reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
Secondly, there is no reason why these "global elites", if they exist, would want a totalitarian world government.
Pfffffttttt! Your O.P. smacks of the most odious kind of elitism, and given that O.P. is an advocacy of global governance, for all intents and
purposes we can reasonably assume you are one of these so called "global elites". Define that term however you like, you have revealed quite a bit
about your political ideology in your opening post alone. For example:
Eventually, when all third-world countries industrialize (which is a matter of when, not if), we will see a world-government in the works.
"Third world" is an elitist term, even if you only used it cavalierly and thoughtlessly. Whether non industrialized nations eventually do
industrialize or not, labeling these nations as "third world" is most assuredly elitism.
I've heard all the arguments against a one-world government, and frankly, none of them hold any merit at all. The most common one, "There are simply
too many religions, cultures, and ethnic groups to expect a democratic one-world government".
This is how an elitist tends to argue, fallaciously, this fallacy being an argument by dismissal. Putting words in the mouths of expected opponents
in order to justify an argument by dismissal only exacerbates the fallacy. Further, hidden within this fallacious argument is the revelation that
what you are advocating in terms of a "one world government" is a democracy. Perhaps you've never heard, or perhaps you have, that out of
democracy rises tyranny.
The U.S also has a very diverse mix of ethnic groups, religions, and cultures and they happen to make it work and are democratic for the most part.
The elitist also tends to make vague generalizations about "facts", and are all to often woefully uninformed, which makes sense since being informed
tends to dissuade one taking elitist points of view. Constitutionally speaking, all the States in the Union, of The United States of America are
guaranteed a republican form of government. Just because citizens' - certainly not the people, but citizens' - can vote for certain government
officials, this does not make - Constitutionally speaking - the U.S. "democratic". The elite desperately want to convince people that the U.S. is
a democracy, and of course, expressions such as "making the world safe for democracy" are designed to elevate democracy as some sort of mechanism
for freedom, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The reason, and tragically less and less so daily, that a diverse mix of ethnic groups, religions, and cultures work in the U.S. is precisely because
a republic was established to restrain democracy from trampling all over the rights of individuals. The elite do not seem to like this much and put
much effort into propaganda in an attempt to undermine the Constitutional republics established, both federally and state wise.
Should the U.S become more decentralized, then?
Yes, it should. Under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the national government established in the early days of the United States
had a difficult time functioning as a national government. The biggest problem they faced was raising revenue due to the fact that the Articles of
Confederation did not allow that national government to impose taxes, and could only request from the states funding. Because some states would honor
the request, where others did not, this created a big problem and became the primary basis for federalism. However, federalism was never intended to
destroy the sovereignty of the states, and anyone who has ever read The Federalist Papers knows this. Of course, elitists don't really believe they
have the time for such droll reading.
Should they split up into 50 countries, and then decentralize further into defining their borders by cities? That is what the argument implies.
Under the Constitution for the United States of America, it is not impliedly so, but expressly so. Of course, you have used artful language to avoid
the reality that the 50 states are sovereign and hold express powers not delegated to the federal government, by presenting "50 countries" instead
of acknowledging them as states. In terms of implication, what your argument here implies is that political power flows from the top down, which of
course, is grossly elitist.
By top down I should clarify this is not language used so that it may be construed that down is less than top. In constructing an edifice it begins
with a foundation, and then builds up to its ceiling. The ceiling is the top, the foundation is down from that, but it is the foundation that matters
most, and weak foundation almost always guarantees a weak edifice.
The foundation of all governments is the people. As you made clear in the beginning of your O.P. before there were governments there were people.
Governments came later. Thus, all political power begins with the people, and the hold the inherent political power at all times. Some people may
imprudently surrender that power, but even under this circumstance, the fact remains the same, and that is that all power flows directly from the
In the United States, this power, Constitutionally speaking, begins with the people who ordain - until such time they collectively decide to change
what has been ordained - local, state, and federal governments. The City of Los Angeles, for example, has its own charter, but is limited in what it
can do as a local municipality by the State Constitution of California. The State of California operates under its own Constitution, but is limited
in what it can do by the federal Constitution. The federal government operates under the Constitution for the United States of America but is limited
by the express, and implied rights of the people.
Stated another way, consider what Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court recently said in Bond v. United States:
"Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National government federalism "secures to citizens the
liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power."...It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who
seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a state by ensuring that law enacted in
excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions...Federalisms limitations are therefore not a matter of rights belonging
only to the State. In a proper case a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may
challenge actions that transgress; e.g. separation of powers limitations see... The claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a States
constitutional interests even if those interests are also implicated."
Take note of Justice Kennedy's use of the word "diffusion".
If the U.S can be a stable democratic nation, then a world government can be a stably democratic as well.
The stability of the U.S. lies in its establishment of a republic, and any signs of instability are arguably because of the democratic principles
elitists are attempting to impose upon that nation. The established republic(s) was designed to protect the rights of individuals, the democracy that
is desperately being imposed upon the U.S. is an attempt to undermine the protections of individual rights, and indeed, the elites, beginning with the
priest class lawyer set, love to frame rights as "civil rights" which is another word for "legal rights" which is priest class lawyer mystical
incantations for rights that can be granted legally and therefore legally taken away.
Each nation would be a state, and the former presidents of that country would be its representative. There would be varying laws between the states,
but a federal government to oversee such things as climate change, research and development, a space program, and education of all citizens.
It is beyond laughable that you would deign to lecture people on what things would be like under a description that fairly describes what all ready
exists, it is gross and intolerable ignorance. First of all, compulsory education legislation is not federal it is done by the states. The
administrative agencies set up specifically in regards to public education have no authority over the states.
More importantly, it should be made clear who casually you threw in "climate change" as being some sort of federal responsibility. That
administrative agencies on a federal level, not at all mandated by Constitution, have aggregated the power they have is due to the inexcusable
ignorance of we the people. Your efforts to perpetuate that ignorance is shameful at best, and nefarious at worst.
If we are ever to colonize the stars, cure most diseases, solve poverty, and become a knowledge-based sentient species with a largely educated
population, then a one-world government is of most importance.
Where you spent a few paragraphs offering up U.S. federalism - and of course, your misinterpretation of what federalism actually is - as a valid
paradigm for a one world government, you then follow with this idealized argument. Ironically, you follow this sentence with:
We spend trillions of dollars on military technology, our top scientists working on heavily funded military projects and weapons that specialize in
killing and suffering, and there is the constant possibility of a nuclear war which could end civilization as we know it, not to mention documented
climate change and the impacts it has on our planet.
Without a hint of irony you destroy your own argument of your misrepresentation of federalism by pointing to all that is wrong with a strong
Albert Einstein was quoted to have said to the U.N: "IN ORDER to achieve the final aim - which is one world, and not two hostile worlds - such a
partial world Government must never act as an alliance against the rest of the world. The only real step toward world government is world Government
How ironic that you would cite Albert Einstein after lamenting "the constant possibility of nuclear war". The prospect of annihilation by nuclear
weapons can be traced directly to Albert Einstein:
Albert Einstein did not work directly on the atom bomb. But Einstein was the father of the bomb in two important ways: 1) it was his initiative
which started U.S. bomb research; 2) it was his equation (E = mc2) which made the atomic bomb theoretically possible.”
In Einsteins defense, as well as holding him rightfully accountable:
Neither the public image nor the personal protests capture the true, complex story of Einstein and the bomb. Contrary to common belief, Einstein
knew little about the nuclear particle physics underlying the bomb. On the other hand, as the archives show, Einstein did not merely sign the letter
to Roosevelt. He was deeply involved in writing it, revising it, and deciding how to get it to the president.
Einstein advocated the development of the Atom Bomb, only to become horrified at the fallout once one was developed and actually dropped. He
advocated something he knew very little about, and when he learned of the consequences changed course and advocated pacifism. The important thing to
understand is that Einstein was a physicist who knew little of nuclear particle physics yet used his position to advocate a weapon he couldn't
possibly understand. Now you present him advocating a "one world government" and it begs the question; what the hell did Einstein know about
You follow Einstein's quote with one from Carl Sagan, and again we are shown a certain amount of elitism here. Why would you offer up quotes from
two scientists in order to sell this "one world government"? Technocrats do exist, and advocate technocracy, a suspect form of government where
scientists "serve" the people.
The only possible way a "one world government" could ever possibly work is when the vast majority of people are prepared to govern themselves.
Failing that, and without the necessary checks and controls that the holders of the inherent political power should be using to restrain government,
governments will continue their steady march towards an aggregation of power. Aggregated power is demonstrably problematic, and perhaps Lord Acton
said it best: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."