Political Crossfire Forums

[Eonve]

Locke14 wrote: The single government idea would surely not work, the obvious problems would arise, like the economy one. A more reasonable government would be a group of representatives, one from each nation. Many nations would be merged into one until there were 10 (or so) large nations with many territories. Then the representatives would vote on and make decisions for the world as a whole. These representatives would not be devoted to their country but more used for their opinions and ideas.

i don't think that your version is very likely. couple of questions arise.

1. why do you think that merging into 10 superstates would be more effective and feasible than into 1?

2. would not these superstates experience the same problems during the merger as the world state?

3. in order for superstates to arise, there would have to be lines of alignment. what they should be?

4. i suppose that nations with the most in common would align with each other. then would not their common traits become a divisive factor when it comes down to cooperation with other superstates? in essense, it would be a division and opposition between the self and other, us and them (just like the West and the rest).

5. what makes you think that the representatives would vote not according to their superstate's interest, but according to their own ideas? even if they would, how often do you think the ideas of people from different sections would align enough to produce mutually beneficial outcome?

[eynon]

achilles the murmidone wrote: In one world goverment the president will always be some Chinese guy.

well if the current population trends keep up the prez will be from India :-D

so em....why are we setting up a one world goverment...I can't think of a lot of stuff it could do FOR me, but I can think of a lot of things it could do TO me...

[Secondary Oak]

Locke14 wrote: The single government idea would surely not work Oh, it wouldn't?
Quote: A more reasonable government would be a group of representatives, one from each nation. Many nations would be merged into one until there were 10 (or so) large nations with many territories. Then the representatives would vote on and make decisions for the world as a whole. These representatives would not be devoted to their country but more used for their opinions and ideas. Because you just described one :)

It's obvious any world-scale-authority will have to be made of many small regions with various degrees of autonomy. Every country - but the very smallest - already work like that.
Cities, districts, counties, states, countries - we'll just add a level or two and there, and we have that unified "nation".

[Locke14]

Quote: 1. why do you think that merging into 10 superstates would be more effective and feasible than into 1?

Because this solves the economic problem discussed before.

[Eonve]

Locke14 wrote: Quote: 1. why do you think that merging into 10 superstates would be more effective and feasible than into 1?

Because this solves the economic problem discussed before.

any proof or evidence? or should i just take your word for it? :lol:

you also did not give any answer to other questions that arise from your statement.

[Locke14]

Quote: any proof or evidence?

If there is one gigantic super state than there will be no opportunity for trade and there wouldn't be multiple markets in case of a economic crash. If one market crashed, as it did in the United States (1929), there would be another to take the place of the downed market. This would not be a possibility if there was only one super state.

[Secondary Oak]

Locke14 wrote: Quote: any proof or evidence?

If there is one gigantic super state than there will be no opportunity for trade and there wouldn't be multiple markets in case of a economic crash. If one market crashed, as it did in the United States (1929), there would be another to take the place of the downed market. This would not be a possibility if there was only one super state.
Look, there's already a world market, with its own set of rules and regulations. The only change from a unified government will be better enforcement of these, and maybe single currency. Things will not be more likely to crash than they are now.

The 1929 crash affected the entire world.

[cap'n queasy]

d_the_sandman wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: You really should read F.A. Hayeks "The Road to Serfdom" it's a work of true genius IMHO.

I've seen this book and was going to buy it. I think its about the Holocaust and how state-run production leads to tyranny. Is that about right?
Well, it's not about the Holocaust per se. But the Nazi regime is an interesting case in point for his contention that a centralized bureaucracy and collectivization will surely lead to tyranny, as it has always done in history.
I really, really recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Liberty.
Centralization generally occurs right before a war and then after the war it is hard to get rid of because there is a an opportunity to use for profit, this is the trap that leads to a Collectivist fascist dictatorship.

[cap'n queasy]

Secondary Oak wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Look at this:
http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm
Centralization leads to tyranny not freedom as is commonly supposed.
You really should read F.A. Hayeks "The Road to Serfdom" it's a work of true genius IMHO.
d_the_sandman wrote: I've seen this book and was going to buy it. I think its about the Holocaust and how state-run production leads to tyranny. Is that about right?

There's a big difference between state-run production (like communism or war-time economics) and state-regulated economy (like in almost every single country in the world).

Economy works inside huge markets like the USA and the EU. It also works in huge economical regions like east asia, and it also works in a truly global scale. A united government will only ensure further stability; when you have a single regulating power with authority you can prevent and/or remedy localized catastrophes (like local stock-market collapses).

I have to stop here and admit my knowledge on economy is fairly limited, but as far as I can see unified economy will not make anything any worse, and will most likely perform better than the current system.

You see, Oak, what you are calling stability is a euphemism for tyranny. That is the excuse of all dictators in history. "We need stability". :wink:
I don't want to see this happen on a global scale.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Quote:
Centralization leads to tyranny not freedom as is commonly supposed.


centralization leads to power, strength and advancement. the more decentralized the government is, the weaker it is and hence it is easier for a potential tyrant to acquire control of it. then he can start gaining control over the rest of the country. only centralized government with strong organization and long standing institutional traditions can resist such a takeover.
Like Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Pre ww2 Japan, The USSR, Fascist Italy, The British Empire, Rome, etc etc? You don't know what you are talking about. Centralization of power has led to tyrannical totalitarianism every time in History.
Name some examples where it hasn't.

I don't give a s**t if you don't like my religious ideas. I don't like your political ideas that will lead to exactly what I am saying they will lead to.
Christianity is based on reality, I think you don't like hearing that because it puts a kink in your world view.

[thundertaker]

Hey! There was nothing totalitarian about the British Empire, they introduced the rule of law into the colonies, so the authorities couldn't just do what they wanted....
I find you mentioning the BE in the same breath as Nazi Germany and the USSR to be totally OTT.......

[Eonve]

cap'n queasy wrote: Like Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Pre ww2 Japan, The USSR, Fascist Italy, The British Empire, Rome, etc etc? You don't know what you are talking about. Centralization of power has led to tyrannical totalitarianism every time in History.
Name some examples where it hasn't.

it is easy to see that you don't understand anything in the political theory. you obviously don't know what totalitarianism is and how it is different from other forms of non-democratic rule. it is also evident that you have a prejudice against political entities that have a system of governance different from that of the United States.

you should know, though, that even here in the United State political power has a fairly high level of centralization. i wonder why you did not place it in the same list with other examples that you have listed. oh wait, may be because the centralization of power did not lead to "tyrannical totalitarianism" and this is one of the many examples in history that defy your criticism?

Quote: I don't give a s**t if you don't like my religious ideas. I don't like your political ideas that will lead to exactly what I am saying they will lead to.
Christianity is based on reality, I think you don't like hearing that because it puts a kink in your world view.

of course you don't like my political ideas. they are not for ignorant idiots to like them. they are developed for educated, intelligent people with a sufficient knowledge of political theory and political philosophy. so why don't you leave them alone and go play with the your toys of religiosity and ignorance. it fits you better than attacking my political ideas with your devoid of any sense accusations.

as for Christianity being based of reality, that is the dumbest thing i've heard in months. Christianity, as any other religion is a myth and a social process that has been developed to keep the lower classes in obedience. it is an ideology for slaves who do not get anything good in this life and therefore look forward to the reward for their ignorance and stupidity in the life to come. in a certain way, it reveals us a part of reality, but its theology and the dogmas are nothing but mere lies.

[cap'n queasy]

thundertaker wrote: Hey! There was nothing totalitarian about the British Empire, they introduced the rule of law into the colonies, so the authorities couldn't just do what they wanted....
I find you mentioning the BE in the same breath as Nazi Germany and the USSR to be totally OTT.......
Perhaps tyrannical would be a better descriptive term.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: you should know, though, that even here in the United State political power has a fairly high level of centralization. i wonder why you did not place it in the same list with other examples that you have listed. oh wait, may be because the centralization of power did not lead to "tyrannical totalitarianism" and this is one of the many examples in history that defy your criticism?
No, I would definitely put it in the category of heading for totalitarianism.
I like F.A. Hayeks "the Road to Serfdom" if you read that, you will find that Hayek proposes exactly this scenario. Correctly too, IMHO
I guess you haven't read many of my posts, if you think I am easy on the USA's slide into collectivist tyranny. I am not an apologist for America's shortcomings. We haven't quite reached that point as of yet, but we are only a hairs breadth away from it.
Quote: they are developed for educated, intelligent people with a sufficient knowledge of political theory and political philosophy.
Instead of spouting some pompous crap why don't you start on that list of Centralized collectivist nations that defy my criticism.
:lol:

Quote: it is an ideology for slaves
You sound like Leo Strauss or Thomas Hobbes. I hope someday you realize just how mistaken you, and they, are.

[Secondary Oak]

cap'n queasy wrote: Centralization of power has led to tyrannical totalitarianism every time in History.

Again, you fail to make the difference - what you are talking about is centralization of power inside the ruling body, in terms of insufficient separation between the branches (executive, legislative, judicial), and too much power for the leader. What I'm talking about is combining numerous countries under one rule - democratic, preferably - but anyhow it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. The US is an example of the latter.

Quote: You see, Oak, what you are calling stability is a euphemism for tyranny. That is the excuse of all dictators in history. "We need stability".
When times are hard, all leaders call for stability, dictators or not.

[cap'n queasy]

Secondary Oak wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Centralization of power has led to tyrannical totalitarianism every time in History.

Again, you fail to make the difference - what you are talking about is centralization of power inside the ruling body, in terms of insufficient separation between the branches (executive, legislative, judicial), and too much power for the leader. What I'm talking about is combining numerous countries under one rule - democratic, preferably - but anyhow it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. The US is an example of the latter.

Quote: You see, Oak, what you are calling stability is a euphemism for tyranny. That is the excuse of all dictators in history. "We need stability".
When times are hard, all leaders call for stability, dictators or not.
And when times are not hard anymore they keep the regulations that create "stability".
Here's some info about Hayek. I really do recommend his book "The Road to Serfdom" The last link is an interesting cartoon based on his book that was featured in "Look" magazine. Check it out if you want to. If you don't want to, why bother? I did my job by providing the information, it's up to you whether or not it's worth your time or not. :-D
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayek.html
http://www.freedomsnest.com/qhayek.html
http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm

[cap'n queasy]

Here's a link to read many articles etc written by Hayek.
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayekonweb.html

[thundertaker]

cap'n queasy wrote: thundertaker wrote: Hey! There was nothing totalitarian about the British Empire, they introduced the rule of law into the colonies, so the authorities couldn't just do what they wanted....
I find you mentioning the BE in the same breath as Nazi Germany and the USSR to be totally OTT.......
Perhaps tyrannical would be a better descriptive term.

I'd choose 'paternalistic'........... :wink:

[Eonve]

cap'n queasy wrote:
No, I would definitely put it in the category of heading for totalitarianism.
I like F.A. Hayeks "the Road to Serfdom" if you read that, you will find that Hayek proposes exactly this scenario. Correctly too, IMHO
I guess you haven't read many of my posts, if you think I am easy on the USA's slide into collectivist tyranny. I am not an apologist for America's shortcomings. We haven't quite reached that point as of yet, but we are only a hairs breadth away from it.

this is where the logic and thinking of people like you is so screwed up. if you think that US is headed towards totalitarianism, you have certainly never lived in a totalitarian state and have no idea whatsoever what it is like and what it takes to change a democratic state into a totalitarian one. but if you are so sure, why don't you start by giving me a definition of a totalitarian state and showing how US fits under that definition.

Quote: Quote: it is an ideology for slaves
You sound like Leo Strauss or Thomas Hobbes. I hope someday you realize just how mistaken you, and they, are.

no, i actually think about it more in Hegel's terms. i do not like Hobbes and i don't think that his philosophy was that good.

[cap'n queasy]

Eonve wrote: cap'n queasy wrote:
No, I would definitely put it in the category of heading for totalitarianism.
I like F.A. Hayeks "the Road to Serfdom" if you read that, you will find that Hayek proposes exactly this scenario. Correctly too, IMHO
I guess you haven't read many of my posts, if you think I am easy on the USA's slide into collectivist tyranny. I am not an apologist for America's shortcomings. We haven't quite reached that point as of yet, but we are only a hairs breadth away from it.

this is where the logic and thinking of people like you is so screwed up. if you think that US is headed towards totalitarianism, you have certainly never lived in a totalitarian state and have no idea whatsoever what it is like and what it takes to change a democratic state into a totalitarian one. but if you are so sure, why don't you start by giving me a definition of a totalitarian state and showing how US fits under that definition.

Quote: Quote: it is an ideology for slaves
You sound like Leo Strauss or Thomas Hobbes. I hope someday you realize just how mistaken you, and they, are.

no, i actually think about it more in Hegel's terms. i do not like Hobbes and i don't think that his philosophy was that good.
Youngster, I've lived in this country for 40 years and I've seen it change. For the worse.
A totalitarian state is when the State controls all aspects of your life. The US does this mainly economically, and until you have owned several businesses as I have over the years don't tell me my business is not controlled by the state more than it should be.

Your privacy is gone, as well. If the government tried to put cameras everywhere like they are now back in the seventies you would see a lot of out of work politicians. The same goes for routine fingerprinting. That's equivalent to saying you are guilty until proven innocent, it's an invasion of my privacy.
Don't try to tell me things you've read about that I have experience in reality. I know people in government and I've been involved in the seamy underside of how things are done in a corrupt good ole boy network. You don't know s**t from shinola. Realize that and you are on the road to adulthood.

Hegel is not that different than than Strauss, Hobbes and that ilk.
BTW when have you lived in a totalitarian state so as to have a basis for your comparison?