New World Order: Does the idea of a totalitarian one-world government exist.

-Ok first off, I would like to remind you that your debate states: Does the IDEA of a totalitarian one-world government exist. Again, I"m telling you that the idea exists. Us debating this topic right now clearly proves that the idea, that the acknowledgement of the possibility of a totalitarian one-world government exists (the idea not the actual government.) However, I"m going to assume you mean "Can a totalitarian one world government exist " or "Is it possible that a totalitarian one-world government can or may exist" -If that"s what you mean I"d like to take you back to your own link (http://en.wikipedia.org....) It states as a definition: "The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government." It never says anything about the whole world coming to one common consensus about being ruled under one government. It says a "secretive power elite" which means one or a combination of a few things: a) Elite is singular therefore it is one person conspiring to rule many b) The "elite"s" singular form could be one group conspiring for one common goal in order to rule many c) The term "secretive" implies that it is not a known government or government affiliated party, therefore completely opposing your claim of "It is hard to imagine any US president giving up American sovereignty to any organization." It wouldn"t be any known organization (like the UN you brought up) that America would give its rights and freedoms to. You even quoted in reference to the UN : "It is not a organization with secretive to control world domination." That means you can"t really use the UN as an example because it isn"t the secretive organization that the definition states in the Wikipedia reference you gave us. - Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) a) The above definition eludes to the fact (by saying whenever necessary) that this new world government is going to be seeking a peaceful compromise. As a matter of fact in the article it states: a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. So if a situation like this was to happen, it"s not going to simply be "The US giving up American sovereignty." It will be taken by force. Making this happening that much more possible. You eluded to that fact, under false pretenses, several times. You"re saying that it"s unlikely that the US would willingly give up these civil rights, which is true, but in this case it"s not a matter of want, again I"m saying a matter of this magnitude in order to implement that kind of totalitarian government would be done by force not by achieving common consent. Here are where you say it 1. It is hard to imagine any US president giving up American sovereignty to any organization 2. A nation wouldn"t want it country to be under authoritarian world whenever nations have its own beliefs. You use the terms "want" and "giving up" as if by definition a totalitarian government would happen peacefully with a non-war related type of transition into that type of rule and government. -As an example we can use Hitler. Ironically, you brought him up too. Hitler didn"t ask the nations surrounding him if he could take over. He used his military resources to catch them off guard and take over Poland and then other surrounding countries. By doing this, he integrated them, one by one (not all at once by COMMON CONSENSUS) into his nazi party so that he had influence over that land and restructured the economy and implemented his personal views on morals, societal structure, etc on the parts that he dominated and conquered. -Totalitarianism is much different from Authoritarianism. The main differences are their goals and slightly the way they go about achieving. While at face value, that makes it seem like they are completely different, in actuality the ethical way they are run are extremely similar. -Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians. (Again very similar in the aspect that it is a very small power trying to take control over a larger populace which is what this whole debate is about.)[http://en.wikipedia.org...] Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated, and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. (Political repression is where a particular group is persecuted for political reasons.) Using the definition of political repression, I think that could very accurately describe Hitler"s form of take over which falls under authoritarianism BUT is also characterized by totalitarianism as well. This only further proves my point that totalitarianism and authoritarianism are so closely related. Backing up my former argument and further explaining how authoritarianism works from the same wiki article: Authoritarianism emphasizes arbitrary law rather than the rule of law, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules,[dubious " discuss] which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition"". Election rigging, political decisions made behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of the rules which does not properly supervise elected officials. A leadership that is self appointed. All of this supports my argument. Your argument relies way too heavily upon the concept and ideal that something of this nature would happen voluntarily. All of this that I"m giving you blatantly points in the opposite direction. None of this even slightly insinuates that a form of government that falls either under the closely related authoritarian or totalitarian governmental system would happen through any nations consent. All of this to say, this makes the occurrence of a totalitarian one world government MORE likely (not likely, just more likely) of happening if we considered that one government or nation had the technological resources to do so. If we take that off the table (which in real life is impossible because the {sometimes not} last resort to anything is violence) then something of this nature is extremely unlikely and borders near impossible. Lastly, I"d like to remind you and qualify my argument by saying that the chances of something like this happening at all are above highly unlikely. There is no singular government that in this day and age, has the sheer power and resources to be able to topple a nation without bordering global nuclear warfare and if that was the case there would be no world left to govern after that point. On top of that, something of this magnitude would not just happen without another country or set of countries stepping in to also stop world domination. Again, I"d like to reiterate the situation of Hitler. After his intention