Why not provide people a choice between governments ?

Originally posted by Mads1987

 

Sure, it depends on whether Norway will accept you or not. The US can't grant you the right to go live in a different country,

Lets try this again. Of course they can, look at Syria, NAZI Germany ring a bell? You think the Jews willingly agreed to go to the concentration camps? The Japanese during WWII were interned. Governments can and do prevent people from leaving.

The US is a country of the "free world" so yes you can leave, UNTIL the government decides to take that right away from you. Germany was a democracy prior to Hitler. Don't think it can happen to the US? Think again. Would you be able to afford the price of an exit visa? And which country will take you when millions of others are trying to find a new country?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Sure it can happen. Doesn't mean that it will happen. Of cause you can't leave if the government decides you shouldn't leave. Even in a healthy society that would be a norm. Let's say you are on trial, well then it is logical for them to restrain your freedom so that you can't run away.

Yes there have been many instances where governments unjustifiably have told people that they weren't allowed to leave. Like you mentioned. Hitler with the jews, your government with the Japanese. But what has that got to do with this situation, now? There aren't any concentration camps now are there?

Either way - just answer me this. Let's say that you wanted to move to Norway, and you had the papers and all. Norway is pleased to receive you. Will the US government stop you? - and if so, how and why?
And we're talking right now. Not tomorrow. Not in a year. Not under some slightly different circumstances under which you think your government might have turned in to some third reich dictatorship.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
The US is a country of the "free world" so yes you can leave, UNTIL the government decides to take that right away from you.

Which it is doing with the no fly list right?

But freedom is more than the right to leave, or the ability to choose who you buy from.

Real freedom can only come when we all have access to the means to produce. The means to produce are monopolized by a minority class of people, the rest of us rely on them to supply jobs, and the resources we need for life. That is not freedom, or liberty, that is reliance on someone else to give you the means to fend for yourself.

Before capitalism, at the high end of feudalism, many villages were becoming autonomous, and creating their own community economies. This increasing standard of living for the 'commoners' and the increase of their share of surplus created a crises for the land owners who were losing their economic power.

So the land owners had the inclosure laws enacted, all land in Britain was eventually fenced off and the 'commoners' no longer had the right to use the land to live and work on. This forced the independent 'commoners' to take "jobs" supplied by the land owners in their factories and mills. The land owners payed the workers a wage less than the value of what they produced, this is called 'surplus value' and is what created the economic system of capitalism and made the land owners extremely wealthy. This financed the industrial revolution and the exploitation of labour. Before the enclosure laws there was no surplus value being created, before the 'commoners' were turned into slave labour.

Originally posted by Mads1987

 

Will the US government stop you? - and if so, how and why?
And we're talking right now. Not tomorrow. Not in a year. Not under some slightly different circumstances under which you think your government might have turned in to some third reich dictatorship.

To answer your question directly, if you live in the Western, developed world, and you have a work permit for Norway, then your home country will not stop you from moving there. In many other countries, even today, "right now", that right is severely restricted, which is why boat people risk their lives. The thread and my intent is not to criticize the US in particular, but all governments because they all are monopolies. I closed my OP with "Democracy is a monopoly of absolute government power."

Sure it can happen. Doesn't mean that it will happen.

If you drive a car, an accident can happen, but that doesn't mean it will happen. That is a very short sighted view. Because when it does, it is too late. That is why people need to have insurance. Just like with accidents, most if not all governments WILL become tyrannies, it is only a question of time (unless they collapse first). Because they do not have a counter-balance in power. People, even when rioting, are not able to act as a counterweight to balance the government. Therefore, governments will keep growing and gaining more power until it qualifies as tyranny.

People can and MUST protect themselves from the government. (Remember what Hitler said "What luck for the rulers that people do not think.") People can do so ONLY with a Constitution that creates various governments in such a way that they limit each other's power. That is called competition.

"Doesn't mean that it will happen" sounds to me like you are not very concerned about your kids' future. If you are concerned, you should get that "insurance". You should ask yourself "If government has a monopoly on power, what will prevent it from becoming too powerful?"

Originally posted by ANOK

Which it is doing with the no fly list right?

Not only terrorists are on the no-fly list.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Not only terrorists are on the no-fly list.

I thought that was my point?

The US is currently like that.

50 States. 50 different ways of doing things.

Some have more economic liberty than others.

Some recognize the individual as the smallest minority.

Some many mob rule.



Edit: If the feds have their way this method of governance will soon be gone.

Originally posted by projectvxn
The US is currently like that.

50 States. 50 different ways of doing things.

If the feds have their way this method of governance will soon be gone.

Yes it is already all but gone. (I am not worried about gambling or stuff like that)

When there is a terror attack (which may have been a "false flag" attack) the federal government gets to investigate itself. The clean-up of the disaster is handled by FEMA and supervised by the VP (Dick Cheney was appointed that responsibility in May 2001). There is no such thing as an "independent" Commission to investigate anything.

The Federal Reserve is beyond the reach of the fedral government, and clearly, anybody else's.

CIA, black ops, military, FBI, FEMA, even FDA, and a dozen other regulating agencies are beyond the reach of States. A State like Arizona has virtually no chance of standing up for what it considers its rights without being reprimanded by the federal government. States are powerless.

It would never work too many ifs. And another thing too many people argue and fuss over the littlest things you think your gonna actually have them choose their own government?

I feel better allowing them to vote on a dictator then a whole government. Do you realize the amount of resources it would take to set that up?

Cause you'd have to start from scratch. Each government needs certain things. Here's a clue if the us moved to a monarch. kings and queens are not living in the white house. And that's the simple explanation.

Originally posted by Manunnaki
It would never work too many ifs.

Are you lazy or a pessimist? You never started anything difficult? Did you make the calculation how much it would cost and how much would be saved in comparison? Do you care if you kids will live in freedom or wiped out byt some "king"? How do you know what would work?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by Manunnaki
It would never work too many ifs.

Are you lazy or a pessimist? You never started anything difficult? Did you make the calculation how much it would cost and how much would be saved in comparison? Do you care if you kids will live in freedom or wiped out byt some "king"? How do you know what would work?

Explain to me a free world! Do you live in the United States? If so Do you believe we are free? Do you know the right place where are resources should be spent? Do you think the government cares? What exactly is this freedom you speak of?

The freedom to walk into someone's house and destroy their family? No! Your not talking about that because you would say their would be laws. Well those laws make it non freedom buddy!

My Answer!

Originally posted by Manunnaki
Your not talking about that because you would say their would be laws. Well those laws make it non freedom buddy!

Why not answer the question of this thread for a start?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


I did! I said it wouldn't work. The I told you why it wouldn't work. But you wasn't capable of comprehending all the work it would take from top to bottom just to wipe out the current system so a new one could be put in place.

Then I gave you a link to what I think would work better.

Technically this thread is nothing more then a response to the thread I linked you to. The op does ask the reader to state what they think the world needs.

One law, One government, One people!

Originally posted by Manunnaki
One law, One government, One people!

Now I comprehend, One law, One government, One people. Diversity illegal, difference in opinions illegal, opposing the King illegal.

236 years ago they thought people would be smart enough to choose.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


One law around the world meaning the laws aren't diverse this makes the judicial system easier to understand for travelers.

One government backs the one law and the one people. Meaning the United nations now works as congress and the world has a leader.

One people means the world is open to everyone and everybody has an equal chance for all opportunities!

Now I think you can get it.

Originally posted by Manunnaki

 

One law around the world meaning the laws aren't diverse this makes the judicial system easier to understand for travelers.

One government backs the one law and the one people. Meaning the United nations now works as congress and the world has a leader.

One people means the world is open to everyone and everybody has an equal chance for all opportunities!

Now I think you can get it.

Yes, I get it but I don't like it. One law around the world does not make it easier for anybody. Obamacare for the whole world would impose an impossible law on everybody. 2000 pages cannot be read and understood. Laws need to be brief and understandable by the average guy.

One world government would make it easy for the ruling class to suppress and tyrranize ALL people. Congress is not protecting the will of the American people. A World Congress would be very easy for military leaders, special interests and financial powers to manipulate. People would have no say. Democratic elections cannot protect the people.

One people is a slogan that means nothing. There would be a ruling class, outsiders will not be given a chance. Why would the rulers give "equal chances" to people? You must think they would be stupid to give them ANY "chances"?

What is the meaning of the word "chances"? It means choice. There is only one possibility for equality, that is choice. The alternative to choice is to have somebody else decide FOR you and IMPOSE that selection on you. I do not believe in "No government". We need government, and that's okay, if you have a choice between governments.

Either YOU decide OR somebody else does. Please tell me if you see any other way.?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


First, democracy does not dictate how many parties are viable to lead the nation. That is a matter for the internal structure of the individual nation. All democracy says about government, is that it ought to be selected by the people.

And furthermore, your suggestion of a single nation, run by several different governments, which operate simultaneously, is interesting, but pretty much unworkable. For a start, getting people to accept that they can be governed as they would wish, if they would only move to within the territory controled by thier favoured system is not going to go down too well. Some families have remained in one town, for generation upon generation. Its not practical at all, to move them.

If your many governments were to attempt to govern one household in one manner, and another in a different way, then the rules and social conventions of those factions would come into constant and brutal conflict, each believing that they are merely attempting to follow the law, while infringing on the laws of thier neighbors.... Again, not practical.

The other thing however, is that even if there could be a system which managed, by some miracle to even BEGIN to exist in the manner that you describe, it would only be a matter of time until one faction wished to increase thier share of the total landmass of the nation, and operated in secret against the others. This has happened on a wider scale before.

Originally posted by TrueBrit

 

Thanks for your comments. Let me address each of your points one by one.

your suggestion of a single nation, run by several different governments, which operate simultaneously, is interesting, but pretty much unworkable.

If you read the earlier posts, "Bedlam" pointed out that this IS the concept the US was founded on (they referred to it as "voting with your feet", you march to your chosen government). I believe that worked quite well.

For a start, getting people to accept that they can be governed as they would wish, if they would only move to within the territory controled by thier favoured system is not going to go down too well.

Why would it not go down well to give people a choice?

Some families have remained in one town, for generation upon generation. Its not practical at all, to move them.

Americans are much more mobile than traditional societies. Youngsters often move away from home depending on job opportunities. Syrians are moving out of the reach of their government. People from the former "East block" did so risking their lives. People want to choose their government.

The other thing however, is that even if there could be a system which managed, by some miracle to even BEGIN to exist in the manner that you describe, it would only be a matter of time until one faction wished to increase thier share of the total landmass of the nation, and operated in secret against the others. This has happened on a wider scale before.

No US State ever attempted to invade another State to my knowledge. They never would because of the federal military. One of the very few, strictly limited powers would include to provide military security to protect from foreign invasion or other invasions from outside the State. The key is that this is one Nation, which has one Constitution, written by the people for the people, and this federal constitution can set the rules of what it allows the States to do, and, on the other hand, what rules and limitations the federal government must obey.

This Nation is thus a government of governments, similar to the United Nations, the difference being that the United Nations is not an popularly elected entity and it does not have a Constitution to protect the rights of the people. Not does it allow people to move to other member nations. The European Union comes one step closer in that respect but is also not popularly elected.

First, democracy does not dictate how many parties are viable to lead the nation. That is a matter for the internal structure of the individual nation. All democracy says about government, is that it ought to be selected by the people.

Many people in many countries have come to realize that there is little "real" difference (beyond the "hot topic issues") between the main parties (whether two or more). That means that voters have no "real" choice at all. Even if there is real choice, that means that people are governed by the majority - at best. In that case, too bad for the people in the minority.

More likely, the government is controlled by financial interests, which are often controlled by a small minority. The vast majority (99% ?) have no influence over the government.

If they had a choice in governments they could live freely. For example a gay person 20 or 50 years ago, at least could move to the State that allows for gay people to do what they want, whereas conservative people are not forced to live in what they oppose. That is why I say, Choice is Freedom.

But the main reason for my proposal is to avoid tyranny. Tyranny will die if people are able to move somewhere else.