Oops, I was infact talking to you TwoStepsForward. That'll teach me not to post without drinking coffee.
As I said, our choices as a nation are to remain a superpower (and lose our national soul), or to hand power off to someone else.
This must be done very carefully however. Just as American citizens did when forming their government, America must retain its arms while joining a
world government. One cannot trust a government to always rule with justice, nor can he trust every citizen to obey the law. Even in a federal world,
state militaries must exist as a check on the central government. I do not believe that surrendering our power (I will not say superpower because of
certain implications) is necessary. On the contrary, I believe a federal world would be more likely to succeed on those terms precisely because the
ability to dismantle it in case of corruption or failure would remain.
As a just national government should derive its power from the consent of still strong citizens, a world government should derive its power form the
consent of still strong nations.
As for private property as regards sovereignty, legal ownership could not possibly predate law and therefore government, and that legal ownership can
be no more valid than private ownership given the fact that the government derives its power from the people.
Private use of land does indeed predate government, and for most intents and purposes could be regarded as ownership, but the basis of the claim is in
your presence and use.
Can I really claim something I neither possess nor control? I go fishing with friends. The water is clear and I can see a large fish. I declare it
mine, I write up a title. Does that make it mine, even if one of my friends catch it?
Now let us apply it to governments agreed to by individuals. Suppose my friends submit to the law of my "government" by voting that the fish is
mine. Then someone in another boat tries to catch it. Does our little boat government have any legal or natural right to enforce our law on someone
who never joined that contract?
Clearly we have no "right" to, though we may very well have the ability and be unrestrained from doing so by any rule (keeping in mind that as an
analogy to a country versus a sovereign individual there is not a higher government taking us out of the state of nature.
Therefore any enforcement of rights over untouched property is an act of war in my view.
The nature of this principle (based on control/use) prevents the instant claiming of all free land. Also bear in mind that by free land I am not
talking about national parks and military bases. I don't know where you are from; it is possible that you see very little empty dirt where you are
from. Even though I live in Southern California, I see A LOT of unused dirt- there's virtually nothing but BLM land between my house and Arizona. If
you've got Google Earth, just have a look at the Eastern half of Riverside County, CA. If not, just use mapquest. A small chunk of the area I'm
referring to belong to Joshua Tree National Monument, but most of it is open desert spotted by 2 or 3 dead/dying towns (Eagle Mountain, Cactus City,
and Desert Center). I know what you're thinking- there's a reason that Desert Center's old name was Hell. That area is not all that different from
what Palm Springs and the surrounding area once were.
The population density of the US as a whole is roughly 83 people per square mile. that's a little over a third of a million square feet a person. We
both know that A. As social creatures, people are not going to just wander off into the middle of nowhere and take land for themselves. and B. Most
people couldn't make use of that land on their own anyway.
This means that given the principle that one cannot claim ownership over something they don't actually HAVE, there's no danger of all land being
The practical upshot of not enforcing government ownership of empty, unused land is that the surrender of sovereignty to the government no longer
empowers the government to enable extragovernmental usurpation of power, in this case through debt slavery.
In other words, getting back to my point which has become heavily obscured in the details of the supporting ideology: that governments should be
empowered by a strong citizenry for the benefit of that citizenry, the global society which you propose must not have any power beyond what can
logically flow from the individual to the state and upward from there, and as a result must narrow, consentual, and voidable.
If this is not the case it will suffer the same ills as national governments.
Unfortunately if this is the case, it may not be able to actually improve the international situation.
So the question becomes, would you sacrifice liberty for safety?
Only under the very gentlest conditions, in the most harmonious and benevolent of environments, are these things reliably within reach for a
Those things aren't reliably
within reach anywhere. I've been homeless on 3 occasions, at 12, at 14, and at 19. I was lucky in that I had
resources which kept those experiences very very brief. If I hadn't, "civilization" would have been far more dangerous than the "harsh"
The godforsaken desert won't kill a man who knows what he's doing until he either does something really stupid or until something kills off all the
vegitation and trappable game. The economy will take away your shelter and your food for far more trivial reasons.
But when they did, at the same time they assumed the bonds imposed by the society to which they fled.
Almost my point exactly, with one problem. One is NOT incapable of renouncing all laws in government. One is incapable of escaping their enforcement
because there is no unclaimed territory, even though plenty of it is unused. I take my lead inpart from Plato's "Dialogue of Critias"; have you
ever read it?
From where do governments derive the right to rule a man against his will? Does government by consent of the governed not ring a bell? The direction
of rule is determined by the majority but the majority cannot determine that any other man be ruled. If that were not the case there would be no
inalienable right to freedom from slavery.
As I have said, consenting people, not land, ought to be ruled over, but realizing that this cannot be practically implemented I propose the
protection of individual rights by an equally justifiable principle- the inability to own what one cannot control and therefore the freedom of
undeveloped soil, thus facilitating the rejection of the contract as described in Critias.
Society is not government because it includes more than government -- however, without government, there can be no society.
Where is it written in stone that in order to associate
people must enforce a common direction on themselves? In the relationships that I keep,
and also in my family, there is not a group decision making process. There are reactive individual decision making processes. It is not government
because it is not contractual, not binding, and not substantiated by force. I decide that I want to see my friend Dave. I call him. He decides he
wants to see me too. He decides he wants to get lunch. I decide I don't have enough money to eat out. He decides he really has to eat. I decide to
accompany him and have water, or I decide I'd rather not accompany him and invite him to drop by after he has eaten.
We interact, but we make our decisions unilaterally.
Second, the U.S. does not seem any longer to be able to promote our survival and comfort unilaterally as it could while we remained in
I'm going to catch hell for saying this but 9/11 was a VERY MINOR inconvenience to our survival and comfort. Overall a 9/11 scale attack represents a
negligible chance of death for any given American and the introduction of a moderate fear-factor to the economy, and keep in mind that this is an
abnormally massive attack. They've never managed to get anywhere close to that level before or since, even though they'd love to and have tried.
The US is fine at present as far as international concerns go. The greatest threat to Americans at present is the American government. I don't worry
about things my own size. i worry about things far larger than myself.
As an American I don't fear China; we can fight them. I fear a world government.
As a person I don't fear other people; I can fight them. I fear the American government.
And you're right... I'm not sorry. But I feel as if I should be.
Again, great points.