[JustinW]

Quote

Maybe I'm being daft, but how is the signing of a treaty like Kyoto equivalent to implementing global protections for freedom of speech, religion, etc? If we truly operated under a single global government... following a global constitution... there would be a body in charge of implementing and enforcing these rules. There would be jurisdictions, and most likely some sort of supremacy clause much like we have today in Article 6 of the US constitution which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law.

There is also another problem to look at that are not blades of grass. If the global government laws take precedent over laws of nations then any conflict incited by a nation against the global government could result in world war. What are nations to do once they feel that a global government is getting too corrupt. Once you impliment a global government there is no going back. I don't want to seem like a glass half empty sort of person, but you can't look at the positive without looking at the possibility of the negative.

[Phi for All]

JustinW, on 3 January 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

There is also another problem to look at that are not blades of grass. If the global government laws take precedent over laws of nations then any conflict incited by a nation against the global government could result in world war. What are nations to do once they feel that a global government is getting too corrupt. Once you impliment a global government there is no going back. I don't want to seem like a glass half empty sort of person, but you can't look at the positive without looking at the possibility of the negative.

If a nation had agreed to a certain global law and to be governed by them all, why would that nation break the law and risk global reprisal? Your argument sounds more like the laws were imposed upon the country in question, rather than ratified by them.

What would a state in the US do if they felt the federal government had become corrupt? Do you think they would leap to waging war?

Again, if the benefits are large enough, why would any country want to jeopardize a global accord?

[JustinW]

A government that is given enough power will always have it's corruption. And once a world government is instituted who's to say what they will do in the future once given the power. Maybe they will start to impose on countries for the sake of profit as you've mentioned before. Once a form of global government is accepted by a majority of the world the rest would have no choice but to follow suit. That I consider an imposition even though indirect.

Quote

What would a state in the US do if they felt the federal government had become corrupt? Do you think they would leap to waging war?

It happened with slavery. Not to say that slavery was right, it is merely an example of states going to war over government instituting laws that they felt weren't right. And I feel that if the corruption got bad enough to infringe on the liberty of that state, that yes they would. Here in Texas secession was talked about, here and there, over the last several years. Although it was a stupid thing to even suggest, it shows how strong people believe in their liberties.

Quote

Again, if the benefits are large enough, why would any country want to jeopardize a global accord?

The risk of opening pandora's box. If a global government ever got out of hand, it would be devistating for the globe. If they did who could oppose without global conflict. It would be up to that global government to play nice and be diplomatic. As it stands now, if my country got to a point where I could no longer live in it, I have the option (however hard) to move to another that is more acceptable. With a global government you have nowhere to go.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 3 January 2012 - 07:00 PM

[Phi for All]

JustinW, on 3 January 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

A government that is given enough power will always have it's corruption. And once a world government is instituted who's to say what they will do in the future once given the power. Maybe they will start to impose on countries for the sake of profit as you've mentioned before. Once a form of global government is accepted by a majority of the world the rest would have no choice but to follow suit. That I consider an imposition even though indirect.

I think you're imposing today's conditions on a constitution that is probably many years distant. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but now you're simply saying it won't work rather than considering how it might work.

Quote

It happened with slavery. Not to say that slavery was right, it is merely an example of states going to war over government instituting laws that they felt weren't right. And I feel that if the corruption got bad enough to infringe on the liberty of that state, that yes they would. Here in Texas secession was talked about, here and there, over the last several years. Although it was a stupid thing to even suggest, it shows how strong people believe in their liberties.

Rather a special case though, one that resulted from a reinterpretation of what constituted being a man (human) with equal rights. The lesson was learned when the reinterpretation pertained to women several decades later.

Quote

The risk of opening pandora's box. If a global government ever got out of hand, it would be devistating for the globe. If they did who could oppose without global conflict. It would be up to that global government to play nice and be diplomatic. As it stands now, if my country got to a point where I could no longer live in it, I have the option (however hard) to move to another that is more acceptable. With a global government you have nowhere to go.

I feel the US government has gotten out of hand. I hope it can be corrected peacefully, but I think correction needs to be a viable option the people must ALWAYS have whether a government is national or global. Correction was devastating to Gaddafi, but not to Libya. Why would correcting a world government have to be devastating for the world?

[iNow]

Phi for All, on 3 January 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but now you're simply saying it won't work rather than considering how it might work.

This has been my problem with Justin and doG's position from the start. Instead of exploring possible ways to make it work, they seem content to simply assert that it cannot.

[JustinW]

Quote

I think you're imposing today's conditions on a constitution that is probably many years distant. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but now you're simply saying it won't work rather than considering how it might work.

I see your point. I just thought it might be valid to look at some of the ramifications if things did go south with such a government.

Quote

Rather a special case though, one that resulted from a reinterpretation of what constituted being a man (human) with equal rights. The lesson was learned when the reinterpretation pertained to women several decades later.

Agreed. It was just an example of how badly things can be handled when political feelings get hurt.

Quote

I feel the US government has gotten out of hand. I hope it can be corrected peacefully, but I think correction needs to be a viable option the people must ALWAYS have whether a government is national or global. Correction was devastating to Gaddafi, but not to Libya. Why would correcting a world government have to be devastating for the world?

Correction for Lybia is the best thing for Lybia in the long run. But was devestating to the people that suffered along the way. It couldn't be done without violent conflict. That is what I was saying about a global government. Creating a possibility for a correction of such a magnitude would lead to global conflict which would cause people to suffer around the world. The bigger the problem, the bigger the conflict in most cases.

Quote

This has been my problem with Justin and doG's position from the start. Instead of exploring possible ways to make it work, they seem content to simply assert that it cannot.

I believe I have. Though probably not enough. I guess I am just a pessimist. I'll try to be less of one in the future. The OP was "convention, local or global" and I origionally thought, why at all? The problems I've heard presented aren't constitutional problems from an American's stand point. The only things that I've heard that applied to constitutionallity would be for other countries to adopt one that is closer to ours. So you can see where I could be pessimistic about change in the US constitution when it is unecessary when not hearing any problems that fall under constitutionallity as it applies to America's problems.

Quote

No that isn't what I meant. (there i go again) I meant trade agreements and such. Incentives to strengthen their economies. I believe if a new convention were proposed, it would be with incentives to make money that would get most to listen. And I should bold the world listen. Just because the incentive is given doesn't mean that a country will agree.

This is where I gave one way to start with.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 3 January 2012 - 08:20 PM

[Phi for All]

iNow, on 3 January 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

This has been my problem with Justin and doG's position from the start. Instead of exploring possible ways to make it work, they seem content to simply assert that it cannot.

I think many people who are relatively content with their lifestyles might interpret a global government as a great deal of change for the worse. Or perhaps some in more economically advantaged countries view any kind of globalization as necessarily downgrading them to equalize the world's occupants.

I don't see globalization as making everyone the same. A global Constitution should simply be a framework for allowing countries to accept the fact that there are some things that affect humanity as a whole, to prepare for global eventualities on an equal basis and to devote a certain portion of their national resources towards humans as a species.

[JustinW]

The reason I haven't given as many reasons for this thing to work is that no one has convinced me that it can or needs to in a way such as global government. I have suggested a change in foreign policy for this precise reason.

Quote

A global Constitution should simply be a framework for allowing countries to accept the fact that there are some things that affect humanity as a whole

And what is it that our constitution doesn't provide that would allow for this? I don't see the need to change our constitution to fit this frame work. Like I've said before, I think these are good intentions that we need to apply to our future goals. We could fix these things through foreign policies rather than constitutional redrafting. The fact that I am opposed to a global government is due to the fact that it could turn as bad just as quickly as it could be good. To consider the possibility of success you also have to consider the possibility of failure. Why risk such a big possibility of failure when you could accomplish all of these objectives through other means. Also it sounds that the frame work you want for the world would intail those already provided by our own.

[iNow]

JustinW, on 3 January 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

The fact that I am opposed to a global government is due to the fact that it could turn as bad just as quickly as it could be good. To consider the possibility of success you also have to consider the possibility of failure. Why risk such a big possibility of failure when you could accomplish all of these objectives through other means.

Exactly. Why risk being cut off from England when we could accomplish these same things under colonial rule? It sounds like the framework you want for us is already provided by George III. What is it in his rule that doesn't provide for this already? Nobody has convinced me it's a good idea to split from England, and I propose instead that we work with the lords and governors to alter the existing policies instead.


Now that I've removed my tongue from my cheek, I wonder what our non-US members think about this prospect...

[JustinW]

Quote

Exactly. Why risk being cut off from England when we could accomplish these same things under colonial rule?

Freedom. And at the time it could never be accomplished under English rule. I don't believe I've heard anything that couldn't be solved through other methods, or how you think our current framework stifles the objectives that were layed out. You just state that we need an updated frame work without explaining WHY. If our current framework stifles the objects you have set forth through this change, please, by all means share. Untill that time I can't agree that we need this sort of change or that the objectives can't be reached under our current framework.

[Phi for All]

JustinW, on 3 January 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

I don't believe I've heard anything that couldn't be solved through other methods, or how you think our current framework stifles the objectives that were layed out. You just state that we need an updated frame work without explaining WHY. If our current framework stifles the objects you have set forth through this change, please, by all means share. Untill that time I can't agree that we need this sort of change or that the objectives can't be reached under our current framework.

I already mentioned how our attempts at foreign aid help US more than the countries we're trying to aid. I already mentioned how our subsidy programs do little to encourage innovation and instead help business sectors (that are already doing well) to do extremely well at taxpayer expense. The US has a worldwide reputation of manipulation and greed, of using our military to unfairly advance our industries. We consider ourselves a great country but our intentions are suspected by virtually everyone but ourselves.

We have the potential to end poverty, hunger, war and disease but we seem reluctant because it's so profitable for us. We have a populous that I'm really very proud of in most ways, but we're led by representatives we KNOW are corrupt, voted in by a system we KNOW is flawed. Our military troops are the best in the world, yet they're ultimately led by the same special-interest oriented people who continue to lie to get elected. We have an enviable economic range of lifestyles but we spend far more for healthcare with similar or worse results than many poorer countries.

I'm not against people amassing wealth, but I have a moral problem with our species when some people starve to death because we raise the price of corn to make inefficient gas additives, while other people need a shadow yacht to trail behind their main yacht so their helicopter doesn't disturb them when they're lounging at poolside. Do people really have to starve so others can have such luxury? Why does the poverty rate in the US NOT diminish over time if we're making as much progress as people think?

National Poverty Center, Univ of Michigan said:

In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000. In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

[doG]

iNow, on 3 January 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

This has been my problem with Justin and doG's position from the start. Instead of exploring possible ways to make it work, they seem content to simply assert that it cannot.

I'm not saying it won't work. I'm just highlighting the types of monumental obstacles that will have to be overcome for it to work because I'm a realist. I do think some common ground will be required of all joining nations to even propagate the meme for discussion among their people or it won't get ratified by nations that feel they would be giving up more rights than they would gain.

I do think a partial global government is more realistic considering how the U.S. started with a few states with others joining the union later. I do also think there's a real possibility some nations would never join without having everything their way.

This post has been edited by doG: 4 January 2012 - 02:43 AM

[iNow]

A very fair and reasoned reply. Thanks for clarifying your position. I also appreciate the concept you brought forth into the discussion about how the US began with a small handful of states and added several later. I hadn't even considered how relevant that is to this discussion, and how likely it would be the same if we ever did this globally.

My sense on this is that if we look just at the numbers... and avoid over representing the enormously rich and powerful (those who would be most resistant to change and most reluctant to relinquish any of their personal power)... if we don't place too much emphasis on those small few who would (through no fault of their own) be protecting special interests... my sense is that if we just look at ordinary people who would be most impacted and just look at the numbers... that the "common ground" you rightly call attention to would itself become quite... well... it would become quite common.

We will always have more in common than not. Identifying the specific commonalities would be a good start, and from that foundation we can address specific obstacles... including the monumental ones.

[Phi for All]

iNow, on 4 January 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

My sense on this is that if we look just at the numbers... and avoid over representing the enormously rich and powerful (those who would be most resistant to change and most reluctant to relinquish any of their personal power)... if we don't place too much emphasis on those small few who would (through no fault of their own) be protecting special interests... my sense is that if we just look at ordinary people who would be most impacted and just look at the numbers... that the "common ground" you rightly call attention to would itself become quite... well... it would become quite common.

This is a really good point. Especially in the beginning, motives and intentions are really going to be under the microscope. The early phases will be critical to the overall success and this is where the tone is set and people will be paying the most attention. If the earliest drafters can show their best intentions at that point, others are more likely to sign on, if only to make sure their common ground is fairly represented. It must be clear that no one is being yanked onto a new set of tracks, but rather that all people deserve to flourish in their pursuit of life.

[iNow]

Phi for All, on 4 January 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

It must be clear that no one is being yanked onto a new set of tracks, but rather that all people deserve to flourish in their pursuit of life.

We hold these truths to be self-evident and undeniable; that all individuals are born equal, independent, and free; that from this equality all individuals derive rights that are both inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the security of both property and person.

[JustinW]

Quote

I already mentioned how our attempts at foreign aid help US more than the countries we're trying to aid. I already mentioned how our subsidy programs do little to encourage innovation and instead help business sectors (that are already doing well) to do extremely well at taxpayer expense. The US has a worldwide reputation of manipulation and greed, of using our military to unfairly advance our industries. We consider ourselves a great country but our intentions are suspected by virtually everyone but ourselves.

I have also mentioned that the framework has already been laid to fix such things. It has been the bad decisions of people working under that framework who have abused the system. I wouldn't say that part of the system is flawed but the decisions that were made using that system that were flawed. Another framework wouldn't be any different unless you took the option of decision making out of it entirely. You could never put in enough, "what not to do"s, to cover bad or hurtfull decision making.

Quote

We have the potential to end poverty, hunger, war and disease but we seem reluctant because it's so profitable for us.

Again, bad decision making.

Quote

We have a populous that I'm really very proud of in most ways, but we're led by representatives we KNOW are corrupt, voted in by a system we KNOW is flawed.

This is probably one that I actually would have to agree with. Although I haven't heard of a better way yet, I don't much care for our current system of voting. That is a framework which could be changed for the better.

Quote

I'm not against people amassing wealth, but I have a moral problem with our species when some people starve to death because we raise the price of corn to make inefficient gas additives, while other people need a shadow yacht to trail behind their main yacht so their helicopter doesn't disturb them when they're lounging at poolside. Do people really have to starve so others can have such luxury? Why does the poverty rate in the US NOT diminish over time if we're making as much progress as people think?

Again, bad decision making.

[JustinW]

As an afterthought; why is it that people think that a global government would be so much better anyway? Generally given enough time any government gets corrupt or does things that conflict with the best interests of people that hurt or demoralize a good portion of the population. Why put the world on a track to become part of such conflictive emotion when it comes to instituting ideologies they don't agree with or the possibility of the government governing for profit? Is it because the world might have a bigger voice to influence change once that sort of thing starts to happen? Is it because people think that if the whole world was involved that corruption and greed would be less likely to happen to a world government? I was raised to never rely on the government for the simple fact that the more you rely on them to fulfill you're needs, the less you rely on yourself. The less you rely on yourself, the less control you have over yourself and the more you rely on someone else to provide for you. That is what independence is about isn't it? The ability to not be controlled and the freedom to provide for yourself and your family? Self preservation tells me not to put all my eggs in one basket (so to speak). And I may be paranoid but given enough time a government that rules over the world will get out of hand and won't be easy to stop if it does.



Sorry for the double post.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 5 January 2012 - 10:41 PM

[toastywombel]

doG, on 3 January 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

The point is that we can't currently get global agreement on that one issue with equal protection for all nations. If the global community can't agree on that one issue it should be obvious that the multitude of other issues that would need to be agreed upon by all would just compound the problem. The U.S. would likely be insistent that an international Constitution would bar cruel and unusual punishment, grant equal rights to women, grant equal protection to all world citizens, etc. It seems to me an unachievable goal in our lifetime.

I hate to sound like a parent but we sure won't be able to agree on a global constitution with an attitude like that. The fact is that power is being centralized to allow for a one world government. This is the pattern of governing bodies. Whether it be corporate, governmental or really any organizations. They all merge and intergrate over time.

A constitution is a set of laws a given government must abide by, and the unfortunate truth of the matter is as the national governments of our planet merge, our nations constitution becomes weak as it does not have jurisdiction over a global governing body. The ame applies to any other nation.

Whether we choose to demand that the global government operates within the confines of a body of laws agreed upon by the citizens of this planet or not will be one of the greatest challenges of man kind. However the attitude that it cannot be done inspires inaction. Inaction will be what leads to an unregulated global power structure that is wreckless with freedoms and as organized and transparent as cobwebs in the dark.

The governments of the world and powers that be are passing treaties and laws to merge and intergrate, because of this, a global constitution is a must for any freedom loving individual who wants to better society as a whole. A must. Viewing it as a must makes it easy to realize that to. Take the 'we can't do it' in a debate on whether we can or not is accepting an unregulatexd global government with no global constitution to abide by.

And justinw,

I was raised to never rely on the government for the simple fact that the more you rely on them to fulfill you're needs, the less you rely on yourself. The less you rely on yourself, the less control you have over yourself and the more you rely on someone else to provide for you. That is what independence is about isn't it

Really you and your family would not survive this world without the work of the rest of humanity. The same is true of just about any family. We are social creatures and that is a fact. Why is it that so often many who might label themselves as conservatives believe their social responsibilities end with their family. The truth is that in a globalized world to some degree we all gain something valuable from many who are not or never werel in our direct family.

And this does not just apply to roads and the usual public service mumbo jumbo, it is apparent that we all share certain behavioral traits and fundemental concepts. Mathematics the, concept of writing, music, engineering and design are all schools of thought that I am sure have provided benefits to you, me and all. To some degree we depend on all of these

The fact that we can even communicate effectively right now is only possible because others before us who were not in our direct family helped create a shared complex language. Much if not most of what you have learned was taught to you by many. And I highly doubt it was your family who designed and built the electronic devices you use, all the food you eat, even ones way of making money depends on a system that allows for money to exist. To sy that the less one relies on others the more indepemdemt they are is just not a concept that correlates with reality.

This post has been edited by toastywombel: 6 January 2012 - 10:50 AM

[JustinW]

Quote

Really you and your family would not survive this world without the work of the rest of humanity. The same is true of just about any family. We are social creatures and that is a fact. Why is it that so often many who might label themselves as conservatives believe their social responsibilities end with their family. The truth is that in a globalized world to some degree we all gain something valuable from many who are not or never werel in our direct family.

I agree, but most social relation doesn't have to do with government. I was referring to government in the capacity of dependance, and relying on their policies to provide for everyday necessities. Over time it seems that the government gets more and more involved in the everyday aspects of living. It is understandable that people are and always will be apart of my life. It's expected and welcomed. It's not like I want to be a hermit and rely on no one. I just don't see the need for that someone to be any form of governing body.

Quote

And this does not just apply to roads and the usual public service mumbo jumbo, it is apparent that we all share certain behavioral traits and fundemental concepts. Mathematics the, concept of writing, music, engineering and design are all schools of thought that I am sure have provided benefits to you, me and all. To some degree we depend on all of these

These are necessities for sure. At the finer points of these programs government is not the key factor. These things are passed down by the knowledge of one individual to the next. Just because the government is involved to help them run better doesn't mean that the government is a necessary factor to get these things accomplished. If the government wern't involved in these aspects I am sure the public would find a way to obtain this knowledge. But with that being said, you are correct that these programs are relied upon by the masses and that is why we pay taxes. These programs benifit our society and I have no problem with contributing to the betterment of our society.

Quote

The fact that we can even communicate effectively right now is only possible because others before us who were not in our direct family helped create a shared complex language. Much if not most of what you have learned was taught to you by many. And I highly doubt it was your family who designed and built the electronic devices you use, all the food you eat, even ones way of making money depends on a system that allows for money to exist. To sy that the less one relies on others the more indepemdemt they are is just not a concept that correlates with reality.

If you read back you'll see that I wasn't talking about the social aspects of people. I was talking about people relying on government to provide for them their every day needs. Also don't misunderstand that. I think Phi said it best when he said that he would never like to see a struggling mother and her kids do without when they can't do for themselves. I ABSOLUTELY agree with that sentiment. Although these things used to be taken care of through the good nature of society, it has now become a cesspool of those who wish to abuse the system. I've seen people that make more than I do getting food stamps and medicaid just because they can lie about certain things on the application to get it. If I can see the amount of people I've come across do this in small part of Texas that I live in, I wonder how many do it across the country. This is why these programs are unsastainable and looked upon badly by those who feel that these are just entitlement programs. It defeats the good nature of the program itself.

Quote

The governments of the world and powers that be are passing treaties and laws to merge and intergrate, because of this, a global constitution is a must for any freedom loving individual who wants to better society as a whole. A must. Viewing it as a must makes it easy to realize that to. Take the 'we can't do it' in a debate on whether we can or not is accepting an unregulatexd global government with no global constitution to abide by.

Well...thought inspiring to say the least. When using that premiss I would have to say that if it is an absolute certainty that it WILL happen, then I believe it would be in our best interest to be at the forefront of such actions. It's like they say "If you fight progress you'll wind up on the wrong side of history". But it doesn't mean I have to like it or think that it is a good idea. The bigger the government, the bigger the problem, given enough time.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 6 January 2012 - 05:29 PM