Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Most people don't realize they're living under tyranny until they witness an alternative.
In a tyrannical world government, what other examples would you look to? There wouldn't be any.
Take the saying, "the grass is always greener on the other side", but what if there is no 'other side.' Just a wall without windows and you've lived your entire life under tyranny, and don't know anything else. There has to exist an alternative or you will simply live in ignorance.
North Korean denizens don't stay in North Korea because they enjoy a diet of rice rations and being malnourished, they stay in North Korea because (A) they aren't allowed to leave and/or (B) they don't know any better. But, as harsh as it sounds, I would rather there be an isolated country called North Korea where life sucks for a few million people, than a world-wide entity ruled in the same manner as North Korea where EVERYONE is phucked.
You seem willing to risk erecting a world government on the belief that anarchy would somehow flourish, but any scientist will tell you that if something doesn't work with a small test sample (national or local government), then it sure as hell won't work on a larger scale (world government). I just don't see any feasible pathway that leads you to larger government that somehow magically jumps to the individual beyond that. The larger and broader-reaching a government becomes, the less important the individual becomes.
Last edited by nobody's_hero; 10-16-2016 at 06:36 AM.
T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me
Originally Posted by Philhelm
That would run against your own argument, wouldn't it?
Also, there's a third reason: it costs a lot to leave your home country, in terms of money, and time, and effort, and general unpleasantness.
...not talking about anarchy, just relatively liberal government (as compared to the average local government).You seem willing to risk erecting a world government on the belief that anarchy would somehow flourish, but any scientist will tell you that if something doesn't work with a small test sample (national or local government), then it sure as hell won't work on a larger scale (world government). I just don't see any feasible pathway that leads you to larger government that somehow magically jumps to the individual beyond that. The larger and broader-reaching a government becomes, the less important the individual becomes.
This is World Government:
All the worst evils of government magnified geometrically to unstoppable levels. Tyranny, oppression, mass murder, death.
When you point at people today and tell them government would never do them any harm, let's make an all powerful global government. I point at all those that perished at the hands of their own government. Go tell it to them.
Welcome to R3volution 3.0's Gulag Archipelgo.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...21#post6334121
"Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.
I guess you're thinking of the 19th century Whigs, the Manchester School, repealing the corn laws, etc?
But the fact is that monarchs on the Continent were pursuing liberalization long before that.
To quote myself from another thread:
The idea that the middle classes, via democratic participation, abolished feudalism does not match historical reality. The self-interest of kings abolished feudalism. By the time democracy came around, feudalism was already dead or dying. What democracy did was open the door to socialism. It's very sad thing; just as kings were dispatching the old interest group (the nobles) and abolishing their privileges (serfdom), a new interest group (the masses) was empowered, and kings were compelled to grant them new and even more destructive privileges (welfare schemes).Medieval kings were not absolute monarchs like Louis. They were quite weak, sharing power with a variety of interest groups (e.g. the nobility). Kings had to placate these interest groups in order to rule, just as elected politicians have to placate interest groups to win reelection. Guilds, serfdom, and many of the other illiberal economic policies of the medieval period should be understood in these terms: as privileges extracted from weak kings by various interest groups. Later, as kings eliminated the power of the nobility et al, centralizing power in their own hands, they began dismantling these privileges. Guilds in the Habsburg empire were gutted by the Emperor Joseph II in the 18th century, serfdom in Russia was abolished by Tsar Alexander II in the 19th century, etc, etc. Google "enlightened despotism" or "enlightened absolutism" for many more examples. The movement toward economic liberalization began under absolutism. That movement was slowed and ultimately reversed by the advent of democracy.
There were elements of capitalism in human history going back thousands of years. But it wasn't really until the 19th century that capitalism became a dominant economic system in Western Europe. And it was Britain that became rich off of capitalism. The Spanish and French practiced Mercantilism. There were severe restrictions on trade in their colonies in Latin America. This was something that angered the inhabitants of New Spain.
Why was it that in the 19th century capitalism flourished in the less monarchist nations of the world (UK, US, France, etc.) more so than in monarchist eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia?To quote myself from another thread:
The idea that the middle classes, via democratic participation, abolished feudalism does not match historical reality. The self-interest of kings abolished feudalism. By the time democracy came around, feudalism was already dead or dying. What democracy did was open the door to socialism. It's very sad thing; just as kings were dispatching the old interest group (the nobles) and abolishing their privileges (serfdom), a new interest group (the masses) was empowered, and kings were compelled to grant them new and even more destructive privileges (welfare schemes).
The only authoritarian country that became wealthy during that time was Germany, but Germany is also where socialism first developed.
In Russia feudalism was only abolished in the middle of the century. China was held back by inept hereditary rulers.
Stop believing stupid things
As you say, it's a continuum, but I'd place the rise of capitalism (same thing as the end of feudalism) in the 18th century.
And this occurred in monarchical France, Austria, etc as well as "democratic" Britain (Britain wasn't really democratic until the late 19th century).
That describes perfectly British policy toward their American colonies.The Spanish and French practiced Mercantilism. There were severe restrictions on trade in their colonies in Latin America. This was something that angered the inhabitants of New Spain.
Britain, France, Spain, et al all practiced mercantilism at one point, and were all in the process of liberalizing well before the rise of democracy.
As for Germany, it had a parliament elected by universal manhood suffrage after 1871 (the first country in the world to do this). So it's no surprise that the modern welfare state was born there. Bismark had to give the socialist parliamentarians their welfare to get their votes for other purposes, just as one would predict based on the model I've been laying out.Why was it that in the 19th century capitalism flourished in the less monarchist nations of the world (UK, US, France, etc.) more so than in monarchist eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia?
The only authoritarian country that became wealthy during that time was Germany, but Germany is also where socialism first developed.
As for Austria and Russia, in both cases, you'll find that the emperors generally favored liberalization, but were stymied by various interest groups, including the aristocracy (trying to preserve what remained of their feudal privileges) and democratically elected parliaments (trying to extract new socialistic privileges). It was most definitely not a situation where the masses were crying out for liberalization which the monarchs refused to grant; just the opposite.
And that was done unilaterally by the Tsar, not by middle class voting.In Russia feudalism was only abolished in the middle of the century
But why has history shown that its mostly the Republics that embrace capitalism (US, Western Europe, South Korea, etc.) while Communists always rule like absolute monarchs? With a few exceptions, 20th century dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) have basically been monarchs themselves.
Stop believing stupid things
History doesn't show that at all.
History shows indisputably that the state has grown by leaps and bounds since the advent of democracy.
For monarchy to result in relatively liberal economic policy, two conditions must be satisfied: (1) the monarch must be secure (i.e. he must really have absolute power [or close to it], not just on paper) and, (2) the monarch must be materially self-interested (as opposed to being driven by other, ideological motives). Those dictators of the last century that you cite didn't pursue liberal policies because they weren't secure and/or were ideological socialists (not materially self-interested).With a few exceptions, 20th century dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) have basically been monarchs themselves.
Most monarchs throughout history, however, were materially self-interested, and fairly secure in their power. Hence the states they governed were practically Rothbardian in comparison with our modern, democratic Leviathans, as the chart above indicates.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-16-2016 at 06:31 PM.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I'm up for worldwide voluntaryism, but otherwise, meh.
"kings" existed because the people believed that God gave them "right" to rule. It's the foundation of the monarchal system. The DOI was a bold statement disclaiming this...that God gave the people the "right" to rule themselves. How will your global "sovereign" have legitimacy with so many disparate religions and ideologies?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
As I said, states ultimately rely on force. But force is expensive, and if the state can acquire perceived legitimacy, that makes it is easier to rule. Most of this is accomplished simply by the state existing for a while, a couple generations; "legitimate" usually boils down to "has existed for a long time." Good governance goes a long way as well; people are much less likely to revolt when enjoying peace and prosperity. Beyond that, states can actively propagandize, trying to indoctrinate the people in some kind of legitimating ideology: like the divine right of kings, though there are any number of other possible ideologies. One option for a monarchy would be the truth, which is that society is better off under monarchy.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
You're looking at this through a 19th/20th century lense: overestimating the importance of public opinion.
As explained in the post you're quoting, a state doesn't need a legitimating ideology at all.
Force alone is sufficient. Throw in inertia and material prosperity, and you're set.
But, supposing a world monarchy would want to promote an ideology, there are any number of options.
"This is justified, because it keeps the peace."
"This is justified, because it's responsible for our prosperity."
"This is justified, because God/Allah/Lord Vishnu/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever wills it."
(note that one and the same monarch can be perceived as vice-regent for different gods, as, e.g., were Roman Emperors).
...etc
There's no reason why it should be harder to develop a legitimizing ideology for world monarchy than for any other type of state.
^^^No counterargument then? Nothing intelligent to say?
Global government requires a considerable concentration of power that even if it starts with good intentions will inevitably lead to corruption and tyranny. Nation states have had many disastrous wars over the years, but have at least some semblance of a balance of power even if the nation state itself in many cases also wields too much power. It is no coincidence that increased globalism has made the consequences of wars much more devastating with World War I, World War II and the various proxy wars during the Cold War have shown.
What globalism has to do with it is entangling alliances, entangling alliances which globalism encourages lead to already serious issues getting magnified leading to much larger scale and bloodier wars than would otherwise have happened. Entangling alliances of course aren't anything new as Rome had a fair number of them as well with various germanic tribes they enlisted as mercenaries later turned on them, but the sheer scale of these sorts of conflicts is that much greater now. Each side in both World War II and the Cold War were looking to control the course of the world and not just their nations and neighbors.
In order for global government to be implemented the whole planet would have to agree to it which is never going to happen, or a extraordinary amount of bloodshed will have to occur to impose it. Which is, I think, what the one worlders have in mind. No amount of bloodshed is too much for them to achieve their goal.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-25-2016 at 01:48 PM. Reason: doomed
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
Yes. Because if things get too oppressive in the U.S. you can always go to Canada or some other country. Slaves routinely did that prior to the U.S. civil war escaping to Canada, Florida (to live among the Seminoles) and Mexico. During the Vietnam draft, some young American men went to Canada. If there is one world government and you don't like it, then where do you go? Mars?
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
The only way a global government would work is if it was run by an all powerful, all loving, completely perfect entity, i.e. God Almighty. The prophet Daniel prophesied how the feet of iron and clay would attempt to cleave together to make a global government but it never could come to pass. Finally the "stone cut out of the mountain without human hands" (Jesus Christ) would come and crush all governments to powder and create an everlasting government that would fill the entire earth. Everything else is just a pipe dream.
You think there would be no war under a man made global government and yet your screen name has the word "revolution" embedded in it? Who would rise to the top of any global government? People like Ron Paul or people like Trump/Clinton/Putin/Whoever is running China right now?
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Or, a purely greedy king, with a modicum of economic understanding, who would therefore pursue laissez faire out of self-interest.
The biological heir of the king, who would - in all probability - also be greedy...Who would rise to the top of any global government?
...and therefore, given a modicum of economic understanding, rule liberally.
That purely greeding king would eventually be deposed by other greedy kings. Plus it's not like this hasn't already been tried before. Caligula? Nero?
Again, it's already been tried. Never worked. And eventually such kingdoms always break down into civil war. Greedy princes also have greedy siblings.The biological heir of the king, who would - in all probability - also be greedy...
That's never been the case throughout human history....and therefore, given a modicum of economic understanding, rule liberally.
The U.S. government is currently becoming more oppressive precisely because greedy people are trying to become world king. But if you really feel this why, why aren't you supporting Donald Trump? He is a greedy megalomaniac with more than a modicum of economic understanding.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Connect With Us