Eh, I'm not sure bashing the UN is controversial enough to get a real shit storm going. He's exactly right about what the UN is, which is why it should not have any real binding legal authority over its member nations.
But could the federal government be considered a government's government? It might have had a popularly elected House, but originally the senate was a government's body -- it represented the legislatures of the several states.
I would argue that an international governing body, in theory, could be legitimately established if its primary purpose was to facilitate human rights, to promote free trade and to create international financial institutions.
But history has taught us, with our own experience, that anything so established will eventually try to govern beyond it's mandate, which is why such an idea should be fought. Our federal government has certainly been an example of governing beyond its mandate.
Of course, by the same token, a strong federal government can't be seen as a bad thing if you're black or some other disfavored minority. Could Jim Crow have been ended without the intervention of the federal government? Could slavery have been?
I suppose my point is that I think centralized government can be a mixed bag. I certainly don't believe in the UN, nor do I advocate world government, but the same arguments were made against a federal government in the United States, and while I wouldn't say that every development has been positive, I wouldn't say it's been entirely negative either.
In other words, the restraining tool for a compulsive instrument would have to contain a greater accumulation of power than the compulsive instrument or it would be ineffective. But this, in essence, would also be a government. It would simply be a larger, more compulsive, more dangerous and more mischievous tool and less subject to restraint than the original instrument of coercion.
There's an unexamined assumption here that is very flawed. There are many cases in history in which several small powers allied to restrain a large one. You do not need a super-government to restrain a government, but you need an institutional system in which the government's power is not philosophically prior to that of anyone else in society, allowing other powers to arise to oppose it.
The plebians in Rome had their own institutions such as the tribunate and a plebian assembly, which were not formally dependent on the Senate and were able to check it effectively for centuries.
If any entity comes forth with the power to check a government, wherever that power originates from, it governs government. It has become a supergovernment.
By definition, you DO need a supergovernment to check government.
Just open the door, lean your head out, and yell, "Blücher!"
That won't work anymore, he sold the mustang.
*snicker*
to promote free trade and to create international financial institutions.
Yes, in theory. But
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators."
But history has taught us, with our own experience, that anything so established will eventually try to govern beyond it's mandate, which is why such an idea should be fought. Our federal government has certainly been an example of governing beyond its mandate.
Exactly. Any body of any kind that is strong enough to "promote" is likewise strong enough to tyrannize.
Could Jim Crow have been ended without the intervention of the federal government? Could slavery have been?
In a capitalist economy, slavery ends by itself once the population density gets high enough. Renting or hiring is always cheaper in the short term than owning, so owning people only works when having enough warm bodies is the limiting factor. Without the federal government they'd have become migrant workers.
Several states are resisting Federal drug laws. To the extent that they succeed, are they now supergovernments?
If that unified coalition succeeds in throwing out the federal government's authority concerning drug laws, and if it continues to maintain its existence after the purpose that created that unity and that power lapses, then yes it has become a de facto more powerful government.
It depends on whether it's a temporary response to a temporary condition, or whether it becomes a "permanent" institution, an end rather than a means.
I think most of the problems created by governments could be solved if all laws and rulings had a sunset, rather than being enshrined and immortalized as precedents. Yes you can keep the same laws, but only by passing them over and over.
"I think most of the problems created by governments could be solved if all laws and rulings had a sunset, rather than being enshrined and immortalized as precedents. Yes you can keep the same laws, but only by passing them over and over."
As an added plus, it would keep "legislators" busy enough "legislating" the old rules into effect again to keep them from needing to invent quite as much new legislation.
Original intent was not for a class of professional governors, but for representatives of the people to meet from time to time to conduct that business which was necessary unto the day. You don't continuously change the rules during a game of Monopoly™, you read/agree beforehand and then conduct yourself accordingly. No more does it make sense that legislation needs to be continuously generated all year long every year.
However, with the fairly abrupt change from largely farmers meeting in the off season to a permanent parasitic bureacracy, the congressional sessions have gotten longer and longer (although increasingly interspersed with non-working days). They need to do something to justify their existence, salaries, and time expenditure, so they endlessly propose and debate unnecessary legislation.
I would love to see a deconstruction committee set up, purely to review legislation for continued applicability and to void that which is nonsensical, unconstitutional, or just plain unjust. The only business of such a committee would be to get rid of or simplify laws.
There are tens of thousands of laws and regulations on the books, it is literally impossible for any one person to know for certain, with 100% confidence that they have not broken some rule somewhere. When everyone is a criminal, there is no faith in the system. Laws, credit and fiat currency have a lot in common- they depend upon voluntary participation and public confidence to have any value whatsoever.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/12/quote-of-day_21.html (9 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"Pragmatic Anarchist"
You haven't been getting enough shit-storms around here lately?
I've been too busy to post much. I need the traffic! ;)
Just open the door, lean your head out, and yell, "Blücher!"
Eh, I'm not sure bashing the UN is controversial enough to get a real shit storm going. He's exactly right about what the UN is, which is why it should not have any real binding legal authority over its member nations.
But could the federal government be considered a government's government? It might have had a popularly elected House, but originally the senate was a government's body -- it represented the legislatures of the several states.
I would argue that an international governing body, in theory, could be legitimately established if its primary purpose was to facilitate human rights, to promote free trade and to create international financial institutions.
But history has taught us, with our own experience, that anything so established will eventually try to govern beyond it's mandate, which is why such an idea should be fought. Our federal government has certainly been an example of governing beyond its mandate.
Of course, by the same token, a strong federal government can't be seen as a bad thing if you're black or some other disfavored minority. Could Jim Crow have been ended without the intervention of the federal government? Could slavery have been?
I suppose my point is that I think centralized government can be a mixed bag. I certainly don't believe in the UN, nor do I advocate world government, but the same arguments were made against a federal government in the United States, and while I wouldn't say that every development has been positive, I wouldn't say it's been entirely negative either.
In other words, the restraining tool for a compulsive instrument would have to contain a greater accumulation of power than the compulsive instrument or it would be ineffective. But this, in essence, would also be a government. It would simply be a larger, more compulsive, more dangerous and more mischievous tool and less subject to restraint than the original instrument of coercion.
There's an unexamined assumption here that is very flawed. There are many cases in history in which several small powers allied to restrain a large one. You do not need a super-government to restrain a government, but you need an institutional system in which the government's power is not philosophically prior to that of anyone else in society, allowing other powers to arise to oppose it.
The plebians in Rome had their own institutions such as the tribunate and a plebian assembly, which were not formally dependent on the Senate and were able to check it effectively for centuries.
If any entity comes forth with the power to check a government, wherever that power originates from, it governs government. It has become a supergovernment.
By definition, you DO need a supergovernment to check government.
John,
Several states are resisting Federal drug laws. To the extent that they succeed, are they now supergovernments?
Just open the door, lean your head out, and yell, "Blücher!"
That won't work anymore, he sold the mustang.
*snicker*
to promote free trade and to create international financial institutions.
Yes, in theory. But
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators."
But history has taught us, with our own experience, that anything so established will eventually try to govern beyond it's mandate, which is why such an idea should be fought. Our federal government has certainly been an example of governing beyond its mandate.
Exactly. Any body of any kind that is strong enough to "promote" is likewise strong enough to tyrannize.
Could Jim Crow have been ended without the intervention of the federal government? Could slavery have been?
In a capitalist economy, slavery ends by itself once the population density gets high enough. Renting or hiring is always cheaper in the short term than owning, so owning people only works when having enough warm bodies is the limiting factor. Without the federal government they'd have become migrant workers.
Several states are resisting Federal drug laws. To the extent that they succeed, are they now supergovernments?
If that unified coalition succeeds in throwing out the federal government's authority concerning drug laws, and if it continues to maintain its existence after the purpose that created that unity and that power lapses, then yes it has become a de facto more powerful government.
It depends on whether it's a temporary response to a temporary condition, or whether it becomes a "permanent" institution, an end rather than a means.
I think most of the problems created by governments could be solved if all laws and rulings had a sunset, rather than being enshrined and immortalized as precedents. Yes you can keep the same laws, but only by passing them over and over.
"I think most of the problems created by governments could be solved if all laws and rulings had a sunset, rather than being enshrined and immortalized as precedents. Yes you can keep the same laws, but only by passing them over and over."
As an added plus, it would keep "legislators" busy enough "legislating" the old rules into effect again to keep them from needing to invent quite as much new legislation.
Original intent was not for a class of professional governors, but for representatives of the people to meet from time to time to conduct that business which was necessary unto the day. You don't continuously change the rules during a game of Monopoly™, you read/agree beforehand and then conduct yourself accordingly. No more does it make sense that legislation needs to be continuously generated all year long every year.
However, with the fairly abrupt change from largely farmers meeting in the off season to a permanent parasitic bureacracy, the congressional sessions have gotten longer and longer (although increasingly interspersed with non-working days). They need to do something to justify their existence, salaries, and time expenditure, so they endlessly propose and debate unnecessary legislation.
I would love to see a deconstruction committee set up, purely to review legislation for continued applicability and to void that which is nonsensical, unconstitutional, or just plain unjust. The only business of such a committee would be to get rid of or simplify laws.
There are tens of thousands of laws and regulations on the books, it is literally impossible for any one person to know for certain, with 100% confidence that they have not broken some rule somewhere. When everyone is a criminal, there is no faith in the system. Laws, credit and fiat currency have a lot in common- they depend upon voluntary participation and public confidence to have any value whatsoever.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>