Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Porter Rockwell's column >>

PORTER ROCKWELL

Novelist trapped in a techie's body!
Articles Posted: 37  Links Seeded: 13
Member Since: 8/2010  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Join or Die

Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:13 PM EST
world-news, liberty, states-rights, sovereignty, one-world
By Porter Rockwell

Benjamin Franklin's argument for Joining against the British

Advertise | AdChoices

Benjamin Franklin used this slogan to convince the separate American colonies that they had a choice of joining together or continuing to be enslaved by the boot of British rule. It neatly encapsulates both sides of a question that is probably the most important one in the world today.

Here are some examples going on right now.

The Arab League decision to join the international effort to force Syria's Assad from power is in the news today. This follows on the heels of a successful international effort to get rid of Libya's Ghadafi. The African Union has their troops in Somalia. And NATO is in "official" command of the war in Afghanistan.

These are, admittedly, fairly extreme cases. But Ghadafi insisted until the end that his government was the only legitimate government in Libya. Assad is saying the same thing right now. Established governments in Iraq and Afghanistan were thrown out by an armed invasion by foreign troops.

The point is that in all of these cases, national "sovereignty" lost out to an international, or at least foreign, decision. It's a slippery slope because there is no clear and accepted concept of when and how this should happen. When should a nation be sovereign? When should the rest of us step in and overrule national sovereignty? Remember ... whatever applies to Libya can also be applied to us!

It's worthwhile to consider the word, "sovereignty". It comes from the root, "sovereign" - absolute ruler. In classical thought, a sovereign is not bound by any law; a sovereign is the law. Clearly, this is becoming less and less true today.

Let's consider another case: the financial crisis going on in Europe. Country after country ... Ireland, Greece, Italy ... Portugal might be next ... have been forced to accept changes to their internal laws and policies by the other countries in Europe. Governments have been forced out and replaced by new governments. Greece was forced to cancel an internal Greek "referendum" that almost certainly would have rejected the changes being forced on the country, so the will of the Greek people is being ignored. The party of the former strong man in Italy would like nothing more than early elections because they believe they could regain power by a vote of the Italian people. They're not likely to get it because the rest of Europe won't put up with it. So the will of the Italian people is also being ignored.

National "sovereignty" loses again.

Around the world, this is probably one of the most universal issues. From Uighurs in China to Basques in Spain, local cultures want their own sovereignty but a larger entity refuses to consider it.

America ... or more properly, "The United States of America" ... has confronted this issue over and over again. The Revolutionary War patriot Patrick Henry - who famously said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" - was a Virginia patriot, not an American patriot. He opposed the union of the colonies and only fought against the British under the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And the American Civil War - still the record holder for American deaths in battle because both sides were American - was fought mainly to settle this question. There are those - candidate Rick Perry of Texas perhaps? - for whom this question might still not be settled. "States Rights" has been a rallying cry for conservatives since the revolution against the British. Many of them believe in their souls that they are "sovereign" in their own homes. Certainly, the Fundamentalist Mormons think so. They believe that if their menfolk choose to marry a dozen or so women at age 14, it's their own business and the rest of us should just butt out. Many Moslems have a similar point of view.

Former professor (UC, Santa Barbara) Garrett Hardin published an essay called, The Tragedy of the Commons in the journal Science in 1968 that has become the foundation document for those of us who believe that this is not only a good thing, it's an absolutely essential thing. If we are all allowed to consume as much as we want from a common resource individually, that common resource will inevitably be used up and we'll all die together. Conservatives have turned our point of view into a label they consider to be an insult: "one worlders". Climate change is proving that we're right. It is "One World".

Join or Die.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Porter Rockwell's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (14)
molemanisalive

Join what or whom?

The muslims? Hell, no! I will not convert. I will not be forced to live by their laws. No way, no how.

The OWS? The stench alone is enough to fathom burning the lot of them (that was sarcasm, btw). They are unkempt, unclean, and unorganized. They have no clear goals. For the most, it seems that most of them just want free stuff and not have to work for it. No thanks, I will work for my needs, wants and to repay monies borrowed.

Europe, Canada, SA, Africa, Asia? No thanks. I don't need people 5000 miles away dictating how I can or should live my life. I like the liberties granted by our constitution. I won't trade them for an easy life or to be liked by people from other nations/continents or world peace. Don't touch my rights, if you try, I will go to war with you.

Die? If I don't join you, are you really going to try to kill me? Nah, didn't think so...

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:55 PM EST
Porter Rockwell

I dunno ... Why do people miss the point entirely?

I am not going to kill anybody. You will kill yourself ... and me and everybody else.

The argument is that (going back to a different Revolutionary War slogan), we better hang together or we will surely hang separately.

  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:17 PM EST
Marshall James

yes against tyranny of the majority and more powerful.

your push for a new world order is falling on deaf ears...its what the elites use to gain control...that would be fear.

if we are missing the point...maybe its not us...and maybe its your article??

I dunno...just sayin...its hard to understand a piece that tries to argue that freedom is slavery.

it just doesnt make sense.,.....what you are advocating is slavery.

so maybe if you came up with some slave slogans?? then it might work for ya.

  • 3 votes
#2.1 - Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:01 PM EST
molemanisalive

For all the crying the left does about the right using fear tactics, that is exactly what you are attempting here: Join or Die!

I didn't miss your point, I just out-right dismissed it as naive at best, or completely blind to reality at worst. If you think that a unified one-world government will solve all of are ills, you have forgotten that the hearts and minds of men (and women) are corruptible and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just look at our senate and house, many of whom have just been exposed as using their positions and knowledge gained there in to play the stock market and win big (at least at better odds than you or me could hope). I am an accountant. If I use my knowledge of my company to purchase or sell at the right time to maximize my gains or minimize any potential loss on my employers stock, I would get charged with insider trading and thrown in jail. Why our the senators and congressmen elected to serve us, the people, not held to the same standard? A minor derail, but my point is that those in power will become corrupt, especially the longer they are in power. If you think having one government body to oversee the entire world will fix this problem of corruption, you are sadly misinformed. Even now, the U.N. judges are claiming Ban Ki-moon has been attempting to grab power unlawfully. Read more here:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/11/un-judges-charge-ban-ki-moon-with-power-grab-distortions-their-rulings/

  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:02 PM EST
Porter Rockwell

So ... Your solution to the corruption in Congress is ..... ?????

The "reality" is that Congress will stay the way it is until people join together to do something about it.

This "joining together" stuff actually works. You should try it.

  • 1 vote
#2.3 - Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:18 PM EST
molemanisalive

My solution to the corruption would be to change the laws such that any member found guilty of corruption could and should be charged with treason and put to death. This will clearly force the rest of our elected officials to follow the letter of the law or get out of politics before their own corruption comes to light. I would also change the laws to required full transparency (with exceptions for national security of course) on all legislation prior to the legislation going for a vote in either the senate or the house. We, the people, have a right to know what our elect government is doing. Running for elected office is supposed to be about serving the people, not serving yourself.

Oh yeah, one more thought... I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  • 2 votes
#2.4 - Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:22 AM EST
Porter Rockwell

Thank you for posting such a graphic example of nastiness and venom. I couldn't make this stuff up. It serves as a warning to people of good will that darkness always lurks in the shadows.

Another quote from Franklin that I like is:

"Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one."

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:17 AM EST
molemanisalive

Good quote from Benjamin Franklin and I agree with that quote 100%. Of course he had many good and great quotes. I don't get angry over politics, dismayed quite a lot, but not angry.

Which part of my post do you consider to be "a graphic example of nastiness and venom"? Is it my solution for ending corruption in our elected officials by charging them with treason if found guilty of corruption? Or is it the putting them to death part? Our country still puts to death those found guilty of treason. After all, death is a strong deterrent for many not to commit a crime, although it might not be the best way to deter crime. Is it my call for full transparency (expect when national security concerns the legislation) by requiring the government to disclose the legislation to the public before a vote in either house? Most on the left, I think, would agree with that call. Or is it my statement that we, the people, have a right to know what our elected government is doing? If so, that only proves that you will follow blindly the government. A blind constituency is a constituency that is easily manipulated, shepherded and pushed aside for the gain of a few. Where do you stand on this issue? Are you for the masses being kept in the dark and worked to serve the few? Especially if you are not part of the few, but part of the masses.

So tell me this: What do you think a one-world government would/could do better than the individual nations' governments?

Maybe you should add in a poll to see how most people here on the Vine feel about a one world government. I think you may be surprised by the results.

    #2.6 - Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:30 PM EST
    Porter Rockwell

    Moleman ...

    You wrote, "Maybe you should add in a poll to see how most people here on the Vine feel about a one world government. I think you may be surprised by the results."

    Maybe I wouldn't be surprised.

    Several points:

    A - If you called it, "one world government" (an emotionally laden term), you would get one set of answers. But if you called it ... oh, I dunno ... "Helping Israel avoid being overrun by Muslim fanatics." or "Rescuing starving children in Guatemala." ... you would get a different response. How you ask the question makes all the difference in the world.

    B - This column isn't a democracy. It's my opinion. In a democracy, we can be as crazy as we want to be. ("A people get the government they deserve.") But in this column, I try to bring out truth and reason in spite of the fact that the vast, unwashed army of the stupid might be arrayed against me.

      #2.7 - Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:01 PM EST
      Reply
      Porter Rockwell

      There's no question that there is tyranny of the majority and tyanny of the powerful. The question is, "What do you want to do about it?" My whole position is that when the peoples of the world do something to help and understand each other, it's a good thing, and that some of our problems will not get solved any other way.

      Here's an analogy: Suppose you're in a lifeboat with a dozen other survivors of a shipwreak and one of the other passengers keeps drilling holes in the bottom. What do you do? Suppose that other person is bigger and stronger than you are. Then what do you do? Suppose that other, bigger stronger person just insists on hoarding all the water. Then what do you do?

      You call it slavery. I call it survival. From my point of view, you're deciding not to survive because you refuse to cooperate with anyone else. My problem with that is that you're taking me down too.

        Reply#3 - Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:43 PM EST
        Marshall James

        your lack of understanding of how things should work is quite amazing.....and your lack of belief in yourself and of man even worse.

        if a man is drilling holes in the bottom of the boat...for one he is violating the rights of the others in the boat and the "collective" has the right to take action....but if you want to make it a one on one scenario......easy...when he is drilling hole and concentrating on the hole...you hit him over the head with the oar....then throw him overboard drowning him before he wakes.

        problem solved.

        as far as hoarding water....well he has to sleep sometime....then you kill him.

        there are always ways to solve problems..

        besides...the "collective" mentality is pure evil as it believes in violating the rights of individuals for the "good of the whole" of course what is good for society always depends on who is in charge...hence moles explanation to you above of corruption.

        slaves often didnt want freedom because their masters told them how horrible it was in the real world....they felt secure....and were "surviving"

        your proposal that we do the same is just asinine....and disgusting in my opinion.

        and perverting the join or die...which was used by individuals AGAINST TYRANNY....you want us to use...to propagate tyranny.

        wrong

        • 2 votes
        #3.1 - Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:44 PM EST
        Reply
        Porter Rockwell

        "then you kill him. There are always ways to solve problems"

        I couldn't have stated the problem that people of good will face any better than that. Thanks for your post!

          Reply#4 - Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:31 PM EST
          AmericanMOM-598098

          The USA is supposed to be the leader of world governments in Democracy, freedom, and civil rights. One of the main problems of a "one world" government is the elimination of cultures. A perfect example of this is the USA. The Spanish, the French, and the British fought for control and rule of North and South America. They used entire tribes of Native Americans to destroy their own cultures. The British Colonies won the USA. The American Colonial states are still the concentration of the Federal Government that is supposed to unify the states. This country is only 235 years old so our government is still the "new world" to an extent. The USA needs to set the example for Democracy; the way it is supposed to work. Supposedly, the reason for the House of Representatives and the Senate is to represent the national interests of the majority of people of their states. Different states have different needs and cultures that need to be recognized. If anything could happen that would destroy this country; it would be our leaders submitting to a "one world" government. Taking away Wall Street's ability to influence US government policy would go a long way towards thwarting the current path of one-world government domination of the USA. We have to unify to correct the mistakes our elected leaders have made, but join or die?

          • 2 votes
          Reply#5 - Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:19 PM EST
          johny-388777Deleted
          AmericanMOM-598098Deleted
          Porter Rockwell

          I thought the "join or die" slogan was a good way to tie this into history (Ben Franklin) and get people to think of the consequences of not "joining together" (which is what Ben meant) for the common good.

          It's interesting to me that so many people who have taken the time to comment look at this from the other end of the question. Rather than viewing things from the perspective of people "joining together" for the greater good, they look at it from the perspective of resisting any control over their own actions by anybody.

          I got news for them! There's a name for that: anarchy. There's a logical result too. Death.

          We only live the way we do because enough of us cooperate and work together.

            #5.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:52 PM EST
            johny-388777Deleted
            Reply
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
            FUN STUFF:
            • Leaderboard |
            • E-Mail Alerts |
            • Top of the Vine |
            • Newsvine Live |
            • Newsvine Archives |
            • The Greenhouse |
            COMPANY STUFF:
            • Code of Honor |
            • Company Info |
            • Contact Us |
            • Jobs |
            • User Agreement |
            • Privacy Policy |
            • About our ads
            LEGAL STUFF:
            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com