Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack?
bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Wed Apr 20 07:34:49 UTC 2005
>> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > In a nutshell the whole permanent security council agreed to
>> > resolution
>> > 441 including the US and the UK as permanent security council
>> > members. ...
>> > It had ceded part of its power when it signed the UN Charter and it
>> > ceded the rest of the power when it signed of on 1441 on the matter
>> > of Iraq.
>> Ergo, the US never 'ceded' its sovereignty in this. The US has always
>> reserved its rights to act unilaterally or in cooperation with others
>> outside the oversight of the UN...
> This is what I was thinking too.
I don't know at what level we are in disagreement then.
Do you accept that the UN charter was or is *intended* to be an
agreement amongst nations and that part of the basis of any agreement
is that those agreeing are consenting to accept some constraints on their
behaviour that they would not have to accept in the absence of
such an agreement?
> The UN has not produced anything
> like a constitution of the united states of earth, anything which
> guarantees me freedom of speech, of religion, the right to bear
> arms, any of that. I have no vote for any leaders in the UN.
I think that that is all true.
> I see nothing in the U.S. constitution that gives the federal
> government the right to cede any of its sovereignty to any
> entity such as the UN. The U.S. fed couldn't legally cede any
> of my rights to that organization even if it wanted to.
I don't know if that is true. It certainly sounds likely to be true.
Is there somewhere that you think that the US Constitution
says that it can't?
> This is a relief, for the UN appears to be corrupt to the core. I
> think of the UN as functionally little more than a trade
For the sake of argument lets say that is true.
Do you think the US government can make trade agreements
with other countries without depriving you, one of its citizens
of your rights?
> Of this we can be sure, a central world authority is a bad idea,
> very bad, for it concentrates too much political power. It's
> too hard to get to another planet once the inevitable occurs.
That certainly might be the case.
But many arguments against central world authority also apply
against central national authority like the US fed. Political power
could be split in a world system just as it is in the US national
I think we (humanity) are going to end up going that way one way
or another, whether you or I like it or not, as the alternative to
international laws are international wars.
Your position like the position of most US citizens is a priviledged
one just in that you happen to be are a US citizen.
The global economy begrudges all priviledges that are not based
on merit and will move to correct them.
More information about the extropy-chat