Multiculturalism

[johnliberty08]

I'm opposed to it.

This is a great article I read last week on the absurdities of the multiculturalism in the U.S. It's written by a foreigner, and it's about his travels in the American Northwest. He calls the region "Zinnlandia", after the cultural Marxist historian Howard Zinn.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3409

A Zinnlandian I met on this trip, a WASP physician endowed with the best education much money can buy, told me that he does not celebrate July 4th because the Declaration of Independence had been written by a slave owner and signed by other slave owners. He was just as hotly critical of the “racism” of Americans in dealing with the growing Muslim immigrant minority. The conversation unfolded over a bottle of Oregon Vino Pinko, with the likeness of a notorious Cuban mass murderer on the label.

Besides the pervasive lefty obtuseness as to the true nature of Che Guevara, there is one central paradox in this Zinnlandian, as there is in all of them. In the case of the good doctor, he donates his time and money to schools and clinics in Tanzania, where he has visited several times. And Tanzania, particularly Zanzibar, is a living memorial to the horrors of slave trafficking by Moslem Arabs and black Africans -- far larger and crueler than the slave trade that soiled the New World, preceding it by a thousand years, evident still in the 1960s, and ended only due to Western insistence.

So we have here a mind twisted into self-contradicting loops designed to screen out everything good about “us” and everything bad about “the other.” This particular dhimmi-in-training has managed not only to block out all the greatness and goodness of the American Founding Fathers, and the merits of the nation that they launched, but also to overlook that his favorite country, Tanzania, exemplifies the horrors he purports to abhor and that, unlike America, it has hardly any countervailing merits.

Behavioral psychology has names for various information perception and analysis biases, but at least fifteen of those would have to be added to encompass the depth and width of the Zinnlandian’s – let’s not beat around the bush – craziness. Take, among others, the Bias Blind Spot, add some Omission Bias and Selective Perception, leaven with white racial guilt propaganda. Whip that into a mixture of Belief Bias, Selective Memory, Bandwagon Effect, Déformation Professionnelle and Disconfirmation Bias. Pour the mixture into a pie shell made of Neglect of Probability, My Side Bias, Optimism Bias and Positive Outcome Bias, and bake for 30 years in an oven designed specifically by mainstream media and the educational system to make that kind of dough rise. Voilà!

 

[RoamZero]

Without a good degree of nationalism, multiculturalism can be dangerous. It breeds collectivism and in turn churns out politicians that bend over backwards to such groups (if they are large enough) to stay in office. You can call it democracy in action but you get all sorts of unintended consequences when those politicians begin to lie and lose principle.

 

[Kludge]

Kludge, right now I am just speechless that you are for world government.

Right this minute, it would probably be better if someone else answered you on this.

This is very disheartening, to say the least.

You support state government?

You terrible person.

Borders? Terrible.



I just want to earn enough wealth to pit small local tribes against each other...


I could make a.... KILLING. Bwahahahahahahaha.

Blacks Vs. Jooz #18

 

[silverhandorder]

Well it depends on how we understand world government. I see sovereign countries talking to each other and trading as a good world government. You don't need to have a supreme entity over all other governments. Having separate countries responsible for them selves is a form of governance on a global level.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well it depends on how we understand world government. I see sovereign countries talking to each other and trading as a good world government. You don't need to have a supreme entity over all other governments. Having separate countries responsible for them selves is a form of governance on a global level.

People that WANT world governent WANT power, don't you see? They can't give it up. kludge, you should be ashamed of yourself!

 

[Kludge]

Well it depends on how we understand world government. I see sovereign countries talking to each other and trading as a good world government. You don't need to have a supreme entity over all other governments. Having separate countries responsible for them selves is a form of governance on a global level.

Agreed, this is what I originally meant when I said libertarians are inherently globalists. I think everyone would agree that the larger the corporation/government, the more unruly it is.

When speaking of a global government, I say that while keeping in mind that the larger the area being governed the smaller the government's powers should be.

And when speaking of government, I am using the definition "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.".

Does anyone here doubt that multi-national crimes take place? Aggression not in self-defense must be prosecuted with the ultimate goal of reparations or punishment as the goal, no matter where it takes place.

Would we trust the North Korean government to hand over our criminals were they to flee the country?

Obviously, this kind of global government is VERY far off, and would probably be toward the very end of the radical libertarian agenda. Much needs to change before this is even thought of being put in place.

 

[Kludge]

People that WANT world governent WANT power, don't you see? They can't give it up. kludge, you should be ashamed of yourself!

Libertine... Do you not realize the benefits government can give? Turning the judicial system over to a third party is exceptionally dangerous and incredibly irresponsible. Voluntary funding is preferable and hopefully will fully fund a public judicial system, but it must be funded - even if aggression occurs in the collection of its needed funds.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Libertine... Do you not realize the benefits government can give? Turning the judicial system over to a third party is exceptionally dangerous and incredibly irresponsible. Voluntary funding is preferable and hopefully will fully fund a public judicial system, but it must be funded - even if aggression occurs in the collection of its needed funds.

statist...

Dear former anarchist turned statist,

I never advocated support for market anarchy as long as people can opt out, it's ok. If you can force your people to pay with force, why bother relying on voluntary funding? Might as well go for the juggler.

 

[Kludge]

If you can force your people to pay with force, why bother relying on voluntary funding? Might as well go for the juggler.

Jugglers piss me off. They must be taxed into poverty!

 

[LibertyEagle]

What you are saying is very naive, Kludge. Nor, do I think it's a good depiction of libertarianism. Since before the League of Nations, there have been attempts to establish a global ruling body and this was not done by people who were seeking peace and harmony or to enable handing over international criminals. It has always been about power and control, as is the case with most governments. Tell me something, please. What in your eyes, is the reason why our own government was to have the majority of the powers with the states and the people? What was the reasoning behind it?

The same thing has been attempted by the United Nations and President after President of our own government have given the reason of their unconstitutional supporting of wars to enforce UN sanctions, as necessary to allow the vision of the UN Founders to come to fruition. Do you know what those goals ARE? While we're at it, what are the major differences between the UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution? Who are the permanent members of the UN Security Council and given their actions in their own countries, are you comfortable with ceding your liberty to their whims?

If we believe it a daunting task to get someone with Ron Paul's principles (and I say that, because there appear to be a whole lot of people who believe themselves to be liberty-minded individuals, but have absolutely no clue as to the history of this movement, even as far as Ron Paul is concerned, rendering the term liberty-minded absolutely worthless), elected to the U.S. Congress, how on earth do you think we would manage to get someone who understood liberty in a WORLD GOVERNMENT? That is why in fact that the majority of the power was to be kept very close to the people. So we could have a much greater impact upon it. That's why. My one vote has much more influence in a local election, than it does a federal, or a world election. Assuming of course that there were even elections at the world level. I also can sway the local voters with my activism, much easier at the local or state level, than I can the federal or global level.

World Communism may sound endearing to some, but I will have none of it.

 

[Kludge]

What you are saying is very naive, Kludge. Nor, do I think it's a good depiction of libertarianism. Since before the League of Nations, there have been attempts to establish a global ruling body and this was not done by people who were seeking peace and harmony or to enable handing over international criminals. It has always been about power and control, as is the case with most governments. Tell me something, please. What in your eyes, is the reason why our own government was to have the majority of the powers with the states and the people? What was the reasoning behind it?

The same thing has been attempted by the United Nations and President after President of our own government have given the reason of their unconstitutional supporting of wars to enforce UN sanctions, as necessary to allow the vision of the UN Founders to come to fruition. Do you know what those goals ARE? While we're at it, what are the major differences between the UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution? Who are the permanent members of the UN Security Council and given their actions in their own countries, are you comfortable with ceding your liberty to their whims?

If we believe it a daunting task to get someone with Ron Paul's principles (and I say that, because there appear to be a whole lot of people who believe themselves to be liberty-minded individuals, but have absolutely no clue as to the history of this movement, even as far as Ron Paul is concerned, rendering the term liberty-minded absolutely worthless), elected to the U.S. Congress, how on earth do you think we would manage to get someone who understood liberty in a WORLD GOVERNMENT? That is why in fact that the majority of the power was to be kept very close to the people. So we could have a much greater impact upon it. That's why. My one vote has much more influence in a local election, than it does a federal, or a world election. Assuming of course that there were even elections at the world level. I also can sway the local voters with my activism, much easier at the local or state level, than I can the federal or global level.

World Communism may sound endearing to some, but I will have none of it.

Again, globalism is a goal once we fix America and lead by example. The libertarian vision of globalism is not possible in the world as we know it. I don't intend to see libertarian globalism before I die. The global government would act solely as a global prosecutor of aggression - or whatever non-aggressive services it can offer were it to have excess funding.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Again, globalism is a goal once we fix America and lead by example. The libertarian vision of globalism is not possible in the world as we know it. I don't intend to see libertarian globalism before I die. The global government would act solely as a global prosecutor of aggression - or whatever non-aggressive services it can offer were it to have excess funding.

World communism may be YOUR goal, but it most certainly is NOT MINE. The idea that you somehow think that giving that much control to a small group of individuals, would not end up in total tyranny is unbelievable and most certainly has nothing to do with libertarianism. Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would support this goal? Because he has written throughout the years about the dangers of world government.

Frankly, I'm still in shock that you believe this.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

World communism may be YOUR goal, but it most certainly is NOT MINE. The idea that you somehow think that giving that much control to a small group of individuals, would not end up in total tyranny is unbelievable and most certainly has nothing to do with libertarianism. Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would support this goal? Because he has written throughout the years about the dangers of world government.

Frankly, I'm still in shock that you believe this.

Do I ever shock you anymore?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Do I ever shock you anymore?

lol. Not much.

 

[Kludge]

World communism may be YOUR goal, but it most certainly is NOT MINE. The idea that you somehow think that giving that much control to a small group of individuals, would not end up in total tyranny is unbelievable and most certainly has nothing to do with libertarianism. Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would support this goal? Because he has written throughout the years about the dangers of world government.

Frankly, I'm still in shock that you believe this.

You continue to call it communism. However, that would assume governments are given the privilege to grow from its original intention.

This allowance is the greatest flaw in the Constitution (and why it eventually needs to be replaced if the people are ever given the power) and every known government in the world. Governments need to be told what they CAN do instead of specific things they cannot. With those restrictions, the world government could not grow, nor could ours.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You continue to call it communism.

Because that is what it is.

However, that would assume governments are given the privilege to grow from its original intention.

They ALWAYS do, Kludge. That's the point.

This allowance is the greatest flaw in the Constitution (and why it eventually needs to be replaced if the people are ever given the power) and every known government in the world.

People "given" the power? What do you mean here? Do you think the federal government is just going to all of a sudden adhere to the Constitution, or are you saying that we should have Democracy (mob rule)?

Governments need to be told what they CAN do instead of specific things they cannot.

Have you forgotten the enumerated powers in the Constitution and also the 10th Amendment?

With those restrictions, the world government could not grow, nor could ours.

Do you honestly believe this? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Some people will ALWAYS try to get more power, Kludge. That is why our Founders warned us that we would not be able to keep our Republic unless we were vigilant. No piece of paper is going to guarantee compliance. We see that every single day. The recently passed FISA bill is unconstitutional as all heck, but they did it anyway. It clearly is against the 4th amendment. I called my own Senators about it and an aide for one actually told me that it was justified due to what he called the "necessary and proper clause" in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

It says...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So basically, this Senator is saying that if they don't agree with the Constitution, the Congress can just ignore it and do any damn thing they want. Clearly, this is not what this statement says, nor does it give the Congress any new powers, much less permit them to ignore the Constitution. Our government is running wild right now.

Our Founders DID try to constrain the federal government and there probably needs to be an Amendment or two to tighten up a couple of things, but the bottom line is that we the people can't sit on the sidelines and expect ANY document to do our jobs for us of being involved in our own government, reading and understanding what they're legislating and taking action to kick them out of office if they stray outside of their oath of office. The reality is that we got fat and sassy and fell asleep while our country was looted and our government was sold to the highest bidder.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
- George Washington

“Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Now, how exactly do you think it would be a more successful venture to have world government?

 

[LibertyEagle]

The libertarian vision of globalism is not possible in the world as we know it. I don't intend to see libertarian globalism before I die. The global government would act solely as a global prosecutor of aggression - or whatever non-aggressive services it can offer were it to have excess funding.

Kludge, I seriously do not think you are accurately representing libertarianism. I have never known libertarianism to include world government as its goal. In fact, just the opposite.

Anyone else?

 

[Kludge]

Why do you continue to defend states? I've questioned it a few times but you've evaded it.

The 10th amendment simply moves the power to states, another GOVERNMENT (whether you admit it or not).

The Constitution is a failure. Collectively, people have proven themselves incapable of keeping government in check. Maybe it is time for the tree of liberty to be watered to fix the mistakes of our founders since the Constitution gave looters so much power.


I do believe the global government can be kept in check if we had a supreme law and government system that was better thought-out. I'd imagine humanity is, relatively, still very early in their existence. Natural selection weeds out incompetence until we reach perfection. Maybe I'm full of myself, but I think it's time we take another shot at it in order to form a more perfect society. Our government is failing, and incompetence is the cause - with ourselves and the founders as the culprits behind it.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Kludge, I seriously do not think you are accurately representing libertarianism. I have never known libertarianism to include world government as its goal. In fact, just the opposite.

Anyone else?

I agree with you

 

[Kludge]

I agree with you

LE's lucky day, eh?