Endgame, the next global holocaust

[CapnG]

And I agree with you: why does a planetary government = evil? The world already operates under a global economy. It doesn't take a scientist or conspiracy theorist to realize that the planet does not have the resources for everyone to live the stereotypical western lifestyle.

Even the whackiest man from whackyland, Bill Cooper stated that he thought one world government was not only inevitable but vital for humanity's survival. The key difference is whether or not we enter into that realm voluntarily with a clearly defined concept of how things should be or whether we allow ourselves to be co-erced into it by those who want to run things their way. Sadly, we're already way beyond the point where the latter could be stopped.

 

[Poi]

Sadly, we're already way beyond the point where the latter could be stopped.

That's the way I see it. It's a done deal. They're just waiting for the rest of us to figure it out, not that there isn't a lot more to accomplish, but the die is cast.

 

[Mogwa]

As a species, we seem to learn nothing from our own history. It has been undeniably demonstrated over, and over and over again that the larger any government is, the greater its tendency to abuse power. Any world government would, by its very definition, require staggering authority, resources, and military prowess to implement the laws it is obligated to enforce. Does anyone truly believe that the concomitant opportunities for misuse of that power would never be exploited?
The idea that the same mindset that runs my state's Bureau Of Motor Vehicles can competently govern the entire planet is as absurd as it is frightening. Within a single lifetime, the world would descend into a feudal era of totalitarian oppression that would make the lowest point of the dark ages seem like a mythic paradise.
When the police become the the worst of society's criminals, the game is really over. Now, please pass the some of that soma this way, me droogie malchick brothers. I've an itch to play some horror show.

 

[CapnG]

Does anyone truly believe that the concomitant opportunities for misuse of that power would never be exploited?
The idea that the same mindset that runs my state's Bureau Of Motor Vehicles can competently govern the entire planet is as absurd as it is frightening.

Do you really think it makes a difference if there's one tyranny or a dozen? I don't see the correlation between abuse and scale at all, some of the smallest nations in history have had the most brutal regimes.

This is why utopia can never exist: because humans are the ones trying to build it.

 

[Mogwa]

Does anyone truly believe that the concomitant opportunities for misuse of that power would never be exploited?
The idea that the same mindset that runs my state's Bureau Of Motor Vehicles can competently govern the entire planet is as absurd as it is frightening.

Do you really think it makes a difference if there's one tyranny or a dozen? I don't see the correlation between abuse and scale at all, some of the smallest nations in history have had the most brutal regimes.

This is why utopia can never exist: because humans are the ones trying to build it.

Since your basic premise is false, all the conclusions drawn from it are false. There's no legitimate comparison in history between the damage done by the dictatorships of a small nation states compared to the crimes of global superpowers. Horrible as the rule of a monster like Idi Amin may have been, his best efforts at psychotic mayhem pale in comparison to the slaughters perpetuated by the early twentieth century European monarchies, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Johnson, Nixon and Bush.
There is also the trivial matter of basic human rights. One of the less well regarded of them these days has to do with a process known as voting. It's an antiquated idea that postulates the ridiculous notion that governments can only derive legitimate authority from the free consent of its citizens through the unhindered casting of ballots to decide issues.
I'm not aware of any referendum on the establishment of a One World Dictatorship appearing on a ballot anywhere, any time in this country.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I don't think anyone sane would support the idea of a one-world dictatorship, Mogwa. Heck no.

How about a one world constitutional republic with regional superstates? That is manageable without the threat of descending into total tyranny, yes?

None of this will matter when the robots take over. They'll kill us all and their government will function like Vegur in the first Star Trek movie.

 

[CapnG]

Horrible as the rule of a monster like Idi Amin may have been, his best efforts at psychotic mayhem pale in comparison to the slaughters perpetuated by the early twentieth century European monarchies, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Johnson, Nixon and Bush.

Tyranny is tyranny, scale is irrelevant. If there's more of A, there's more of B but more is not "worse" it's just more. It's not a game, no one gets crowned "king psychopath" at the end of the century for wracking up the highest body count, they're all equally nuts in my book.

One of the less well regarded of them these days has to do with a process known as voting. It's an antiquated idea that postulates the ridiculous notion that governments can only derive legitimate authority from the free consent of its citizens through the unhindered casting of ballots to decide issues.

Who told you this fairy tale? Voting? Are you kidding? So if you don't like criminal asshole Smith you get to vote for criminal asshole Jones instead? Yippee! Sign me up!

I'm increasingly convinced that democracy has NEVER existed, ever, EVER. We the peasants are allowed the illusion of freedom to cast votes on trivial matters to placate us so that those holding the reigns can continue to do whatever they want, whenever they want and ALWAYS WILL.

How about a one world constitutional republic with regional superstates?

Fine in principle but meaningless in practice. Remember, communist nations traditionally refer to themselves as "republics" so don't go assigning the term any undue merit.

 

[Mogwa]

My reference to voting was clearly identified as applying to this country, the United States. And I still maintain that we have never had a referendum in this nation to ratify anything remotely like a world government initiative. Therefore, any attempt to force it upon the citizenry is illegal and immoral. That gives me not only the right, but the obligation, to resist by force those who seek to impose any authority on me other than that clearly defined by the constitution.
Tyranny is not simply tyranny, as if all oppression is equal in scope and efficiency. That should be so obvious that it requires no further discussion.
I would add that Democracy is the worst possible form of government imaginable. Fifty one per cent of the population will alway dominate the other forty nine per cent, leaving the minority completely helpless to protect themselves against majority approved persecution. Benjamin Franklin described democracy as two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu.
In a republic, the sheep has a gun.

 

[CapnG]

Tyranny is not simply tyranny, as if all oppression is equal in scope and efficiency. That should be so obvious that it requires no further discussion.

It isn't, so enlighten us, oh wise one... Please explain how a muderous lunatic who kills 1000 people is somehow not as evil as one who kills 100,000.

In a republic, the sheep has a gun.

And as I just pointed out, "republic" is a meaningless term. China's a republic for chrissakes, just ask 'em. I have never once heard a decent explanation of how a republic is either better or functionally different from a democracy, so feel free to clear that one up too.

 

[Mogwa]

I'm not presenting myself as a "wise one." All I'm attempting to do is honestly express my opinions with substantiating observations as best I can in such a limited venue.
The fact that China, or any other dictatorship, refers to itself as a Republic when it clearly isn't doesn't mean the word has no meaning. What it does demonstrate is a gang of criminals attempting to disguise their crimes with semantic games. Is it so surprising that psychopaths attempt to legitimize what they are by claiming to be something else? I can swear undo oath to be a bipedal tapeworm, but that doesn't make it so.
A Republic is a proportional representative form of government in which the citizens elect officials to hold public office. What sets this form of governance apart from all others is its ability to allow every participating person to play a part in determining the nation's political character, without descending into the horror of mob rule, which is democracy in its purest form.

There is no qualitative ethical difference between a tyrant that murders thousands and a more ambitious rival who slaughters millions. But that's a straw man in this discussion. The very idea that isolated geopolitical tyrannies can have the identical effect on the population of the entire planet as a global dictatorship is irrational. In a very practical sense, numbers do matter, especially when you're one of the victims.
There's also the matter of hope. Those who suffer under the local rule of a monster can always make plans to escape to a better place, or enlist the help of neighboring states to overthrow a murderous regime. But when the entire world is one vast prison, there will be nowhere to flee, and no allies to aid the opponents of despotism. End game.

 

[CapnG]

A Republic is a proportional representative form of government in which the citizens elect officials to hold public office. What sets this form of governance apart from all others is its ability to allow every participating person to play a part in determining the nation's political character, without descending into the horror of mob rule, which is democracy in its purest form.

I don't see how that's fundamentally any different from a parlimentary democracy- People electing other people to run things on their behalf. I can't really see how it's supposedly better, either. Given Franklin's analogy, there's nothing stopping the wolves getting guns too, at which point the sheep is royaly fucked. It also seems to me that the potential for a small group of malcontents to restrict the progress of society would be very high in a true republic.

More to the point however (and steering things slightly back on topic), here's a serious question for you: Do you consider the USA to be a republic? And let's be clear, I'm not asking whether or not you believe it's SUPPOSED to be one, I'm asking whether or not you think it IS one RIGHT NOW.

 

[Mogwa]

No, the United States hasn't been a Republic since the passage of the sixteenth amendment. National level elections are now only a sham because citizens have no real power in deciding which candidates will be selected through the state held primary processes.