Why wouldn't global gov't be good

[autobot]

People always say stuff like this. "There has to be a global system of regulatiing global laws blah blah blah"

Here is my argument against one world government.....

The all powerful against the extremely weak... Sick sick sick This link is about UN peacekeepers systematically having there way with little kids... read by a toilet in case it makes you puke.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24838344

[Truth Warrior]

Because it's government. And you just KNOW how THEY are.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I know this isn't the strongest argument, but it just seems that the larger a government's area of jurisdiction is, the worse it is. Cultural relativism is a big part of this. In the same sense that it's unfair and inefficient to attempt to govern southern baptists, midwestern farmers, californians, and new yorkers all under the same regulations, it would be disastrous to attempt to consolidate arab muslims, chinese, and scandinavians under the same laws. While there do tend to be a few universal motifs in law, such as murder and theft, we have to begrudgingly admit that people are, indeed, different. As such, the more localized governments are, the more effective they are, since they'd be better suited to the cultural climate.

This also goes along with the "lead by example, not coercion" principle that Paul was desperately trying to inject into the campaign, where instead of trying to throw a one-size-fits-all blanket over an entire nation, it would be up to the residents of smaller districts to pester their representatives with pleas like, "hey, look at how well [statute x] has worked out for our neighbor's, why don't we try it?" Or, failing that, one could simply move to the nearest municipality to get away from a shoddy school system or an overzealous police department.

[Agent CSL]

Humanity is corrupt by nature. Even the purist of people, who have the best and most honest intent to help humankind, will die. Who will their replacement be? Will this person have the same honest intent? Politics breeds dirty tactics. Only people with the ability to play dirty politics will shuffle to the top. Many only think in one thing, money. A one world government will become corrupt instantly. Power over the entire world? Yeah.... That's going to be enticing.

In a one world government you are fish in a fish tank. You can't get out.

[Truth Warrior]

That's what regionalization is all about. EU, NAU, African Union, Asian Union, etc.

Fewer entities to CONTROL globally!

1984? Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia?

Orwell wrote that

"... indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be doubt about the most enormous events... .The calamities that are constantly being reported -- battles, massacres, famines, revolutions -- tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. Probably the truth is undiscoverable but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or for failing to form an opinion ... "

[Mahkato]

Laws should always be as local as possible, for several reasons.

First, if lots of states or communities have different approaches to solving the same problem, they can watch each other's laws and justice systems and learn from the mistakes of others. With a huge central government, there is only one law, and it's impossible to know if it's the best law, so the law is never changed.

Second, centralized power makes it more profitable for people who seek to influence the government with money. With 50 states making the laws, for example, you have to buy out 50 times as many politicians as you do if the law is made and enforced by the federal government.

Third, individual citizens have a much greater voice in a local government than they possibly can in a far-off federal government. If you want something in government to change, it's much easier to convince your friends and neighbors than some high powered senator you may never meet. This is why voter turnout is so low ... under our current system one vote doesn't make a difference.

[DriftWood]

Hmm, an argument that government that govern more people is worse than one that governs fewer. It would be nice to have a better argument.. because by that definition.. US should not be one country.. it should be ten or a hundred different countries. And if the size of US is no problem, then why would a even bigger country be a problem?

Surely a government or country should not be judged by the amount of people that it governs. But by how small the government is; that is how little it interferes with the people, and how well it protects them from violence.

I dont think it makes any difference if its a state, federation, or a world govt that violates or protects "my rights". Whoever does the job best gets my vote.

There is one problem though with the world being one country. If the govt turns nasty there is nowhere else to run. Its a monopoly. As long as there are a couple of countries they will compete with each other, and people can move between them if they don't like the one they are in.

Cheers

[Truth Warrior]

Hmm, an argument that government that govern more people is worse than one that governs fewer. It would be nice to have a better argument.. because by that definition.. US should not be one country.. it should be ten or a hundred different countries. And if the size of US is no problem, then why would a even bigger country be a problem?

Surely a government or country should not be judged by the amount of people that it governs. But by how small the government is; that is how little it interferes with the people, and how well it protects them from violence.

I dont think it makes any difference if its a state, federation, or a world govt that violates or protects "my rights". Whoever does the job best gets my vote.

There is one problem though with the world being one country. If the govt turns nasty there is nowhere else to run. Its a monopoly. As long as there are a couple of countries they will compete with each other, and people can move between them if they don't like the one they are in.

Cheers
That was the original idea. The Federalists cooked up the idea of centralizing it. Whoopee! :p

[Alex Libman]

The ideal of liberty is having many small sovereign nations all dealing with each other through multilateral agreements. Global government is the worst case scenario. Even socialist governments are forced to compete - with each-other. That's how socialism was able to put a man on the moon and all. With no competition, humanity would stagnate!

[DriftWood]

Laws should always be as local as possible, for several reasons.

First, if lots of states or communities have different approaches to solving the same problem, they can watch each other's laws and justice systems and learn from the mistakes of others. With a huge central government, there is only one law, and it's impossible to know if it's the best law, so the law is never changed.

Second, centralized power makes it more profitable for people who seek to influence the government with money. With 50 states making the laws, for example, you have to buy out 50 times as many politicians as you do if the law is made and enforced by the federal government.

Third, individual citizens have a much greater voice in a local government than they possibly can in a far-off federal government. If you want something in government to change, it's much easier to convince your friends and neighbors than some high powered senator you may never meet. This is why voter turnout is so low ... under our current system one vote doesn't make a difference.

You are probably right, in a democratic society its better to be small and local. Because a majority can pass any kind of law, it means that in a big country there will be a big minority that will get stepped on.

But what about a republic? Here the majority can not pass laws that step on minorities. So there is no reason to keep the country small. Would you not agree?

I think one problem with democracy is that laws are passed to "fix" just about any problem whether real or imagined. But we really dont need any new laws, all we need is the good old basics.. laws that make violence illegal.. and laws that make sure contracts and property rights are kept. Thats about it. I don't really see the need for local laws.

Cheers

[Truth Warrior]

The smallest minority is the individual, biggest too, BTW. :D

[Mahkato]

You are probably right, in a democratic society its better to be small and local. Because a majority can pass any kind of law, it means that in a big country there will be a big minority that will get stepped on.

But what about a republic? Here the majority can not pass laws that step on minorities. So there is no reason to keep the country small. Would you not agree?

Yes, but the Rule of Law in a republic is often ignored (case in point: U.S.) so it is good to have less powerful government positions so as to limit the damage which can be done in a single position.


I think one problem with democracy is that laws are passed to "fix" just about any problem whether real or imagined. But we really dont need any new laws, all we need is the good old basics.. laws that make violence illegal.. and laws that make sure contracts and property rights are kept. Thats about it. I don't really see the need for local laws.

Until people can be convinced that limited government is better for everyone, there will always be plenty of laws. As such, it is best to keep these laws as local as possible. Public education may be a bad thing, but people will continue to insist on public schools, so we should at least make sure they are administered by local people.

[DriftWood]

The ideal of liberty is having many small sovereign nations all dealing with each other through multilateral agreements. Global government is the worst case scenario. Even socialist governments are forced to compete - with each-other. That's how socialism was able to put a man on the moon and all. With no competition, humanity would stagnate!

Yes it sounds good. But there is a bit of an arbitrary limit. How small is small? Why not have every town be its own govt (or even every individual )? That would make everyday life pretty cumbersome. There would be lots of borders and barriers. Goods, capital and people could not move about as freely. Imagine visiting a member of your family who lived in neighboring town with a separate govt, and having to ask permission from two govts to visit (have the paperwork, getting fingerprinted, paying a toll, etc). You would be considered a tourist in this other town and would not get the same protection by law as the locals if you got into trouble. There is some benefits to big countries, in that in a big country you dont have to deal with lots of borders and transitions between different systems and laws, and currencies in your day to day life. Also in a world where every town was its own country goods would not flow as freely.. a businessman would have to make deals with every single town to be allowed to sell a product there. All deals would be different, the tariff levels would be different. All this deal making would cost lots of money and make the price of the product higher.

If bilateral agreements between the govts overcame these problems, then these countries systems would be so intertwined that for all practical purposes is one big country instead of many small ones.

Maybe we just have to be pragmatic.. really small or really big countries are both bad in different ways.

Cheers

[Truth Warrior]

I really like the individual government idea.

Voluntarily trade or starve.

Your choice. :D

[torchbearer]

You want your government to be as close to you as possible.
If the world government does something wrong to you.. are you going to travel overseas to file a complaint?

[HOLLYWOOD]

Global Government = TRYANNY/NWO/SLAVERY?etc...LOOK @ the Thread I just POSTED!

[autobot]

Yes it sounds good. But there is a bit of an arbitrary limit. How small is small? Why not have every town be its own govt (or even every individual )? That would make everyday life pretty cumbersome. There would be lots of borders and barriers. Goods, capital and people could not move about as freely. Imagine visiting a member of your family who lived in neighboring town with a separate govt, and having to ask permission from two govts to visit (have the paperwork, getting fingerprinted, paying a toll, etc). You would be considered a tourist in this other town and would not get the same protection by law as the locals if you got into trouble. There is some benefits to big countries, in that in a big country you dont have to deal with lots of borders and transitions between different systems and laws, and currencies in your day to day life. Also in a world where every town was its own country goods would not flow as freely.. a businessman would have to make deals with every single town to be allowed to sell a product there. All deals would be different, the tariff levels would be different. All this deal making would cost lots of money and make the price of the product higher.

If bilateral agreements between the govts overcame these problems, then these countries systems would be so intertwined that for all practical purposes is one big country instead of many small ones.

Maybe we just have to be pragmatic.. really small or really big countries are both bad in different ways.

Cheers

Well that's the argument globalists make, isn't it.
People still make money just fine despite living in smaller nations.
And the local police don't rape children that look like their own.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

People always say stuff like this. "There has to be a global system of regulatiing global laws blah blah blah"

Here is my argument against one world government.....

The all powerful against the extremely weak... Sick sick sick This link is about UN peacekeepers systematically having there way with little kids... read by a toilet in case it makes you puke.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24838344

I have come to realize that kids nowadays are "diseducated" (poisoned) about American history. Rather than reading even more poison, perhaps we need to search out our fathers or perhaps an uncle to help explain what it means to be an American?
I've often felt we need to create something like a "menscouts," as something with the similar purpose of the "boyscouts" so we can graduate a kind of citizen other than a lawyer to take care of our nation's best interests.
Look, the United States is a global government. Idealistically speaking, we have 50 little nations united as 1. So, any "global" government outside of our "global" government should be considered hostile. This is why THE PEOPLE of the United States have established a border between ourselves and the lessor governments of Canada and Mexico. The nation of Mexico on the other hand hasn't established a border to protect its people from us but to protect a tyranny which persecutes its people.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You want your government to be as close to you as possible.
If the world government does something wrong to you.. are you going to travel overseas to file a complaint?

Yes. The idea is to sit so intimately at the same dinner table that the untouchable does not thirst. The king of England was divorced by us not because he was English but because he wasn't sitting intimately at the same dinner table with us. When the king isn't tending to the thirst of his untouchable people, he is sitting at a different table from them as a tyrant. So, we should sit ourselves in such a way that the king behaves not as a tyrant but as a king while the untouchable never thirsts.
This Civil Purpose is the self evident and inalienable truths. It is a system of government which isn't based on a complex political science, as Marxism is, but on a simple self evident truth established by the use of the science of natural law.

[torchbearer]

Yes. The idea is to sit so intimately at the same dinner table that the untouchable does not thirst. The king of England was divorced by us not because he was English but because he wasn't sitting intimately at the same dinner table with us. When the king isn't tending to the thirst of his untouchable people, he is sitting at a different table from them as a tyrant. So, we should sit ourselves in such a way that the king behaves not as a tyrant but as a king while the untouchable never thirsts.
This Civil Purpose is the self evident and inalienable truths. It is a system of government which isn't based on a complex political science, as Marxism is, but on a simple self evident truth established by the use of the science of natural law.

Distance matters.
I know the mayors family, he passes a law to take my gun, I know where to find him.. he will be held accountable.
When McCain tries to take my gun, he does it from a 1000 miles away... harder to get to him... he less accountable.
The mayor "sits at my table" because he is local, and we know each other.
McCain sits as a tyrant. We don't know each other.. and he could care less about me. What am I going to do about it?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Distance matters.
I know the mayors family, he passes a law to take my gun, I know where to find him.. he will be held accountable.
When McCain tries to take my gun, he does it from a 1000 miles away... harder to get to him... he less accountable.
The mayor "sits at my table" because he is local, and we know each other.
McCain sits as a tyrant. We don't know each other.. and he could care less about me. What am I going to do about it?

Yes. Well, as a Texan, I've learned to take care of my children by taking care of my dogs. To make sure the sons of bitches don't shoot my dogs, I've got to keep them from coming up my driveway. To keep them from coming up my driveway, I've got to get them out of my city. To keep them out of my city, I've got to get them out of my state. The best way to keep the sons of bitches out of my state is to make them go all the way back to Washington D.C. This is the only way to insure that I have happy dogs.

[DriftWood]

Well that's the argument globalists make, isn't it.
People still make money just fine despite living in smaller nations.
And the local police don't rape children that look like their own.

The local police could still be employed from the local population. Doing anything else is just asking for trouble.

Cheers

[Raditude]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

With a single government the balance of power is shifted to one. We need a Yin and a Yang to balance the power either between 2 or among many smaller governments to keep the power in check, so the one single government isn't tyrannical.