Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: Global Government Means World Oppression: Fascism on a Global Scale, Global Totalitarianism

  1. #1

    Global Government Means World Oppression: Fascism on a Global Scale, Global Totalitarianism

    Global Government Means World Oppression: Fascism on a Global Scale, the Most Totalitarian Outcome for Humanity Imaginable

    “[Government] covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

    Government is force. The only core power any government has is to crack down on “criminals.” The essence of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beatings, killings and imprisoning. Government is the antithesis of liberty. World government is the antithesis of world liberty. Government in its best state is a tolerable burden, and in its worst and intolerable one. Never place your trust in government.

    Under a global government, the world would lack the diversity of alternative and competing systems. It would be unchecked by competition. The benefits from competing systems would be missing. Instead it decrees would have no counterbalancing alternatives to compete and provided counterbalancing checks on its restraints upon freedom and liberty. There would exist no contemporary alternative forms of government to offer examples of various degrees of greater liberty and freedom. It would be unchecked by other governments. Progress would be stunted from lack of competition from alternative systems more conducive to free enterprise. The progressive benefits from having alternative governments with less burdensome taxing and licensing and regulatory systems would be non-existent. The populace would not have contemporaneous examples of comparison It would be unrestrained. . It would be unrestrained by national sovereignty, unrestrained by international law. It reach would be unlimited. A world government means a worldwide monopoly on global power. A monopoly of force.

    A world government can only keep people glued together by the exercise of force. It is not peaceful at all. It is aggression, pure and simple. The very concept of a world government violates the very core of the non-aggression principal. It is the antithesis of individualism, self-government, of libertarianism, of freedom.

    Military would not disappear under a world government. Instead it would simply be directed, used and equipped for policing and controlling the people. New weapons, equipment, technology, to control the masses. The military Industrial Complex does not disappear. It simply is relabeled the Police Industrial Complex. Its inevitable end result is not the utopia that its sophomorically foolish advocates fantasize, but instead the worst tyranny history has ever known.

    Further, a World government would still maintain plenty of other wars only with the all-encompassing global reach – a war on drugs, a war on money, a war on privacy, a war on terror, a war on “crimes”, a war on thought, a war on you. The Global Government uncheck by other governments, by competition. Its police state entities would be unstoppable - A Global DEA, TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FDA, EPA, USDA, CDC, TSA, USDA, Global Police, Global SWAT, Global Civil Forfeiture, Global income tax, Global property tax, Global VAT tax, Global cigarette tax, Global consumption tax, Global alcohol tax, Global fuel tax, Global energy tax, Global carbon tax, Global Global Eminent Domain, Global control of money, global control of currency, Global control of trade, Global compulsory education [indoctrination], Global Central bank, Global war on drugs, Global gun control, Global control over education, global control over citizens, Global internet control, Global speech codes, Global banning of raw milk, Global licensing of everything, Global Prohibitions, Global reallocation of resources to crony interest on a global scale, Global safe spaces, Global prosecutors, Global police to enforce it all-protect and serve (the ruling elite), global bureaucracy having control over your life globally, .... It reach unlimited. There would be no escape for whistleblowers and other heroes (like Snowden) who speak truth to power.

    Big governments make for small citizens. The natural course of government is to take power. The broader the reach of government the more arbitrary its actions. As government gets bigger, freedom gets smaller. “Working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all [power is]” is usurped and consolidated into one central government. “Any highly centralized government is likely to be tyrannical, which is why the Founding Fathers were careful to disperse power.” “It will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.”

    “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson. ”Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778). Just trace the systemic and consistent path of our own US federal government for one example. Over its history, the federal government has continuously assumed a vast and unprecedented set of powers, and continues to expand each assume power step by step.

    "The unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism did not begin in the ‘30s and ‘40s with the men usually associated with those names. Those horrors were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to the consolidation of power in central government in the name of “social justice.” It was decent but misguided Germans, who would have cringed at the thought of extermination and genocide, who built the Trojan Horse for Hitler to take over. ... But the scum that rises to the top has an agenda of command and control that’s leading toward totalitarianism". – Walter Williams

    Coercion is government’s main attribute, backed by force. Which government will have greater coercive powers – a small localized government with limited scope and power, or an endless world government expanding its tentacles to every corner of the globe, reaching into every house and school and mind?

    “By far the most numerous and most flagrant violations of personal liberty and individual rights are performed by governments ... The major crimes throughout history, the ones executed on the largest scale, have been committed not by individuals or bands of individuals but by governments, as a deliberate policy of those governments—that is, by the official representatives of governments, acting in their official capacity.” – John Hospers

    Government is not a tool for freedom, but a machine for restraining freedom, for suppressing liberty. A world government would be the biggest, most power machine for destroying oppressing freedom ever. And not simply arithmetically more powerful, but geometrically more powerful. Its power would attract the most power-hungry. Those who seek to wield power over other. To exploit power for their own gains. It is the pathway for the most totalitarian tyranny ever imagined. It does not matter if we were so lucky that such power were only used by benevolent rulers for a thousand years. Eventually power is abused. Absolute power is abused absolutely. A world government would be the most absolute power beyond any kingdom, any empire and government that ever existed.

    As we have witnesses throughout history, time and time again, due to basic human nature and human fallibility, a world government would invariably end badly - very, very, very badly. Power concentrated in so few individuals with so little connection with those they rule is a horribly bad thing. No group of humans should ever have that much power – ever!

    Government is hazardous to your health.

    Government Kills! Power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely. Abuse of power comes first from having power to abuse. There can be no abuse of power without first having the power to abuse. Think of the hundreds of millions killed, starved, impoverished, imprisoned, beaten, tortured, raped and exterminated by their own governments during the twentieth century. The more power government has, the more abuse of that power there will be. A world government controlling every continent, having power reaching into every corner of the globe, has the ultimate power, and will yield the ultimate abuse of that power.
    “Power has killed over 203 million people in this [20th] century. … Even if all to be said about absolute Power was that it causes war and the attendant slaughter of the young and the most capable … this would be enough. But much worse even without the excuse of combat, Power also massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controls—in fact, several times more of them.” “The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. … In total, during the first eighty-eight years of [20th] century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not of germs. – R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (Transaction Press 1994).

    “In the twentieth century the number of people killed by their own governments under authoritarian regimes is four times the number killed in all this century’s wars combined.” –John Shattuck (Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights 1993-1998)


    “[G]overnment’s today throughout the world could care less about their citizens. When they show signs of caring it is merely to satiate the people back to sleep so that they can stay in control. The leaders of governments throughout the world today consist of the worst humanity has to offer. The most egomaniacal, narcissistic specimens on the planet … They care about power and maintaining it.” Mike Krieger, The Global Revolution Is Accelerating, January 27, 2011. As R3 argues, a global government would be no different from the current governments, just bigger and more powerful. As a result, however, its destructive forces would be exponentially more devastating.

    Just look at what the “benevolent” government of the USA has done with just limited powers a tiny fraction of a global government:

    “But let’s look at just a few twentieth-century examples: They confiscated people’s gold. They repudiated gold clauses in government debts. They provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and then acted like they were surprised. They incarcerated Japanese-Americans for no crime at all. They injected dangerous, mind-altering drugs into American servicemen without their knowledge. They radiated the American people in the Pacific Northwest and then deliberately hid this information from them. They have surreptitiously confiscated and plundered people’s income and savings through the Federal Reserve System. They have plundered and terrorized the citizenry through the IRS. And, most recently, they have sent our fellow citizens to their deaths thousands of miles away in the pursuit of a relatively insignificant cause.” – Jacob G. Hornberger, Gun Control, Patriotism and Civil Disobedience, Pamphlet published by International Society for Individual Liberty; also The Tyranny of Gun Control, 28 (Future of Freedom Foundation 1997).
    .
    From the 1940s through the 1970s, more than 4000 radiation experiments were conducted on tens of thousands of Americans. Some of the experiments have resulted in huge lawsuits. At Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, one lawsuit claims, 829 pregnant women in anemia studies were fed radioactive iron without their knowledge. ... Another lawsuit claims that doctors in Rochester, NY, secretly injected patients with plutonium. And yet another says that physicians in Cincinnati gave cancer patients heavy doses of gamma rays. ... The patients “were never asked by anybody.” The poor were also fair game. They almost always received free medical treatment, noted Dr. Paul Beeson, chairman of the department of internal medicine at Yale from 1952 to 1965. “We were taking care of them and felt we had a right to get some return from them.” ... One doctor, Robert Stone, was uneasy about his TBI [total-body irradiation] experiments at the University of California Hospital. His records referred to his patients only by their initials. “With the initials removed,” Stone wrote, “there will be no means by which patients can ever connect themselves up with the report.” That, he said, would avoid “either adverse publicity or litigation”—a major government concern then. - U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORTS, Tales from the Crypt, September 18, 1995.
    .
    “In the twentieth century, the United States government forced 100,000 United States citizens into concentration camps. In 1941, American citizens of Japanese descent were herded into concentration camps run by the United States government. Like the victims of other mass deportations, these Americans were allowed to retain only the property they could carry with them. Everything else—including family businesses built up over generations—had to be sold immediately at fire-sale prices or abandoned. The camps were “ringed with barbed wire fences and guard towers.” During the war, the federal government pushed Central and South American governments to round up persons of Japanese ancestry in those nations and have them shipped to the U.S. concentration camps. ... the incarceration of Japanese-Americans continued long after any plausible national security justification had vanished. ... what if the war had gone differently? What if a frustrated, angry America, continuing to lose a war in the Pacific, had been tempted to take revenge on the “enemy” that was, in the concentration camps, a safe target. Would killing all the Japanese be a potential policy option? In 1944, by which time America’s eventual victory in the war seemed assured, the Gallup Poll asked Americans, “What do you think we should do with Japan, as a country, after the war?” Thirteen percent of Americans chose the response “Kill all Japanese people.”” - David B. Kopel, in Book Review: Lethal Laws. by Jay Simpkin, Aaron Zelman, & Alan M. Rice, Jews for The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc., 2872 South Wentworth Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207, (414) 769-0760, 15 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 355, 381-382 (1995) citing Gallup Poll released Dec. 20, 1944, question 2, in 1 The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971, at 477 (1972).

    And then of course, are all the basic detrimental consequences of government that would be magnified geometrically when applied by a global government to a global scale.

    If you want a picture of World Government "Imagine a Boot Stomping on a Human Face--Forever"

    For instance Control over the money supply in the hands of a few can lead to devastating levels of poverty. A tight grip on the printing of money by misguided, incompetent, or selfishly motivated elite would mean massively increased inflation pushing prices so high that the masses can only afford the most meager subsistence. Then the “benevolent” rulers can wield their power to “generously” save the starving masses with cheap necessities, breadcrumbs from the elite, all the while protecting their interests. It is mass Stockholm syndrome. Just look at North Korea. And this is only one example of the horrible distortions to occur from a government wielding global power. Virtually anything the government does, because it is global, will have horrible unintended ramifications dwarfing anything we have ever seen before in history.

    As governments distort market prices and create monopolies, a d global government will distort prices and create monopolies on a worldwide scale wreaking havoc exponentially greater than any individual nation could do. Government intervention is hampered in its endeavors to make a commodity cheaper and cause greater costs elsewhere when it does. Government however certainly have power to make it more expensive. Governments have the power to create monopolies and they certainly do both intentionally and inadvertently. They force the consumers to pay monopoly prices. They wield such power lavishly. A world government, because it has global reach, makes the damage from such actions exponentially greater. A world government means worldwide monopoly for those corporatists favored by the ruling elite. Is that what you desire?

    And then there is the government track record for taking any problem and making it worse. With each successive failure, government simply doubles down, expanding its power and issuing greater decrees and more laws and regulations and crimes. “Never in the history of the world has there been a situation so bad that the government can’t make it worse.” Apply that to the global scale. Applying the governments’ track record for making things worse on a global scale increases the damage, not proportionally, but exponentially.

    Government is most accountable to the people when it stays local; when political leaders are most accessible to the citizens and citizen voices can be heard; when power is most diluted and diffused among the citizens. The bigger the government is the more disconnected the ruling elite are from the citizens.

    Lastly aside from the greater dangers of totalitarianism, oppression, economic abuse, exploitation, economic distortions, suppression of minority groups and viewpoints, a global government does not mean freedom from war. Look at all the wars that occur within just “one” nation - The U.S. Civil War, the Revolutionary War, Shay’s Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Bacon’s Rebellion, Texas Rebellion, Zecatacan Rebellion, French Revolution, Rus’ rebellion from the Tatars under Ivan the Terrible, Boxer Rebellion, Xinhai Rebellion, White Lotus Rebellion, Taiping Rebellion, Mao’s Rebellion, Bolshevists Rebellion, Chechen rebellion, and going back through timeless history – Ionian Rebellion, Spatacus’ Rebellion, Celtic Rebellion. Not a year goes by without a rebellion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_rebellions

    Liberty and freedom advance only by shrinking government; making it as small as possible; more accountable to individual citizens, thereby diluting and dispersing power. Global government is a global monopoly on force and power. Global government is the enemy of liberty.

    Peace is advance by embracing the right to self-determination. Peace is advanced by upholding the right of peoples to dissolve political bonds that artificially hold them together, beholden to rules and suppressed by the power of force.

    The greatest solution to peace among nations is not for a world government. The solution is free and open trade; free and open dialogue; maximizing freedom. It is not a worldwide monopoly on force.

    "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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Under a global government, the world would lack the diversity of alternative and competing systems. It would be unchecked by competition. The benefits from competing systems would be missing.


















    Yes...

    What ever would we do without inter-state competition...

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Yes... What ever would we do without inter-state competition...
    This comments reflects R3 has failed to read my article, once again ignoring any reality that does not support his totalitarian world view. Try reading the article before making ignorant comments.
    "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.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, that's local government; every one of those atrocities was committed by a local government.
    R3 has failed to provide any basis whatsoever to support R3's contention that expanding the power of abusive government to all encompassing worldwide levels (corruption, corporatism, MIC/PIC, NSA, worldwide surveillance, worldwide police enforcement, speech codes, taxation, licensing, regulations, DEA, gulag's, Wacos, worldwide prison system, etc. ) would magically transform the governing elite into much nicer, beneficial rulers, less likely to abuse their ever greater powers.

    R3's (non) argument is that giving those who abuse power greater power miraculously makes them less inclined to abuse it.

    By R3's insanity, the way to insure Hillary or Trump (or an Amin or Mugabe or Mao or Stalin) won't abuse power is to expand their powers worldwide.

    Last edited by AZJoe; 10-16-2016 at 01:22 PM.
    "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.

  6. #5
    A World Order to end all wars?


    With a world government foreign policy would just be renamed domestic policy. Our alliances would be entangled in the ultimate way. Crushing rebellions in Ukraine would be the new equivalent of a drug bust down the block.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  7. #6
    R3, Zippy, CPUd - the fifth column of RPF.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    What ever would we do without inter-state competition...
    A state survives by creating fear. No fear, no state.
    Interstate boogeymen will be replaced with intrastate boogeymen...you know..."radicalized". The paper-thin (literally) commitment that keeps citizens from being droned will be erased, along with any other imagined "rights". In a global state, everyone is a suspected terrorist, thus martial law, curfews, and extermination of citizens, both directly and collaterally, will be unchecked.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  9. #8
    You will never rid the world of conflict. Never. To go to such outrageous measures as to create a supra-national entity with utopian intentions to do away with wars is the sort of stuff that George Orwell novels are made of.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 10-16-2016 at 03:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    Some of you still watch the news, and it shows.

    "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



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    You will never rid the world of conflict. Never. To go to such outrageous measures as to create a supra-national entity with utopian intentions to do away with wars is the sort of stuff that George Orwell novels are made of.
    1984 is the globalists playbook.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    A state survives by creating fear. No fear, no state.
    Interstate boogeymen will be replaced with intrastate boogeymen...you know..."radicalized". The paper-thin (literally) commitment that keeps citizens from being droned will be erased, along with any other imagined "rights". In a global state, everyone is a suspected terrorist, thus martial law, curfews, and extermination of citizens, both directly and collaterally, will be unchecked.
    You need to think about why states do the things they do.

    Few rulers just wake up in the morning hell bent on tyrannizing for the sake of tyrannizing.

    They're usually driven by practical incentives (like, trying to remain in office).

    Most of those perverse incentives are a product of democracy, most of the others a product of geopolitics.

    Monarchical world government eliminates both.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-16-2016 at 06:19 PM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    A World Order to end all wars?

    With a world government foreign policy would just be renamed domestic policy. Our alliances would be entangled in the ultimate way. Crushing rebellions in Ukraine would be the new equivalent of a drug bust down the block.
    This was addressed in the other thread, at length.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You need to think about why states do the things they do.

    Few rulers just wake up in the morning hell bent on tyrannizing for the sake of tyrannizing.

    They're usually driven by practical incentives (like, trying to remain in office)POWER
    .


    DUH.
    WHICH IS WHY THEY CONVINCE THE SHEEP THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY.
    C'mon Rev.
    Last edited by otherone; 10-16-2016 at 07:28 PM.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    .


    DUH.
    WHICH IS WHY THEY CONVINCE THE SHEEP THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY.
    C'mon Rev.
    You're missing the point, which is that the form of government dramatically changes the kinds of incentives that rulers have. For instance, an elected politician might take a $1 million bribe campaign contribution from Goldman in exchange for supporting a $700 billion bank bailout, as that would represent a $1 million profit for him (it's not his $700 billion that's wasted). A king would never do this, as it would represent a $699.999 billion loss for him (tax revenues are his personal income, that $700 billion comes out of his own pocket).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-16-2016 at 07:34 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You're missing the point, which is that the form of government dramatically changes the kinds of incentives that rulers have. For instance, an elected politician might take a $1 million bribe campaign contribution from Goldman in exchange for supporting a $700 billion bank bailout, as that would represent a $1 million profit for him (it's not his $700 billion). A king would never do this, as it would represent a $699.999 billion loss for him (tax revenue is his personal income, he's paying that $700 billion out of his own pocket).
    There is no incentive for a population to accept an authority other than for it's own safety. For an authority to remain sovereign, it therefore rules by fear. In order to remain sovereign, the populace must have a reason to fear.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    There is no incentive for a population to accept an authority other than for it's own safety. For an authority to remain sovereign, it therefore rules by fear. In order to remain sovereign, the populace must have a reason to fear.
    Okay...

    Sure, rulers often rule by fear....

    That has nothing to do with what I said.

    I'm talking about why rulers do what they do, and why unelected rulers have incentives to do things differently than elected rulers.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Okay...

    Sure, rulers often rule by fear....
    No. Rulers don't rule by fear. Rulers rule because they CREATE fear. They CREATE a "need" for the sheep to be lead. If, for instance, every person on the planet died except US citizens, do you think the fedgov would pack it's bags and leave? Or do you think a new "enemy" would be identified, Winston?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    No. Rulers don't rule by fear. Rulers rule because they CREATE fear. They CREATE a "need" for the sheep to be lead. If, for instance, every person on the planet died except US citizens, do you think the fedgov would pack it's bags and leave? Or do you think a new "enemy" would be identified, Winston?
    Okay, great.

    Now, what does that have to do with what I said?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You need to think about why states do the things they do.

    Few rulers just wake up in the morning hell bent on tyrannizing for the sake of tyrannizing.

    They're usually driven by practical incentives (like, trying to remain in office).

    Most of those perverse incentives are a product of democracy, most of the others a product of geopolitics.

    Monarchical world government eliminates both.
    Not necessarily. There are well documented cases of crazy ass kings and queens who terrorized people for $#@!s-n-giggles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Not necessarily. There are well documented cases of crazy ass kings and queens who terrorized people for $#@!s-n-giggles.
    Yes, and they're few and far between.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Okay, great.

    Now, what does that have to do with what I said?
    What motivation does a populace have in the absence of interstate warfare to accept a state?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    What motivation does a populace have in the absence of interstate warfare to accept a state?
    All states rely ultimately on force to maintain themselves.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    All states rely ultimately on force to maintain themselves.
    So your whole "hey, there'd be no interstate war" comment was semantic?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    So your whole "hey, there'd be no interstate war" comment was semantic?
    No

    War =/= policing

    Millions of people don't die every year from policing.

    Cities are nuked or firebombed as a result of policing.

    Massive armies having at each other produces more causalities than police enforcing the law against a largely compliant population.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No

    War =/= policing

    Millions of people don't die every year from policing.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    That's missing the point, since that (the occasional ruler going berserk) is a problem for states in general, not just a world state.

    There's no reason to think a world state would be more likely to engage in Stalinesque butchery than a local state.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There's no reason to think a world state would be more likely to engage in Stalinesque butchery than a local state.
    A local state, by "elections" or other local accountability (see my earlier rifle range comment) would not have the power or resources to wage violence on a global level.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    A local state, by "elections" or other local accountability (see my earlier rifle range comment) would not have the power or resources to wage violence on a global level.
    If every state (local or global) has the same probability of "going full Stalin," it makes no difference.

    Suppose that on average every state (local or global) will go full Stalin for 1 in every 100 years.

    Thus, with a global state, over the course of a century, the entire world's population would be Stalinized for 1 year.

    Whereas, with a world of 100 independent states, 1% of the world's population would be Stalinized every year.

    Over the course of the century, the same number of people would be Stalinized; hence it makes no difference.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If every state (local or global) has the same probability of "going full Stalin," it makes no difference.

    Suppose that on average every state (local or global) will go full Stalin for 1 in every 100 years.

    Thus, with a global state, over the course of a century, the entire world's population would be Stalinized for 1 year.

    Whereas, with a world of 100 independent states, 1% of the world's population would be Stalinized every year.

    Over the course of the century, the same number of people would be Stalinized; hence it makes no difference.
    Of course it does. Those in a local state have resources and accessibility to do something about it.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Well, 7 billion people in the gulag is a small price to pay for the end of "war between states".

    s/
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Global Collectivist Government or Global Balkanization Breakdown?
    By Bastiat's The Law in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 08:50 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 11:38 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 05:08 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-12-2009, 03:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •