A debate on Collectivism and the Merits of Global Government

4 Comments »

I love the opportunity to debate strangers on the internet. This question, from answers.yahoo.com, inspired a massive volume of feverish typing that I did not even know I had in me. But then again, how could I not respond in full force to someone seriously advocating global government? I am only human, after all…

“Why are so many people against a world government?”

In case you haven’t thought of it, a world government would be just like any other government, where one large regulatory body oversees smaller bodies with limited self-governing rights. For example, this is how the typical government “chain-of-command” works:

->Municipal (City) governments oversee all districts within the city boundaries.
->County governments oversee all municipal governments.
->State/Provincial goverments oversee all county goverments.
->Federal goverments oversee all state/provincial governments.

So, if the current “chain-of-command” seems to work so well (or at least well enough), why do people think that taking it one step further and creating a planetary government to oversee/regulate all federal governments would suddenly result in our world suddenly collapsing? Is it because modern film, television, and literature have depicted false images of what a world government would be like? We all know the only reason movies are made about world goverments oppresing its citizens is because no one would pay to see a boring film where everyone is happy and no one is starving or dying or diseased. Remember, the United States started as a group of colonies (and later, States), that were afraid of creating a centralized governing body because they believed it would lead to an oppresive upper class with unlimited power. Yet, they eventually understood that a people united would fare much better than a bunch of isolated, bickering states. Now, over 230 years later, the United Stated of America is the richest, most powerful nation, and its people enjoy a great many liberties and opportunites that may not have been possible had the then-colonies adopted a decentralized form of government (although we’re far from perfect). Now, if it’s worked well enough once before, why can’t it work once again, even if on a larger scale?

 

My response follows:

AgentOgden (a.k.a. “Forty 7″): For one thing, centralization of power is always used to destructively control the masses, and OFTEN to deliberately stunt the economic prosperity and intellectual development of the people, so that they can be more easily managed.

The OTHER problem with the ‘world government’ that many are proposing today… is the TYPE of government they are proposing: Something akin to Orwellian dystopia. Global COLLECTIVISM.

I would not be nearly as opposed to the idea if we were talking about a confederated republic of sovereign nations, as you describe.

But what we are talking about is a scientific technocracy in which the individual is subservient to the whole. A society in which an elite few get to play God with the very fate of mankind. In which a small group attempts to take the reins of all human evolution.

Collectivism is a dangerous, anti-human philosophy. It is a utopian lie. It is death.

I advocate individualism, liberty, and the decentralization of power.

Mutual agreements between truly sovereign nations are the best way to ensure that the interests of the respective citizens will be considered.

Furthermore, localized governments are always more effective at addressing the specific, individual needs of their citizens. Have you ever dealt with a governmental bureaucracy? Imagine having to address your community’s individual needs to a global central authority. How helpful do you think they’d be? (Even assuming their best intentions, which is laughable?) And how efficient do you suppose a global bureaucracy would be?

And what if… one day… you woke up and decided you didn’t like it? What could you do about it? Who would this Earth Government answer to? Where could you GO to escape it?

Have you really thought this through?

EDIT: I completely forgot to address your argument regarding the prosperity of the US somehow being the result of the Federal government.

I think the founders set up a pretty good system, because of something called the 10th Amendment. But, unfortunately, that has been ignored for decades, and the Federal Government has continued to acquire more power for itself at the great expense of the States.

In 1913, the Federal Government sold out the States and the People to international bankers, with the Federal Reserve Act.

In subsequent years, it has imposed unreasonable and unconstitutional controls over the States and the People, often on behalf of these same private international interests.

You speak of the current “prosperity” of the US. I believe that the prosperity of yesteryear was the result of a thriving, DECENTRALIZED free market economy, and the innovation that goes along with it… something we no longer enjoy, thanks to the Federal government and the manipulation of the internationalists who already control it.

Wait 12 months, and take a look around you. If you still want to talk about the incredible “prosperity” of the US, I will hopefully still be around to remind you that this time of “prosperity” (that we are now heading into) is truly the result of the meddling of the Federal government, the globalists who have hijacked it, and ultimately, the CENTRALIZATION of power.

So in that sense, you will be right.

 

I eagerly await his response, if any, and I will publish it here, when given. 

EDIT: Well, this isn’t turning out to be much of a “debate,” after all, since the only representative of the pro-globalization side of the argument still has not responded. And in the meantime, several others have chimed in with opposing arguments. So, this may seem a bit one-sided, but the initiator of the debate is encouraged to respond at any time…

Oh well, let the devastation continue…

 

Martinx07: World governments are only there to represent corporations, and private elitists. You think they have done a great job on the UN? IMF? GATT? NAFTA? No, they become very expensive, yet useless and inefficient. Most global organization turn out to be corrupt, yet they also create their own laws, while forcing, bribing nations to join, where people now have their sovereignty ruined, or Constitutions violated/ignored.

 

Rockominal2000: What perverted school did you go to jerkoff? A bunch of people didn’t just casually arrive on Virginia Beach and say, “hey! Let’s start a country here and create a form of government?” Newsflash, nitwit. They were already governed by a central government. They fought an impossible battle in bitter cold to acheive independence from that government; hence, the history of United States of America.. It’s called the Revolutionary War, you friggin nitwit. You must have forgotten to include that in your pathetic spiel.

p.s. I got an idea. Move to indonesia and Kenya and form your governmental shangrila over there. Don’t forget to take your imported socialist lib sukwad buddy Obbama with you; since he knows the lay of the land.

 

(Neithercorp’s very own) Giordano: Large scale Collectivist movements always end in disaster. Why, because Collectivism requires participants to sacrifice individuality and liberty in exchange for the promise of “security”, a promise which is never kept, because the Governments involved are never truly concerned about the people at all.

What you don’t seem to understand is that by centralizing power on such a grand scale, you have reduced all possibility that natural movements of society will occur to correct imbalances of Government. Great progress is always made by society in places where Government is not able to control the “status quo”. Centralized Government always stands in the way of social progress. It must, because social progress, created by free thinking individuals, is a threat to Central Power, which is always placed in the hands of an Elite minority.

“Government” itself is not really a very necessary function of society in itself. The Founding Fathers supported limited Government because they knew full well that when Governments are given too much authority, they inevitably become corrupt. Look at how corrupt our Government is today!!! Patriot Acts 1 & 2, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act, all of which are eroding our liberties:

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431

The Banker Bailout bills which have now incurred more than $8.5 Trillion of national debt, and we are not allowed to know where a single penny of that money has specifically gone while our economy collapses around us!

Now, imagine this kind of centralized corruption on a WORLD WIDE scale in the hands of a very small group of men. Only an idiot would think that that’s a good idea. The Founding Fathers were brilliant. Certainly smarter than you, so lets show a little respect for what they accomplished; the worlds first free Democratic Republic. Federalization has only served to destroy their creation. World Government will only ensure that the idea of free and sovereign nations never returns.

And by the way, have you not noticed that our economy is collapsing EXACTLY because of the corruption of the Federal Government and the centralization of monetary power into the hands of the private Federal Reserve? Who do you think OWNS the private Federal Reserve? The same “oppressive upper class” you seem to think doesn’t exist.

Ask people in Europe if they like the EU and central authority. Hint: THEY HATE IT………..find out why here;

http://www.neithercorp.us/nforum/current_events/the_truth_about_the_european_union-t191.0.html

 

End the Fed!: Do you have ANY clue what a world government would mean for America?

And your theory that Federal governments oversee all state/provincial governments is NOT what the Globalists have in mind. Besides, if the feds have a problem with someone smoking pot in their basement, it renders your point null and void because they have overstepped their jurisdiction…and this is the LEAST of the examples I could give you.

 

Arcturus: Okay so lets say the government goes crazy and gets out of control…like Hitler, or Stalin…who would we turn to for help?????!!!! Who would get rid of them?! The only people that could save us would be…us?! That makes no sense now does it? If we make one government for the entire world, they have control over EVERYONE and EVERYTHING. They don’t have to listen to anyone else but themselves. That is absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

EDIT2:  Hooray! Someone is actually putting up a fight. I will provide his entire answer, un-edited.

 

Bob D: It could and would work. Those that oppose the idea are simply living in the past, the old glory years. The world has changed. What worked 100 years ago simply doesn’t work in the same fashion today. Our current economic crisis is a prime example of that. The republican right-wing, they’re the party of the past and they have no future.

Einstein loved America (for all the right reasons) because of its basic values, freedom, equal rights, freedom of expression, the freedom to create your own way. However, he didn’t think much of unbridled capitalism. He felt that capitalist greed and the resulting oppression of the people was an abomination in and of itself. Einstein wanted the free-world to develop a world organization (similar to the United Nations) that had its own arm forces to ensure peace in the world. If we had listen to Einstein, the world would now be a safer and freer place. But no, our political leaders were more interested in making war rather than peace — no money to be made living in a peaceful world.

It just may be simply too late for us and for the world.

One thing is certain, if this country falls to the wayside, it won’t be anyone’s fault except for corporate powers and organized religion.
————————————-
Listen to them cry, “OMG what would happen to my tax dollars (my money!) and my guns.

rockomin: Revolutionary war was about breaking free of a central government.

That was a different era. It has nothing to do with the modern age and it isn’t a good model in this age for what could be accomplished through a world government. May be, just may be nations could take a break from wars and the continuous cost of building WMD in preparation for war, and actually do something useful with their resources.
—————————–
Forty 7: Centralization of power … always used destructively to control the masses … often stunt economic prosperity and intellectual development of the people. [Incase you haven't noticed, that is going on today right here in America where business and organized religion control the media making sure that the people are kept dumbed down and ill informed, as one example.]
———————
Scientific technocracy … individual is subservient to the whole. … society where the elite few plays god with the fate of mankind. … small group reins all human evolution. [In America, it's call, "business as usual."]
————————–
“Mutual agreements between truly sovereign nations [each with their own military and weapons of war, of course] are the best way to ensure that the interest of the respective citizens will be considered.

[Note that he said, the interest of the respective citizens will be "considered". Considered, but not necessarily acted upon. As if these concepts have worked so well for Americans.]

…local goverments are always more effective at addressing the specific, individual needs of their citizens. [Yes, that has worked great for bringing an end to homeless and wefare in America. Unmonitored and unchecked, local government will always act in their own best interest first before acting in the interest of the people. For local government to operate effectively, there must be transparency, checks and balances -- otherwise, corruption always follows.]
————————
…you woke up one day and decided you don’t like what’s going on — then what?

[That's the way that it is today in the U.S. for millions, so, what's the difference?]

[1913 Federal Reserve Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Res...
Decide for yourself.]
————————————–…
Giordvo: Large scale Collectivist movements always end in disaster. [What large scale collectivist movements are you talking about? There has never been a true unified world government so there's no actual models to describe it. We cannot allow the efforts by individual nations to overtake and control the world, in the past, to be taken as a reliable model of what might be accomplished in a modern age through a unified world government. We must always keep our minds open to new and better possibilities, less we doom ourselves to certain destruction in the form of, business as usual.]

… you have reduced all possibility that natural movement of society … correct imbalance of government. [Yes, that has worked so well here in America. How many human beings were beaten, tortured, murdered in bringing about social change through peaceful protest -- civil rights movement might ring a bell.]

Government. … government not able to control the “status quo”. [Indeed, business and organized religion is doing a wonderful job of "controlling" the status quo, more "business as usual".]

Centralized governments always stand in the way of social progess. [kind of like the christians do here in the U.S., huh?]

A powerful centralized government … not necessary … our Founding Fathers …. [That was a long time ago and the world has changed significantly since our founding fathers. The old ways were workable back then but the world today is a very, very different place. We have a world population of almost 7 billion; the population in the 1700s was in the hundreds of millions; we have science and technology exploding with new innovations that alter the way that people live; life was pretty basic in the 1700s, we have a U.S. population of over 300 million; in the 1700s it was just a few million, we have more people than there are potential jobs. There in lies some of the roots of the basic problems we face under our current government. You cannot continue to run a modern society based upon ideas that are 200 or 300 years old. The capitalist system is not an "open ended" system. If new ideas are not put into place and if social change is not accounted for, the capitalist system will implode upon itself as all the current signs suggest.]

Look how corrupt our government is today. [Organized religion and corporate greed and lobbishs have nothing to do with that, right?]

…economy collapsing EXACTLY because of corrupt Fedral Government centralized banks …. [doesn't have anything to do with costing nearly 1 billion dollars to elect a president? Or, with the failing of the most basic unit of society, the family unit?]

————————————–…
Survival is simply a function of: either a unified world government that works in the best interest of individual nations and peoples, or self destruction and total collapse of all nations and societies.

If Einstein believed that intelligent human beings could make it work, it will likely work just as he had invisioned it. Einstein was one of those rare few who was right even when he was wrong.

EINSTEIN: His Life and Universe
by Walter Isaacson
ISBN: 13-978-0-7432-6473-0

A wonderful read. Also avaliable on CD.

 

Ok then, back into the fray I go!

AgentOgden (a.k.a. “Forty 7″): EDIT2: Bob D, thanks for at least attempting to represent the other side of this argument. I was beginning to wonder if there was really even a debate here….

My response to Bob’s self-contradictory tirade is this: he attempts to “refute” the arguments of myself and others by… agreeing with us? Huh?

It’s a tactic I’ve seen plenty of times before. It’s an attempt to derail the discussion, while appearing to be “reasonable,” by use of semantic nit-picking.

Let’s take an example.

“[Note that he said, the interest of the respective citizens will be "considered". Considered, but not necessarily acted upon. As if these concepts have worked so well for Americans.]”

Oh no! I’ve been DEBUNKED! Or have I? You’ll notice that I never claimed the US to be a “truly sovereign” nation.  I was careful to say “TRULY” sovereign, wasn’t I?

I was speaking in terms of general political theory, and you know it, Bob.

I was also very careful to use the word “considered,” in pre-emptive acknowledgment of this VERY POINT. I never said it was “ideal.”

But “considered” is still far better than the radical globalist alternative YOU are proposing, which involves NO CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER.

In fact, I spoke quite clearly about my belief that the US has a LOT of problems, due to the centralization of power, and the fact that we are NOT truly sovereign.

I REPEAT: “I think the founders set up a pretty good system, because of something called the 10th Amendment. But, unfortunately, that has been ignored for decades, and the Federal Government has continued to acquire more power for itself at the great expense of the States.”

By restating my own arguments, but in a contrarian manner, he APPEARS to be debating me, but in fact, he is not even engaged in the debate AT ALL. He is simply attempting to confuse the issues at hand, to prevent the debate from reaching its conclusion.

Another example:

“[That's the way that it is today in the U.S. for millions, so, what's the difference?]”

My point exactly. Where, in my answer, did I claim that the US was an ideal example of a working governmental system? Do you really believe, Bob, after reading my entire answer, that I would disagree with this statement?  No, of course you don’t. So what are you really trying to do?

In what way does HELPING ME to point out the obvious flaws of SMALL-SCALE centralization… JUSTIFY the prospect of LARGE-SCALE centralization?

One more, just for fun: “[In America, it's call, "business as usual."]” Ok, you’re doing the exact same thing again. No sh*t, Sherlock. The US has gone to hell in a handbasket. What’s your point? So, let me get this straight… Because the USA has been all but destroyed by globalization and the centralization of power, “hey, let’s do the same thing on a larger scale”? WHAT???

And you also said something like: “Oh and it has nothing to do with corporate greed?” Who said that? Once again, of course it does. You’re not making a valid argument. This argument has no real bearing on the points YOU KNOW we are making.

I will not allow you to make me waste time discussing the role that corporations play in the larger power structure.

It is a total departure down a sub-alleyway of specifics that we obviously don’t have time or space to get into here.

IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REBUTTAL TO MAKE, MAKE IT DIRECTLY.

Do not attempt to mislead, sidetrack, complicate and confuse the discussion with vaguely relevant arguments that no person here is even disagreeing with!

I could keep going, point by point, but I think I’ve made mine, and I don’t have all day to set you straight. Anyways, I know you know what you’re doing.

Nice try. I’ve seen and dealt with a lot of semantic and rhetorical techniques, and this is one of the older, more obvious ones. It’s called the Delphi method, as you probably know.

A quick look at this your Q’s and A’s indicates to me that you are one of those full-on, balls-to-the-wall, gung-ho transhumanist type globalists, who thinks that “Science is GOD” and global technocracy is actually the way to go.

So why don’t you just come right out and say it? If you truly believe that your position is the right one, then make your case, man!

Do you resort to underhanded debate tactics because you know your TRUE position would be so wildly unpopular among this group that no one would take you seriously?

Oh yeah, and one more thing… wikipedia? Don’t make me laugh.

 

Giordano: /////Bob D
You keep using the same argument over and over:

“Yes, that has worked so well here in America. How many human beings were beaten, tortured, murdered in bringing about social change through peaceful protest — civil rights movement might ring a bell.”

You are operating under many false assumptions, the main one being that you seem to think that “America” has been operating WITHOUT centralized government, and that this is the cause of all our ills. America has not been a true Republic since the Civil War. The Federal Government has been our Centralized Overseer ever since (btw, the Civil War was about states rights, not slavery). Every major problem in this country has been due to Centralized Federal Control and the corruption inherent in it. Yes, protesters were beaten. ALL ON THE ORDERS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. THAT’S MY POINT! Ever heard of Cointelpro? I suggest you look it up.

“Indeed, business and organized religion is doing a wonderful job of “controlling” the status quo, more “business as usual.”

lol! Do you really believe that “Business” and “Christians” are the root barrier to social progress? The Bilderberg Group (Elites) are an outside influencer. Business and religion are used as TOOLS of Centralized Government authority they create. Does that make all religion and free capitalism bad. No. And that argument is partly naive and partly disingenuous. You’re blathering about the symptoms and missing the cause.

“The old ways were workable back then but the world today is a very, very different place.”

Technology is meaningless. Population is meaningless. None of the factors you site are of ANY importance whatsoever. The bottom line is the same as it was 300 years ago. The Individual is THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in society. No amount of time will ever change that. All great ideas, all progress, social and technological, stem from the minds and hearts of Individuals. The state is an empty shell which manipulates people into thinking it is necessary for the “greater good”. It is a force that destroys Individualism. There is no “greater good” where centralized authority is concerned. It is a lie used to keep elitist minorities in power, nothing more. No other factors make any difference in the fight between Collectivism vs. Individualism. Period.

“doesn’t have anything to do with costing nearly 1 billion dollars to elect a president? Or, with the failing of the most basic unit of society, the family unit?”

Not a thing. Again, you are looking at the symptoms and not the root cause of the problem. Why not prescribe aspirin to cancer patients? Makes about as much sense as what you just stated. The collapse was caused DELIBERATELY by central banking authorities. Why? To force people in the U.S. to accept ever more centralized authority as the “solution”. I suggest you read up on a guy named Carroll Quigley

“The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton, quote from “Tragedy and Hope”, 1966

The great lie that the elites and people like you desperately want to convince us of, is that if we do not hand over our self responsibility and our destinies to a central authority, we will “destroy ourselves”. Complete nonsense. Elites have striven for Collectivism and Empire for centuries and we have seen nothing but War, Genocide, and Catastrophe. The only REAL option humanity has if it wants to survive, is to remove centralized authority forever, and place the growth of individualism at the forefront of Society.

 

Any other pro-globalists who wish to chime in with legitimate arguments are ENCOURAGED to do so in the comments section at the bottom of this page. In fact, I BEG OF YOU.

Any Bilderbergers out there? CFR senior fellows? Yale professors?

SOMEONE PLEASE, Give us a challenge.

 

Yours truly,

AgentOgden,
Neithercorp.us

---