New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Bob Armstrong]

An Analysis of Government

By Anonymous

Americas - USA

Who Rules & Decides?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrstverI7QY

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Pargat Perrer]

'Interpretation of the law' has been a lesser problem than the 'determination of the facts of a case', in the administration of justice. The former has always been dealt with, and will continue to be dealt with, using common sense, by the jurors and the judges. The latter is what is responsible for delays, backlog & miscarriage of justice, and hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future.

Oh, so now you are saying increased, in fact omnipresent, digital surveillance is a necessary part of the Libertarian system?

We can expect government cameras in every bedroom? Even in the bathrooms? No privacy anywhere at any time?

So your remedy for all society's ills is to have a Benevolent Overseer who decrees the law, and constant pervasive digital surveillance of everything everyone does?

And you expect people to VOTE for this?

You expect every corporate CEO to have every word of every meeting, even a lunch meeting at a restaurant, even a conversation at the restaurant urinals .... to be recorded onto digital media, distributed to the Benevolent Overseer who runs the entire world?

I thought you were just insane. This is much worse.

There is a saying about the solution being worse than the disease......


And you still haven't defined "fair competition" LOL

[Dilip Panjwani]

Originally posted by Bob Amrstrong:
What "maximizes" court cases is a general theoretical law (In a philosophical or theological form). The Libertarian Natural Law is such a law.




Dilip, here is how you worded you simple, straightforward Natural Law:

"Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition."

I really have to think you are wearing blinders, that you do not see: "fair competition" is about as ambiguous and undefined a term as you could possibly have conjured up.

Don't agree? Then please DEFINE IT FOR US!

Even the word "fair" is purely undefined.

Donald Trump uses the word "unfair" quite a bit. He rants on about how something that went against his personal interests is "unfair".

I submit Donald Trump as Exhibit A in my argument that Natural Law will result in a plethora of lawsuits that will dwarf anything we've ever seen under the U.S. Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Donald Trump has outdone anyone in U.S. politics over the past 4 years or so in launching lawsuits alleging something is "unfair" to him. Most have been summarily dismissed. But he is still free to launch them, and he still has lawyers who do his bidding, because he has the money to make it worth their while.

Once again, I submit that you are truly advocating for a "Benevolent One" dictatorship. You want this Natural Law to be posted on flags, coins, paper bills, posted everywhere, and enshrined as the universal law of the land, and it amounts to nothing short of dictatorship. Because somebody is at the top and defines it. And everyone else MUST ACCEPT that definition. You say lawyers who lie will be punished, but HOW IT IS DECIDED THAT A LAWYER IS LYING?

In order to define "lying", you need to have strict definitions and codifications .... which is what we have in law today, and we still need more and more such laws because new situations are always arising. The world isn't black or white, Dilip. When will you wake up to that fact?

"Fair competition" .... oh my God. That opens the door to lawyer hell.

You can't answer any of the deep questions because you know in your heart it all boils down to dictatorship. A Benevolent One who decides all.

And benevolence, just like beauty, just like "fairness" .... is in the eyes of the beholder.

'Interpretation of the law' has been a lesser problem than the 'determination of the facts of a case', in the administration of justice. The former has always been dealt with, and will continue to be dealt with, using common sense, by the jurors and the judges. The latter is what is responsible for delays, backlog & miscarriage of justice, and hopefully digital surveillance will help with that in the future.

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob A's "benevolent despots."

https://twitter.com/BrockWarkentin/s...20959908003840

[Sid Belzberg]

The Global Wealth/Income Gap

Sid Belzberg Post # 181 - 23/8/13

"You [Bob A] claim capitalism to be the demonic puppet master, but isn't it curious how quickly we tend to forget the demons of alternative systems? Your lamentations of a wealth gap seem to willfully forget that such disparities have flourished in the very shadows of systems that vowed their eradication. All this is nothing new; whether wearing crowns or communist emblems have echoed the same tales of disparity."

Response by Bob Armstrong - Post # 184 - 23/8/14

Capitalism, of necessity, in maximizing profit (Minimize Costs, especially wages), must drive an ever-widening gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots". Other systems do not have such a fatally flawed dynamic.

Secondly, wealth/income gap in other political systems in the past - yes, the financial gap has existed between those who have power, and those who don't. To some extent this has happened due to abuse of power, and corruption. But there has been absent the necessary driver to always widen the gap.

Thirdly - the gap will be narrower, and not increasing, under Democratic Marxism.

Bourgeois capital will have been eliminated. Workers will own companies as cooperatives, along with the State, which will contribute the Capital necessary for the enterprise. Profit for companies will be taxed so it stays at a reasonable fixed percentage. There will be a determination of the percentage sharing of the profit between Capital/State and Worker/Owners. DM will eradicate the Capitalist forced pool of destitute/low income workers, thus narrowing the gap between those who will have a bit more, and those who will have a bit less. Yes, there will be a gap......there must be some incentive for those who are more ambitious than the general population.......society will need their creativity, drive and determination to do things better.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist pragmatist/Not Ideologue/Not Don Quixote)

Bob,

It seems in your earnest push for 'Democratic Marxism', you've chosen to wear the blinders of selective memory, conveniently forgetting the hard lessons history has so brutally imparted.

1. The ‘Flawed Dynamic’ Assertion: The notion that capitalism is a monolith set out to exploit, while tempting to argue, is grossly oversimplified. The success stories of regulated capitalist systems, especially in Nordic countries, stand testament to the flexible nature of capitalism when shaped by progressive socio-economic policies.
2. Historical Amnesia: Your acknowledgment of past wealth gaps is telling but skims the surface. It's not just about wealth gaps. It's about gulags, political purges, and widespread famines. Systems that promised utopia ended up delivering some of the darkest chapters in history. Human tendencies toward power consolidation, corruption, and exploitation aren't chained to capitalism – they’re inherent, and they’ve gnawed away at every socio-economic system that’s forgotten to check them.
3. Promises of Democratic Marxism: You state with confidence the virtues of Democratic Marxism, but where in history can we point to a large-scale success? We've seen the USSR’s elite luxuriating while the masses starved. Your assertion that such disparities wouldn't occur under Democratic Marxism is theoretical at best and historically naive at worst.
4. State's Benevolence: The unchecked faith you place in the state is alarming. Vesting such extensive economic power in the state hands assumes an incorruptible, benevolent governing body. When has that ever been a reality? Whether it's corporate or state entities, unchecked power has historically always been a recipe for exploitation and oppression.
5. Taxation Ambiguity: Your proposed taxation system is more idealistic than pragmatic. Who sets the "reasonable" benchmarks? Without stringent checks and balances (which history shows often fail in such systems), such vagueness can quickly devolve into manipulation and nepotism.

1. The Necessity of Incentives: I find it ironic that you acknowledge the need for some disparity as a driving force. That very disparity is what drives capitalism, and the challenge has always been to regulate, not obliterate it.

Bob, history has, time and again, displayed the grave repercussions of theoretical socio-economic systems that don’t account for the darker tendencies of human nature. While your vision may be noble, it is historically uninformed and dangerously idealistic. Instead of chasing utopian dreams that have often turned dystopian in practice, might I suggest a more grounded, history-informed approach that learns from the past instead of dismissing it?
You really do need to listen to the materials I have offered that clearly show that all of the problems you described in Canada can be attributed to the CCP in partnership with the WEF.

Sid B (History-Respecting Capitalist/Pragmatic Skeptic)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)

(Started: 22/12/5)




Overview & Update

1. Statistics

Week # 4 (23/8/7 – 23/8/13 - 7 days)

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(4wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (4 wks.).

…46.........................13.......................20..........................7......................1........................3

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats took a substantial leap over those of last week, and are way ahead of the year to date.

The stats confirm that with more posts, our viewership has jumped, and that CT'ers are becoming aware that his issue in human life dwarfs even the issues of Negative Climate Change, and the past COVID-19 pandemic. We have a fast-growing, core group of CT'ers now following this thread, which had somewhat languished in the early stages.

Toss in a post when you see one. The topic of human self-governance is one of the most important in our human future, especially if some covert group of influential people is trying to have us give up our human rights, and take control!

Do you want a global autocratic totalitarian government (Even if “benevolent”)?

2. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

There are some new articles out there from time to time on NWO/GR. The articles come in different forms: on globalization on many fronts, world free-trade, and higher governments stomping on the wishes of the local residents, and their local governments, etc..

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the NWO/GR posts of interest they see elsewhere.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

3. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

The Time Line

There is much disagreement whether the New World Order/Great Reset project actually exists. There are those who simply relegate it to the realm of “conspiracy theories”, such as QAnon.

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe, and incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual one-world government. We fear this centralization is not good in the long run. And it is not good, even if this group sees itself as a “Benevolent Dictatorship”.

4. A Proposal (Possible; not Utopian)

1. Nations dissolve themselves, and, in the process, devolve power down to Local Political Units (LPU's).
2. Eventually the world will become a “collection of villages”.
3. The goal is to significantly lessen the power of all governments, so as to make any geopolitical conflicts less dangerous for the globe as a whole.
4. It will not get rid of corruption, abuse of power, or tin-pot dictators.......but will limit the damage they can do.

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it.

5. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

In discussing items in this thread, we use the "Conversation Format" protocol. It operates on three main principles:

1. If there is no proposed revision of a Statement put forward as a "Commonly-Held" Statement, nor objection, within one week, then the Statement is considered "commonly-accepted" (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).

2. If the Statement is challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement must raise a defense, with reasons. Of course, it is also open to those supporting the Challenge to comment and “supplement” the Challenge.

3. The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-accepted".

6. Commonly Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (NWO/GR)

A. Statements

Statement # 1.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:

“The Statement does not refer to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

The general sentiment that people, in a democracy, "vote for the party of their choice" is true. The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Statement # 3.

Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Statement # 4.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)

“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):

“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Statement # 6 (Proposed)

“Direct” democracy is preferable to “Representative” Democracy, if implementable. Usually, direct democracy has been practiced in small, local political units. But with today's technology, direct democracy voting can be used within larger political units.

Processing: Unchallenged to date; deadline: Wed., Aug. 16 @ 11:59 PM EDT


B. Processing Periods

1. If there are no challenges, then the motion is “generally accepted” after one week.

2. The deadline for discussion of a Challenge will normally be one week after there is the first Defense of the Challenge.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

The Global Wealth/Income Gap

Sid Belzberg Post # 181 - 23/8/13

"You [Bob A] claim capitalism to be the demonic puppet master, but isn't it curious how quickly we tend to forget the demons of alternative systems? Your lamentations of a wealth gap seem to willfully forget that such disparities have flourished in the very shadows of systems that vowed their eradication. All this is nothing new; whether wearing crowns or communist emblems have echoed the same tales of disparity."

Response by Bob Armstrong - Post # 184 - 23/8/14

Capitalism, of necessity, in maximizing profit (Minimize Costs, especially wages), must drive an ever-widening gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots". Other systems do not have such a fatally flawed dynamic.

Secondly, wealth/income gap in other political systems in the past - yes, the financial gap has existed between those who have power, and those who don't. To some extent this has happened due to abuse of power, and corruption. But there has been absent the necessary driver to always widen the gap.

Thirdly - the gap will be narrower, and not increasing, under Democratic Marxism.

Bourgeois capital will have been eliminated. Workers will own companies as cooperatives, along with the State, which will contribute the Capital necessary for the enterprise. Profit for companies will be taxed so it stays at a reasonable fixed percentage. There will be a determination of the percentage sharing of the profit between Capital/State and Worker/Owners. DM will eradicate the Capitalist forced pool of destitute/low income workers, thus narrowing the gap between those who will have a bit more, and those who will have a bit less. Yes, there will be a gap......there must be some incentive for those who are more ambitious than the general population.......society will need their creativity, drive and determination to do things better.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist pragmatist/Not Ideologue/Not Don Quixote)

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Bob Amrstrong:
What "maximizes" court cases is a general theoretical law (In a philosophical or theological form). The Libertarian Natural Law is such a law.

There is nothing philosophical or ambiguous about the Natural Law. It is as simple and straightforward as you can get. On the other hand, the huge number of laws we currently have, and the contradictory nature of judgements which have been possible on them, shows that ambiguity and complexity and stupidity are characteristics of what now exists, and along with the liars (lawyers) misusing the already unclear scenario, seeking justice is a nightmare now for the ordinary citizens...as you would certainly agree with me. Making things simpler and straight-forward (as with Libertarianism) is what is needed, right?

Dilip, here is how you worded you simple, straightforward Natural Law:

"Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition."

I really have to think you are wearing blinders, that you do not see: "fair competition" is about as ambiguous and undefined a term as you could possibly have conjured up.

Don't agree? Then please DEFINE IT FOR US!

Even the word "fair" is purely undefined.

Donald Trump uses the word "unfair" quite a bit. He rants on about how something that went against his personal interests is "unfair".

I submit Donald Trump as Exhibit A in my argument that Natural Law will result in a plethora of lawsuits that will dwarf anything we've ever seen under the U.S. Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Donald Trump has outdone anyone in U.S. politics over the past 4 years or so in launching lawsuits alleging something is "unfair" to him. Most have been summarily dismissed. But he is still free to launch them, and he still has lawyers who do his bidding, because he has the money to make it worth their while.

Once again, I submit that you are truly advocating for a "Benevolent One" dictatorship. You want this Natural Law to be posted on flags, coins, paper bills, posted everywhere, and enshrined as the universal law of the land, and it amounts to nothing short of dictatorship. Because somebody is at the top and defines it. And everyone else MUST ACCEPT that definition. You say lawyers who lie will be punished, but HOW IT IS DECIDED THAT A LAWYER IS LYING?

In order to define "lying", you need to have strict definitions and codifications .... which is what we have in law today, and we still need more and more such laws because new situations are always arising. The world isn't black or white, Dilip. When will you wake up to that fact?

"Fair competition" .... oh my God. That opens the door to lawyer hell.

You can't answer any of the deep questions because you know in your heart it all boils down to dictatorship. A Benevolent One who decides all.

And benevolence, just like beauty, just like "fairness" .... is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid,
I am sure you would be the first to agree that Capitalism has its own serious flaws, the most striking of which is that the lack of capital often deprives the average person of achieving his/her full potential (though we all know stories of paupers becoming billionaires with smart, hard work, but these are very rare), while having capital makes the rich powerful enough to crush others, using an unholy alliance with politicians and bureaucrats to create laws, laws, laws, which enable them to do so...

Dilip,
I agree and the WEF/NWO/Great Reset discussed in this very thread highlights these problems perfectly. Their famous WEF slogan, "You will own nothing and be happy" really means
"We will own Everything and you will own nothing and We will be very happy"

[Dilip Panjwani]

[



But will failed Marxism solve these problems? You occupy a dimly lit theater of human ideals, where misinterpretations and fallacies are paraded as gospel; you fit this characterization to a tea! Mr. Armstrong, of 'Democratic Marxism'. I couldn't help but be reminded of the absurdities written in Kafka's novels. You've garnished old failures with fanciful new names, but a decrepit house by any other name is still crumbling.

You claim capitalism to be the demonic puppet master, but isn't it curious how quickly we tend to forget the demons of alternative systems? Your lamentations of a wealth gap seem to willfully forget that such disparities have flourished in the very shadows of systems that vowed their eradication. All this is nothing new; whether wearing crowns or communist emblems have echoed the same tales of disparity.

That over half of Canadians clutch at a mere $200 savings, as you assert, is indeed a sorrowful tale. Yet, how conveniently do you absolve every other factor and lay the blame solely at the feet of capitalism? How ironic that in a thread about the NWO, you gloss over this as benevolent despots with "their priorities screwed up"? Or perhaps, is it the lullaby of 'Democratic Marxism' promising sweet dreams while delivering nightmares?

Families toil; true. But to label capitalism the sole oppressor is an oversimplification bordering on ignorance. The world spins, Mr. Armstrong, not on the axis of capitalism alone but on the whims and fancies of global machinations.

You point fingers at those departing from Canada's embrace as if 'Democratic Marxism' would magically bind their feet to the ground. But let me ask, in your proposed paradise, would the fences be higher or the allure of the world outside dimmer?

Toronto! The very city whose streets you claim are becoming deserted. But isn't this the ballad of every growing city, irrespective of its economic system? To place such blame squarely on capitalism’s shoulders is a wilful blindness to the ever-evolving dance of urbanization.

In your quixotic quest for a 'Democratic Marxist' utopia, I urge you, Bob: to take the time and effort to educate yourself on what the NWO is about with materials I have provided and repeatedly asked you to consider.

Hi Sid,
I am sure you would be the first to agree that Capitalism has its own serious flaws, the most striking of which is that the lack of capital often deprives the average person of achieving his/her full potential (though we all know stories of paupers becoming billionaires with smart, hard work, but these are very rare), while having capital makes the rich powerful enough to crush others, using an unholy alliance with politicians and bureaucrats to create laws, laws, laws, which enable them to do so...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

Seems we may just have to agree to disagree on whether your "Natural Law" will lead to more lawsuits with one law, than happen currently with the existing plethora of laws.

Minor correction: I have never actually "retired" (Similar to our Donald's view that he will not concede he lost the 2020 election!). I am on pause . I refer to myself as "inactive". Though 78 y.o., I can return to practice should I meet two conditions: 1. Pass a few refresher courses; 2. get my lawyer's insurance again. I am still a full member of the Ontario Bar. Very unlikely this scenario will ever come to pass.

Bob A

It seems lawyers are the same as physicians in that regard...we too cling to our license to practice as long as we can...

And I do believe that with more thought on the matter, you will agree that Libertarianism is the simpler and more straight-forward and more ethical system which also gives you the fairness for all that you seek in Democratic Marxism...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Seems we may just have to agree to disagree on whether your "Natural Law" will lead to more lawsuits with one law, than happen currently with the existing plethora of laws.

Minor correction: I have never actually "retired" (Similar to our Donald's view that he will not concede he lost the 2020 election!). I am on pause . I refer to myself as "inactive". Though 78 y.o., I can return to practice should I meet two conditions: 1. Pass a few refresher courses; 2. get my lawyer's insurance again. I am still a full member of the Ontario Bar. Very unlikely this scenario will ever come to pass.

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

[

Our Wonderful Canadian Capitalism



Capitalism is a "tyrannical economic/political theory" that necessarily creates, and continuously widens, the wealth/income gap among Canadians. The wealthy elite rule.

Over 50% of ordinary Canadians (One of the richest countries in the world; always in the top 10 of most livable countries on the globe) currently have less than $ 200 savings in the bank (Most recent survey I've seen). They basically live from paycheque to paycheque. Should a large unexpected cost appear, they are forced to borrow and go into debt, which they can virtually never pay off. Numbers of Canadian families now have two adults working 2 part-time jobs (2 children) to barely meet monthly expenses.

The most recent trend is that new immigrants, and even refugees, are leaving Canada for other countries because it is not what they were promised. Life in Canada is getting a lot harder economically.

Accommodation rents are sky-rocketing - people are moving out of Toronto because they cannot afford to live there any longer.

Good job, Canadian Capitalism.

Bob Armstrong (Democratic Marxist; Coordinator of the Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario - to be registered in future)

But will failed Marxism solve these problems? You occupy a dimly lit theater of human ideals, where misinterpretations and fallacies are paraded as gospel; you fit this characterization to a tea! Mr. Armstrong, of 'Democratic Marxism'. I couldn't help but be reminded of the absurdities written in Kafka's novels. You've garnished old failures with fanciful new names, but a decrepit house by any other name is still crumbling.

You claim capitalism to be the demonic puppet master, but isn't it curious how quickly we tend to forget the demons of alternative systems? Your lamentations of a wealth gap seem to willfully forget that such disparities have flourished in the very shadows of systems that vowed their eradication. All this is nothing new; whether wearing crowns or communist emblems have echoed the same tales of disparity.

That over half of Canadians clutch at a mere $200 savings, as you assert, is indeed a sorrowful tale. Yet, how conveniently do you absolve every other factor and lay the blame solely at the feet of capitalism? How ironic that in a thread about the NWO, you gloss over this as benevolent despots with "their priorities screwed up"? Or perhaps, is it the lullaby of 'Democratic Marxism' promising sweet dreams while delivering nightmares?

Families toil; true. But to label capitalism the sole oppressor is an oversimplification bordering on ignorance. The world spins, Mr. Armstrong, not on the axis of capitalism alone but on the whims and fancies of global machinations.

You point fingers at those departing from Canada's embrace as if 'Democratic Marxism' would magically bind their feet to the ground. But let me ask, in your proposed paradise, would the fences be higher or the allure of the world outside dimmer?

Toronto! The very city whose streets you claim are becoming deserted. But isn't this the ballad of every growing city, irrespective of its economic system? To place such blame squarely on capitalism’s shoulders is a wilful blindness to the ever-evolving dance of urbanization.

In your quixotic quest for a 'Democratic Marxist' utopia, I urge you, Bob: to take the time and effort to educate yourself on what the NWO is about with materials I have provided and repeatedly asked you to consider.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip Panjwani Post # 173 - 23/8/13

"[With current non-Libertarian governments ] If court cases arise out of breaking laws or interpreting them to one's own advantage, as you [Bob A] say, then the more the number of laws, the more the court cases."

Response by Bob A - Post # 175 - 23/8/13

Bob A (Inactive Lawyer with the Ontario Bar - hopefully not sleazy when in practice!)

I am glad to know that you are a retired lawyer, and I believe you must have been an exception by not being a liar. And even though you are currently a bit confused about the implications of Natural Law, I think you will soon reach the truth and accept it, as you must have accepted the cases you would have lost in practice...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip Panjwani Post # 173 - 23/8/13

"[With current non-Libertarian governments ] If court cases arise out of breaking laws or interpreting them to one's own advantage, as you [Bob A] say, then the more the number of laws, the more the court cases."

Response by Bob A - Post # 175 - 23/8/13

This is not true.

What "minimizes" interpretation of law court cases is the fact of both the law, and the precedent interpretation decisions, being written and publicly accessible. So everyone knows both what the law is (And they are very practical in content, not theoretical like a philosophical or theological statement), and how it has been court interpreted. So a complainant can see if his/her favourable to him/her interpretation has already been thrown out by the court. So it is no use going to court when one knows one is going to lose, and pay court costs (Unless, as you say, some sleazy lawyer has lied about the law, and lied about the prior court decision precedents, to his client, in order to have them authorize a case, and for the lawyer to take the client to the cleaners).

What "maximizes" court cases is a general theoretical law (In a philosophical or theological form). The Libertarian Natural Law is such a law.

No one, but no one, knows what it means on the ground, at ground zero. Good people can disagree on how it applies in any particular situation. Evil people will always argue the Natural Law is "ambiguous", and open to THEIR interpretation (Which just happens to be favourable to them!).

Bob A (Inactive Lawyer with the Ontario Bar - hopefully not sleazy when in practice!)

There is nothing philosophical or ambiguous about the Natural Law. It is as simple and straightforward as you can get. On the other hand, the huge number of laws we currently have, and the contradictory nature of judgements which have been possible on them, shows that ambiguity and complexity and stupidity are characteristics of what now exists, and along with the liars (lawyers) misusing the already unclear scenario, seeking justice is a nightmare now for the ordinary citizens...as you would certainly agree with me. Making things simpler and straight-forward (as with Libertarianism) is what is needed, right?