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

[acptulsa]

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.

Lol.

But there's just no question you have one thing right. We've got to clean the mess up--right from the local level, from the ground up--and that will go a long, long way toward solving other problems at other levels.

But I still say the more layers of government, the more diligence is due--and we've been having quite enough trouble getting voters to do the diligence thing as it is.

 

[Dr.3D]

If we can't even keep local government in check, I can't see how in the world we could ever keep a global government in check.

 

[acptulsa]

Besides, what good is it really? To 'resolve disputes among sovereign nations'? Well, locking everyone in the same clubhouse is absolutely no guarantee that they'll stop fighting. Just look at how many wars have gone on under the UN auspices. Sometimes I wonder if the UN is sponsored by the Carlisle Group and the Company Formerly Known As Blackwater...

I fear centralized control is as failed a model as communism. In fact, it was pretty obviously a bigger cause of the fall of the USSR than even communism was...

 

[Original_Intent]

Paula, there is a crucial first step that would need to take place before we could have an "alliance of governments by the consent of the governed". That is that the vast majority of the governments of the world need to convert to a system that requires the consent of the governed. The majority of the member nations of the U.N. are virtual dictatorships with possible a little deomcratic lipstick on the tyrannical pig. So before your hypothetical system could ever come about, China for one, would have to completely rebuild their government on democratci republican principles before they could even particiapte in such a system.

Even our own country, a large number of our laws are pushed thru with complete disregard for both the Constitution OR the consent of the governed. The Cap and Trade which is on the brink of becoming law is only the most recent example, the failed attempt to ram Shamnesty down the throats of an outraged American citizenry is another, in the last decade alone there are numberous examples of the rule of law and the will of the people being given the middle finger by our elected officials.

The more local government is, the better it can be kept under control by the people. If the mayor of my town tried to round people up and force people into FEMA type camps, for instance, the result would be a dead mayor. The larger and more distant the government force, the less control the people actually have, and the more power the government has at tis disposal to handle "dissidents".

You are "hypothesizing" on more centrallization of power, which would only open the door for more abuse of the people. Power needs to be distributed, not centralized. I think you have had these basic concepts repeated to you enough, however it is you who will not leave their comfort zone, not everyone else as you claim. (I noticed you claimed you did not have a comfort zone, what a bunch of hogwash, and what a condescending attitude tot ake that ONLY YOU are seeing things without blinders on.)

 

[PaulaGem]

Besides, what good is it really? To 'resolve disputes among sovereign nations'? Well, locking everyone in the same clubhouse is absolutely no guarantee that they'll stop fighting. Just look at how many wars have gone on under the UN auspices. Sometimes I wonder if the UN is sponsored by the Carlisle Group and the Company Formerly Known As Blackwater...

I fear centralized control is as failed a model as communism. In fact, it was pretty obviously a bigger cause of the fall of the USSR than even communism was...

The U.S. on the federal level is no longer based on the consent of the governed.

Are ANY of the natioins in the U.N. based on consent of the governed?

I haven't said anything about "centralized control". I am talking about hierarchical control with the consent of the governed at the base.

 

[acptulsa]

I haven't said anything about "centralized control". I am talking about hierarchical control with the consent of the governed at the base.

A reversal of the heirarchy sounds good. How can we pull it off, and more to the point, how can we keep it that way even as we hand authority to accomplish things on a global scale to a global monopoly?

Sure would be easy for unscrupulous politicians to keep us divided and conquered if their constituents speak dozens of different languages. We won't even know how exactly they're dividing us against ourselves (and our best interests).

 

[PaulaGem]

Paula, there is a crucial first step that would need to take place before we could have an "alliance of governments by the consent of the governed". That is that the vast majority of the governments of the world need to convert to a system that requires the consent of the governed.

I agree and I think I already mentioned this. My purpose in this thread is not to advocate a global government at this time. It is to get across the idea that there might be a legitimate need at some point and global government is no more or less practical than federal government if there are issues that need to be handled on that level.

What I said is that we have to get our own house in order and become the envy of the world again then we could begin to export "democracy" "republics" "libertarian government" or whatever the hell it's called at that time.

We could than ally with other governments who were legitimately based on the consent of the governed. Trying to hook up with illegitimate governments would solve nothing because they would have a different agenda.

The majority of the member nations of the U.N. are virtual dictatorships with possible a little deomcratic lipstick on the tyrannical pig. So before your hypothetical system could ever come about, China for one, would have to completely rebuild their government on democratci republican principles before they could even particiapte in such a system.

Even our own country, a large number of our laws are pushed thru with complete disregard for both the Constitution OR the consent of the governed. The Cap and Trade which is on the brink of becoming law is only the most recent example, the failed attempt to ram Shamnesty down the throats of an outraged American citizenry is another, in the last decade alone there are numberous examples of the rule of law and the will of the people being given the middle finger by our elected officials.

I totally agree.

The more local government is, the better it can be kept under control by the people. If the mayor of my town tried to round people up and force people into FEMA type camps, for instance, the result would be a dead mayor. The larger and more distant the government force, the less control the people actually have, and the more power the government has at tis disposal to handle "dissidents".

I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a good thing and should act as a system of checks and balances on local government. I bet there are plenty of towns in this country where they could get away with locking up the majority of the people in FEMA camps, it would just have to be the "right" people (or the wrong people depending on your perspective).

You are "hypothesizing" on more centrallization of power, which would only open the door for more abuse of the people.

No I am not. I am hypothesizing a functioning hierarchical system based on the consent of the governed at the local level.

Power needs to be distributed, not centralized. I think you have had these basic concepts repeated to you enough, however it is you who will not leave their comfort zone, not everyone else as you claim. (I noticed you claimed you did not have a comfort zone, what a bunch of hogwash, and what a condescending attitude tot ake that ONLY YOU are seeing things without blinders on.)

Now I disagree with that.

That is an ad hominem attack which you have no right to make. I hope your little box is comfortable because you are stuck in it.

 

[PaulaGem]

A reversal of the heirarchy sounds good. How can we pull it off, and more to the point, how can we keep it that way even as we hand authority to accomplish things on a global scale to a global monopoly?

Because it would be a partnership not a monopoly and the participants would have to go home and justify it.

Sure would be easy for unscrupulous politicians to keep us divided and conquered if their constituents speak dozens of different languages. We won't even know how exactly they're dividing us against ourselves (and our best interests).

Maybe the opposite is true, they can keep us under control because we are buying into a unitized, homoginized, global culture that reduces the worth of the individual. "American" culture is all over the world and language doesn't seem to be a barrier.

Unscrupulous polititicans would have a much harder time getting power if people had enough guts to stand up for their rights, ask the right questions and demand answers.

 

[Original_Intent]

I think government should be a lot more local.

Most responsibilities rest with the individual.
Then heads of households.
Then I would love to see a local 1% represntative government. No gerrymandering, if you can get 99 other adults behind you, you are on "the committee" for one year. The position is other unpaid, or pay is based on the average income within the area. Almost all laws, education guidelines, laws of morality, etc would be determined within these localities. You could be recalled from office at any time at the request of 50 of the people who supported you.

A locality could completely outlaw whatever they wanted - a religion, certain sexual behaviors, abortion - and determine the punishments for breaking those laws. Yes you could have localities with the death penalty for littering. Seriously, who would support such a thing? But you could. People are going to freely move to locations that uphold their beliefs. The melting pot has been gone for decades anyway, why maintain the illusion of a melting pot when instead of "E pluribus, unum" we have "E unum, pluribus"?

State and Federal government would be organized as they currently are, with Senators appointed by state legislatures instead of popular vote.

Government officials who did not uphold their oath of office would be removed from office, and if egregious enough would be tried for treason with the death penalty if convicted.

That's MY Utopia.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't think 'reduc[ing] the worth of the individual' is a very good way to encourage individuals to stand and fight for their rights, except perhaps in backlash. And I don't think it good for either liberty or economic development, either; history has proven liberty and capitalism to be a heady combination in that regard.

It honestly feels like you're asking me to take two steps back for the honor of taking one forward.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The U.S. on the federal level is no longer based on the consent of the governed.

Are ANY of the natioins in the U.N. based on consent of the governed?

I haven't said anything about "centralized control". I am talking about hierarchical control with the consent of the governed at the base.

By saying the "consent of the governed", you are saying the majority; thus, mob rule.

Again, what if your mob consented to take everything you own and throw you in a gulag? What then, Paula?

I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a good thing and should act as a system of checks and balances on local government. I bet there are plenty of towns in this country where they could get away with locking up the majority of the people in FEMA camps, it would just have to be the "right" people (or the wrong people depending on your perspective).

Uh, Paula, you know that the Constitution is for the purpose of limiting the scope and power of the FEDERAL government, right?

 

[Todd]

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.

I concur.

 

[PaulaGem]

By saying the "consent of the governed", you are saying the majority; thus, mob rule.

Again, what if your mob consented to take everything you own and throw you in a gulag? What then, Paula?

If you don't believe the majority of the people on this earth are able to come together and form a civilized government based on "consent of the governed" then you are advocating tyranny of some sort because the people are incapable of ruling.
You can't have it both ways.

Uh, Paula, you know that the Constitution is for the purpose of limiting the scope and power of the FEDERAL government, right?

Um, you have noticed that there are a great many federal officials who don't give a damn about the constitution, haven't you?

Individuals asserting their rights is the only way they can be stopped.

 

[PaulaGem]

I concur.

Anarchy would just be a smaller mob taking advantage of more people.

I'd rather have the bigger mob taking advantage of fewer people myself.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Anarchy would just be a smaller mob taking advantage of more people.

I'd rather have the bigger mob taking advantage of fewer people myself.

Uh huh. That's why you want a WORLD government.

 

[PaulaGem]

Uh huh. That's why you want a WORLD government.

So you want to be part of the small mob taking advantage of LOTS of people then?

 

[LibertyEagle]

So you want to be part of the small mob taking advantage of LOTS of people then?

No, you are the one who wants mob rule. Not I.

 

[PaulaGem]

No, you are the one who wants mob rule. Not I.

Anarchy WILL degenerate into mob rule more quickly than any democratic system.

If you don't believe that people are capable of handling any sort of democratic system then tyranny is your only choice.

as I said, it will just be smaller mobs taking advantage of larger groups of people.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Anarchy WILL degenerate into mob rule more quickly than any democratic system.

If you don't believe that people are capable of handling any sort of democratic system then tyranny is your only choice.

as I said, it will just be smaller mobs taking advantage of larger groups of people.

Paula, I have lost count how many times I have told you this. I want a limited constitutional republic; NOT A DEMOCRACY. Our founders did not agree with mob rule; neither do I. With such a government, the vast majority of governing is SELF-government.

Do you understand the difference between a democracy and a republic? This is the best thing I have seen that explains it.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html

 

[Dr.3D]

LOL.... Democracy = Mob Rule!