry from "one world government" or "absolute control." I may think it's horrible if the NSA is reading my text messages, but what are they going to do with the information they get? They'll know I'm meeting my friend at a pub at 6PM and he should order me a martini if he gets there before I do?

"3. What would it take for you to consider something as proof of a conspiracy? (use any conspiracy)"

Evidence. Not innuendo, but actual evidence. Eyewitness testimony by a whistleblower who says, "I was in the room when we plotted to do X, Y and Z," and their stories are corroborated by other reputable sources or documents. Examples: the Watergate tapes; Enron accounting documents and memos; testimony of the participants in the Iran-Contra scandal. Evidence that is supported by recognized scientific and evidentiary principles. Credible witnesses lacking delusions, conflicts of interest, or motivations to lie. Chains of causation and effect that are credible, not extraordinary. Evidence that comports with common sense and human nature. Testability of evidence in the real world. Is there evidence to indicate that a witness was where he/she says he was and saw what he/she claims to have seen? Is there evidence indicating a physical or scientific process at work, and if there is evidence pointing to another explanation, how reliable is THAT evidence? This evidence must be capable of sustained and exacting scrutiny by mainstream science without breaking down, and it must be supported by credible sources.

"4. How are free speech zones not evidence of loss of freedom? http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/secret-service-ordered-local-police-restrict-anti-bush-protesters-rallies-aclu-charges-u"

Free speech zones are "time, place & manner" restrictions on free speech, which are and have always been Constitutional since the First Amendment was added in 1791. They are not "prior restraint" restrictions, which are unconstitutional.

Ethnic/Nationalist movements aren't common in the United States, but we did see that, upon the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and so forth large national movements, which had previously taken large amounts of government effort to stomp out, boiled over into the creation of all new states.

If there's an NWO, surely they could have stopped this, as more states only creates more rulers they have to have in the bag.

Furthermore, how do they stop nationalism like this from breaking out again, especially with the big patriotic American types, I realize many of the so-called "patriots" in the conspiracy movement believe most Americans are blind and stupid, but I think the real situation is -- as we saw after 9/11 -- that the utter blind patriotism of Americans is a huge danger to any invading force.

"1. Governments are established to control and keep order over the people they govern. What makes you certain that these governments would not go so far as to not abuse their powers to try and create a One World Government that has absolute control over the people?"

Because even if a one world government was possible, which I don't believe it is, there are laws set in place to stop such a thing from happening. CTs rarely actually look into how state and federal government work, and if you try to explain it to them their eyes glaze over and they call you sheeple.

I like living in a civilized society.

"2. What makes you believe that the United States government will not abuse the powers given to it in the USA PATRIOT Act?"

This is a loaded question. If the federal government is following the law based on what the Patriot Act deems legal, is what they're doing considered "abuse" in the first place? What is the criteria for abuse?

"3. What would it take for you to consider something as proof of a conspiracy? (use any conspiracy)"

Reasonable evidence.

"4. How are free speech zones not evidence of loss of freedom? http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/secret-service-ordered-local-police-restrict-anti-bush-protesters-rallies-aclu-charges-u"

Bush was a crappy President who insulated himself from criticism. Who cares. I'm not being snarky, I just honestly don't see the relevance, he's gone and will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents. If the ACLU is aware of it, obviously the Bush administration didn't get away with hiding anything. Anyone who follows politics is pretty aware of how the Bush administration functioned. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was incompetence, arrogance and ideology.

Shut the fuck up, bitch.

Matt,

"This is a loaded question. If the federal government is following the law based on what the Patriot Act deems legal, is what they're doing considered "abuse" in the first place? What is the criteria for abuse?"

I did not see that angle, but thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps the question should read:

2. Why do you believe that the powers given to the United States government by the USA PATRIOT Act do not give credit to the idea that the United States is headed toward fascism*?

* Fascism defined as a political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.

"2. Why do you believe that the powers given to the United States government by the USA PATRIOT Act do not give credit to the idea that the United States is headed toward fascism"

Ehh... I just really try and stay away from rhetoric like "fascism" when discussing serious subjects. TZM and TVP don't count because they are full of kids who aren't even old enough to vote.

Anyways, I see more "fascism" in corporate culture than I do anything I see as a result of the Patriot Act. To answer your question: No, I don't see the Patriot Act as America being on a slippery slope to tyranny. I see it as business as usual. Politically, I am on the rather far left and it doesn't really concern me. It beats being on the left in the old days when you got your ass kicked or blackballed from jobs.

Personally I think any discussion other than "is the Patriot Act Constitutional?" is kinda pointless. It is the only question that won't lead down a billion different angles because we all see things differently. It brings the matter to an issue of legality; something concrete.

I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, so I can't say whether the Patriot Act is Constitutional. Since I don't see it as a slippery slope to tyranny, I really don't even care that much about it.

Excellent, well thought-out points! Thanks everyone!

"Their forums are ruled with an iron fist."

Can you imagine living in a world where these people have anything resembling power? It scares the hell out of me.