In this expansion of the body politic, local govs would administer to local issues, national govs -national issues, and a world federation would administer to international issues (such as security, and environment)
Arms races and balances of power would disappear, true democracy would flourish, and future generations would look back on our unlimitedly sovereign nation state war system in utter disbelief.
…pontification ends…
*interesting note: apparently Massachusetts (from a constitutional point of view ) has never recognized the U.S. government and still recognized the confederate United States under the Articles of confederation.
Massachusetts Constitution
Article IV The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled
How to make a bad thing worse in my humble opinion. Like everything people fear about the NWO and North American Union but on a much grander scale? And we should be inviting it? I vehemently would oppose such a notion (as would 99% of the public and presumably the entire military industrial complex).
However on a softer note the concept of “strong states- week fed” is highly appealing and would solve most of our ills.
between the effect of international financial organizations versus the cooperation in an international democratic political coalition.
The North American Union and the WTO are financial/comercial constructs. In that aspect, the damage has already been done.
I'm sure you did not mean to comment on NWO (New World Order) as that is more of a conspiracy theory.
It is only a conspiracy theory until/unless it becomes a reality. Any ceding of ultimate authority power to a global entity is a direct breach on sovereignty, not an enhancement. Have you followed the news about the Texas court case where some world body overruled a state court in a rape/murder conviction. This I believe is an example of where thinking such as this initiative will lead.
As I read the OP, it looks more like an example of giving our state a representative voice on a global platform. Currently, the only authority that stands to be challenged by such an agreement would be unilateral executive authority that has been abused on a global scale and exercised against the will of a majority of citizens here.
In example, I submit our abandonment of the Geneva conventions and our rejection of the Kyoto protocol. These agreements would both be upheld if they were presented at the ballot box, yet they are rejected by the overreaching authority of the executive branch.
….”it looks more like an example of giving our state a representative voice on a global platform”
<
p>
Do we not now have a “representative voice” on a national platform? Look at all the good that has done. You recount its accomplishments quite well.
Why would you than suppose we might be better served to mute that voice even further by placing it onto a national platform? Maybe things couldnt get worse?
How is it that you can even entertain the notion that somehow the voice of Massachusetts can be strengthened by ANY further muting.
Isnt it logical that we should seek to weaken the muting effect and not further enhance it.
Why would you balkanize our future? Why even look down that road? Isnt the view pretty telling?
The idea that we as a state declare ourselves with the power to engage other democratic institutions worldwide and directly would mute rather than enhance our position is illogical to be kind. Especially since you use as a premise that the president defies the will of congress and the american people in matters of foreign policy. Your premise only underscores the need for states to empower themselves to enngage with other democratic entities globally.
States need to empower themselves.
First of all, the legislative body of the federation of democracies would be directly elected by the people of the member nations. Currently, multinational corporations, etc. are not accountable to the people because there is no enforceable global law. Presumably, in light of our own experience with federal union we could add some suggestions such as publicly funded elections. I am increasingly inclined to believe the NWO fears are indirectly generated by multinational corporations who would resist being held accountable to a government of, by and for the people in the international arena.
<
p>
Currently, nations are armed to the teeth (naturally, in an ungoverned world), nations naturally strive to acquire nuclear weapons (naturally, in an ungoverned world), and according to Einstein WW3 is inevitable without global federation.
United nations only means of enforcing “law”, to wage war on a the whole member nation, just doesn’t seem like the best idea we could put forward.
<
p>
I agree that the military industrial complex might not be overly thrilled with the idea, and you may be right that the public might not be thrilled by it either, but I believe the 99% mark may be off:
<
p>
<
p>
IMO, if the question involved a federation of democracies, and if the backers had generated ANY informative publicity, Lincoln would have said a collective YES.
<
p>
True, Lincoln is the likely near the most bluest of blue towns in a blue state, but this question is distinctly non partisan.
<
p>
Opposition also comes from those who have crystallized a concept of “unlimited national sovereignty” (which is, IMO, the root of war) in contrast to the idea/ideal of popular sovereignty. (in 1787+ the Sovereign people chose to re delegate their innate sovereignty to create the US Gov- the US Constitution actually being an interstate “foreign policy”)
<
p>
As far as solving most of our ills, I believe publically funded elections (series of debates,informative web sites is all you really need-how much can that cost??)
…making it a HIGH CRIME for a candidate to accept ANY money from ANY individual or group for ANY reason would be a powerful cure for our disenfranchised citizens…along with the establishment of a United Federation of Democratic Nations which would render the need for war powers obsolete in member nations (they would have to go to court instead)- as we know, war powers are a powerful corrosive element to individual liberties. (of course this UFDN would have an explicit “bill of rights”)
Of course to implement the rules of this federation it might not get by with just the use of carrots. One can imagine that they might on occasional have to employ the stick. What color would their helicopters be?
Of course there are no examples, this is uncharted territory, world government, hmm …
Okay, lets take the closest thing we can find in human existance on this globe, the roman empire.
At least thats the closest I can think of.
How did that work out. Lets recollect on this great democratic experiment. From far and wide cultures joined together and when the coaltition of the willing stopped growing the “federation” found other ways to convince them that joining would be in their best interest. Of course the price of administering to the needs of just holding together the empire soon swamped the proceeds the lucky inhabitants contributed (of their own free will) and despite the best representation moeny could buy the “federation” soon feel upon ruin.
What would you propose this “federation” would do about those unwilling to join? Economic pressure? Sanctions? Black helicopters?
Why dont you enlighten us with a more positive example? I’m all ears.
That's a jaw-dropping analogy. It's so far removed from the description in the OP that I can not respond other than to shake my head.
Nothing. It's voluntary.
13 original colonies on the brink of intercolony war and internal anarchy met in Philadelphia in 1787 to “revise’ the Articles of Confederation…
<
p>
This example is not altogether fortunate do to the current oppressive nature of our fed gov…which is largely due to lack of enforceable supranational law…
<
p>
But, the basic principles discussed in the Federalist Papers apply and are relevant. In his inaugural address, Jefferson replied to critics of his purchase of the Louisiana purchase with, “…who knows to the extend to which this principle may be applied” (the principle being federation)…keeping in mind that horse was the means of transport in 1787, establishing a federation of democracies would be relatively easy contrasted to establishing the American federal union. (in some ways)
This is the crux of the debate that we should be seeing on the national stage instead of the rabble being espoused over the idiot box to our mutual contempt.
To me, the roots of this nation were “CORRUPTED” by the Jeffersonian view. The concept of strengthening the central authority perverted the intent of the constitution and LED to the mess we see today. The original intent has to be restored to reach the intended equilibrium.
I believe Jefferson believed the fed gov was a necessary evil and should be monitored. (?)
This effort doesn’t advocate secession as some groups do:
The Independent Republic of Vermont While I’m sympathetic with them to some degree, with no common court system, states would arm, it would escalate, states with nukes would decide that others shouldn’t have them…
<
p>
Same as if you disbanded local police…every home would become a fortress.
It seems almost counterintuitive, but supranational federal union would greatly shrink the federal gov and largely curtail its aquired intrusive, parasitical attributes. (IMO)
On the surface it sounds appealing but I would be led to believe it would be the equivilant of expelling one monster by creating an even larger one with which to do it.
Good point, but keep in mind all the “little” (armed with nuclear weapons) monsters ARE monsters simply because the big monster (which will no longer be a monster when it represents the whole planet)does not yet exist.
<
p>
You may make the point that a UFDN doesn’t represent all the people of the planet, and will need defense and “war powers” to defend its member nations- and this is true. Here is the transient potential “monster element”… but this globally minded “monster” seems far preferable to scores of monsters with teeth just as sharp (?)
<
p>
True, gov is a necessary monster “evil”…perhaps someday people will be more innately ethical and as they naturally internalize laws, the need for enforcement will lessen…but that day is not yet here.
<
p>
But keep in mind this legislative body will be directly elected by the people, thus more “globally’ minded, than nationally minded…
<
p>
Joining the federation will be so financially enticing ($ saved on national defense alone) as to provide a powerful carrot for nations to join….(just as Turkey seeks to qualify for admission to the EU)
<
p>
Hmm … I dont know. I’m sure some thinking went into this and I am actualy kind of surprised that a number of people here share my view in the necesity of weakening the bloated federal government; but in the end there is simply no way I could supprt this particular idea. You are more likely to get me to support a petition whereby the 13 original colonies would seek to free themselves from the federal goliath by seeeking readmission into the British empire.
Then the Vermont secessionists may be more to your liking: Vermont Republic Never heard of your rejoin the Brits idea. I admit their choice of articulate, intelligent leaders is profoundly refreshing.
<
p> Still, being a voter and to have this question before me would at least feel refreshing in that the people, as the foundation of our government, were being acknowledged.
Ok, I caved. Flag being redesigned with Union Jack logo, how much will you now be donating to the cause?
Yes. Jefforson believed in a limited and restrained federal government. He went so far as to insist that the US should have no standing army in times of peace, arguing instead for a decentralized national militia that would assemble only when needed.
But in practice he abdicated the principle and expanded the scope of the federal authority.
ennumerate please!
‘been debating this one for 200 years. Im not the one that brought up Louisiana
The federation’s (international) laws would be enforceable. This would mean if a leader of a nation violated these laws they would be held accountable- arrested and tried if need be. So, if a leader of a nation invaded another nation, or perhaps secretly mined the harbors of a nation, they would likely be arrested. (Just as governor of a state would have to account for breaking federal law). Keep in mind, these federation laws would be made by THE PEOPLE. Most importantly, law would be indirectly made by, and apply directly to, the INDIVIDUAL. (no more need to bomb nations to enforce “law”)
<
p>
You would now have a direct say in global issues, where as before the election of a president was your only “voice” in international matters.
<
p>
Paint the helicopters any color you wish, acting of course, through your elected rep to the legislative body of the federation (General Court as we chose to call it)
Along this line, you may notice that the star in the upper right corner of the United Federation flag is in the same position that the “Massachusetts star” is in on the blue union of the U.S. flag- a reminder to future generations that the commonwealth acted as a “cradle of liberty” for the COMMONWEALTH. (recall that in portrayals of the tree of liberty the words “law and order” are in the midst of the roots of the tree)
I could have swore …oh…wait…nevermind.
That actually is were the term united federation came from. Redundant perhaps (?), but I like it.
Please provide one 🙂
You were the first to ask for a concrete example of this hypothetical. I thought I actualy came close with the Roman Empire analogy autonomous regions loosely aligned to a central. I was waiting for you to provide the positive counterpart to it … Ah well … you wont find one.
Such fantasy ignores two basic concepts, human nature visa greed and power and the basic reality that all cultures are inherently xenophobic.
Every “experiment” in global anything always ends the same way. Participation is only voluntary until the participants no longer personaly benifit from it. Then what. The entity that was created will not just vanish. It has a survival instinct and will lash out.
There are countless examples in history .. read some.
But a much closer analogy would be the UN except that the reps would be elected rather than appointed.
I also cannot help but comment on your classic conservative outlook that humans are inherently flawed and evil and predispositioned to harm one another.
I wouldnt say humans are predispositioned to “harm” one another. I would say we are predispositioned to EMPLOY one another. If you look up the definition of employ you will see it defined as “to use”. Of course you can debate that all night but look around you while you are doing it and tell me honestly that I am wrong.
At least in your characterization of human nature. That said, humans, like any other animals, can be put into situations in which they are forced to act against their natural disposition and go into an emergency mode governed by survival instinct.
A tribal culture with the full compliment of “Maslow's heirarchy of needs” met would rarely exhibit the behavior of “employment” as you term it. It is the manufactured conditions of competitive society that triggers in most a survival instinct that encourages the behavior you describe.
We should immedietly dismantle the “competitive society”?
AND how would these needs thus be met? Would it not be easier just to admit where adaptation has led us and deal with it?.
We find these effects abhorent for a reason.
Rather than “dismantle” anything, I think we should ultimately work toward a society where mortal competition is obsolete. That does not mean to stifle progress or innovation, only the self destructive practice of relying on and competing for limited resources.
Utopian? sure. Possible? maybe. Possible anytime soon? No.
“just deal with it” (accept it) is not an option imho. There is too much disfunction, war, and other abhorent behavior to accept our current state of affairs as snafu.
I wouldnt say humans are predispositioned to “harm” one another. I would say we are predispositioned to EMPLOY one another
<
p>
We are predisposed to cooperate in some settings, and to compete in others, with different degrees of intensity depending one’s proximity to his or her “affinity group.”
<
p>
The late evolutionary biologist Ernst Myer published an article in Scientific American a few years before his death (it was in the July issue in 2000 or 2002, can’t remember which) in which he described that altruism is an evolutionary adaptation that fosters advancement of the clan, tribe, state, whatever.
Yes. Predisposed. Thanks for the correction. I hope I don't get too much off my grade for that 😉
…and I thought it was the kindly nuns at “St Mary's school for Perpetual Humiliation and Discomfort” that introduced the concept of moral relativism. Turns out there is a scientific basis. Who knew? raj, of course.
But the effect is the same. In stark terms, our behavior is a reaction to our environment, and hostility is a reaction to external pressure.
Having been raised in the American Midwest, I successfully avoided the nuns. Baptists don’t have nunds. But, actually, raj didn’t know that about altruism until he read the SciAm article. Reading is FUNdamental.
<
p>
Decidedly so. I largely just report what I have read. In point of fact, before I read the Myer article, I was hard-pressed to explain why altruism might be an evolutionary adaptation.
I’m not being sarcastic. This sounds like something he had proposed before.
No, far from it. From what I understand, LaRouche has “goldencalfed” national sovereignty. (as contrasted to the popular sovereignty idea).
Admittedly, I don’t really get LaRouches underlying drift. Heard him (or someone working for him) bashing Gore for inventing global warming so the British could undermine US sovereignty and I couldn’t quite grasp it all…
but I’m no LaRouche authority.
I went all over the site linked up there and found nothing to indicate that, but his projects can be pretty sneaky that way. I liked the idea until the topic arose of law enforcement.
I wonder why that is always a snag for me?
😀
It reads as follows
<
p>
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;
First of all, a federal union is none of these (which describe relations between “sovereign” nations)..see federalist papers. And besides, Massachusetts would not be seceding and attempting to become a independent nation.(although that’s exactly what we are accdg to the MA Const.) This is an important distinction: We are proposing that the process (or right) for the U.S. to join a supranational federation falls into the domain of state rights “by default” because of the 10th amendment. Presumably 2/3 or 3/4 of the states would have to concur.
<
p>
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
…again, not looking to secede…
<
p>
No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power,…
…ditto…
<
p>
There is an interesting precedent of sorts here too:
When the founders of the US gov sought the peoples approval, they bypassed the state governments and laid the Constitution before elected ratification committees. They realized since the states were “giving up” prerogatives of sovereignty to create this interstate government that they would tend to resist (and perhaps keep their jobs in many cases) …and too, the founders wished to appeal more directly to the people with this basic question re modification of the body politic.
<
p>
So, by analogy, this enlargement of the body politic into the international arena- which is exactly what this is- should receive the blessing of the state or the people (not fed gov which would innately having a bias with this issue) Thus the wisdom of the 10th amendment is revealed.
<
p>
From a state constitutional point of view, John Adams would most certainly give this his blessing!
<
p>
Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.
<
p>
Notice he uses the term “the people alone” in contrast to “the people or their representatives in the legislature” which he uses in all other instances.
State sovereignty deserves further research, thought and serious discussion.
<
p>
We Americans did not declare our independence from the reign of King George III to create a government that would enable the president to declare federal martial law without the consent of the governor or local authorities; spy on its citizens; set up a national identification program, heading us toward an Orwellian surveillance society; invade foreign countries without just cause; torture enemy combatants, detain suspects without charges; censor the press, and lie to its’ citizens.
<
p>
If we Americans condone losing our Liberties under the guise of a “war on terror”, it is because we allow the ills of ignorance to sicken our minds, and the distractions of greed to poison the spirit.
<
p>
What good could come from seceding? Smaller government is more efficient. Smaller government may actually be more democratic than that which we have now. Folks would be more likely to get more involved with their communities and local politics, and exercise informed control in the voting booth.
<
p>
I realize some of my views are amongst the minority here. But for those who do share my views I ask that you seriously consider advocating for our state sovereignty. Learn more about it. Education is central to a prosperous, tolerant and civilized society.
<
p>
By reaffirming our sovereignty, it would be a chance for the people of this Commonwealth to control our own future.
<
p>
http://PatriotsforLi…
“Hearken not to the voice which petulantly tells you that the form of government recommended…is impossible to accomplish.”–James Madison, The Federalist, No. 14.