I would very much like to see an anarchist society in my lifetime, but what are the prospects of freedom in our time? How long do you predict it will be till there is an anarchist society? I think that will be an easier feat than a minarchist society. Agree? Also, what do you think the prospects of secession are?
Good, actually. I think we'll see, within our lifetimes, a region of the world where free market anarchism is allowed to exist to a rather uninhibited degree.
Call it a hunch.
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
Freiheit: Good, actually. I think we'll see, within our lifetimes, a region of the world where free market anarchism is allowed to exist to a rather uninhibited degree. Call it a hunch.
Libertarian memes are circulating through the general public much more so than they used to; there's one reason for optimism.
Imo, I see it playing out like this: world government. Dissolution of all states into one - tyranny reigns supreme.
With the collapse of this system, which I hope is inevitable...
Out of the ashes, nothing will rise to replace it.
No more states. And thus Freedom...
Conza88: Imo, I see it playing out like this: world government. Dissolution of all states into one - tyranny reigns supreme. With the collapse of this system, which I hope is inevitable... Out of the ashes, nothing will rise to replace it. No more states. And thus Freedom...
If we get to one world government, it's game over.
liberty student: If we get to one world government, it's game over.
Yes & No, in the same way that the future cannot ansolutley be predicted. If we're lucky as hell, it wouldn't be game over, but I don't think uncertainty is enough of a rationale to think of one world government as a "necessary" evolutionary step towards no-government, or no state. If that were the case, we might as well invalidate the intellectual & ideological struggle on the basis of "not really knowing". A lot more people should be complete pessimists, though, I agree. I can see why many would find comfort in thinking that the state as an institution will eventually crumble on itself & it's flaws finally become visible to even the most ardent believers.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I see it this way.
One world government => genocide => complete reset on knowledge and history
I don't think we will find much libertarian philosophy in a society that has no conception of history or alternative theories of knowledge.
Conza88: Imo, I see it playing out like this: world government. Dissolution of all states into one - tyranny reigns supreme.
You don't think we're already here?
I think we've been at a de facto world government stage for a while, but we just haven't been able to admit it to ourselves. Granted, I think the current world government we have is very decentralized, at present, but I wouldn't say that it's nonexistant. We've already got the UN legislating domestic policies, we've got the UN+NATO sending their own military troops into various regions of the world to suppress conflict, we've already got an international court system, and the central bankers of the world are all obviously working together.
I think the difference between the world government we have today and the clearly-defined Orwellian state many of us imagine is just a matter of degree, not essence.
Individualist: Freiheit: Good, actually. I think we'll see, within our lifetimes, a region of the world where free market anarchism is allowed to exist to a rather uninhibited degree. Call it a hunch. What size of region do you have in mind? What locations do you think would be most likely?
Who knows? If I had to guess, I'd say that Hoppe's "free cities" theory is most likely. A given state would put up much less of a fight if a region the size of a city or so were to secede. Then, of course, once other entrepreneurs see the profit opportunity in such a move, more free cities will likely pop up until perhaps whole geographic swaths break off from their respective states. If I were a betting man, I'd say the first free cities would pop up in Africa and Eastern Asia, since that's where states seem to be losing their grip on their power and might be more willing to let a little bit of land go in exchange for some big juicy bribes.
Of course, this is all conjecture. I have no idea. Just a hunch.
Freiheit: Conza88: Imo, I see it playing out like this: world government. Dissolution of all states into one - tyranny reigns supreme. You don't think we're already here? I think we've been at a de facto world government stage for a while, but we just haven't been able to admit it to ourselves. Granted, I think the current world government we have is very decentralized, at present, but I wouldn't say that it's nonexistant. We've already got the UN legislating domestic policies, we've got the UN+NATO sending their own military troops into various regions of the world to suppress conflict, we've already got an international court system, and the central bankers of the world are all obviously working together. I think the difference between the world government we have today and the clearly-defined Orwellian state many of us imagine is just a matter of degree, not essence.
Freiheit, I actually see this too. I also think the quality of life in places is something a lot of people, including myself, have not woke up to as of yet. I think the damage has been done and more to come, but the damage that has been done is already here. It's just that people are waking up from a fantasy of lies that played with our perspective. For instance, money is coming into the household, but when I point out that day care is on the rise and both parents are working more (has been growing this way for decades) I encounter people that say this is reality. It is a matter of perspective on what reality we as people ought to be living. History shows different variations of how societies, including the family, live. I find it difficult to swallow that families are to live their lives separated increasingly. I think the economy has been hard hit for decades and the market opens up to cope with these changes (day care). Grandparents used to fill this role or a parent staying at home. I think crime is huge indicator too. It has increased and the number of prisons are becoming not enough to keep up with this so called government need. Cities especially are in increasingly dire straits. The country is not shielded either. Society has fallen apart in ways the information flows in daily on what is actually happening around us. TV is one of the biggest la-la land distraction. People feel something is going on in their gut and can't quite put their finger on it and the TV is the biggest deceptive tool that hides what's really happening. That's what economic bubbles do. They sweep the facts under the rug and the festering sores of society are kept hidden as long as society is able to hide it. I think hindsight is actually what provides us with answers to what has happened and then we are trying to keep up with these events that have already been set into motion.
Here's the recent show of world government that has been kept hidden from people, and this is just the last 6 months or so worth.
September '08 bubble burst with Paulson yelling, "Next Great Depression," then we see:
A) World Political Leaders gather at G20 economic summits.
B) World Central Bankers had numerous meetings together during this time as well.
C) Treasury Secetaries, Economic MInisters from each country had meetings around this time too with each other (different names for these from various countries)
D) World Central Banks coordinated same day interest rate drops
E) SDR's
F) the WHO and other countries work in coordination on Swine Flu (as small as this event was notice the global governance response was highly organized and in sequence).
G) the Pirates off Somalia saw numerous countries involved in coordinated efforts though I think France and U.S. played major roles but Italy, England, and India contributed.
H) Global response to North Korea over satellite/missle
I) Governments coordinate talks on Global Warming
J) Europe and U.S. (maybe other countries not sure yet) coordinated in same week (this past week) on going after companies (Intel, Google, others?) for supposed monopolies
K) Israel and Iran get commentated on by government leaders during same day at times depends on the news coming out of that region
The coordination on the Swine Flu and the Economic situation was very pin-pointed. The Swine Flu was an odd coordination that seemed to run like a well-oiled machine. Not much was going on with that Flu and yet the global leaders all came out in such a fashion. They are not getting their information and their reactions are not coming from the ground level at all. The Swine Flu reaction showed this tremendously. Not much on the ground level at all. Very, very small occurrences of this flu and yet the global leaders had to have been reading from a playbook for the facts on the ground showed no lock step in their march would have been necessary at all. The avian flu in China not too many years ago also had a lock step march by global leaders but this Swine flu performance was highly precise by the global government leaders coming out and speaking about it. It's as if they all got a phone call at the same time and went out speaking immediately after. Avian flu was coordinated, but the Swine flu was on point without hardly a lag in efforts anywhere around the world to be seen.
Yeah, I agree. The world government is already here, as you say, but the degree, also as you say, will intensify monthly and weekly at times. And on certain days we might even notice there are hardly any separate States anymore like in those real-time showings I mentioned.
But what you robbed me of is my oh poor me, my liberty.
I think this song lyric (by the poet, Pete Doherty) sums up the attitude of most free marketeers and why we'll never rid ourselves of the state.
tacoface: But what you robbed me of is my oh poor me, my liberty. I think this song lyric (by the poet, Pete Doherty) sums up the attitude of most free marketeers and why we'll never rid ourselves of the state.
I think you haven't met many free marketeers then.
People who believe in liberty tend to be very optomistic, and with good reason: the state is inefficient, slow to react, stupid, and incapable of initiating creative processes. The market is efficient, adaptive, and consists of nothing less than the problem-solving capacity of the entire human race. Liberty is not a possibility, it is an eventuality. The question is only how long it will take, and whether the statists will come to their senses and join us, or insist on resisting us, and lose anyway.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I believe the only way a society that upholds the NAP principle will ever truly come into existence is if the rulers have something to be afraid of. That is only going to happen when a PDA is strong enough to defend its members against state coercion. This is a long way away if you look at it with modern warfare tactics. Fortunately for freedom, authority is not concentrated with one person, entity, or group. Unfortunately for the state, it is. Having someone who rules another without his consent be incredibly fearful of that ruling will definitely have an immense positive effect on the possibilities of achieving world freedom. Not gonna say HOW you can manage that, but it is possible.
My approach to Freedom for myself is much more similar to a floating university barge. Every person who wants to live on the barge would contractually and voluntarily agree to obey a certain set of rules/laws. It's as simple as, you don't agree to the laws, you don't come aboard. I even have a whole plan on how education would occur (through debates, rather than lectures). I believe true knowledge can only be attained through thinking, and thinking is very difficult to achieve through memorization, which is what happens with modern teaching. The people that would want to stay and continue to live on the barge after 'graduating' would be the debate leaders/moderators/initiators, while those who chose to return to society would be trained with the knowledge to pass on their principles and ideas.
This would be an immediate step for freedom for all who want to avoid the involuntary state. It would also be a great step towards liberating the entire world. The amount of brain power and debates occuring would undoubtedly lead to some awe inspiring ideas to defeat the aggression of the involuntary state.
An interesting twist would be that the barge could adopt street kids/orphans from around the world and teach them to be the greatest libertarian thinkers on Earth. A child that is raised with the massive amount of knowledge surrounding him, and after coming from homelessness, would have a massive amount of respect for the ability to raise standards of living. The children would also put the barge in the eyes of every single person on Earth. People would hear about it and the word would spread rapidly, and the ideas of NAP along with it. This alone would be a cramp in the involuntary state, but it would also be a GREAT deterent from any nation attacking you, as well as a great way to raise donations.
Funding such a venture would require a lot of immediate capital, but, done correctly, the barge could produce all sorts of goods, research, technology, etc.
I know it sounds like a bit of a dream (which it is), but I believe it is one of the only feasible ways to avoid the state NOW, as the ocean is still not state owned.
Individualist:Will all people groups join in a world federation? What about Montana and Alaska?
There's a clause in the Constitution which allows for treaties to become the supreme law of the land.
Essentially, there will be people who won't want to. A growing number in my opinion due to the Liberty movement. But I believe it was said:
"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)
/sigh. This is essentially what I think. Although I don't really want to, the future isn't set in stone. And the Soviet Union collapsed. Books like This Perfect Day by Ira Levin, Equilibrium (movie), 1984, Brave New World, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Atlas Shrugged.. come to mind though.. and if it ever gets like that, it essentially will have to take a go within the system type of struggle - but that never works. Only in fiction. Rothbard's strategy that has been outlined, is the way of the middle class, go outside the ivory towers, show the people they are being robbed etc. This is going to be immeasurably harder, if the source of income is on a rfid chip. In a cashless society. (NBC program piece). And if you dissent, you get your chip turned off.
But Nazism was defeated by an outside source, which makes me think. If there is no outside source, if they are cracking down on dissenters and there is no place to go.. it doesn't bode too well.
I'm optimistic though. As I don't think you can ever really dampen the human spirit of freedom in some people. I don't think you can ever keep the remnant down.
You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those – dead sure, as our phrase is – but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.
Conza88: liberty student: If we get to one world government, it's game over. /sigh. This is essentially what I think. Although I don't really want to, the future isn't set in stone. And the Soviet Union collapsed. Books like This Perfect Day by Ira Levin, Equilibrium (movie), 1984, Brave New World, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Atlas Shrugged.. come to mind though.. and if it ever gets like that, it essentially will have to take a go within the system type of struggle - but that never works. Only in fiction. Rothbard's strategy that has been outlined, is the way of the middle class, go outside the ivory towers, show the people they are being robbed etc. This is going to be immeasurably harder, if the source of income is on a rfid chip. In a Cashless society. (NBC program piece). And if you dissent, you get your chip turned off. But Nazism was defeated by an outside source, which makes me think. If there is no outside source, if they are cracking down on dissenters and there is no place to go.. it doesn't bode too well.
/sigh. This is essentially what I think. Although I don't really want to, the future isn't set in stone. And the Soviet Union collapsed. Books like This Perfect Day by Ira Levin, Equilibrium (movie), 1984, Brave New World, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Atlas Shrugged.. come to mind though.. and if it ever gets like that, it essentially will have to take a go within the system type of struggle - but that never works. Only in fiction. Rothbard's strategy that has been outlined, is the way of the middle class, go outside the ivory towers, show the people they are being robbed etc. This is going to be immeasurably harder, if the source of income is on a rfid chip. In a Cashless society. (NBC program piece). And if you dissent, you get your chip turned off.
Yeah. The problem with the USSR collapsing, was that it was in a world that had room for it to collapse. The idea of a nation state was normal.
Books are great, but they are fiction. I like Rothbard on ideas, not so much on action.
One world government essentially means socialism. However, socialism can't calculate. Unfortunately, that means that millions, if not billions, will starve to death. Fortunately, it means that the state will also die as it has died everywhere else and whenever else. And I don't mean to get mystical here, but the next US presidential election will be on 2012, when the world issuppose to end. Although, 2012 is also when God is suppose to save all believers, although I would suspect that means that the vast majority of us are sc-to-the-rewed.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I'm so tempted to go all Alex Jones in this thread.
The elites are not oblivious to austrian econ, libertarianism, capitalism. This has been a well orchestrated and deliberate march to one world government. This isn't going to end with calculation problems from not being able to feed everyone. Our masters are not foolish clowns.
liberty student: I'm so tempted to go all Alex Jones in this thread. The elites are not oblivious to austrian econ, libertarianism, capitalism. This has been a well orchestrated and deliberate march to one world government. This isn't going to end with calculation problems from not being able to feed everyone. Our masters are not foolish clowns.
Yeah I feel ya.
I often can't help but think the whole move from Monarchy to Democracy was that they realised they would have to do so, it was the only way to increase the size of the State, to grow their power. The bankers are behind the scenes, they don't care who governs the countries laws - only that they control the countries money supply - which is everything.
And soon they will have the Keyesian dream of a one world bank, with a one world currency, fiat - where they can print and re-distribute wealth to where ever they want.
What don't you agree with Rothbard on in terms of action?
The State not being able to calculate also applies to the control of the territory via the armed forces and laws. To paraphrase Jim Rogers, although Russia technical governs all of Russia, in reality, it only controls Moscow and St. Petersburg. And I understand the point about there not being somewhere else to go to with one world government, but although we may have a one world government, it doesn't necessarily mean that people will pay any attention or abide to it or actually be controlled by it forever. Ultimately, and contrary to the Alex Jones of the world, the rulers of the world are human, and humans make mistakes. I see one world government coming (if it's not here yet), but it will eventually collapse.
Btw, LS and Conza, what are ya'll's facebook's? I just got one and am adding people.
Daniel:Btw, LS and Conza, what are ya'll's facebook's? I just got one and am adding people.
I don't have any social networking stuff setup except I have an account at Bureaucrash I never use. You will always be able to contact me @ Mises.org, as long as they will have me, and I can draw breath.
Re: NWO, you're a lot more optimistic than I am.
Conza88:What don't you agree with Rothbard on in terms of action?
I think Konkin, Rothbard, all of these guys are loaded with great ideas that presume the state is a static target.
It isn't. They are really moving quickly and aggressively.
The most success came when Ron Paul ran, and then we pushed him harder and deeper than he intended to go.
I'm so disappointed that there is so little Austrian entrepreneurship. I listened to Gil Gillory's latest interview, and he's weighing his options because he's not a risk taker. Which is fine. Why haven't other libertarians stepped up with seed money/financing to get his PDA project off the ground? It's going to fail before it succeeds and the longer folks wait to bring it into existence, the less time there is to capitalize on an environment that will tolerate the learning process.
Ranting, must sleep...
liberty student:one world government
There is little to no difference between a 'one world government' and the crap we have now, except with one, foreign trade would be easier, immigration would be a breeze, passports would be useless, purchasing foreign land would be oh so simple...Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack. I might actually prefer a one world government over the system we have now. Of course, there would/will always be alternatives, so I choose neither involuntary governments, and instead opt for a voluntary system.
Also... I doubt Orwells book was intended to portray an actual society literally, but rather mimic the present day society. In essence, he was talking about what is already here.
The one world government talk has got me laughing. Honestly, who the hell cares? The states size doesn't matter one bit. It may even be beneficial! Perhaps then people wouldn't be able to say, "Well if you don't love America, why don't you just move?".
Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack.
Big involuntary government is not inherently better than small involuntary government. Size really doesn't matter!
your mistake is thinking that "large scale war spending" occupies a special place in the scheme of things. Large scale wars will be replaced with dozens of smaller wars and new ways will be engineered to make the proles fearful and cough up the products of their labor. This has already happened, hence the war on terror and environmentalism. Its always about control, the means are incidental.
and small involuntary government is better than large involuntary government. small involuntary government doesn't have the manpower to enforce its edicts. small government can't wage wars all over the world. small government can't infringe on trade as easily etc.
pablofrancisco: There is little to no difference between a 'one world government' and the crap we have now, except with one, foreign trade would be easier, immigration would be a breeze, passports would be useless, purchasing foreign land would be oh so simple...Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack. I might actually prefer a one world government over the system we have now. Of course, there would/will always be alternatives, so I choose neither involuntary governments, and instead opt for a voluntary system. Also... I doubt Orwells book was intended to portray an actual society literally, but rather mimic the present day society. In essence, he was talking about what is already here. The one world government talk has got me laughing. Honestly, who the hell cares? The states size doesn't matter one bit. It may even be beneficial! Perhaps then people wouldn't be able to say, "Well if you don't love America, why don't you just move?". Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack. Big involuntary government is not inherently better than small involuntary government. Size really doesn't matter!
Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack. Big involuntary government is not inherently better than small involuntary government. Size really doesn't matter!
What's funny about methodolgical individualism and tyranny? The amount and size of government intervention in the market doesn't matter?
And yet that's your perspective of what's happening... how ironic when it swings back to it's your opinion, meaning, this is you. For you offer no context but slander how convenient for you, tacoface, the one that hides.
pablofrancisco: liberty student:one world government There is little to no difference between a 'one world government' and the crap we have now, except with one, foreign trade would be easier, immigration would be a breeze, passports would be useless, purchasing foreign land would be oh so simple...Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack. I might actually prefer a one world government over the system we have now. Of course, there would/will always be alternatives, so I choose neither involuntary governments, and instead opt for a voluntary system. Also... I doubt Orwells book was intended to portray an actual society literally, but rather mimic the present day society. In essence, he was talking about what is already here. The one world government talk has got me laughing. Honestly, who the hell cares? The states size doesn't matter one bit. It may even be beneficial! Perhaps then people wouldn't be able to say, "Well if you don't love America, why don't you just move?". Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack. Big involuntary government is not inherently better than small involuntary government. Size really doesn't matter!
A one world government isn't about the world being on the same side. They will always find enemies and fulfill a need to be legitimate. Governments are only legitimate if they are needed. If we are living together without enemies and fear to push an us versus them, a, Elite versus the rest of the population, a, State leaders (one world government leaders) versus the rest of us, they must offer something special or else why would people need them. So they will continue to have to offer something worthwhile and special that they can provide that nobody else can provide or else they have no legitimacy and no need to be here - but they want power, control, and want to hold such positions and be here. So what will they offer? Historically it's been protection. The State offers a protection value that nobody else can offer. They offer the priests/intellectuals that promise a better world. Now a days that promise is in the form of a better economy and technology that will provide so much for the world. It's all the State's promises of being able to handle health issues that nobody else can. It's all these empty lies of promises they offer to make themselves look special and needed. But they aren't and that's the point. A one world government isn't about peace and coming together. It's about these people that think they can offer the world values that can't be found amongst us ordinary folks. They are to be like gods and make promises that are god-like. Look at them wheel their economic measures like they are gods offering something the world can't refuse as they go to world economic summits saying they are solving all the world's problems when they aren't - which is also the point. They aren't solving anything. They are riding upon the backs of the free market the real life of this world, the ordinary creative people in wholesome honest relationships, getting by and offering the world real values. And the State leaders say they solved the problems, when they never have anything to do with solving the problems only making the problems. We don't need them, but people don't realize that in mass and the world leaders will continue to find and deploy ways to make themselves illusionary necessary. They actually believe they are making the world. They think their actions are actually making what is good. They can't make good by producing nothing - you can't make nothing and say you made something. It's impossible. That's why Greenspan was called the maestro, people actually thought, and he thought, he was coordinating the whole market with the wave of his hands - what bullshit!
liberty student:They are really moving quickly and aggressively.
I see individual governments working to increase their size and power, but that's hardly new. What are you seeing in terms of a real push for one world government? I'm not saying that it won't happen, because I think it will, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
Also, I guarantee that if/when the push is made, one of the main talking points will be to eliminate the 'anarchy' of inter-government relations.
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
whipitgood:What are you seeing in terms of a real push for one world government?
Domestic policies being created and implemented openly on the global stage. This is *very* new. Perhaps less than 20 years old. And instead of happening once every couple years, it is now being done several times a year.
Even during wartime, the West was never so united.
Conza88:The amount and size of government intervention in the market doesn't matter?
The size of the government does not matter. The amount it intervenes matters. I see a lot of people support the local states rule over them, but they refuse to accept the federal governments rule (I'm from TX). This is what I am referencing by big (the federal government), and small (state and local governments). I like how you try and sneak in the word size in next to amount, as though I was referencing how intrusive it is, when from context it is obvious I am refering to the land mass it claims.
Another interesting viewpoint I have, being from 'the south'. Many laws were passed at local levels which forced segregattion among blacks and whites (among many much more heinous others). In this viewpoint, the local government was much more intrusive than the federal government. (small was indeed worse than the big)
I hope that clarifies things.
Conza88: pablofrancisco: There is little to no difference between a 'one world government' and the crap we have now, except with one, foreign trade would be easier, immigration would be a breeze, passports would be useless, purchasing foreign land would be oh so simple...Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack. I might actually prefer a one world government over the system we have now. Of course, there would/will always be alternatives, so I choose neither involuntary governments, and instead opt for a voluntary system. Also... I doubt Orwells book was intended to portray an actual society literally, but rather mimic the present day society. In essence, he was talking about what is already here. The one world government talk has got me laughing. Honestly, who the hell cares? The states size doesn't matter one bit. It may even be beneficial! Perhaps then people wouldn't be able to say, "Well if you don't love America, why don't you just move?". Large scale war spending is difficult if you don't have another nation-state to attack. Big involuntary government is not inherently better than small involuntary government. Size really doesn't matter! What's funny about methodolgical individualism and tyranny? The amount and size of government intervention in the market doesn't matter?
I approve of the use of Avery Brook's voice for libertarian discourse
nazgulnarsil:Large scale wars will be replaced with dozens of smaller wars and new ways will be engineered to make the proles fearful and cough up the products of their labor.
I just said it was more difficult, and it is. Look at the public support for the current war. When people realize that the majority of people from the world are all the same, and not some irrational mindless murderers, then the tactics of these wars falter heavily. Problem is, people are influenced by bs media pretty easily.
All I am saying is discussing the difference between large and small governments blankets the true debate- involuntary vs voluntary.
pablofrancisco: nazgulnarsil:Large scale wars will be replaced with dozens of smaller wars and new ways will be engineered to make the proles fearful and cough up the products of their labor. I just said it was more difficult, and it is. Look at the public support for the current war. When people realize that the majority of people from the world are all the same, and not some irrational mindless murderers, then the tactics of these wars falter heavily. Problem is, people are influenced by bs media pretty easily. All I am saying is discussing the difference between large and small governments blankets the true debate- involuntary vs voluntary.
That is the true debate "involuntary vs. voluntary", but we will not be perceived as all the same for the world government leaders need to be special. What do they offer? Persistence against the same rehashed lies of class warfare, industrialized versus non-industrialized, Security Council elite countries versus those that don't hold such positions, terrorism, etc... Unless we're thinking some really sci-fi high tech stuff to keep everybody thinking we are the same pure and simply diversity will always be here. And unless we are all controlled and enslaved we are not going to be doing the same things. The world government will simply be, under an involuntary situation, the peace-maker, the economic planner, the education maker, etc, etc... They will force their agendas on us and that is impossible. Diversity is good and natural. Individuals are unique. So they can't stop that unless they force slavery upon us. Now if you mean voluntary as in free market all governments are gone type of situation then that's a totally difference situation. A one world government doesn't mean we all of a sudden think we are the same. Life is way more complex and diverse than that. And the world government will need to push something special that they can offer to provide legitimacy. And right now Nation-State governments don't even produce anything, not even ideas that are unique, other than those agenda's that mold the existing societal developments from the free market according to their whims.
wilderness:The world government will simply be, under an involuntary situation, the peace-maker, the economic planner, the education maker, etc, etc...
Don't involuntary governments (and I say involuntary government may seem like a contradiction in terms to all of us, but it makes a great distinction in the minds of the average Joe) do this already? The difference between the actual size (land mass occupied) makes almost no difference!
pablofrancisco: wilderness:The world government will simply be, under an involuntary situation, the peace-maker, the economic planner, the education maker, etc, etc... Don't involuntary governments (and I say involuntary government may seem like a contradiction in terms to all of us, but it makes a great distinction in the minds of the average Joe) do this already? The difference between the actual size (land mass occupied) makes almost no difference!
Yes governments are coordinating their efforts to do this in sequence. What I mean when I say they come out to do this what a peace-maker needs is a war. An economic planner needs an economy that is suffering to do their great planning and saving upon. An education maker needs minds to manipulate. Therefore a world government doesn't force people to see each other as one. Actually the opposite must be true by a world government to exist. It needs to provide legitimacy for their self-professed specialness manipulating as many people in the world as possible to make them think the world government is the true need and savior for their hardships. No, governments don't provide this. And if people see each other as being the same, as humans, that is self-generated and eventually a choice. My parents can tell me anything, but eventually life itself will have to match the ideas. And governments aren't matching up to their self-professed propaganda. Actually governments look like liars and showboats that don't do anything but take all the credit.
pablofrancisco:involuntary government may seem like a contradiction in terms to all of us
How is that a contradiction? All governments are necessarily involuntary in some aspect or another, otherwise they would cease to be a government. At the very least, they hold a coercive monopoly on the ability to use force.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say though.
No, not all governments. Only the State.
whipitgood: pablofrancisco:involuntary government may seem like a contradiction in terms to all of us How is that a contradiction? All governments are necessarily involuntary in some aspect or another, otherwise they would cease to be a government. At the very least, they hold a coercive monopoly on the ability to use force. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say though.
Nope, you understoof properly, I just mistyped it.
What I meant was that a voluntary government seems like a contradiction in terms.
Thanks for pointing that out.
pablofrancisco: I believe the only way a society that upholds the NAP principle will ever truly come into existence is if the rulers have something to be afraid of. That is only going to happen when a PDA is strong enough to defend its members against state coercion.
I believe the only way a society that upholds the NAP principle will ever truly come into existence is if the rulers have something to be afraid of. That is only going to happen when a PDA is strong enough to defend its members against state coercion.