What's the big deal? Why not a world wide government?

[idiom]

We have a Global Govenrment now. It is voluntarist.

 

[PaulaGem]

Some personal stuff was going on last week so I didn't come back on here, it seems that most of the responders just gave their usual rant and couldn't even seriously consider answering the question on a hypothetical basis or think about what COULD or SHOULD be. Not too many on here are willing to leave their own comfort zone.

Personally, I don't have a comfort zone. Any of you who really know what I am about know that in my life it is a LOCAL government that has caused a great deal of damage, so perhaps that colors my ideas.

A world wide "sound money" system could be a good thing, couldn't it?

I don't think anyone on here would seriously argue NO here. Note that I did not say it should be achieved by force, and I don't think it could be established under the current collection of governments, but you have to say "YES" this would be a good thing.

This system could simply be a non-fiat method of international exchange with no effect on national or local currencies. If the U.S. can break loose of the Fed we would be setting the precedent. If this returned balance and prosperity to our economy others would follow our example, then those countries could form a sane system of international exchange.

If you believe in sound money for our country, you have to believe in it for the world economy too.

What about universal "civil rights"? I've got no problem with this, do you?

I'll rephrase this - do you believe the "unalienables" are truly unalienable? If so, every one in the world has the same basic rights as you and I, they simply are not enforced.

My rights were totally violated in a town where I had lived for almost 20 years. I never realized that the cops were thugs because I never had anything to do with them. Once I was violated I started to appeal to city hall, the mayor, county courts, state courts. No one really gave a damn.

We are talking about basic rights here, a kangaroo court, cops that gave away tens of thousands of dollars worth of my property. I have a friend whose son was tasered to death by out of uniform cops who were chasing him. Some of those same cops traded their "protection" to dealers for drugs. This is all in a small town in Colorado with a lovely mountain view and the majority of the citizens feel very safe and protected there. They just don't realize that if someone on the "force" has it in for them everything they have and everyone they love is threatened.

Don't give me that garbage about big government being the source of the problem - I won' buy it. The problem is that we have a perfectly good system but we don't use it. This country is rotten from the bottom up. Changing rulers at the top, especially quickly and radically, is just going to let the rot at the bottom have more freedom.

What if one of those "rights" is to not be hungry? I would share, wouldn't you?

Answer the question here guys... If we could clean out even 20% of the graft in governments world wide we could take that money and guarantee that no one will ever go hungry and we'd still have money left over. We're not talking about "stealing from you" ( I am so sick of that petty whining refrain.) I am talking about cleaning house and feeding the poor from the crumbs off of your table.

Can you even begin wrap your head around the scale of what is being stolen from you now? Do you realize how trivial the amount I am talking about is?

Ok, lets say you have the simple choice - feed the fed or double food stamps and give every citizen in this country a basic food ration.

Sure it's socialism, but what if we did get rid of the fed and the "liberals" found that we really could afford a system like this and they had the power to vote it in. Would it really be that awful?

Let's face facts, we HAVE a global economy and that isn't going to change. We are contaminating the space we live in on a global scale, so we have to take responsibility on a global scale.

When I said that we have to take responsibility on a global scale that did not mean that we have to abdicate personal responsibility. Talk about your straw man arguments.

Yes, it may be 40 years before we can even approach this goal, and yes, we have to clean up our own house first, and yes after we clean up our own house we may have to wait until various other governments begin to function in a fair and responsible manner (no this is not idealist, no more than expecting this government will get it together - which of course will only happen when the people get it together) .

But the statement is still true.

The issue isn't the scale of government (world wide or arbitrary "nations") the issue is the source of the power - money or the consent of the governed, and the way it is exercised - to perpetuate power or for the good of mankind.

I'll add "local" to that. As I explained above, I'm starting to believe that local government and apathy about our rights and making things work on a local level is the biggest problem this country has. Does anyone seriously have a problem with this statement?

The issue isn't if the system is "democratic" or "republican" or "communist" or "socialist", the issue is, are the rights of the people protected and is humanity as a whole going forward or backward?

No matter what the system is, it's going to have problems. I believe if the people were to become empowered on a local level and they were to decide from the bottom up that "socialism" is the best way there is no reason that a "democratic" or even "libertarian" government can't work with the "socialists" to solve world problems with a world government.

Actually there are some governments in this world that are much more "socialist" than we are and their people are happier than we are too. If we cleaned up our act we might find ourselves modeling some of our systems after theirs.

Has anyone seen any good numbers or even a pie chart like they show with x% of the federal budget going to the military, x% to social services, etc, but with systemic graft and the funneling off of the Fed thrown in? I wonder what it would look like?

The issue is, is what happens to the rest of the world more important than what happens to you personally?

I phrased that poorly, I'll try again.

The issue is, is it your personal focus to grab what you can and claim and defend your "rights" as you see them, or are you more concerned with establishing a system that works and is fair for you and your neighbor, for your state and a "rustbelt" state that has to reconstruct its economy, for this country and for the countries that are called "developing" or "third world"?

No, don't tell me it can't be done. I know it can't be done right now. But it can be done if we can figure out how to make a functioning system that covers the rights of all of its citizens out of the shredded scrap of flag we are waving now.

 

[LibertyEagle]

worth repeating...

The now banned he who pawns already made a thread on this.


Bottom line.

There Is no advantage.

No it will it not end war.

It will be harder to manage.

And history show's all governments eventually turn corrupt. Whats worse?

A government In north America Turns corrupt.
Or.

A GLOBAL government turns corrupt.

This about sums it up.

Paula, in your effort to create your utopian paradise, you are forgetting one very important thing. Some people want power and they will abuse it, once they get it. If not properly designed, tied down and then watched over by the people, government can be used for tyranny. It has been used for such throughout the ages. So, if we are going to have a government at all, it is crucial that it is kept as close to the people, as possible. That way, the people can keep a close watch over it and hit the reset button, if necessary. This is the type of government that our Founders attempted to give us; a limited constitutional republic. With checks and balances throughout and the majority of the power with the individual states and the people themselves. Unfortunately, we got fat and lazy and let the fox runoff with the henhouse. The power is now amassed at the federal level, many of the checks-and-balances have been undone and the power of the states and the people have been reduced to a point that we are the slaves of the government, instead of the other way around, as it was intended.

So instead of removing power from this top level and sending it back down where it belongs, you want to amass more power in the aggregate. But to even a higher level, globally. This not only does not fix the problem, it makes it increasingly worse.

The further away you move government from the individual, the greater the likelihood of tyranny. It's as simple as that.

 

[Natalie]

If we had one Global Government, they would only one small group of people in charge of the entire world. If you don't like how they are running things, you can't even pack up and move to another country. It's too easily corruptible.

 

[acptulsa]

...and if someone down in city hall cares damn all about how you're getting along, someone four thousand miles away is unlikely to even have a clue how the weather is. Yet, at the rate we're going, they'll not only try to rule you they'll try to micromanage you. Hell, they'll probably try to tell you to dress to suit the weather four thousand miles away.

Honestly. Look at the stupid crap Washington does that doesn't suit us at all--and they at least speak the same language and are in the same hemisphere.

If we had one Global Government, they would only one small group of people in charge of the entire world. If you don't like how they are running things, you can't even pack up and move to another country. It's too easily corruptible.

And they'll be arrogant enough to fight with each other. And since absolute power corrupts absolutely, people will be ready willing and able to rise up and do the fighting.

If bigger government is the answer, only a damned fool asks the question.

 

[PaulaGem]

If we had one Global Government, they would only one small group of people in charge of the entire world. If you don't like how they are running things, you can't even pack up and move to another country. It's too easily corruptible.

Where did I say one global government in charge of everything? If we could get our federal system to work, why couldn't we simply add another similarly modeled layer to the top to take care of the inter-national issues?

 

[PaulaGem]

...and if someone down in city hall cares damn all about how you're getting along, someone four thousand miles away is unlikely to even have a clue how the weather is. Yet, at the rate we're going, they'll not only try to rule you they'll try to micromanage you. Hell, they'll probably try to tell you to dress to suit the weather four thousand miles away.

Honestly. Look at the stupid crap Washington does that doesn't suit us at all--and they at least speak the same language and are in the same hemisphere.



And they'll be arrogant enough to fight with each other. And since absolute power corrupts absolutely, people will be ready willing and able to rise up and do the fighting.

If bigger government is the answer, only a damned fool asks the question.

No, I said the answer is fixing our system from the bottom up, getting it to work and then beginning to address international issues in a rational fashion.

The problem we have with local, state, national and inter-national government now is that they do all speak the same language - $$$$$.

Your problem on this board (this is a generalization, not a personal comment) is that you have to get it to the point where they all speak another language - personal rights and liberty as mandated under the Constitution.

 

[PaulaGem]

This about sums it up.

Paula, in your effort to create your utopian paradise, you are forgetting one very important thing. Some people want power and they will abuse it, once they get it. If not properly designed, tied down and then watched over by the people, government can be used for tyranny. It has been used for such throughout the ages. So, if we are going to have a government at all, it is crucial that it is kept as close to the people, as possible.

I don't disagree, haven't disagreed.

That way, the people can keep a close watch over it and hit the reset button, if necessary. This is the type of government that our Founders attempted to give us; a limited constitutional republic. With checks and balances throughout and the majority of the power with the individual states and the people. Unfortunately, we got fat and lazy and let the fox runoff with the henhouse. The power is now amassed at the federal level, many of the checks-and-balances have been undone and the power of the states and the people have been reduced to a point that we are the slaves of the government, instead of the other way around, as it was intended.

I still agree.

So instead of removing power from this top level and sending it back down where it belongs, you want to amass more power in the aggregate. But to even a higher level, globally. This not only does not fix the problem, it makes it increasingly worse.

The further away you move government from the individual, the greater the likelihood of tyranny. It's as simple as that.

Nope, that's not what I want and it's not what I said I want.....

 

[LibertyEagle]

Did you not say that you want global government? Let's see, yup, the title of the thread is, "What's the big deal? Why not a world wide government?"

 

[PaulaGem]

Did I say I wanted an all encompassing global government?

Did you read the post I made this morning?

Let's face it - we have global government already, they're just looking to come out of the closet.

I'd rather see a system of global government based on an alliance of governments who derive their power honestly, from the "consent of the governed" as opposed to economic and military tyranny.

 

[acptulsa]

So, we have anarchists saying find something other than government, because if you give any government an inch it'll take a mile. Then you have people who want a whole new layer, and say it's o.k. to give them a mile if we hold them to that mile.

Well, I don't see it; the anarchists have a point when they say we can't hold them to an inch, and anything done on a global scale will be so far removed from the people they won't be able to touch it. Furthermore, their every inch will be as a mile.

Rather than trying to end wars by giving more tyrannical powers to someone (which will just make someone else want to kill them and take their power), why don't we try keeping our politics--and our big noses--local and learning respect for the neighbors? Then, instead of passing out more power to be abused, we're just getting along instead. People fight over power; ergo you don't end war by creating powerful offices for others to covet.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Did I say I wanted an all encompassing global government?

Did you read the post I made this morning?

Yup. You want global government.

Let's face it - we have global government already, they're just looking to come out of the closet.

Just because we have some measure of it now, does not mean it is a good thing; nor does it mean that I want to give such a government, more power.

I'd rather see a system of global government based on an alliance of governments who derive their power honestly, from the "consent of the governed" as opposed to economic and military tyranny.

1. You want mob rule, Paula, which is a recipe for tyranny. You really should read some history, Paula, because the type of thing you are advocating has resulted in the death of millions.

Just because the majority wants something, does not mean it's a good thing. For example, if the mob agrees that it wants to steal all your money and belongings, is it ok with you?

2. Again, you are suggesting yet another layer of government be added, Paula. That will legitimize even more tyranny. We need to be moving in the OPPOSITE direction. Less government at all levels, but the government that does exist, should be the strongest, the closer it gets to us; with the majority of the power belonging to the individual, along with the personal responsibility for our choices.

 

[PaulaGem]

Yup. You want global government.


Just because we have some measure of it now, does not mean it is a good thing; nor does it mean that I want to give such a government, more power.


1. You want mob rule, Paula, which is a recipe for tyranny. You really should read some history, Paula, because the type of thing you are advocating has resulted in the death of millions.

The type of thing I am hypothesizing (that is different from advocating) has never occurred because we have never had an alliance of governments who base their authority on the consent of the governed.

Just because the majority wants something, does not mean it's a good thing. For example, if the mob agrees that it wants to steal all your money and belongings, is it ok with you?

Strawman argument again - we are not talking about any majority here. We are talking about a functioning government based on the consent of the governed which allies with other governments to achieve objectives it can not achieve on its own.

2. Again, you are suggesting yet another layer of government be added, Paula. That will legitimize even more tyranny. We need to be moving in the OPPOSITE direction. Less government at all levels, but the government that does exist, should be the strongest, the closer it gets to us; with the majority of the power belonging to the individual, along with the personal responsibility for our choices.

If the governments below are not tyrannical then there is no reason to assume that an alliance of those governments would be tyrannical. They could not be because the levels below would revoke consent.

I also suggest to you that there is no way to move in the OPPOSITE direction. You can't build a house from the roof down. We have to reorganize and legitimize local government and then work our way back up the ladder.


So according to you our choices are mob rule (government based on the consent of the governed who would naturally define and limit the government to the level the feel comfortable with ) or mob rule (minimalist government that permits

 

[acptulsa]

The governments below would revoke consent? That's not a government, then--it's a body basically like the U.N. And, indeed, the U.N. is an interesting case in point. One observation I have about it is it's only about half effective at best. Worth the investment? Another is that it does indeed, despite having only the weakest of mandates, try to get too big for its britches.

I have mixed feelings about the U.N.--mostly bad. I certainly don't feel like it's in touch with my needs. And I sure don't want to see a version created with more power. Sorry.

 

[PaulaGem]

So, we have anarchists saying find something other than government, because if you give any government an inch it'll take a mile. Then you have people who want a whole new layer, and say it's o.k. to give them a mile if we hold them to that mile.

Well, I don't see it; the anarchists have a point when they say we can't hold them to an inch, and anything done on a global scale will be so far removed from the people they won't be able to touch it. Furthermore, their every inch will be as a mile.

Rather than trying to end wars by giving more tyrannical powers to someone (which will just make someone else want to kill them and take their power), why don't we try keeping our politics--and our big noses--local and learning respect for the neighbors? Then, instead of passing out more power to be abused, we're just getting along instead. People fight over power; ergo you don't end war by creating powerful offices for others to covet.

Are you attempting to respond to my post? I don't see any connection.

My point is there is no problem with the concept of world government addressing worldwide issues, just as there is no problem with the federal government addressing issues which are properly in the federal domain.

The problem is that the governmental levels below are not properly organized and not truly based on the consent of the governed.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The type of thing I am hypothesizing (that is different from advocating) has never occurred because we have never had an alliance of governments who base their authority on the consent of the governed.

What you are "hypothesizing" is mob rule and one that is even further removed from We the People than the unconstitutional government we have now.

Strawman argument again - we are not talking about any majority here. We are talking about a functioning government based on the consent of the governed which allies with other governments to achieve objectives it can not achieve on its own.

Yeah, I know, Paula. World government.

If the governments below are not tyrannical then there is no reason to assume that an alliance of those governments would be tyrannical. They could not be because the levels below would revoke consent.

Have you been watching what has happened to our own government? Do you get what has happened and how it happened? What makes you think that it would be better by adding yet another layer on top of what we already have. The further government is away from us, the less control we have over it. What about this do you not understand?

I also suggest to you that there is no way to move in the OPPOSITE direction. You can't build a house from the roof down. We have to reorganize and legitimize local government and then work our way back up the ladder.

I agree that we need to work from the bottom up. But certainly not to establish any kind of world government.

So according to you our choices are mob rule (government based on the consent of the governed who would naturally define and limit the government to the level the feel comfortable with ) or mob rule (minimalist government that permits

NO.

It's called a limited constitutional republic, Paula. Where the rights of the minority, or one, are protected from the force of the majority.

You are the only one around here I have seen lately, who seems to like mob rule.

 

[acptulsa]

My point is there is no problem with the concept of world government addressing worldwide issues, just as there is no problem with the federal government addressing issues which are properly in the federal domain.

I don't completely disagree with the theory on the broadest philosophical level. I just want to get the federal government to where it's not grasping at powers that aren't in the federal domain, before I even want to talk about another, larger layer which must also be kept from grasping at those local powers. And given how much the federal government is overreaching, I'm still unlikely to support such a thing. Once bitten, twice shy.

 

[PaulaGem]

The governments below would revoke consent? That's not a government, then--it's a body basically like the U.N. And, indeed, the U.N. is an interesting case in point. One observation I have about it is it's only about half effective at best. Worth the investment? Another is that it does indeed, despite having only the weakest of mandates, try to get too big for its britches.

I have mixed feelings about the U.N.--mostly bad. I certainly don't feel like it's in touch with my needs. And I sure don't want to see a version created with more power. Sorry.

OK, the governments in the "U.N." start usurping powers that are not in their charter - the international issues that they need to deal with, either the governments would back off or the states would tell the national governments that they need to back off, or you would have enough counties here and there raising a stink that the national government would feel a need to back of.

It only works if each level is a functioning entity. The point I am really trying to make is the problem is not a hypothetical global government, it is not the federal government. The problem is that our local governments are not based on the consent of the governed either and that is where it has to be fixed.

 

[PaulaGem]

I don't completely disagree with the theory on the broadest philosophical level. I just want to get the federal government to where it's not grasping at powers that aren't in the federal domain, before I even want to talk about another, larger layer which must also be kept from grasping at those local powers. And given how much the federal government is overreaching, I'm still unlikely to support such a thing. Once bitten, twice shy.

I guess I'm trying to say you're pushing the mule instead of trying to lead it where it needs to go.

The federal government is only over reaching because it can. We need honest votes, transparent elections, and stringent protection of rights on the local level. Then the rest of the mess will start to unwind.

True, we may need to raise some hell with the upper levels of government to make that happen, but the focus has to be on fixing local government and cleaning up the vote.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Paula, I just have to say that you are doing more to convince me of anarchy, than all the anarchists on this board put together.