reply to post by daskakik
I think the point of the OP is that your view isn't the only one and that sooner or later a one world government will come to be in one form or
another. It doesn't have to be all about authoritariansim it could be a world wide 1776.
It would be nice if the whole purpose of debate was rooted in finding the truth, or an answer to a problem. Regardless of differing view points, the
truth remains the truth, and while that truth must necessarily - in one way or another - encompass all view points, in the end truth is truth. Truth
is not democratic, neither benign or malignant, is is objective of all possible subjective angles and curves. The truth is not what we make of it, it
simply is. The allness of isness, all that is is truth.
Debate is a method by which we can work together, by using competing arguments, to better discover the all of is. If debate is used to find the truth
to this question; "...why oppose it?", then our goal - as individuals cooperating to compete - is to find some sort of resolution that in someway,
or with greater fortune in all ways, accurately describes the truth.
This is quite a task, answering the question to why oppose one world government, which logically leads to the assertion that one world government is
inevitable. This presumed inevitability necessarily discounts opposition as a valid method to by which obtain the truth. For the O.P. the truth
becomes translated to an inevitability of world domination by some unnamed government. Slight suggestions are made as to what form of government this
one world government would be, but nothing beyond that. Just a vague suggestion that a democratic process might be the best form of government to
facilitate world domination.
Some who support, or advocate one world government prefer the use of the term federation, and one would hope that these supporters are supporting an
idea of federalism. Federalism is the foundational principle of the Constitution for the United States of America, and federalism appears to be
greatly misunderstood. The U.S. Constitution is federalism in the sense that it divides sovereignty (inherent political power) between first the
people, then the states, all of which strike a covenant with a federal government which itself has the power granted them divided even further. This
"diffusion" of power is intended to protect the power and keep it from corruption.
Well, it looks good on paper.
It is, of course, a system of government I believe in mightily, this federalism, as it seems to be the form of government least likely to deny and/or
disparage the rights of individuals. However, federalism has demonstrably failed to do this in a nation where a federal Constitution expressly and
unambiguously prohibits that federal government from trampling on peoples rights, and where each state constitution with in this union does the
precise same thing. All these fail safes put in and yet this U.S. government of federalism is filled with government employee's whose attitude is
that things are quite different from what I just described. Rather than it being the people who hold the inherent political power, it is that they
once did "long ago" but they gave it up so that we could have a government.
Instead of diffusion of power, it has been a steady aggregation of power, where individuals are told that in order to live in the society governed by
these government employees must go along with the licensing schemes and regulatory agencies that are only there to make sure you get through the
system properly. The people increasingly work for the government, instead of the government working for them. Yet as self evident is this is, many
will argue it is not so and that I am only exaggerating. Many will argue there is nothing wrong with all these licensing schemes, regulations and
perpetual income taxation. That it is just the necessary oil needed to grease the slow grinding wheels of government.
Ever slow, and the bigger it gets the more cumbersome and sloth like it gets. Sloth like because this is an animal that has a tendency to move very
slowly, if move at all. However, when a sloth attacks, it is as quick and as terrifying as an attack by an other beast. This is government; slow to
move, moving slowly when it does move, unless it attacks and then with lightning speed they strike with their terrible swift sword. Federalism has
done little to stop the rise of bureaucrats, the modern day tyrants.
Theories are only as good as their practical usage allows them to be. If the theory of good government being big government has any validity you
would think big governments that have existed throughout history would exhibit certain truths about what made these historical big governments
successful. Some could argue that Rome, lasting a millennium, was successful because of this longevity. Of course, the history of Rome goes through
many epochs and eras, where it began humbly with an eye towards liberty, and evolved into a reign of emperors, each one leading Rome towards its
We could, for the sake of argument, point to some big governments today as successful governments that might serve as a valid model for forming a one
world government. If the O.P. has somehow tapped into the truth and one world government is inevitable, then under those conditions I would have to
advocate federalism in spite of its failures. However, there will be other that will advocate some other form of government, many operating under the
belief that democracy is the answer.
The biggest problem with democracy is that it tends to favor majority rule over the rule of law. The rule of law has many tenets but one of the
founding tenets of this rule of law is equality under the law. All people everywhere are subject to this law. Democracies, all too often, insist
that whatever the majority of voters want is how the elected should act. This ideal is rooted in the belief that law is some sort of invention made
by people, and is contrasted this way with the laws of science that instead endeavor to accurately describe phenomenon and its relation to the
environment around it. Thus, the law of gravity is not the same thing as "the law" of jaywalking. Of course, this is true, but only because
"jaywalking" is not law. It is a legislative act. It does not describe any phenomenon and its relationship to the world around it, it is a
positive act of prohibition.
My point with that is this: If we are to succumb to the inevitability of a one world government, one form or another, the people living with this
government will have to deal with law. The question then becomes what is law? Of course, there are various answers to this question, all presenting
different answers. You might say viewpoints. There are, however, certain viewpoints that are so self evident that it is easy for all to agree on
this self evidence. It is easy enough for all of us to agree that A is A, or that there is a Sun that appears in the sky every 12 hours or so, and
when it disappears there is a moon that follows various stages of metamorphoses. Not all self evident properties, however, are as clearly defined as
a letter to an alphabet, or the bodies in motion of the sun and the moon. Not as clearly defined because there are some things of which we cannot
sense biologically, but know it is real. "I think, therefore I am" is one such certainty that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched.
"I have the right to exist" is another abstraction that is self evident. It matters not that it cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched,
every creature great and small has the right to survive. If I have the right to exist, and you have this right, and the O.P. has this right, and
every member in this site has that right, and in terms of a one world government, every human being on the planet has this right, then it follows that
we, each and everyone of us, have the right to self defense. If we all have the right to self defense, it follows that we also have the right to come
together collectively and form an organization towards that same end. That end, however, is the right of each individual to exist, and to defend that
existence. That existence comes with other rights that belong to all people with or without government. If we all come together and form a
government then the only just purpose would be to defend the rights of the individual.
Any act of legislation not defending the rights of all individuals is not an act of law, but merely an act of legislation.
This is a much longer post than I had hoped I could get away with and because of the complexity that comes with world domination, or world government
depending upon your view, I have barely scratched the surface of this, with this posts, even when combined with previous posts.
However, it is late, I am under deadline tomorrow, and as important as I believe this issue is, perhaps it is best I leave it here and allow you and
any others who wish to respond, and if we're all smart, we'll use this debate to seek some sort of resolution, where all can live - if not
melodically with each other - harmoniously together.