World Government and how I could support it

[SamuraisWisdom]

There is always a lot of talk on this forum about how there is a push toward world government and that it's a horrible thing that we would lose our sovereignty. Well, let me give one example of a scenario in which I would support world government.

If the world were to come together and create a government which modeled our Constitution, I would support that. And I also think it would be the only way such a government could exist considering the cultural differences of the world. Each country existing today would simply become a state of the "Nation of Earth" so to speak. Each would elect representatives that would convene at a world Congress with two houses like our current system. I would remove the position of "president" though since it would seem unnecessary. Therefore you simply would have a Legislative Branch and a Judicial Branch with Presidential responsibilities being handed to the Legislature.

With a libertarian world government I believe this could be accomplished. What do you guys think?

[LibertyEagle]

You sound amazingly like He Who Pawns.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=184422&highlight=world+government

You may want to review the posts in that thread, because they would apply here too.

[Anti Federalist]

There is always a lot of talk on this forum about how there is a push toward world government and that it's a horrible thing that we would lose our sovereignty. Well, let me give one example of a scenario in which I would support world government.

If the world were to come together and create a government which modeled our Constitution, I would support that. And I also think it would be the only way such a government could exist considering the cultural differences of the world. Each country existing today would simply become a state of the "Nation of Earth" so to speak. Each would elect representatives that would convene at a world Congress with two houses like our current system. I would remove the position of "president" though since it would seem unnecessary. Therefore you simply would have a Legislative Branch and a Judicial Branch with Presidential responsibilities being handed to the Legislature.

With a libertarian world government I believe this could be accomplished. What do you guys think?

Bad, bad, bad idea.

No matter how strong you made the world constitution it would get watered down, amended, "interpreted" into meaningless drivel over a short period of time, just like ours.

But try and overthrow a world government when it becomes tyrannical.

[Sandman33]

There should never be world government. Only slavery will follow.

[SamuraisWisdom]

There should never be world government. Only slavery will follow.

That doesn't rebuke anything I said. You just sound paranoid. Please try adding a constructive response.

[Old Ducker]

I'm not convinced we need a national government.

[Spike]

a libertarian world government? that's an oxymoron.

Too much power concentrated anywhere in the world is just a stupid idea.

[gls]

The U.S. Constitution hasn't done such a great job of limiting America's federal government. In fact it looks like we're about to embark on a whole new era of federal intervention in our daily lives. What makes you think a world constitution would be any different?

[coyote_sprit]

I could only support a one world government if I'm running it. I also want a massive structure built in the middle of the Atlantic to be my palace.

[Andrew-Austin]

I won't ever support world government, and so I hope none of you would ever support forcing it upon me.

However highly some of you think of republics, democracy goes alongside republicanism. Whatever limitations you might place upon a global government would be subject to rapid decay. There would be next to no representation going on in a global government, accompanied by increased internal conflict and strife. I don't see why some people think global government can end war/conflict, democracy only creates conflict. On a global scale, with such a great variety of interests and cultures, representative democracy would be a mad house.

[Old Ducker]

However highly some of you think of republics, democracy goes alongside republicanism..

I don't know where you get this...

Democracy: Majority rule
Republic: Rule of Law

Just because you have elections doesnt mean you have democracy...

[Sandman33]

That doesn't rebuke anything I said. You just sound paranoid. Please try adding a constructive response.

SLAVERY WILL BE THE RESULT...

Does that make enough sense or do I need to use larger letters?

[SamuraisWisdom]

SLAVERY WILL BE THE RESULT...

Does that make enough sense or do I need to use larger letters?

You could try explaining yourself for starters.

[kahless]

Earth will not be accepted into the Federation unless there is one world government. A divided earth makes for easy prey for the Klingons. :D

All kidding aside the only way we will come close to experience greater freedom in our life time is if individual states or regions secede.

[nobody's_hero]

There is a saying that the government which governs best, governs least.

One-world governments would be disqualified on that count.

[Old Ducker]

Earth will not be accepted into the Federation unless there is one world government. A divided earth makes for easy prey for the Klingons. :D

All kidding aside the only way we will come close to experience greater freedom in our life time is if individual states or regions secede.

Actually I think you're right on target. The globalists do indeed look to Star Trek as a model for the future. The main problem with that is that the economics of the future, as presented in Star Trek, were pure fantasy...so much so that they never even attempted to explain it (because it's impossible).

[SamuraisWisdom]

There is a saying that the government which governs best, governs least.

One-world governments would be disqualified on that count.

You took that quote out of context. That quote means that a government that exists should govern as little as possible, it doesn't say anything about the number of governments in existence.


All kidding aside the only way we will come close to experience greater freedom in our life time is if individual states or regions secede.

And then what? All of a sudden those individual states and regions become nations that will have a national (federal) government, and you're back to square one. You want to keep seceding until we all live in tribes again?


The U.S. Constitution hasn't done such a great job of limiting America's federal government. In fact it looks like we're about to embark on a whole new era of federal intervention in our daily lives. What makes you think a world constitution would be any different?

Then I guess we're all screwed right? If it can't work here where we actually HAVE the constitution then why bother? :mad: You can't just give up. You have to fight for what is rightfully yours. And it's not just us that deserve it, the entire world deserves what we have. You know how many people living outside this country look at our Constitution in awe? There are many people out there who would die to have what we have, they just do not have the opportunity to do anything about it.

[nobody's_hero]

You took that quote out of context. That quote means that a government that exists should govern as little as possible, it doesn't say anything about the number of governments in existence.

If you say so.

But, a one-world government would have authority and jurisdiction over everything. This is what has happened here in the U.S. The local governments surrendered their sovereignty to the states, and the states surrendered theirs to D.C. It has not worked out for us, and it is unlikely that it will work out to continue looking to the next higher artificial authority to replace the one we have.

But, as far as I know, a local government has never been able to tell another local government what to do (unless it went to a higher government and borrowed a bully). Consequently, the damage done by bad governing is more isolated. Therefore, local governments are superior to one-world governments, in my opinion.

[SamuraisWisdom]

If you say so.

But, a one-world government would have authority and jurisdiction over everything. This is what has happened here in the U.S. The local governments surrendered their sovereignty to the states, and the states surrendered theirs to D.C. It has not worked out for us, and it is unlikely that it will work out to continue looking to the next higher artificial authority to replace the one we have.

But, as far as I know, a local government has never been able to tell another local government what to do (unless it went to a higher government and borrowed a bully). Consequently, the damage done by bad governing is more isolated. Therefore, local governments are superior to one-world governments, in my opinion.

I addressed this idea in my previous post. What you are advocating is essentially tribalism.

[Pod]

There is always a lot of talk on this forum about how there is a push toward world government and that it's a horrible thing that we would lose our sovereignty. Well, let me give one example of a scenario in which I would support world government.

If the world were to come together and create a government which modeled our Constitution, I would support that. And I also think it would be the only way such a government could exist considering the cultural differences of the world. Each country existing today would simply become a state of the "Nation of Earth" so to speak. Each would elect representatives that would convene at a world Congress with two houses like our current system. I would remove the position of "president" though since it would seem unnecessary. Therefore you simply would have a Legislative Branch and a Judicial Branch with Presidential responsibilities being handed to the Legislature.

With a libertarian world government I believe this could be accomplished. What do you guys think?

SamuraisWisdom I have to congratulate you on your consistency. If you favour limited government over anarchy then taking that to its logical conclusion must lead you to favour a limited world government, because only a world government fully eliminates anarchy.

Of course as many have pointed out any world government would spell disaster in the end. But I would take this to its logical conclusion to say any sort of government whatsoever will spell disaster in the end. Which is why I personally favour no government.

[Anti Federalist]

That doesn't rebuke anything I said. You just sound paranoid. Please try adding a constructive response.

What should he rebuke?

Your OP made a statement of opinion.

He responded with same.

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't know where you get this...

Democracy: Majority rule
Republic: Rule of Law

Just because you have elections doesn't mean you have democracy...

A constitution must always be amendable and open to change, as anyone can agree that the founders of a government can not foresee all problems that might arise in the future. Being granted the monopoly on law, the law becomes whatever those who are democratically elected say it is. I'm sure all Presidents and Congressman throughout the ages would contend after their death that their actions were Constitutional. They as statesmen can't figure out why they should just sit there doing nothing, after campaigning so hard to please a populace wanting them to do something. And so they have had statues built in their honor.

The arguments of officials today hold more weight than the limitations imposed by yesterday's dead official, merely because they are the ones in power and can be heard. Today's politician says we need welfare and this is made constitutionally possible by the grab bag clause or whatever, the people agree with and vote for him, and bam the democracy inherent in your republican government rears its ugly head. I'm not saying I like this, I'm just saying this is how it has been.

The only way one might try and slow the democratization of a republic is by making it a highly decentralized and local government in the first place, which throws the desires of global government minarchists out the window.

I think there is enough evidence / reasoning for libertarians and Ron Paul conservatives to agree on the merits of decentralization and secession. Sure we can hypothetically discuss the establishment of a global minarchist government, we can imagine it, but in actuality its never going to happen successfully. Establish a global constitutional Republic, and it will decay five times as fast as the United States did.

[TastyWheat]

If the world were to come together and create a government which modeled our Constitution, I would support that.
A Constitution? Just like the one our elected officials completely ignore except when they're out of toilet paper? Forgive me if I don't believe its protections would be sufficient.

The greater question is, what would be the purpose of world government? I might see a need for it when we colonize space, but it's completely excessive at this point.

[Sandman33]

YouTube - Network - Money speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk)

[Anti Federalist]

Then I guess we're all screwed right? If it can't work here where we actually HAVE the constitution then why bother? :mad: You can't just give up. You have to fight for what is rightfully yours. And it's not just us that deserve it, the entire world deserves what we have. You know how many people living outside this country look at our Constitution in awe? There are many people out there who would die to have what we have, they just do not have the opportunity to do anything about it.

Why do they not have any opportunity to do anything about it?

Because of a large, centralized government with a monopoly on force?

And you want that worldwide?

Yer nutz.

[disorderlyvision]

You took that quote out of context. That quote means that a government that exists should govern as little as possible, it doesn't say anything about the number of governments in existence.





“ I heartily accept the motto, - That government is best which governs least; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, - That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” Thoreau

I think you misunderstand the quote

[SamuraisWisdom]

“ I heartily accept the motto, - That government is best which governs least; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, - That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” Thoreau

I think you misunderstand the quote

Nope, I don't. It still means what I said it does.


Why do they not have any opportunity to do anything about it?

Because of a large, centralized government with a monopoly on force?

And you want that worldwide?

Yer nutz.

I said a government modeled after our own. We do not have a large, centralized system with a monopoly on force. Please re-read my original post.


A Constitution? Just like the one our elected officials completely ignore except when they're out of toilet paper? Forgive me if I don't believe its protections would be sufficient.

The greater question is, what would be the purpose of world government? I might see a need for it when we colonize space, but it's completely excessive at this point.

The purpose of 1 World Government would be to unite the world under 1 flag. It would make things more efficient such as the Economy, Technological Research, Civil Rights for every human being, etc.

Like I said before, I would want it modeled after our Constitution and run with a libertarian ideology.

[Brian4Liberty]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

That's the basic rule that would make world government a bad thing. Separation of powers is good, consolidation of power is bad.

[moostraks]

A constitution must always be amendable and open to change, as anyone can agree that the founders of a government can not foresee all problems that might arise in the future. Being granted the monopoly on law, the law becomes whatever those who are democratically elected say it is. I'm sure all Presidents and Congressman throughout the ages would contend after their death that their actions were Constitutional. They as statesmen can't figure out why they should just sit there doing nothing, after campaigning so hard to please a populace wanting them to do something. And so they have had statues built in their honor.

The arguments of officials today hold more weight than the limitations imposed by yesterday's dead official, merely because they are the ones in power and can be heard. Today's politician says we need welfare and this is made constitutionally possible by the grab bag clause or whatever, the people agree with and vote for him, and bam the democracy inherent in your republican government rears its ugly head. I'm not saying I like this, I'm just saying this is how it has been.

The only way one might try and slow the democratization of a republic is by making it a highly decentralized and local government in the first place, which throws the desires of global government minarchists out the window.

I think there is enough evidence / reasoning for libertarians and Ron Paul conservatives to agree on the merits of decentralization and secession. Sure we can hypothetically discuss the establishment of a global minarchist government, we can imagine it, but in actuality its never going to happen successfully. Establish a global constitutional Republic, and it will decay five times as fast as the United States did.

good analysis,imo...I agree with your solution. It's a shame the states have lost their way so that even they don't hold the federal government accountable but act like it is a benevolent dictator to be wined and dined for preferential treatment.

[moostraks]

I said a government modeled after our own. We do not have a large, centralized system with a monopoly on force. Please re-read my original post.

THis is what we have devolved into, and you were be hard pressed to argue any other stance but this here...Do we need to itemize the ways in which this statement is factual accurate???




The purpose of 1 World Government would be to unite the world under 1 flag. It would make things more efficient such as the Economy, Technological Research, Civil Rights for every human being, etc.

Like I said before, I would want it modeled after our Constitution and run with a libertarian ideology.

While you are dancing in the daisies and the buttercups, the rest of us are trying to wake you from your delusional visions. You did not get the quote despite your arguments to the contrary. In order for a libertarian to attain a government of least invasiveness you don't achieve this by making the government more distant and inaccessible, that is going in a counterintuitive manner about achieving it.

The logic behind making government more centralized and removed from the people is that they are incapable of governing themselves so someone wiser and more capable will handle the situation for them. Everytime you bring the government a layer away from the people you reinforce the incapacity of said people to be self-governing. You also add to the attitude of those in power that they are somehow more enlightened and "above" the fray. So with each layer you end up with more draconian laws as they are imposing them upon a larger group of people and attempting a one size fits all governance without any room for situational understanding.

The only way to true self-governing individuals is through respect to the individual's rights and self-worth. This is not made by suppressing cultural differences and demanding fidelity to the nation of man.

[TastyWheat]

The purpose of 1 World Government would be to unite the world under 1 flag.
That's not a reason, that's a consequence.


It would make things more efficient such as the Economy, Technological Research, Civil Rights for every human being, etc.
You think more government makes things more efficient? You are new here.

[SamuraisWisdom]

That's not a reason, that's a consequence.


You think more government makes things more efficient? You are new here.

Uh the plan I proposed would result in LESS government world wide.

[sevin]

The U.S. started out well, but over the years it has gradually moved toward statism. If it were to get bad enough, some people could move to another nation.

A world government with a good constitution sounds fine, but if it becomes statist like this U.S. has, there would be nowhere to escape to.

[andrewh817]

There is always a lot of talk on this forum about how there is a push toward world government and that it's a horrible thing that we would lose our sovereignty. Well, let me give one example of a scenario in which I would support world government.

If the world were to come together and create a government which modeled our Constitution, I would support that. And I also think it would be the only way such a government could exist considering the cultural differences of the world. Each country existing today would simply become a state of the "Nation of Earth" so to speak. Each would elect representatives that would convene at a world Congress with two houses like our current system. I would remove the position of "president" though since it would seem unnecessary. Therefore you simply would have a Legislative Branch and a Judicial Branch with Presidential responsibilities being handed to the Legislature.

With a libertarian world government I believe this could be accomplished. What do you guys think?

Dude...... we have already lost control over the federal government HERE. How the hell do you expect global leaders to be any different!

[TastyWheat]

Uh the plan I proposed would result in LESS government world wide.
That's a complete contradiction. You can't create a new global government AND somehow reduce the size and scope of government. That's as crazy as Obama's idea of creating a new agency to cut down on government waste (that still boggles my mind).

What specifically could only be accomplished by world government that could not be accomplished otherwise while still maintaining national sovereignty and individual liberties?