46 votes

"The Chicago Plan" - 1948 LIFE Magazine article "World Government", explains present situation

"...They would prefer to see the UN Charter altered so that the UN could become a world government rather than undergo the monumental effort of trying to set up one outside of the UN. To this end they have persuaded 17 legislatures in the US to pass resolutions instructing congress to consider revising the UN charter. Their attitude on Russia, once visionary, has gradually firmed. It now seems to be; make every possible effort to get Russian cooperation..."

"...An immediate goal would be to give the UN; as the legally constituted world government, a strong police force and control of atomic weapons."

"...The draft also contains American concessions to the European standpoint. A 'syndical or functional Senate', representing unions, corporations, etc., is set up with vague mediative powers in case future generations should want to emulate Mussolini's corporative state...
Other socialistic articles are perhaps not vague enough for the American taste; for example, land ownership is 'subordinated in all cases to the interest of the common good' and monopolies are to be government owned. But in general neither capitalism nor socialism is prescribed for the world economy; it could turn out to be either or both"

"... 'The age of nations must end, and the era of humanity begin.'
Nevertheless the constitution bows to the federative principle and contains an electoral gimmick which might in fact permit a true federation to develop. This gimmick is a division of the world into nine 'societies of kindred nations and cultures, or regions' (see map), by name Europa, Atlantis, Eurasia*, Afrasia, Africa, India, Asia Major, Austrasia and Columbia. Each region chooses an equal number of candidates for the world Council. ..."

"... but the Chicago world President has powers at which even F.D.R. might have whistled. Not only is he head of all the armed forces in the world (as chairman of the Chamber of Guardians) but he is also chief justice and chairman of the Grand Tribunal, a 60-judge World Court. ..."

*************

Please click on the link to the site below, then click on the link that says "preview this magazine>>"...

Then scroll down to page 49 - 55... You will see the title of the article "World Government"...
It is a must read, & explains everything happening today, to a tee...

OK, here is the link...

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZkYEAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_all...

Seriously, a MUST read, you will not regret!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It Has Been Asked

...what's so wrong with this UN thingy?

How soon we forget...consider this:
NATO
Sarajevo
Balkans
Serbia
UN-Peacekeepers Raping Refugees

Anybody care to add to this?...be my guest.
Thanks for posting this.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

So what is wrong with a

group of nations getting together to form a confederation of nations? It could have a written constitution to delegate only limited powers. There could be separate branches to keep limited global government power in artificial check. The people can delegate the power to tax because naturally global government would be ratified by the people so it can derive its just powers to tax directly from We The People Of The World who have the inherent power to tax one another. All powers not expressly delegated would be reserved to the nations and people so there is no worry about global government getting too big. The best part is that it would be a republic not democracy!!!

It would be a global minarchist utopia. How could any minarchist possibly be opposed to a little necessary evil for a common global defense? What reason or logic could a minarchist possibly have to oppose a common global defense? How can minarchists live with themselves and be willing to risk no common global defense in a big universe where there is a possibility of alien invasion? The universe will devolve into intergalactic gang and tribal planetary warfare without global governments to protect and keep us safe.

Any people who do not consent to the implied global social contract without ever receiving a full and honest disclore are free to secede and go find their own planet in the universe. It's peferct, what more could a minarchist want?

Wow! A World-Government is a min-archy? UH... NO!

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Your entire post is based on a completely false premise.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

So what would be wrong with a group of nations

getting together and forming a confederation to provide a common defense against an alien invasion? Let's keep it simple and say what if just thirteen of them got together for such a purpose. Would there be something wrong if they wanted to include more? Is there some magical cap to how many can join before it becomes wrong? What is the magic number?

Strawman... I see what you're doing... trying compare the USA...

...to global government.

I'm not going to defend that strawman.

The United States is not a min-archy, either...
The United States, and the history of it's founding, and 'Manifest Destiny' is flawed in many ways.

What does that have to do with advocating for a World Government?
Nothing. It doesn't make world government ok.

The people who came to America held certain values, and founded a nation on those values, which were mostly based in the moral law of G-d.
As the population grew, so did the nation.
The Unites States of America was the closest thing to a min-archy the world had ever seen when it was founded, and the basis of which is still the closest thing today.

World Government is a bunch of elites from already established nations trying to force everyone under their rule. It is not by the consent of the governed. That's why it did not happen. But America did, because this nations was founded by the will of the people, on the moral law of G-d, which no man is above.

Because of the actions of the globalists, America is turning away from G-d's moral laws, and individual Men & Women are declaring themselves above G-d's law.

I suggest you carefully read an OP I just created called "Moral Laws have been Enforced by every society in History."

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

LoL Strawman?

I can't misrepresent my own identical question which is the exact same argument I reiterated in the follow up comment ... you have not answered. You are spewing off all this irrelevant BS to the question ... what is wrong with nations forming a confederation? Is there a magical cap on how many can join?

I do not care if the U.S. is a minarchy. You are on thin ice though if you think most minarchists don't consider limited constitutional government comprising a confederation of sovereign nations for common defense to be minarchy. I didn't ask if the U.S. is minarchy, I asked what is wrong with 13 nations forming a confederation of limited power for common defense against an alien invasion?

I did not ask about God either. I asked with is wrong with a group of nations, for example 13, forming a confederation for common defense against an alien invasion?

If anyone is erecting strawmen, that would be you. The question that has been posed is a pretty simple one.

Your question is a flawed, loaded question...

...All the people of world cannot "get together" and decide on a world government.

And that is not happening, and has nothing to do with "The Chicago Plan", which is the OP that YOU were referring to when claiming a world government is a min-archy no different than the United States.

You fell through the ice a long time ago.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

All you got is

BS because you apparently can't answer a simple question. What is wrong with thirteen nations forming a confederation for common defense against alien invasion? Is there a magical cap on how many can join?

It is not a complicated question. It is a simple question. Questions are never the problem. The problem here is it is a very good, legitimate question and since you have no possible answer you can provide, all you can do is spew a bunch of BS non-responsive to the question.

Just because you can't answer the question is not going to make it disappear. Just because you can't answer the question is not going to erase the question from existence in any mind. You just look silly as hell continuing on without answering the question:

What is wrong with thirteen nations forming a confederation for common defense against alien invasion? Is there a magical cap on how many can join?

I would have to ask..

What does an alien invasion have to do with my property ownership rights?

I have zero

interest further discussing a question no one answers. It is like watching Jan debate where a question never gets answered. No one can provide any rationale reason why it is right for thirteen nations to form a confederation which adds 38 more nations but all of a sudden it would be wrong if it included all nations.

Perhaps you have learned something.

You are looking at this from a macro management viewpoint, the big picture. Is there anything wrong with countries joining a group where they will be represented equally and bring along a willful citizenry? Probably not. But that's where it ends.

What matters to most people is how does it affect me? Or WIIFM..What's in it for me. If we are to lose our property rights, or the citizenry isn't on board for whatever reasons, then it is unacceptable. The small picture is where the truth is found, the large picture is the propaganda that is used to try and overcome the crippling truth behind an all powerful world government.

Our forefathers warned us against alliances and poking our noses where they don't belong. I couldn't imagine how terribly a supposed 'world wide' alliance would turn out. You would never know if the citizens of each nation actually agreed to be turned over to the world government, and it wouldn't matter to those handing over the country in exchange for better than normal privilege. We would simply become one huge 'Animal Farm' where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Besides, what planet would we go to in order to escape this monstrosity? Your debate method seems to be based on narrowing the discussions allowed, though they are very much relevant, yet trying to pin your opponents to the very narrow set of discussions you have decided to explore. World government, even fighting your aliens, can't be narrowed down to a few simple yes or no questions. What's wrong with it you ask? Will of the people, and the lack of it. That's the only answer I need.

That is not an answer to any question I posed.

It is more of the same BS saying a confederation is right and wrong. The very people in this thread down voting and commenting are the exact same people who idly stood by while Jesus was crucified, Jews were murdered etc.

I would bet a winning lottery ticket if there was a threat of extra-terrestrial alien invasion or some other global threat they would be first in line to support a global confederation for common defense. People who live in fear with no answers or guiding principles do not suddenly change their tune.

What...

"What is wrong with thirteen nations forming a confederation for common defense against alien invasion?"

Yes, it is a complicated question. It depends on a LOT.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

So ...

Why would it be wrong for thirteen nations to form a confederation for common defense against alien invasion?

Depends on a LOT? That is what passes for knowledge and wisdom nowadays? Let me get this straight, you can't tell me what constitutes a LOT but I am supposed to trust you are competent to draft a constitution or any other law? Screw that. If you can't explain something simple such as why it is wrong then your opinions about anything related to law are not worth a dam thing.

At 18:30 yesterday you posted this novel of an OP:

http://www.dailypaul.com/319505/moral-laws-have-been-enforce...

Are you going to tell me you can write a f'n book but not provide an answer to a simple question? At 18:30 yesterday right and wrong didn't seem that complicated to you because you wrote a book about something can only be right if God says so. Yet here you can not explain why something is wrong. Talk about hypocrisy.

The foundation of the liberty movement is truth not BS. BS occurs when one can not provide a rationale answer.

My two cents to your question

Its absolutely wrong for this country to join a confederation against an alien invasion without the consent of the people through their elected representatives to do such a thing. And by aliens, I assume you speak of the extraterrestrial type.

Personally, I hold the opinion that it is a very flawed idea to form a coalition under the guise of alien invasion, without absolute evidence of hostile intent of any known or unknown aliens - being even if extraterrestrials do exist and our government, or any government, knows about them or knows of their intent, its covered up - and in this country, the consent given by the people in such a case without all the information and facts would be skewed.

No one here can speak for other nations doing whatever they decide to do. If all of the Nations join together in such a coalition except one, I hope we are the one to stand alone as the one country that didn't buy into it.

Respectfully.

I am getting the feeling

minarchists mean sometimes it can be right and sometimes it can be wrong. That kind of vagueness is not acceptable.

When you say "consent of the people through their elected representatives" what do you mean?

Do you mean consent of only people who have elected representatives not inclusive of people who have not elected a representative?

Does "consent of the people through their elected representatives" include elected representatives entering into a treaty?

When you say "I hold the opinion that it is a very flawed idea to form a coalition under the guise of alien invasion, without absolute evidence of hostile intent of any known or unknown aliens," what if the term aliens included all terrestrial and extraterrestrial aliens? Would it still be a very flawed idea to form any coalition without absolute evidence of hostile intent? What would constitute absolute evidence of hostile intent?

What if at some point in the future there was no longer any absolute evidence of hostile intent? Is it right or wrong for a confederation formed with absolute evidence of hostile intent of any known or unknown aliens to be perpetual?

I respect your courage to step forth with your two cents and at least your comment is somewhat responsive to the question but I don't consider the question answered because there really haven't been any clear rules presented to discern between when it would be right or wrong for thirteen countries to form a confederation for common defense.

If people are going to say it is right for thirteen nations on the east coast to form a confederation and add 38 more nations to it along with a bunch of other territory but then say it would be wrong if it included all nations someone needs to provide a reason why that would be wrong.

When I hear minarchists complain about a one world government I can't help but laugh. I wonder to myself what in the hell are those people thinking. How is it right for thirteen nations on the east coast to do it to but wrong if more or all nations decide to do the exact same thing.

All I ever get is a bunch of blah, blah, blah it would never happen, etc. Ok fine, but that was just a bunch of blah, blah, blah and not a reason it is right or wrong. Obviously being anti-state I do not have this major inconsistency in my own thinking but I would sure as heck like some of the mincarchists to explain how nations forming a confederation for common defense against alien invasion can be right and wrong at the same time.

Yes, it could be right or wrong DEPENDING on a lot of variables!

You may not like that answer because it does not allow you to pin someone down on a loaded question where you can then say "Gotcha".
Which is clearly your intention here.

But you have not provided a sound theory yourself.

What, you just sit back and judge people, asking loaded questions, and when they don't answer your dumb question you say "oooh, you didn't answer the question blah blah blah..."

The truth is it does depend on a LOT.

Mostly, it depends on whether or not the use of force (government is force) will be used for ONLY upholding moral justice (preserving Life/Liberty) and not anything more than that basic necessity.

http://www.dailypaul.com/319505/moral-laws-have-been-enforce...

Edit* - So you read my thread and still don't understand? You're desperate, and I'm not going to fall for your trap.
Why didn't you choose to respond to my OP there?
Cat got your tongue?

I guess you only confident in your ability to ask loaded questions and then b*tch when the person won't fall for your trap.
My OP will further answer any question you have regarding anarchy vs. min-archy...
And you don't have to believe in G-d, only Universal Morality...
But I'm guessing, based on your candor, that you don't comprehend that concept either.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

If it is right or wrong depending on

variables then you ought to be able to explain what those variables are and what values of those variables equal a right or wrong condition.

Cat got your tongue?

RE: But you have not provided a sound theory yourself.

The burden of proof is upon he who claims a group of nations forming a confederation for common defense against alien invasion is right or wrong. The burden of proof is not upon he that says ok ... why is it wright or wrong? Your logic is atrocious. Incorrect assertion of strawman fallacies and now shifting the burden of proof. Sheesh.

RE: What, you just sit back and judge people, asking loaded questions, and when they don't answer your dumb question you say "oooh, you didn't answer the question blah blah blah..."

Yes, if you are making a claim something is right or wrong and can't answer a question why it is right or wrong then I am going to judge you to be ignorant, incompetent, a garden variety dumbass, or some combination. I am assuredly not going to judge you to be a source of truth for the topic of a question you can not answer.

RE: I guess you only confident in your ability to ask loaded questions and then b*tch when the person won't fall for your trap.

I am confident in my self awareness to seek truth which involves asking questions. If there is a rationale answer to a question one is probably on or near a path of truth. If there is no answer to a question one is probably standing in a field of bull shit.

RE: My OP will further answer any question you have regarding anarchy vs. min-archy

I can say with certainty for one to believe that when no answer has been provided to my simple question they would have to be standing in a field of bull shit.

RE: But I'm guessing, based on your candor, that you don't comprehend that concept either.

I am guessing you don't comprehend what a detail like immoral laws have been enforced by every society in history does to your statement moral laws have been enforced by every society in history. You make a bunch of assertions, define terms as they suit you, but for all your rambling you can't explain why something is right or wrong? Why the hell would anyone listen to a fool talk about moral this or moral that but can not say why something specific is right or wrong? For the life of me I can not figure out why anyone would bother to listen to that kind of a fool.

I repeat, why would it be wrong for thirteen nations to form a confederation for common defense against alien invasion? Is there a magical cap on how many other nations could join the confederation?

Now you want me to explain ALL the variables & possible outcomes

...of the hypothetical notion of 13 sovereigns coming together to form one government and weigh the morality of each and every possible variable... for You?

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

If you are claiming it,

then I want some explanation. Your comment illustrates you have zero explanation. If you had any explanation at all you would have offered it.

I am really sick and tired of the intellectual dishonesty you represent. You say something like everyone must believe in objective morality. Guess what, that is a fixed concept. (Special thanks to DP user John Robb teaching me to properly identify my precise objection) Objective morality is an idea morality is fixed variable M which can have two possible values R or W, right and wrong.

In an objective sense right and wrong are not variables. Right and wrong are possible values of the variable morality. Let's just think about the sheer absence of intelligence you are demonstrating illustrated by math.

P ---> Q
If P then Q
If condition then it is right or wrong.

Things are not moral agents. Only human actors are moral agents. You can't even define one possible condition. Does condition = human action, does condition = human action + circumstances, does condition = human action + outcome, does condition = human action + circumstances + outcome, or other? If it is a combination there is a new concept being introduced, an operation, represented by the plus sign.

Before I continue on let me say I am sitting here educating you for free by the mere fact I have an explanation and you have zero explanation. Since I have an answer it is automatically superior to your absence of any answer. Basically selfish, ungrateful, fucking people like you that ramble on about shit they have no answers for what they are talking about are educated by people like me and you people expect it for free like every other dam freeloader. You take our superior ideas and methods of explanation which are about to be firmly implanted on your brain by the sheer power of their superiority to a previous absence of gray matter and then turn around and use it to continue being a loud ignorant ass.

Let's theorize condition constitutes human action, ownership, consent, and outcome. Let's also theorize consistent rules that can be applied to evaluate a condition are trespass and harm.

For example:
Condition = Human Action + Outcome + Ownership + Consent
Human Action = Person X fires a gun.
Outcome = Bullet strikes and kills person Y.
Ownership = Gun owned by person A, bullets owned by person B, persons A, B, X, and Y owned by themselves.
Consent = Person A expressly consented to person X using gun to shoot person Y. Person B did not expressly consent to person X using their bullets. Person Y did not expressly consent to being shot.

Now, without regard to any sense of punishment is there any difficulty discerning whether any moral agents in the above scenario acted rightly or wrongly? No because it would be verified and corroborated by surveying peoples opinions of who acted rightly and wrongly. Even though this is all speculation, I predict statistics would indicate a high degree of agreement on which parties acted rightly or wrongly in the above scenario. Location could probably be added in to the condition equation for more clarty.

Can I take these same exact concepts, elements, and rules and apply them to the question I have posed? Yes.

Using a consistent application of the above, I can argue if thirteen nations form a confederation for purposes of common defense against alien invasion using (<- key word) property that is owned, without the express consent of owners, which trespasses or causes harm then it is not right.

At least I can provide a rationale answer to the question posed which is far more than anything you have demonstrated. The NAP takes concepts above and reduces it further. I have much respect for the other commenter in this exchange who at least attempted to answer the question.

Did you see this thread which has a lot of upvotes:

http://www.dailypaul.com/319506/richard-gage-responds-to-cnn...

Do you think people agreed or disagreed when Richard Gage stated:

"That is the problem, we can't ask questions anymore"
"Ben Franklin said it is our patriotic duty to ask questions"
"It is the duty of the government and media to ask questions and provide answers"
"Get yourself some integrity ... we need people at CNN who are going to ask questions, who are going to demand answers"

I am asking questions and demanding answers. What is your answer to the question? Zero. Nothing. A bunch of bull shit and then stupid insults WHILE writing novels about some concept of fixed objective morality you can't define. I do not feel like educating selfish, ungrateful, freeloaders who act like assholes and offer no answers. Answer the question that has been repeatedly posed or piss off.

Yes, UN propaganda was

Yes, UN propaganda was strong, and for the league of nations, in their infancy. But also anti-UN groups like JBS were very active.
I wonder why the efforts against them have faded from the limelight as of late.

Southern Agrarian

Might want to check your dates

and History.

League of nations was implemented after WWI and failed, from lack of US support among other things.

the JBS didn't start until 1958. And that was in response to the Cold war, and Eisenhower being soft on communism.

There was almost no libertarian / small government movements in the 1940s and early 50s, since the depression had moved everyone either socialist, facist or out right communist. The exception was the small Ayn Rand Clique of writers like Wilder, Hurston, Paterson and some of their friends. Interesting that they are all women.

The UN was a type of PTSD reaction at the end of WWII.

The League of Nations ended AFTER the UN was founded

Interestingly, the League of Nations dissolved itself AFTER the UN was founded. Of course, the United Nations was the name the Allies gave themselves in the fight against Fascism during World War II.

The actual organization was given the same name as it comprised all of the fighting members of the Allied cause -- one had to fight to be part of the UN. Nations like Turkey declared war on Germany at the last minute just to be listed as a founding member of the UN organization.

With the UN taking over all of the duties formerly expected of the League of Nations, the members of the League voted to dissolve.

Although the UN is made out to be world government, its statutes are far tamer than the League's. There were so many violations of sovereignty contained in the covenant of the League, that the United States refused to join, as it would violate the Constitution on the basis of foreign law superseding federal law.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

He didn't post any dates....

....and his information was correct, but incomplete.

There was libertarian /small govt response to avoiding WWII. This is why FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, knowing in advance, as a way to sway the public opinion to join the war in Europe.

FDR's action were key to the PTSD reaction as you state in forming the UN.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

DJP333's picture

Totally missed this when posted

Will be reading this sometime this week. Thanks.

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW

Thanks, will read.

Thanks, will read.

Southern Agrarian

Definitely a must read

As said below, this is a great find.

Direct link to the article:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZkYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA4...

Thanks for providing the direct link... Makes it alot easier..

...This is a must read, for everyone on DP, and beyond for sure.

Will change your mind if you do not buy into the Globalist 'conspiracy', and will greatly open your mind on the subject even if you do...

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

World President...

"... 'The age of nations must end, and the era of humanity begin.'
Nevertheless the constitution bows to the federative principle and contains an electoral gimmick which might in fact permit a true federation to develop. This gimmick is a division of the world into nine 'societies of kindred nations and cultures, or regions' (see map), by name Europa, Atlantis, Eurasia*, Afrasia, Africa, India, Asia Major, Austrasia and Columbia. Each region chooses an equal number of candidates for the world Council. ..."

"... but the Chicago world President has powers at which even F.D.R. might have whistled. Not only is he head of all the armed forces in the world (as chairman of the Chamber of Guardians) but he is also chief justice and chairman of the Grand Tribunal, a 60-judge World Court. ..."

And this is from 1948 mind you! Only 3 short years after WW2 ended, when we were allies with the Russians, and we brought in the remainder of the Nazi war-machine, and took their people under our wing. This has all been planned LONG ago...

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I'm a World Anti-federalist

What immediately comes to mind after reading the article are the Anti-federalists. All the warnings and concerns that the American Anti-federalists had with the Constitution, primarily its vagueness, have come to realization.

Imagine a World Government that has a 'Constitution' as vague and in a practical sense useless as the US Constitution today. A Government that usurps all the ability and dignity of its 'subjects' (once the best part of humanity) and replaces it with dependence and diffidence. A government that declares that all of its 'necessary' evils are granted by the consent of those not allowed to dissent.