Your talking in terms of idealism not realism. Either we have a government of people who represent more people or we have no government, with literally no representation. I offered a new form of government and James S Saint offered his SAM Co-ops. An empty government has no ultimate decision makers or tie breakers and that won’t do.
What I want is a much smaller and more fixed government, one that cannot grow because it is expressly prohibited from growing, and also because there is no need for it to grow. Obviously you will have people working in whatever government functions and jobs end up existing. But the government will not exist to “care for you” nor to “represent you”; it will simply exist to carry out certain clearly delimited operations as defined by its charter or Constitution. All other functions and operations would be left to the people themselves, and to market capitalism.
The RedScare was goofy, silly, political hyperbole and propaganda.
Communism is not inherently evil and neither is capitalism, they are both tools and systems which can be repurposed for good or evil.
Personally I am all for a blend of the two used in different ways, like instead of wasting 90% of our food in America we give it to starving people, but if you make a good product you get to be rich.
It’s just that, the system is so rigged and setup in such a way where everyone is constantly in debt from college, medical bills and so with capitalism you just have these monopoly companies like Viacom, WB and all of these monolith companies that you have to suck their dick if you want to get ahead somewhere, and because of capitalism we have this global banking Oligarchy which is trying to take over the world and tell us what to do. Monopoly was a board game meant to warn of the dangers and possible far-reaching, future effects of capitalism.
Furthermore, the fact that modern libs want to take away all of our rights and freedoms and liberties has very little to do with any economic systems, moreso it has to do with their brain chemistry and how their brain functions, and how they view ethics.
I said before, Modern libs have a very similar psychology to Nazis of the 50’s, they are like borg, obedient to group dogma and hateful to anything outside the dogma, they are collective thinkers, the safety of the group is more important to the individual, republicans are individualists, care about themselves primarily and the group secondarily, this is why they fight for personal freedoms and liberties as opposed to a hypothetical safety net. And as a reflection of their brain chemistry, republicans are attracted to capitalism because at first glance, it seems to espouse personal freedoms and liberties, but under deeper introspection you realize that the game’s dried up, people born long before you already had a stake in the gold, and you’re fighting against ancient monopolies, the games already over, a society that worships money is actually the opposite of freedom.
No, the Red Scare was indeed silly, but it was actually a crude manifestation of a much more real, serious and subtle problem: the creeping into the USA of Marxist Leftist thought. The Red Scare (the whole “is my neighbor a Soviet spy?” sort of thing) was just a sort of crude unconscious projection of the American people intuitively understanding this dire threat.
So the citizens would be in charge of their own security domestic and abroad? Government militia protect their people and provide aid in times of disasters, thus caring for you. Government officials represent their citizens, thus representing you in the actions it takes. You are being too narrow-minded in your scope of what the government does. I agree it needs to be smaller and not filled with career politicians, but smart, typical citizens who have a great deal of common sense. What about monopolies? How do we spread the wealth back into the hands of the workers, the consumers? How do you keep markets free and fair? Cunning folks who work in gangs, particularly in market capitalism, impoverish the rest of society.
Why else do you think there is so much Jew hate?
Indeed, and I am not an anarchist or anarcho-capitalist at all, I hate those ideologies.
What is needed is to outline a list of all necessary and sufficient functions of government, make sure the list gets everything that needs to be in there and nothing more, and then instantiate that list into law as Constitution that can never be changed.
I think a lot of the operations that government currently provides do not really need to be provided by government. Or rather, the entire nature of what government means needs to be re-thought from the ground up, even if we keep these operations under a heading of something like “public utility” or similar.
We have to amend what we already have.
Or start over from the ground up, if need be.
Both. SAM provides for that.
Recently approved post…
Globalism contradicts the very idea of the nation-state.
The only coherent future for humanity requires the existence of the nation-state as a political reality. Because it is as fundamental to humanity as is the right to reproduce: the right to form a tribe and have a border and make your own laws.
Also, the multi-lateral institutions that enable the global system to function, drastically limit our, the US’, capacity to utilize our most powerful weapon precisely as a weapon, namely our economic leverage, for a kind of lowest common denominator effect happens when a dozen different groups all have to sign off for one simple deal.
The global economy will inevitably collapse as it stands today, we can either all become slaves under global government or choose decentralized territorial societies that manage themselves independently. I choose the later.
In the future I think large nations will become a thing of the past as nations dissolve into several miniature nation states. These splinter nations will represent differing ethnic, cultural, political, and economic factions. The United States will be no exception nor will any other western nation as I think this is the future going forward.
Concerning the United States splitting up on ethnic lines imagine hispanics taking over the southwest, Asians part of the west coast, African Americans the southeast, and white Europeans taking over the midwest along with the north western coast. That’s how I see the United States splitting into several territories.
Also, the native Americans will have their own territorial enclaves as well.
Europe will be divided between muslim territories and native indigenous Europeans.
Putin says: ‘Pope Francis Is Not A Man Of God’
The Pope dreams of a World government and more recently he said Americans need to be ruled by a World Government as soon as possible for their own good! 
President Putin is wise to the Pope’s ruses.
The push for globalism is the push for total power. That is the ONLY reason one needs to oppose globalization. As Lord Acton said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts, absolutely”
Why anyone would want to hand power over to a group of (mostly) foreigners to tell you how to live your life in your own country, is beyond me.
Even if the new leaders were saints, how long would that last? How long would it be till a group of thugs took over? How long would it be till they changed the laws so nobody could challenge them? Where would you go to challenge them? Where would you go to escape their laws?
There are many reasons to oppose globalization but they’re almost irrelevant to the one above. If you don’t have power over your own life, then nothing globalism promises could be enough.
Chakra wrote:
Well that’s it really, satisfyingly brief and pertinent, nothing more to be said. 
The push for gloBullism is the push for zero individual representation or power. The higher the governance, the less the individual is known, represented, or relevant. GloBullism is proposed solely for the sake of acquiring such absolute power over all life, that absolutely no one makes any difference. And that means YOU, no matter who you are. Relative to global decision dictators (the current socialist UN), you have absolutely no power or relevance.
And if you don’t believe that, be my guest to just go try to make a difference.
Thank you for this most concise and accurate definition of globalism, as the push for absolute power and control. This is exactly right, it seems to me.
Now I want to ask what accounts for this push? Human greed and lust, Nietzsche’s will to power operating under surfaces, or something else, perhaps a ‘natural’ process of logical consolidation and attempted universalization?
In my work on representative governance I’m discovering that this kind of government and indeed all government is really just a manifestation of s single drive, the drive to “care for” and “represent” human being perfectly and for all eternity. The fact that this drive can never be perfected and thus manifests an essential gap within itself between its aims and its reality is what is pushing governance-power toward absolute status, namely the current mode of globalization. Even the fact that we concede to allow government to care for us and represent us seems to be a deeper problem here, one that is pushing globalization in the way you describe it.
Peter… globalisation would work in an ideal world, but look at the state of the world… I do not think that the time is now, but perhaps in the future when countries and powerful individuals stop screwing us all over for their next mill/bill/trill.
Otto… Britain simply needs to rectify the Muslim refugee escalation and not create a separatist country, as that is not an issue here, but any British sympathisers would be more than welcome to join them.
You don’t understand how assimilation and absorption works Magsj overtime, it is either separation or all out internal war. Separation will reduce casualties on all sides by comparison to the other alternative.
No matter what happens conflict is albeit inevitable, you can either limit conflict or have conflict in total. I think the wise thing to do is try to limit and contain conflict for all sides.
For me separation is more wise than integration. There is no peaceful happy ending to integration of societies, it will only breed more conflict until societies are in full upheaval.
I don’t think integrationists have quite grasped this yet and probably won’t until it is too late.