PDA

View Full Version : New poll: Do you think world government is a good idea?




LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 03:57 PM
I think the poll is self-explanatory. :)

Kludge
07-18-2008, 03:59 PM
Bah.... This is going to be mis-understood. I move to immediately dismiss the legitimacy of the results due to libertarian bias - and because I know I won't like the results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Pro-globalization_.28globalism.29

forsmant
07-18-2008, 04:02 PM
No one man or small oligarchy should govern the world. On the other hand, a world republic based on the principles of self ownership and freedom is desirable.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 04:02 PM
a world republic based on the principles of self ownership and freedom is desirable.

:D/bump for bias.

forsmant
07-18-2008, 04:06 PM
There is one exception to my original post. I could and should rule over all subjects of the planet earth. I am far superior than all of you. Bow before awesome intellect and command of a single language. Give me .5% of all that you own and I will provide you with the security you so desire. I will rule for an eternity or until I die.

MGreen
07-18-2008, 04:09 PM
I think borders will disappear over time. The big question is whether it's through centralization in a one world government, or decentralization. We need to make sure it's the latter.

But I'll go with 'Undecided' for the hell of it.

forsmant
07-18-2008, 04:11 PM
I have never seen a border in person. I wonder who decided to draw them? What happens when the border fades? I am retarded.

yongrel
07-18-2008, 04:12 PM
I would like a world government if it were the right kind of world government.

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 04:12 PM
Bah.... This is going to be mis-understood. I move to immediately dismiss the legitimacy of the results due to libertarian bias - and because I know I won't like the results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Pro-globalization_.28globalism.29

You really should check out the guy who you're quoting in this wikipedia article. ;)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1568902&postcount=64

Bruno
07-18-2008, 04:12 PM
There is one exception to my original post. I could and should rule over all subjects of the planet earth. I am far superior than all of you. Bow before awesome intellect and command of a single language. Give me .5% of all that you own and I will provide you with the security you so desire. I will rule for an eternity or until I die.

Yongrel, is that you? :)

forsmant
07-18-2008, 04:13 PM
Yongrel, is that you? :)

I am not yongrel. I find that slightly insulting and complimentary at the same time. :confused:

Bruno
07-18-2008, 04:16 PM
I am not yongrel. I find that slightly insulting and complimentary at the same time. :confused:

Sorry, I meant that it sounded like something I could have read him saying. No harm intended to him or you.

Truth Warrior
07-18-2008, 04:17 PM
No, of course.

Danke
07-18-2008, 04:18 PM
i am not yongrel. I find that slightly insulting and complimentary at the same time. :confused:

lol!

malkusm
07-18-2008, 04:32 PM
Where's the "hell f***ing no!" option???

Kludge
07-18-2008, 04:34 PM
What makes a world government so much more terrible over a state government?

Danke
07-18-2008, 04:35 PM
What makes a world government so much more terrible over a state government?

Or head of a household?

Kludge
07-18-2008, 04:37 PM
Or head of a household?

Head of a household is chosen and optional.

nbhadja
07-18-2008, 04:38 PM
What makes a world government so much more terrible over a state government?

Because the more powerful a government gets, the more corrupt and suspectable to lobbyists a government gets.

Not only that, but even if a government was never influenced by lobbyists and power hungry evil politicians (which will NEVER HAPPEN!!) the government is simply nowhere as effective as the free market.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 04:39 PM
Because the more powerful a government gets, the more corrupt and suspectable to lobbyists a government gets.

Not only that, but even if a government was never influenced by lobbyists and power hungry evil politicians (which will NEVER HAPPEN!!) the government is simply nowhere as effective as the free market.

Bah... There's no point arguing globalism with an anarchist.

Do you agree then that it would be acceptable to turn our judicial system over to corporations?

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 04:49 PM
Where's the "hell f***ing no!" option???

It's there. It's the 2nd option. Don't ya see it?

Note: Oh, I get it. You wanted it to be more demonstrative. :)

Danke
07-18-2008, 04:53 PM
Head of a household is chosen and optional.

I disagree.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c12/yasfx/nyt_burka_large.jpg

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:04 PM
What makes a world government so much more terrible over a state government?

I've explicitly asked this three separate times. Anyone care to give me an answer or are many of you believing a world government is necessarily NWO or a single evil tyrant sitting upon a throne?

1000-points-of-fright
07-18-2008, 05:11 PM
What makes a world government so much more terrible over a state government?

Seems pretty obvious. You can move to another country if you don't like you're government. You can't move to another planet.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:12 PM
You can move to another country if you don't like you're government. You can't move to another planet.

Really? Certain people seek to restrict immigration. God forbid we "overload our culture".

PatriotOne
07-18-2008, 05:12 PM
Anyone who have really researched those behind One World Government can not possibly think it is a good idea. Those 4 votes yes cannot becoming from informed people and are votes cast out of ignorance.

yongrel
07-18-2008, 05:12 PM
You can move to another country if you don't like you're government. You can't move to another planet.

Good point.

As I've said before, I will support one world government when there is more than one world.

Danke
07-18-2008, 05:15 PM
Good point.

As I've said before, I will support one world government when there is more than one world.

Are you certain?

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 05:16 PM
I've explicitly asked this three separate times. Anyone care to give me an answer or are many of you believing a world government is necessarily NWO or a single evil tyrant sitting upon a throne?

And I answered you in the Multiculturalism thread.

yongrel
07-18-2008, 05:17 PM
Are you certain?

Not any world government, obviously. It would have to be the sort I would support as a good ol' minarchist.

malkusm
07-18-2008, 05:19 PM
I've explicitly asked this three separate times. Anyone care to give me an answer or are many of you believing a world government is necessarily NWO or a single evil tyrant sitting upon a throne?

The farther away from its constituents a government is, the harder it is for those constituents to change, and the less organized and efficient the government becomes. The founders wanted government to be as local as possible while still securing life, liberty and property, so that the government could be altered easily at the local level. In fact, the founders were so opposed to centralized government, that they basically considered each state its own sovereign government for the first 10 years or so of the republic.

As power has been shifted to the federal government, abuse of that power has been more widespread, less secretive, and harder for we the people to control. When was the last time the UN did anything productive?

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:19 PM
And I answered you in the Multiculturalism thread.

Is there some hidden meaning or did you answer it in an older post?


Why do you continue to defend states? You're advocating a massive super state that has control over everyone on the planet. Why?

ThePieSwindler
07-18-2008, 05:20 PM
I think that a centralized world government would be incredibly ineffective in actually administering governance over the entire world. Even in a republican system, nations and cultures are different enough such that some sort of forced political integration would have defiant nations and many complex, undesirable governance issues.

If some form of global governance were to manifest, it would be preferable that it be a 'referee' rather than an authority.I haven't given alot of thought into the details - but if there were to be global governance, id see it as a means, not an end, toward global integration of labor markets, capital markets, trade, etc. I do think organizations like the WTO have some uses in incentivizing less trade-friendly nations to open up to the world economy, and i do think other global institutions, though not necessarily "governments", can serve useful purposes. I have somewhat of a cosmopolitan-libetarian worldview, so im of course wary of organizations like the UN and CERTAINLY opposed to a centralized world bureaucracy. But i also don't think "globalist" is the bogeyman that many make it out to be.

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 05:24 PM
Is there some hidden meaning or did you answer it in an older post?

Don't be ridiculous. We went back and forth quite a bit in the multiculturalism thread today. Did you forget?

Malkusm summed it up above pretty well though. The closer government is kept to us, the more impact we will have on it. If you think some kind of super government sounds great, go check into the EU. The people are not too pleased. Check out why that is.

surf
07-18-2008, 05:24 PM
i'm all for a worldwide bill-of-rights freedom document, but very opposed to a worldwide gov't to enforce/ensure this.

of course, having a beer in Riyadh isn't on the top of my to-do list. smoking a j in Bali sounds good though.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:25 PM
The farther away from its constituents a government is, the harder it is for those constituents to change, and the less organized and efficient the government becomes. The founders wanted government to be as local as possible while still securing life, liberty and property, so that the government could be altered easily at the local level. In fact, the founders were so opposed to centralized government, that they basically considered each state its own sovereign government for the first 10 years or so of the republic.

As power has been shifted to the federal government, abuse of that power has been more widespread, less secretive, and harder for we the people to control. When was the last time the UN did anything productive?

Meh... I suppose I need to re-declare my position on the issue and why I support globalism.


Many of us bitch and moan about the inherent evil that is government and complain that "if we give the government an inch, they'll take a foot". I disagree with this and believe that the government can be restrained from growth if we replace the constitution. Why would we do that?!?! The Constitution is flawed in that it outlines a few things the government cannot do, or else it turns authority over to states. Instead, I believe our constitution should instead tell the government(s) explicitly what it CAN do. Combined with frequent elections and voluntary funding of government(s), I believe there's a real possibility that we can have a world government that does not go beyond government's only role, to protect private property.

I think it's also important to note that we CANNOT have a world government in our current situation. A world government would be a goal toward the end of the libertarian agenda of liberty (not to be confused with libertinism).

For a related thread... The Articles of Confederation...Better than the Constitution? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146994)

glts
07-18-2008, 05:32 PM
For those that think that world government would be good ask yourself the following question. How much of a voice would I have? None. The more local the government the more you have a chance of making your voice heard. In a world government what you might think is right wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 05:34 PM
The Constitution is flawed in that it outlines a few things the government cannot do, or else it turns authority over to states. Instead, I believe our constitution should instead tell the government(s) explicitly what it CAN do.

I've already mentioned this in the other thread, but our founders did that in the Constitution. That is what the enumerated powers are all about. :rolleyes:


I think it's also important to note that we CANNOT have a world government in our current situation. A world government would be a goal toward the end of the libertarian agenda of liberty (not to be confused with libertinism).

There is not one damn thing "libertarian" about world government, Kludge. Not one damn thing!

idiom
07-18-2008, 05:34 PM
I have never seen a border in person. I wonder who decided to draw them? What happens when the border fades? I am retarded.

Tada! Border!

http://highwaytohaiti.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/national-geographic.jpg

votefreedomfirst
07-18-2008, 05:36 PM
Kludge, the U.S. Constitution is what you're describing. It assigns the federal government certain enumerated powers and prohibits everything else. This is why many of the founders viewed the Bill of Rights as unnecessary.

Unfortunately throughout American history some have read way too much into the "commerce clause" and the "general welfare" language, assigning them non-existent significance and using them to grow government beyond its Constitutional bounds. These people view the document as "living", which it is -- but only if you use the specified amendment process (which is cumbersome on PURPOSE).

I don't see how this isn't obvious. It really is fundamental to how the Republic is supposed to operate.

Truth Warrior
07-18-2008, 05:40 PM
What makes a world government so much more terrible over a state government?
The "government" part. ;)

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:40 PM
Kludge, the U.S. Constitution is what you're describing. It assigns the federal government certain enumerated powers and prohibits everything else. This is why many of the founders viewed the Bill of Rights as unnecessary.

The Constitution merely moves power to the states if not given to the federal government. A common flaw in conservative thought.

Marijuana (ab)use isn't a state issue! It's absolutely wrong to restrict use of marijuana, alcohol, rat poison - whatever the hell you want so long as you don't commit aggression. Neither states, local gov'ts or the federal government have any right to restrict the use of mind-altering substances.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:41 PM
There is not one damn thing "libertarian" about world government, Kludge. Not one damn thing!

A voluntarily funded world government whose only function is to protect private property?


Are you confusing libertarianism with libertinism?

Danke
07-18-2008, 05:43 PM
The "government" part. ;)

I like the way you think.


Little Johnny was in his grade 2 class when the teacher asked Johnny, "If there were 5 birds sitting on a fence and i shot one off, how many would be left?" To which Johnny answered, "none, once the gun shot goes off, they would all fly away"
Actually Johnny the correct answer if 4, but i like the way u think!"
Johnny then stands up and says, "K, Mrs., i got one for you...there are 3 women sitting on a bench eating ice cream cones. The first one is licking the cone, the second one if sucking the cone and the third one is biting the cone. Which one is married?"
The teacher, all embarrassed, says, " Well johnny i guess the one sucking the cone."

To which Johnny replies, " No, the one with the wedding ring. But I like the way u think!!"

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:44 PM
Oh geez. That's why the leave it to the states AND TO THE PEOPLE. It doesn't mean that the issue has to be legislated at all. Just that the federal government has no business in it.

Congress needs to do the job which should have been the constitution's and eliminate states' rights to allow victimless "crimes" to be prosecuted.

Truth Warrior
07-18-2008, 05:45 PM
A voluntarily funded world government whose only function is to protect private property?


Are you confusing libertarianism with libertinism?
I categorically refuse to volunteer! :p

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 05:48 PM
Congress needs to do the job which should have been the constitution's and eliminate states' rights to allow victimless "crimes" to be prosecuted.

What?????????????????????????

Absolutely frickin' NOT! If you want the federal government to intervene in the issues that you agree with, although unconstitutional, you have to live with them intervening in those issues that you do not.

Excuse me Kludge, but respectively, this seems to me to be almost identical to what the big government neocons and the big government leftists desire. They both want big government; they only differ on what they want that big government to use force to do. It seems that what you are saying is walking lockstep with their desires.

Again, there is not a thing libertarian about this, Kludge.

Leaving issues up to the states and the people, means just that. If you do not like how a state does or does not deal with an issue, you are free to try to change it, or move the hell out of the state to one that you like more. It is not ok to take a short cut and use big government force at the federal level to force your views on everyone else. The federal government was established to do just a few very things. All of the rest was to reside with the states and to WE THE PEOPLE. Freedom is messy sometimes, but it is much preferable to the alternative.

tpreitzel
07-18-2008, 05:49 PM
The whole world should NOT be patterned after ANY particular model. The world needs diversity since it's harder for demagogues to control diverse political systems. Furthermore, the world needs places where demagogues ** can seek refuge only to be removed * later by their irate subjects. One thing is certain: These CIA supported demagogues will wrap themselves in the flag of their refuge.

* The removal process is left to the reader's imagination.
** Certification by the CIA required which is another reason for ceasing foreign "aid".

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:51 PM
What?????????????????????????

Absolutely frickin' NOT! If you want the federal government to intervene in the issues that you agree with, although unconstitutional, you have to live with them intervening in those issues that you do not.

Excuse me Kludge, but respectively, this seems to me to be almost identical to what the big government neocons and the big government leftists desire. They both want big government; they only differ on what they want that big government to use force to do. It seems that what you are saying is walking lockstep with their desires.

Again, there is not a thing libertarian about this, Kludge.

Again, you appear to be ignoring what I'm writing, or maybe I'm just not concise enough. *shrug*

We need to eliminate states' rights to allow victimless "crimes" to be prosecuted. No one has the right to prosecute these. No one has the right to steal property on behalf of the majority's whims - ANYWHERE.

Truth Warrior
07-18-2008, 05:54 PM
I like the way you think.


Little Johnny was in his grade 2 class when the teacher asked Johnny, "If there were 5 birds sitting on a fence and i shot one off, how many would be left?" To which Johnny answered, "none, once the gun shot goes off, they would all fly away"
Actually Johnny the correct answer if 4, but i like the way u think!"
Johnny then stands up and says, "K, Mrs., i got one for you...there are 3 women sitting on a bench eating ice cream cones. The first one is licking the cone, the second one if sucking the cone and the third one is biting the cone. Which one is married?"
The teacher, all embarrassed, says, " Well johnny i guess the one sucking the cone."

To which Johnny replies, " No, the one with the wedding ring. But I like the way u think!!"

:D Thanks!

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 05:55 PM
We need to eliminate states' rights to allow victimless "crimes" to be prosecuted. No one has the right to prosecute these. No one has the right to steal property on behalf of the majority's whims - ANYWHERE.

I don't think I'm missing your point. But, just in case I am, why don't you name a "victimless crime" that you are referring to here.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 05:56 PM
I don't think I'm missing your point. But, just in case I am, why don't you name a "victimless crime" that you are referring to here.

Haven't I already?

Prohibition of marijuana (ab)use.


Edit: I'm going to bed... But don't think you've won *squints eyes intimidatingly*

mediahasyou
07-18-2008, 06:39 PM
Government has been and will be corruptable.

Therefore, there must be places to hide.

mediahasyou
07-18-2008, 06:40 PM
Government has been and will be corruptable.

Therefore, there must be places to hide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzrqvPfnE0

nbhadja
07-18-2008, 07:12 PM
Bah... There's no point arguing globalism with an anarchist.

Do you agree then that it would be acceptable to turn our judicial system over to corporations?

I am not an anarchist, just a small government person.

I think the military , defending the borders, and judicial system should be a part of the government. That is about it, nothing else (I maybe missing a thing or 2 but nothing major).

Hence the term small government.

I am not for no government.

Truth Warrior
07-18-2008, 07:16 PM
I am not an anarchist, just a small government person.

I think the military , defending the borders, and judicial system should be a part of the government. That is about it, nothing else (I maybe missing a thing or 2 but nothing major).

Hence the term small government.

I am not for no government.
How are you gonna shrink it?

Kludge
07-20-2008, 05:45 PM
Bump for curiosity?

constituent
07-20-2008, 06:38 PM
There is one exception to my original post. I could and should rule over all subjects of the planet earth. I am far superior than all of you.

yea, we're pretty retarded.

RSLudlum
07-20-2008, 06:57 PM
How are you gonna shrink it?

http://i33.tinypic.com/2eov9t4.jpg

:D

Akus
07-21-2008, 01:26 AM
I am for world government. I don't want to think and act for myself. I know the world government will take care of me and will work day and night to make sure I have a rich meaningful comfortable life. All those conspiracy theories about concentration camps and ingrained chips in our arms are exactly that - crazy old wives' tales.

But even if they're not. My life is much better directed by a world government bureaucrat then myself and if they want to kill me along with millions of others just like me, it's OK, it's all for better society.

literatim
07-21-2008, 01:39 AM
I'll only take a world government if Dr. Horrible is the ruler.

http://xs329.xs.to/xs329/08301/dr.horrible302.jpg

werdd
07-21-2008, 05:34 AM
yes includes kade and kludge

Kludge
07-21-2008, 05:55 AM
yes includes kade and kludge

Wrong. Go watch a Reptilian Youtube video.

gilliganscorner
07-21-2008, 08:37 AM
If you think your government is unaccountable to you in Washington, wait until you see how unaccountable it is in Geneva.