It's good we have a basic agreement on something...but I find some your skepticism a bit hard to follow.
"Most modern "one world government" people and groups are collectivists and Marxists." I have to apply a steep discount because your Marxist/collectivist brush is so wide. If somebody's truly a Marxist, I'd think they'd be pushing something other than a representative democracy, in which case it's pretty much a moot point. OTOH, if somebody you think is a Marxist/collectivist proposes a system of representative democracy substantially the same as ours, would you object simply because of the source? That's the sticking point for me when I read your post: It sounds awfully doctrinaire to turn up your nose at a planetary federal representative democracy just because "Marxists" and "collectivists" favor it too.
A subtler subtext is nagging at me too: The implication that there's a "wrong" outcome from representative democracy, other than voting to give it up completely (and even then you have to give at least grudging respect to a decision freely reached). It seems an illogical proposition to think that you can predict the outcome if people are given broad freedom; wouldn't you think that just the opposite would occur, that maximum freedom means minimum predictability?
Flame » in reply to One world government
Planetary Federalism
The whole thread (49 posts)
- Why?
- re: Why?
- A question directed at conservatives. NONE answered.
- They've gotten their asses kicked in here to many times
- Asked and answered, your honor
- It's only a partial ass-kicking, I'd say
- Radicals
- The question was WHY? Got an answer? (n/t)
- Just strike me down Sire!..... (n/t)
- It's only a partial ass-kicking, I'd say
- It's hard to fight with one hand tied behind your back...
- Asked and answered, your honor
- They've gotten their asses kicked in here to many times
- No matter how this turns out, they'll find a way to blame it all on the liberals. (n/t)
