Do you really oppose trans-national government?
Submitted by atrickpay on Tue, 09/29/2009 - 15:52
A lot of people on here oppose seem to oppose trans-national government because they are against the U.N. and a NAU. But, virtually all these same people think that the trans-national government that the Constitution set in place (ie. the federal government) is necessary and even a good thing!
Myself, I'm opposed to all trans-national government. So why the inconsistency people?
»
The Articles of
The Articles of Confederation were a trans-national government.
The US Constitution is not a trans-national government, it is a republic.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
The question with decentralization
Is always how far to decentralize.
I don't think it is inconsistent at all, if someone simply believes that a modest constitutional government is OK on the state, or even national level, but would be too large on a global level.
We could have one world government or 6 billion governments in the world, or could be somewhere in between - opinions could easily vary on this,
I want to secede
because uniting the states didn't work because the Constitution was ignored and the people could not enforce anything because the judges have been bought off, etc., etc., If the Constitution had worked and not been abused, then I would have been for it. I'd rather be part of the US, but now I want to secede as a state. The ONLY way I would want to stay united is if US got out of UN and kicked them out of US.
Trans-national government?
Trans-national government? You mean, like Texas having agreements with Louisiana? Probably not. Keep it local.
Jive,
I define trans-national government as: a government which transcends nations. Re: a treaty between TX and LA, it would depend on the details of a treaty--a treaty doesn't necessarily create a trans-national government.
government n. 1 : the act or process of governing
government n.
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
Yes,
and:
"The very word 'government' means some men governing--ruling over others. But to the degree that men are ruled by other men, they exist in slavery. - The Market for Liberty, Morris and Linda Tannehill
Just stop.
Just stop.
Ventura 2012
Why?
What's wrong with questioning people on inconsistent adherence to principles/positions that they claim to uphold and support?
You sound like the neo-cons
You sound like the neo-cons calling Kerry a flip-flopper even though he was flip flopping on the right issues(not that I am a Kerry fan). There is no reason to dumb everything down into absolutes. I am against a world government because I think that the negatives outweigh the positives. That doesnt mean that that strategy is negative in a smaller context, where many of the negatives become less negative.
Ventura 2012
As long as the questioners
As long as the questioners are never questioned on their own hypocrisy.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
The UN is not a government,
The UN is not a government, it is a treaty.
Do you oppose all treaties?
Also, you do not define "trans-national" government.
For example, under the Articles of Confederation, Maine and Massachusettes were under one trans-national government.
So were Vermont and New York.
Virginia and Kentucky were under a trans-national government under the Articles of Association.
At the before 1713, South Carolina and North Carolina were under a trans-national government called "Carolina".
Also, each county in a state is under a blanket trans-national government, as is each city, village and town.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
reply
Yes, it is a treaty. But the treaty creates a trans-national government. The two aren't mutually exclusive--a trans-national government can be formed via treaty.
No--it depends on what they are. I do oppose all trans-national government tho.
Trans-national government: government which transcends (that's where "trans" comes in) nations.
That's not a trans-national government. But, I do oppose that.
So you just want to burn the Constitution Right.
That's what I get from all the Anarchy talk from you. I mean most of what you deduce and bring up discussion on leads back to a central thought of NO GOVERNMENT.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
reply
Yes, I believe in liberty. I don't think one individual (or a group) should rule another individual. And since government is a institution of ruling (archism), I am opposed to it.
Why burn it?
It belongs in a museum, as a reminder, a relic from a past where humans once believed words on paper (or hemp in this case) somehow justified stealing from people and killing those who resisted.
Of course there would be no
Of course there would be no stealing or killing in the Utopian anarchy envisioned by yourself and others. Right?
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
That would be foolish to assume
However, the theft and murder would be greatly reduced as people would see them for the crimes that they are.
Writing down some special incantations, adorning oneself in a pretty costumes, and claiming that 'the people said I could' as reasons for such anti-social behavior as practiced by government would be seen and treated for what it really is; a disease.
illegal
There would be stealing in anarchy, except it would be illegal to steal. The constitution legalizes certain types of theft. In anarchy, all theft would be illegal.
What would be done about illegal acts, such as theft...
...in an anarchist society? Who would enforce laws, or make them for that matter?
I've seen some of the anarchy posts on the forum and am trying to understand from a practical standpoint how such a society would function.
laws
The fundamental principle is the non-aggression axiom. Since a coercive monopoly on law would not exist in an anarchist society, the free market would decide how law enforcement would work. The dispute resolution organization is one model. Here are two articles on this idea.
www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux5.html
Also, Stefan Molyneux has written free books available here called Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.
I highly recommend this article by Rothbard - Society Without A State and this one by Roderick Long.
Thank you for the links.
And thanks, BmoreBrawler, for your reply as well.
Laws would be "discovered"
I am not an anarchist, but I have probably critically read more of their literature than most of the anarchists on here, so here goes:
Laws would be "discovered" by common law judges by looking at values ingrained in the social culture. Another theory has it that laws would be formed through a complex web of contracts with law enforcement, courts, and administrative services of the anarchist community. Failure to comply with contractual requirements(fees, regulations) means that you would be punished. As far as who would "make" the laws, I don't know but I would guess a council of community members(government), or whoever pays the most money.
Ventura 2012
Sure there would be
That's naive to think that there wouldn't. But... there would tend to be less, as people would be much wealthier in a truly free-society...one of the big factors of crime is scarcity and poverty.
Bravo!
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."