20101104
Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." Dante
For years I've been drawn along lines of thought, about the political solutions to world affairs. Where and when I 1st heard of 'Dante' I can't recall, but he has haunted me since. I think I bought a small booklet of Dante's thoughts on the one world government in the 1990s.
Since then, which would have been around the ten years I attended the School of Philosophy in Melbourne, thanks to the School, and to my lust for political knowledge and the rest, I've learned a lot, including the innumerable arguments against one world government, and have for years been vehemently against the centrist idea.
The School's Economics classes, shone a Light of Lights on my small store, and I remember chatting with an older, Wiser fellow student at an informal occasion, about the Henry George Economic Principle of Land Rent for Government Revenue. His words put the idea simply as “Collected by Local Councils, under a federal umbrella” or such.
This concept can be extended, admittedly, perhaps only 'for the perfect world', but which nevertheless has great merit, and should, by all Advocates be fought for, and is where current centrist structures are dissolved, down to where the Real Power, lies in Local Governments or Councils which administer their local 'turf', and are all funded by Land Rent.
With the necessary grand scheme, if-I-may, of restructuring all of our local and national affairs of government, things would in a way be turned on their heads, so that the power rests with the local councils, who, collect the Land Rent, purely for the purposes of government, and, according to issues like demographics, population and necessary development, apportion funds appropriately UP.., to the federal arena, rather than how it currently is, where the feds deem what is apportioned DOWN to the states (who shall not exist!) and local councils.
This way, where Local Councils, occupied and administered by the Locals themselves, pretty much as local councils are now, pay the federal representatives to do their thing(s), is the simplest and purest way to manage these affairs.
Nevertheless, this morning I jumped on the 'net and finally reminded myself of Dante, and to confirm his time, always thinking it was in the 12th or 13th century, went to a few websites.
(born 1265, died 1321)
Lucky for me, I was in the mood to read one or two, and found this one to my liking, mainly because it seems to agree and thus, to me, confirm my theories about the inevitable tyranny of any notions of a 'one world government'.
So, here's an extract from the “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” website, written apparently by one 'Catherine Lu'.
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/)
World Government
First published Mon Dec 4, 2006
‘World government’ refers to the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority. Arguably, it has not existed so far in human history, yet proposals for a unified global political authority have existed since ancient times — in the ambition of kings, popes and emperors, and the dreams of poets and philosophers.
Proponents of world government offer distinct reasons for why it is an ideal of political organization. Some are motivated negatively and see world government as the definitive solution to old and new human problems such as war and the development of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty and inequality, and environmental degradation. More positively, some have advocated world government as a proper reflection of the unity of the cosmos, under reason or God. Proponents have also differed historically in their views of the form that a world government should take. While medieval thinkers advocated world government under a single monarch or emperor who would possess supreme authority over all other lesser rulers, modern proponents generally do not advocate a wholesale dismantling of the sovereign states system but incremental innovations in global institutional design to move humanity toward world federalism or cosmopolitan democracy.
Critics of world government have offered three main kinds of objections — to do with the feasibility, desirability and necessity of establishing a common global political authority.
First, a realist argument, forwarded by international ‘realist’ theorists, holds that world government is infeasible; ideas of world government constitute exercises in utopian thinking, and are utterly impractical as a goal for human political organization. Assuming that world government would lead to desirable outcomes such as perpetual peace, realists are skeptical that world government will ever materialize as an institutional reality, given the problems of egoistic or corrupted human nature, or the logic of international anarchy that characterizes a world of states, all jealously guarding their own sovereignty or claims to supreme authority. World government is thus infeasible as a solution to global problems because of the unsurpassable difficulties of establishing “authoritative hierarchies” at the global or international level (Krasner 1999, 42). A related consequentialist argument speculates that even if world government were desirable, the process of creating a world government may produce more harm than good; the necessary evils committed on the road to establishing a world government would outweigh whatever benefits might result from its achievement (Rousseau 1756).
Second, even if world government were shown to be a feasible political project, it may be an undesirable one. One set of reasons for its undesirability emphasizes the potential power and oppressiveness of a global political authority. In one version of this objection — the tyranny argument — world government would descend into a global tyranny, hindering rather than enhancing the ideal of human autonomy (Kant 1784). Instead of delivering impartial global justice and peace, a world government may form an inescapable tyranny that would have the power to make humanity serve its own interests, and opposition against which might engender incessant and intractable civil wars (Waltz 1979). In another version of this objection — the homogeneity argument — world government may be so strong and pervasive as to create a homogenizing effect, obliterating distinct cultures and communities that are intrinsically valuable. The institution of a world government would thus destroy the rich social pluralism that animates human life (Walzer 2004). While the preceding two arguments stem from fear of the potential power of a world government, another set of concerns that make world government undesirable focuses on its potential weakness as a form of political organization. The objections on this account are that the inevitable remoteness of a global political authority would dilute the laws, making them ineffectual and meaningless. The posited weakness of world government thus leads to objections based on its potential inefficiency and soullessness (Kant 1784).
Third, contemporary liberal theorists argue mainly that world government, in the form of a global leviathan with supreme legislative, executive, adjudicative and enforcement powers, is largely unnecessary to solve problems such as war, global poverty, and environmental catastrophe. World government so conceived is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the aims of a liberal agenda. Even cosmopolitan liberals do not argue that moral cosmopolitanism necessarily entails political cosmopolitanism in the form of a world government. The liberal rejection of world government, however, does not amount to an endorsement of the conventional system of sovereign states or the contemporary international order, “with its extreme injustices, crippling poverty, and inequalities” (Rawls 1999, 117). Instead, most liberal theorists envision the need for authoritative international and global institutions that modify significantly the powers and prerogatives traditionally attributed to the sovereign state.
Before I read this likeable piece, I wuz struck by an Angel's arra', which channelled a short poem down through my antenna, going to Proper Government, against that delusional elitist dream of a centrist, religious, new world order, as forced upon the world by the tyrant Rupert Murdoch and his Brettonwoods, Bilderberger, Illuminati cabals of spoiled rich, white, Christian idiots.
Here it beee....
And I would chant, 'til beyond my grave,
That “one world government will not mankind save!”
And in stead of tyrant monarch,
As dreamed by spoiled of wealth and power,
In stead of torturous military,
Pursuing each Soul, hour-by-hour,
'Tis clear to those who dive
Within to their own Divine,
That monarchs, and world leaders,
Take from all, the room to Refine,
The Simple, Purest Wisdom,
Of Good Government Local at hand,
And that not a myth of leadership
But Common Land Law for the World,
Is only Proper for all to demand.
Hyuk!
So THERE! Chew on that Dante, Bilderbergers, Illuminati, Vatican, and delusional Christians!!
And DAMN the cabalist government yes-men, and yes-woe-men of our times!!!
All Praise the Green, Agrarian, Socialist, Military, Union Alliance!!!
Thinkers Unite!!!
And Thanks to Catherine Lu for her Wise thoughts.
But..., I do fully agree with the statement by Dante which I quoted at the start of this e-ssay/post:
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
As I seemed to receive from somewhere higher than my little hovel some years ago,
"It is not anymore a question of LEADERSHIP, (nor, for that matter, a question of any religions' 'god'!), but more Properly, a matter of the Science of Simple Honest LAW, we all need, Best found in the Land itself, and in how we relate to and with It, our One True Mutha Eartha.
For, as any 'leader' or 'God' might rule with Good Laws, Good Laws are in themselves the Best and Greatest Leader, and/or 'God' for any to Obey, and to bow to.
Because, any other 'god', like any other 'leader', soon enough becomes a tyrant!"
Feeling a bit 'elevated' there. Not, my usual style, I promise!
This goes then, to the present bullshit of our so-called 'Democracy' and challenges all it's accepted ideals of government, presidents and prime ministers, etc.
The reality is that today's 'democracies' are not democratic at all, and never will be, as long as their indisputably evil cult religions of messianism, their psycho-pathological power-hungry media moguls and cabals, advertising juggernauts and puppet politicians, avoid the bottomline issue of our having HONESTLY calculated access to a piece of land upon which to build our family, lives, businesses, incomes and FOOD.
AND..., Safe, Honest Local Communities.
Anything less is tyranny!
And anything less, like today's media and political spin-and-suck-us-in, has to be shunned by everyone, and BY ANY MEANS... REMOVED!
From the Traveling 4x4 Tent of
Countryzen bin Eartha
Outlaw, for
GLOBAL
Land,
Tax,
Housing,
Agricultural,
Cult,
Drug,
Work,
Education and
Environmental
LAW REFORM
Uluruba.
True Lore Outlaw, Walking thru this Multiverse, Warring against dumb
