I have in recent years found the over emphasis on religion in american politics very distasteful.

Not least because faith is a deeply personal subject, and trotting it out as a "selling point" seems at odds with faith itself.

That said, social responsibility seems more compatable with left leaning politics than with the "every man for himself go it alone" agenda of the right.

Lets face it, Bush’s "compassionate conservatism" has been roundly discredited in the last 6 years.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
George Washington, Farewell Adress, 1796

You can easily argue that religion has been in our political system from day one. From the Declaration of Independence to our customs and practices within government itself, religion has been part and parcel.

You can in no way characterize the right’s view as ’go it alone’.

I suspect that you would reject most of early politcal leaders as hard right for they themselves wanted self-reliance coupled with moral values gained from religion as a bedrock for political though.

Sorry, meant .... "bedrock for political thought."

the "every man for himself go it alone" agenda of the right.

ha ha ha. This surely does not apply to George Bush. He has spent more money on Democratic programs than FDR and Johnson combined. Fiscally he is more liberal than Clinton. Too bad the left’s hacks are not willing to give him credit for his actions.

I have in recent years found the over emphasis on religion in american (sic) politics very distasteful. Lets face it, Bush’s "compassionate conservatism" has been roundly discredited in the last 6 years.Comment 1 by Brian Coughlan [E-Mail]

Speaking on behalf of 6.2 billion people again are you Coughlin? Tell you what: If a tsunnami, earthquake or hurricaine hits Sweden, we’ll be there for you big guy. But don’t you draw any cartoons, hear? People might mistake you for having some guts...might mistake you for a Dane.

My goodness, I have stirred up a hornets nest. For the sake of practicality, I’m going to post all my responses here.

1) A common ripost to my posts is to list the wonderful things the US does. I’m not denying any of that. Just focusing on the bad things the US does, of WHICH there are many. The US really must stop doing them. Since no one can pevail by force against the US, and that cure would in any event be worse than the disease, we must needs appeal to reason and good sense.

2) Well yesterday was Saturday ... slavedrivers! Yes, I have a job:-) I work from home for a US company serving the UK market based in Ireland. So I’m in my office all day. You are just encouraging me you know, I love the attention:-)

3) I don’t hate americans, I’m picking up the vibe that you think I do. I really don’t. I have great respect for the US constitution, and (this is where it gets scary for you guys) and would consider the world lucky if we all lived under a global confederacy with the underpinning of the US constitution. So really I’m one of you! Only I favour the EU model of gradual absorbtion over the US model of blowing stuff up.

4) My primary beef is that the US behaves as if the rest of the world simply does not matter, and I find that deeply objectionable.

5) I would like someone to address the idea that your president, on a whim can have me arrested, transported and held as long as he likes. THAT, I do take very personally.

6) I consider myself a world citizen, and it is obvious that people want to live in a world that is safe and free from terror. All terror. Weapons come from somewhere, and the US spends $450 billion a year making 50% of them. Thus, the US is the keystone nation to a peacful world. So yes, I think I reflect the views of the majority, once the fear of the "other" is stripped away.

7) sources
a) Torture :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644_pf.html

https://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/07/usint11995.htm

https://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/afgan/afgint.htm

https://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/index.do

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56753-2004Jun20.html?referrer=email

https://larc.sdsu.edu/humanrights/rr/PLAarticles/mcsherry.html

b) Deaths and Costs of the Iraq War.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

https://www.iraqbodycount.net/index.php

https://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_and_occupation_of_Iraq_casualties

https://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

c) Democratic heads of state toppled by the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

https://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

https://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/A86a-worldct.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala/History#The_.22Ten_Years_of_Spring.22

In summary, I believe in a world of laws, which impinge directly on the individual. US policy does not encourage that, and lately has even undermined it. Let me leave you with the words of one of my favourite americans.

Assume he is talking about the UN, and you’ll get what I mean.

It is true, as has been before observed that facts, too stubborn to be resisted, have produced a species of general assent to the abstract proposition that there exist material defects in our national system; but the usefulness of the concession, on the part of the old adversaries of federal measures, is destroyed by a strenuous opposition to a remedy, upon the only principles that can give it a chance of success. While they admit that the government of the United States is destitute of energy, they contend against conferring upon it those powers which are requisite to supply that energy. They seem still to aim at things repugnant and irreconcilable; at an augmentation of federal authority, without a diminution of State authority; at sovereignty in the Union, and complete independence in the members. They still, in fine, seem to cherish with blind devotion the political monster of an imperium in imperio. This renders a full display of the principal defects of the Confederation necessary, in order to show that the evils we experience do not proceed from minute or partial imperfections, but from fundamental errors in the structure of the building, which cannot be amended otherwise than by an alteration in the first principles and main pillars of the fabric.

Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States. It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the communities, that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it.

Can I just say that I can see when Bush does something right?

His recent decision to assist India, I agree with in principle.

In fact I posted just a few weeks ago, in this very forum, that the democracies of the world should be banding together, since we now represent more than 50% of the global population. Maybe he read my post!:-)

However, even when doing the right thing, he goes about it in such a ham fisted way, that a vast can of worms is left in his wake.

So yes, let India build as many nuclear power stations as they like with US assistance, but lets insist on international oversight!! This decision is excellent as regards climate change, but makes a total muddle of the NPT.

The UN? Put our trust and security in a cabal of kleptocrats, autocrats, et.al.?

Countries like Libya, Iran end up on its "Human Rights comittee is beyond laughable. Coughlan think about what kind of world they want you to live in, "citizen of the World".

The UN’s "Blue Helmets" armed with popguns could not fight their way out of a pee soaked paper bag. Forgot how they were easily disarmed by Serbs who proceeded to massacre Bosnians? Or Burundi? Or..never mind.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
George Orwell

Sleep well Coughlan.

The Democrats "talking religion" is merely another manifestation of their basic problem. The Democratic Party believes in nothing, stands for nothing, and has no ideas. After winning the nomination of his party, John Kerry went out "to find his message," i.e., some superficial talking point/gimmick/catch phrase/blooper/focus group idea to spin to people. For at least the last 8 years, the Democrats have wandered about aimlessly, trying to "find their message"--trying to find something they do not have. They claimed that they lost the 2004 election because they "couldn’t get their message out." What message? Now after howling for at least the last 25 years that any committed Christian or conservative Jew who dares to vote and participate in the political process is some kind of right-wing, hypocritical, obsessive, frustrated, paranoid monster, they seek to use our language to peddle their absence of a message to us. Wow. The audacity of it all!

This should truly be entertaining to witness the Democrats telling us how we must begin "bringing in the sheeves," while "bearing our cross," while keeping in mind "how great we art," as we "fight the good fight of faith," as they oppose "those blind Pharisees who gag at a gnat and swallow a camel." Oh please!.....

True religion is not a language you adopt, it is a conviction that overwhelms you, and humbles you as you come to the realization of your own weakness and sinfulness, and your need of a Savior and the forgiveness that only God can give. And as you experience this transformation, it becomes not a superficial language you adopt, but a life’s calling that is engrafted into your heart, that becomes the guiding principle of your life. You then have no need to wander off into the wilderness to "find your message." You have instead met the theMessenger.

Oh well, at least the Democrats’ new religion-speak should give the Saturday Night Live cast some new material!

The U.S. President can not take someone into custody on a whim.

Those that are in Guantanamo are considered enemy combatants.

Moreover, the housing and meals these people get are better than what the soldiers that guard them receive.

Please, get your info from somewhere else other than Washington Post or Amnesty International or the New York Times.

The tribunals are legal and have been upheld as such.

In regards to the United Nations ...

You want a world government, it is clear. You want all nations to submit to a world of laws promulgated by the United Nations.

Are you serious?

To try to use Hamilton’s Federalist #15 in support of your assertion that the United States should submit to the UN is ludicrous and totally takes Hamilton’s words out of context.

In Federalist #2 thru #5, Jay puts forth that a Union would be best to protect us from foreign influence.

Now , how do you square that with what you say we should do in regards to the UN?

Besides, no matter how it may seem, our Union is derived from the people with inherent rights given to by our Creator and the document which sprang forth is a restriction on the Government not on the people. You can not say that about the UN at all.

Please, the United Nations is an organization purely about power and not about the people.

I have to agree with Brother Mel. The democrats are a useless bunch of wankers, at least as an opposition.

That said, your system offers (for all intents and purposes) only two choices. If I had a choice (and of course I don’t) I’d have to vote for the democrats, because the republicans have been such a disaster.

Clinton, wasn’t terrible, and whatever comes after the current regime could hardly be worse. Best get the ball rolling in 2006.

Besides, the nerve of the republican party to foist an inadequate like Bush on the world, begs for a political drubbing. Even if the replacements are only marginally better, hopefully everyone will have learned a valuable lesson.

Oh .... and Jesse, the George Orwell quote? Very droll:-)

Although I think you missed the point of the Hamilton post. Your assignment? To work out how.

By the way, I suggest you the part of Federalist #15 above where you quote.

You can’t use Hamilton’s words in support of the UN, it just won’t work.

The U.S. President can not take someone into custody on a whim.

No? who is to stop him? What is the process? Where is the oversight? Tribunals you say? Sounds impressive.

Explain in explicit detail, the system of checks and balances in place to prevent that happening. I am genuinely intruiged.

But, remember, Ah’m a foreigner.

I meant, read the part of Federalist #15 above where you quote.

By the way, I suggest you the part of Federalist #15 above where you quote.

Yeah, well I disagree. Hamilton was a very clever man who realised that completely sovereign states remaining at peace was a circle that couldn’t be squared. The states must pool sovereignity for the common good.

We agree on a lot more than you realise. The UN sucks alright, but it needs reform, massive deep reaching reform, not destruction.

A bunch of nominally independent countries, where one has a strangle hold on global political power, just turns that counry into a global nobility, and the rest of us into serfs.

It’s your own history in reverse, and this time you get to play the bad guy.

C’mon,it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Heck, it’s a disaster already happening. The rest of the world will just worry at the yoke until something bad happens. If it’s bad enough, we’ll do what humans before us have always done, design systems to accomodate everyone involved in the previous conflict. So why not do it now, before several million (or God forbid, billion) get toasted?

Am I crazy? Don’t answer that!

It has been explained here and in other venues.

Brian, you are a fool if you think that the United States can go to Ireland and take you into custody because our President, for whatever reason, decides it is so.

If, on the other hand, you decide to take arms against us and fight us as a terrorist and we happen to capture you, then you are an enemy combatant not subject to any Geneva Convention rights, which, by the way, is something that is rarely granted to our prisoners of war!

For you to not see this distinction is beyond comprehension.

You have more to fear from your own government than the United States, see Terrorims Act of 2000.

The reality of the relationship between the UN and the US is much different than what you portray, which is a common myth.

The United States in no way controls the United Nations. Moreover, you can easily argue, with documented support that the United Nations and the United States are, for the most part, opposing parties, especially in light of the fact that we are the dominant world power.

I assert that we should disband the UN and not try to reconstitute another such organization.

Brian, you are a fool if you think that the United States can go to Ireland and take you into custody because our President, for whatever reason, decides it is so.

Well golly. That is a relief. I’ll just take your word for it shall I?

Just trust that the people who kidnap me realise they’ve made a mistake, that I’m not wearing a casio digital watch in whatever the next designated front for the GWOT is?

Sorry. I’m not buying it. The EU have arrest warrants issued for CIA people that kidnapped a guy in Italy, in 2003.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4555660.stm. Hundreds of similar rendition flights have been logged from airfields all over the EU.

The US is currently holding 500 people against there will. The conditons of their detention are secret, the (specific individual) reasons are secret and term of imprisonment appears to be indefinete.

There is nothing on the books in Ireland that allows anything approaching that. If there were, the EU court of human rights would strike it down in a heartbeat. Much good it would do me since the CIA has clearence from the US government to operate with impunity anywhere in the world.

Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine there was an all powerful global government, that could swoop down and pick up anyone anywhere and wisk them away. On the say so of unknown shadowy UN "security people".

We know we’ve done nothing to warrant arrest. I mean we know that, so we should be ok right? I mean why would a government with limitless military power abuse that power? That’s just crazy talk ...r.r.right?

Judicial systems occasionaly grind up the innocent, it’s an inevitable by product of criminal justice. How much worse can it be when everything is conducted in secrecy, by the military yet! Gawlie, and You think I’m the one thats crazy?

"We may indeed with propriety be said to have reached almost the last stage of national humiliation. There is scarcely anything that can wound the pride or degrade the character of an independent nation which we do not experience. Are there engagements to the performance of which we are held by every tie respectable among men? These are the subjects of constant and unblushing violation. Do we owe debts to foreigners and to our own citizens contracted in a time of imminent peril for the preservation of our political existence? These remain without any proper or satisfactory provision for their discharge. Have we valuable territories and important posts in the possession of a foreign power which, by express stipulations, ought long since to have been surrendered? These are still retained, to the prejudice of our interests, not less than of our rights. Are we in a condition to resent or to repel the aggression? We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government. Are we even in a condition to remonstrate with dignity? The just imputations on our own faith, in respect to the same treaty, ought first to be removed. Are we entitled by nature and compact to a free participation in the navigation of the Mississippi? Spain excludes us from it. Is public credit an indispensable resource in time of public danger? We seem to have abandoned its cause as desperate and irretrievable. Is commerce of importance to national wealth? Ours is at the lowest point of declension. Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a safeguard against foreign encroachments? The imbecility of our government even forbids them to treat with us. Our ambassadors abroad are the mere pageants of mimic sovereignty." - Hamilton, Federalist #15

Now, Hamilton was for a vigorous and strong government to cure the defects of the Articles of Confederation, however, it is clear that we are talking about the states within the America and not about the states, governments of the world.

Moreover, if we are to use Hamilton word’s to support the UN, who exactly would be the foreign powers that he is exasperated about?

Again, you can not use Hamilton to support your assertions about a strong vigorous United Nations. To do so distorts Hamilton and his message.

What you are doing is picking what you want about his message to support your views, but, again, to do so misses Hamilton’s point!

The fact is, Hamilton that a strong and vigorous Union government helped protect Americans foreign governments as wells as better protect the rights of Americans in general.

You can disagree all you want, but history is not on your side.

I assert that we should disband the UN and not try to reconstitute another such organization.

Really? How pray tell should disputes be resolved?

Would this dissolution extend to the US states too? Should they each go their own way?

What about the UK, should scotland, wales and england become independent entities?

Should India revert back to the 500+ pre independence statelets?

Should Germany re-erect all the borders of the 19th century, and reinstate the 20 or so pre Bismarck monarchies?

Texasdude ... wake up. This is not the way. What you are suggesting will end with someone kicking someone elses ass really hard. WE KNOW THIS. Its happened before. A whole bunch of people will be killed, and then the survivors will organise themselves anyway.

The rational thing is to skip the killing people part, and jump straight to the organising part.

Friends?:-)

Brian, you are clearly showing yourself as someone that we say ’wears a tinfoil hat’.

You have gotten yourself worked up over something that is non-existant.

Interpol has more power to swoop you up, Brian, than we, the US, has. Moreover, your own government can do such as thing whereas we can not without bringing down the wrath of the UK/Ireland governments. Your own laws dictate that you can be put into jail for wearing something that is deemed as being supportive of terrorism. However, the only way you can be deemed an enemy combatant by the US is if you commit terrorist acts against us and we happen to capture you in combat.

Again, the fact that you cannot and will not observe this distinction is beyond comprehension and truly hampers reasonable debate.

I’ve have read the whole thing you know. It’s clear to me that he is talking about the US. DUH ... if you’ll forgive me.

What Hamilton was suggesting was already pretty crazy (for the time) so we agree he didn’t have global government in mind when he was writing.

However, the points he raised are entirely applicable. You complain about the UN, but the UN has no real power to do anything. Just like the confederacy. The UN is a flawed instrument, just like the confederacy.

If we are to have global security and responsible global governance, then we need to reform the UN, just like Hamilton insisted the confederacy needed to be reformed.

The issue was not simply external threats, although that occupies a lot of the discussion, but also internal threats. The risk of war between the states. A lot of what is proposed goes to address that risk.

We have to pool sovreignity eventually. It took a world war in which 50 million died for the French, Germans and Brits to get over themselves.

Whats it going to take for the US?

The way to peace isn’t through world government. That is the truth that has been demonstrated by the 20th century.

The way to peace isn’t through world government. That is the truth that has been demonstrated by the 20th century.

I take a different lesson from the 2nd half of the 20th century. The UN prevented the major powers from squaring off in a major conflict, but allowed many smaller wars to go unchecked.

The problem is not the idea, but the detail. I mean we know that independent states don’t work, so why go down that road? Again? Isn’t that an actual definition of insanity?

On the other hand, we have some limited experience of sovreignity pooling, and it mostly works, so why not expand it?

The suposition that global governance is the future and is the means that will bring about some sort of worldwide peace, a heaven on earth if you will is a utopian vision not based on any reality.

Such notions were expressed by Marx and Lenin, but the reality is much different.

If you think that the United States is despotic, hegemonic, and bully, then I suggest you truly think about what a one-world government would be like.

How is that a country such as the US can be thought of in such terms when the power of the US over other countries is not as strong as a one-world government would be? You want a hegemonic government? No? Well, you will have one in a one-world government.

No, sir, you need to wake up from your utopian dreams.

The suposition that global governance is the future and is the means that will bring about some sort of worldwide peace, a heaven on earth if you will is a utopian vision not based on any reality.

What is with you people? Did I say "heaven on earth"? No.

There will still be crime, and terrorism, and death and occasional mayhem. Of course! Only an idiot could believe otherwise.

Likewise :
|| Federalist No. 6 ||
Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.

That "same neighbourhood" alas, now includes the entire world.

Check, and mate I believe. Goodnight and good luck:-)

What you also suggest is the demise of the nation-state and that the nation-state is the root of all the evils in the world. Such thinking also puts all nations on the same moral plane, which is absolutely absurd.

Checkmate?

The world is not the same neighborhood.

Again, you can not use the Federalist Papers in your support of one-world government. It doesn’t fly. Even the northern and southern states of the US, while having differences, were not as diametrically opposed on fundamentals as many of the world’s nations are.

Global security?

There has never been global security in the world? Just exactly why do you think there will be with a one-world government? There is no proof that such a thing will work. The notions behind the United States, while radical, were rational and based upon sound political thought whereas the notion of global, one-world governance is base on nothing but pure utopian fantasy. A fantasy that will truly be the end of humanity.

The citizens of the United States would have to give up, freely, its God/Creator given rights to belong to such a creature. There is no way this will happen willingly.

"It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty." - Jay, Federalist #2

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence." - Jay, Federalist #2

There is no way that the arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers can be transported to support a one-world government. You have tried, but to do so means one has to distort what the writers were talking about.

No, no checkmate at all.

Reform the UN?

I assert the UN is not reformable. The UN is as a corrupt political body as it gets. From allowing its member parties to abrogate its own edicts and pronouncements in illegalites such as the Oil-for-Food fiasco, which by the way does lead to the top of the UN, to the fact that every venture that the UN commits itself to doing is an absolute mess which never accomplishes much of anything of value.

About the only thing the UN is partially good at is distributing food/medical stuff in poor countries and even there it does an abysmal job.

No, Brian, even if you use our Constitution to supposedly underpin a world-government it would ultimately fail under the very fact that the a lot of the nations in the world are diametrically opposed in their views.

The very fact that you have deluded yourself that such a creature would abrogate war is demonstration that , yes, you want a utopian society, a society which will never exist.

So, go on, rant about the ills of America and how we are soo wrong for the world, but hear this, once America is gone, once the notion that our rights are given from our God/Creator and NOT via a government is gone, then the world you want will be there. You will have your one-world government at that time, and at that time alone, and you will have, in the end, absolutely tyranny and absolute evil.

and at that time alone, and you will have, in the end, absolutely tyranny and absolute evil.

Well chum, we are almost certain to find out. Barring the destruction of every human on the planet, the remnants will always coalesce into larger and larger groups. Everything in history suggests that.

Couple of points.

the nation-state is the root of all the evils in the world.

Now you are getting there! Nation states, independent entities with no external oversight are the ones that go to war. With some notable exceptions of course.

Just exactly why do you think there will be with a one-world government? There is no proof that such a thing will work.

There is tons of proof that it works. The US is proof, India is proof, the EU is proof, China is proof.

Humans have always fought the "other", except when we band together into larger groups to fight an agreed other, "other". It’s a natural state for us. When we band together under an agreed set of rules, there tends to be (relative) peace.

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people

Jay is not stating this as a prerequisite, but as a positive outcome of extended peace. The same becomes true of any group that coalesce under a common standard, and manage to muddle along long enough for differences to errode.

Besides it was 1795 (or whatever), much of what he says about the US of the time, does apply now to the world as a single entity. Language, distance, trade and communication are no longer the challenges or barriers globally that they used to be.

Culture is certainly a major hurdle, but since when have americans made up the whining class? Ohhhh ... it’s too hard, it’s complicated. C’mon on guys. The age of the independent state is past, they don’t work. They long term are bad even for the people the seek to protect. We need to expand on what does work to encompass the entire world.

Look at the British, or India or China or the EU or the US itself. All held together by common interest.

On the downside look at the Soviet Sphere. That was held together only by the threat of violence. How long will a world be at peace with one nation (made up of a measly 3% of the population) at the head dictating to all the others?

Thats right not long.

I don’t see my suggestion as utopian, in the accepted sense, but yours is truly classically dystopian.

I also never said that any global governance should be underpinned by the US constitution. I said I’d personally love that. Such an arrangement though is unlikely to fly, especially given that Bush has made such a hash of relationships. Nope, we’ll have to come up with something new. You will have to compromise, much as european nations have learned to accept legislation passed in a majority of EU nation states, even when it’s unpalatable at home.

Compromise, do it or die. Not a threat, just an observation:-)

Finally, I’m generally a fan of the US, but I’m not a sychopant. Terrible things have been done by the US in the name of national security. Many have been actually killed to prevent potential threats and this currently at the heart of the problem. It is a disease brought on by mindless adulation for the nation state, which dictates that the life of the "other" is worth far less than our lives.

That attitude is wrong, and the US is doing it every day. The very slogan of the GWOT, "fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here" reeks of it.

TexasDude . . .



Whoa, whoa, whoa. I smell a slippery slope *Sniff sniff* Yes. A slippery slope with a pinch of false dichotomy. Ah, I love the taste of the informal fallacy (thank God for the "Practical Thinking" course).



Maybe you would do well to tell us all just how America’s demise will bring the demise to the notion that "our rights are given from our God/Creator and NOT via a government".



Then, maybe you could explain to me how it would necessarily follow that a one-world government would soon be established.



After you’ve accomplished that feat, perhaps you could then share how absolute evil and tyranny would then necessarily follow from that situation.



I also believe you may be implying that the demise of America will certainly bring absolute evil and tyranny in the world. Maybe I’m wrong, but if I’m not, I think you need to connect those two a bit more substantially.



I’m sorry . . . I just have a hard time following poor logic . . . I might agree with you if you connected all of the dots for me . . .

"...you are an enemy combatant not subject to any Geneva Convention rights."

Actually TexasDude we still give Geneva Convention rights to all prisoners of war, even the terrorists we capture that have film of past and present deeds...maybe we shouldn’t but we do...

What’s with the too hard thing?

Seriously, toughness of problem isn’t the issue.

What will happen in your one-world government is that the countries with the most freedom will have to subject their citizens to LESS freedom because of the likes of totalitarian countries.

If you think that will not happen than you are extremely naive, which I don’t you are, thusly, you are willfully deluded.

You say compromise, I say NO COMPROMISE ON MY FREEDOMS!

To gain what freedoms we do have in the United States, there ALREADY WAS COMPROMISE!

Thusly, what you are saying is that we, the citizens of the United States, must compromise again to be a country of the world or some other such idiotic notion you harbor.

The end result of such compromise would, naturally and logically, be even further erosion of our freedoms. For you, Brian, that is no big loss because freedom for you is GOVERNMENT GIVEN and already severly compromised. For us, it is GOD/CREATOR GIVEN and only somewhat compromised.

By the way, I wouldn’t use the EU as any good metaphor for a workable one-world government.

For Matt, is it poor logic to suggest or assert that America is freedom’s last stand? Really? In most of the world today freedom is on the retreat even with our attempts at changing that. Maybe in purely academic terms it is poor logic, but the reality is much different. The world, in general, historically and today seems to prefer or, at least, doesn’t have the power to stop, being throttled by despots and tyrants. That is clear. Maybe I am too attached to my country and that biases my arguments. I admit that much, but I don’t see freedom lasting around much after the demise of America because it is not being birthed or allowed to flourish much anywhere else.

I find it interesting that a man aligns himself with the Democrat party, yet this same man finds that Locke’s views on private property is more compelling than the views of Marx or Rousseau and observes that Progressives and their views have been harmful to America.

The UN and some other such concepts is not the future of mankind. It would be the demise. That is not poor logic, but an objective look at what such a creature would have to have to work conceptually and practically.

For you, Brian, that is no big loss because freedom for you is GOVERNMENT GIVEN and already severly compromised. For us, it is GOD/CREATOR GIVEN and only somewhat compromised.

Dearie me. You are some kind of religious ... person. Tough to argue with that. Plus I have no idea what you mean by GOD/CREATOR GIVEN.

Do you think that citizens of the US are the chosen people or something? What an alarming concept.

I’m not sure we’ll get much further then, especially if you’ve got some eschatological death wish, and are looking forward to the earth disappearing in a nuclear fireball?

Well all the best.

If I am a religious nut, then I suppose Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al are/were religious nuts. You can put Locke into that camp also.

I have no death wish, I am not sure where that came from.

My assertion is that the figeratively life of mankind will be snuffed out if we go to a one-world style of government.

Sorry, this thread went on a tangent, by which I helped create.

TexasDude -



Logic doesn’t really change depending on the situation. In order to rationally produce arguments for your opinions, whether they are "academic" or not, you need to use logic, not rhetoric (especially on the internet . . . I love rhetoric in public speaking situations . . . but not here . . . no, never here . . . ).



I do find Locke’s assertions about property more compelling than Marx or Rousseau. That doesn’t mean I think he’s correct about natural rights.



I think the direct election of U.S. Senators may likely be the worst political reform in United States history. However, I certainly do not disagree with the Progressives when it comes to their Hegelian/historicist views of society (in most aspects), their desire for an administrative state, and their Kantian logic behind the foundation of the United Nations (things which should really probably be discussed elsewhere, due to the ridiuclous amount of comments already attached to this post). I just recognize some of the destructive aspects of that same movement (such as the Populist-influenced direct election of Senators).

TexasDude,



I suppose I would just like you to explain to me just what is included in your "objective look at what [the United Nations] would have to have to work conceptually and practically".

The U.S. President can not take someone into custody on a whim.

Those that are in Guantanamo are considered enemy combatants.

Seems like a whim to me, since it is Bush’s ’whim’ that does the designating. Bush’s ’whim’ that decides who is and who is not a terrorist, with no congressional oversight. Bush’s ’whim’ that the only court that DID have oversight over government surveillance, a rubberstamp court at that, was a waste of his time.

Yeah dude, wake the fuck up. You people elected a president and people who believe they are above the law and can do anything to anybody whenever they want.

The independent ’rough men’ some poster spoke of have proven their love of big, centralized government. That’s Republicanism today, big spending, big government, and corruption.

Coughlan:

I looked at every one of your cites. None of them have any merit. None of them support the claims you make. You did, however miss one "democratically elected" head of state the United States and its allies took down from power...oh, you must remember the film footage...you know...the guy with the funny moustache?...Yeah that’s the one...What was his name again?...Oh yeah...ADOLF HITLER.

And don’t forget to look into the future. We’ll have to take down Ahmadinnerjacket.

Torture indeed. Waterboarding is not torture. Beheading, now that’s a different story. Why don’t you quit wasting your time becrying the U.S. and start protesting al qaeda?

Well, so ... it seems you have an issue rhetoric on the web and that is the problem?

You may call my words about America being freedom’s last stand rhetoric, but look around the world and it will play my ’rhetoric’ out. Do I really need to be specific to satisfy your supposed intellectual honesty?

For the comparison of the United States to the UN to work, we would have to give the UN a tremendous amount of power that is normally held by nations. Let’s take taxation as an example. Today, the UN has NO legal right to tax us individually, either directly or indirectly. What we do is pay dues. However, the UN and the globalists/one-world government folks want that gone. They want transparency in the taxation and even wouldn’t mind if the ability to tax was granted at the individual level. The UN considers countries like the US to be a tax drain. That is, they feel that low tax countries drain the taxes that are due to countries that tax at a higher rate because the low tax rates attract business and individuals. So, if they had the ability to tax, they would raise our taxes to whatever level they felt appropriate. Now, is that a good thing, especially in light of the fact that we still have local, state, and national taxes?

Please, it should be obvious, even to one who is in college, that the tentacles of the UN would have to drastically be improved for the UN to have the same sort of power that the US government has over us and that would have to be done at the expense of any such notion that we, the people have an inherent right to anything, which is in total opposition to the fundamental philosophy of the United States.

How about this, how about you, Matt, explain in detail with specifics exactly why the UN wouldn’t be as I have stated. Please, educate me on this matter.

Also, you can explain why, with specifics, America isn’t freedom’s last stand.

President Bush did not define "terrorism"; nor is anyone taken into custody on a "whim".State Department on Terrorism - Issued 2001

From Uncle Guide: "Torture indeed. Waterboarding is not torture. Beheading, now that’s a different story."

What are you talking about?? Do you have any idea what waterboarding is? What do you consider it then, an overzealous prank of some kind? Also, was it "not torture" when practiced by Saddam’s goons or by the Third Reich?

Isn’t beheading simply a method of murdering someone?