The Town Hall Archives

strife286 · New Citizen Joined: 10 Jun 2004 Posts: 40

Well with research, I learned the proposed bill is H.R. 2525.
Here are information resources:
link

Old:
link

Simply Put:
link

Kanimoto · Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:26 am Post subject:

Getting rid of the IRS?! Shock

Very interesting...

E87M2 · Senior Member Joined: 11 Jan 2003 Posts: 1106

On to a little more recient political news...
What do you all think of the Republican National Convention that ended tonight? Any comments on the speeches? Outcome? I think it will give a definite boost to the campaign, but is it enough to give the lead in the polls?

I regret to say that I haven't the time nor the inclination (at this point) to write a long post, but I would really be interested in reading your comments, even about the whole election in general. Forgive me if I am totally out of place in my attempt to revive this thread if it is indeed doomed to futility.

Actually, another idea... starting a thread devoted to covering the election?

ICDragon · Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:47 am Post subject:

I thought that Arnold's speech was so funny... besides that I really didn't keep track of the convention at all

GusDeHaan · Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:56 pm Post subject:

What are the various Ideas / impressions / thoughts on the E.U. [european union.]

Jonathan · Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:57 pm Post subject:

I view it as one more step toward a 'one world government'. According to Revelation, this isn't a good thing.

-Jonathan

Jared · Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject:

The European Union is not, in my opinion, viable as an organization on as grand a scale as envisaged by some. As an economic institution, it has some merit, for the confederation of powers adds bargaining clout to nations which would, by and large, otherwise seem trivial compared to the economic behemoth of the United States. Like most things, this comes with a downside: strict regulatory controls on commerce, a severe restriction of competition, etc. I would say that these policies outweigh that which the EU provides member nations, but that is not the case for one simple yet compelling reason: by and large, European nations range from Keynesian to socialistic already, so this position is the starting-point, essentially.

As a political power, the European Union is more of an open question, as it remains to be seen how unified the organization will be in matters of war and peace. Member nations thus far have been satisfied to permit the body to negotiate with other nations, but we saw some fracturing of their unified stance during the Iraq War. Now, as the old Soviet bloc nations petition for membership, the body appears likely to become more diversified and, as such, perhaps more fractured.

Sovereignty remains a major issue, of course. How much power should each member country cede? Should their common law be nullified in favor of a new European Union civil system, for example? What rights do their citizens have to be tried by a jury of their peers in their own land? Are the legislatures of the respective nations to be subject to the constitution of the European Union? They almost certainly will be considered so, and indeed are supposed to be, but is there not cause for concern that, unlike the system found in most democracies, the very duly elected legislative body of that democracy is unable to participate in amending the constitution, if necessary?

These are real and pressing questions. There are the stated answers, which we know. Then there's reality. In theory, the United Nations alone can declare war, except in cases of pressing national defense. Member nations have violated this principle with regularity, in most cases without reprisal, and a significant number of member nations assert their absolute sovereignty over their own affairs, foreign and domestic, the United Nations charter subservient to their wishes.

I do not entirely oppose this attitude, as I believe firmly in national sovereignty and have little patience for the United Nations (though I would prefer we simply pull out entirely), but whether or not a similar attitude develops in the European Union is a vital question in assessing its authority as a governmental body.

There is the further matter of a standing army. A military force comprised of all members of the union is a central concept of the EU, but whether or not such an army would be practical is widely open to debate. No nations have indicated willingness to subordinating their entire armies to an international organization, and even if the new military was secondary, comprised of a set percentage of each country's national forces, command structure would remain a contentious issue. Which nation would take the lead in the chain of command? How would funding be appropriated? Could a nation order its troops to stand down? Questions as silly as which language would be used are hardly trivial; there are at least twenty official languages in European Union member nations. For command and control purposes, one language would have to be settled upon. No matter how you do this, multilingual troops become essential. While multilingualism is more common in Europe than in North America, that nonetheless reduces the effective fighting force.

And which language should be chosen? Practically, it ought to be English, but there will be some harsh objections to that. They can't even agree on which language should be used in diplomatic meetings and often all speak their own languages and use interpreters even when they all have some secondary language -- usually English, sometimes French -- in common!

I'm not saying that the EU will fail; on the contrary, it has had its successes. Nonetheless, I harbor doubts that it will achieve its supposed potential.

As to whether or not it is moral: I don't see how it is possible to declare a united government de facto immoral, unbiblical or even just "bad" simply because it is large or unites several previously sovereign entities. The United States of America is itself a republic of states. Empires rise and fall. Even as large as it is now, the European Union has a land mass half that of the United States and a population half that of China. If uniting works for them, is it necessarily wrong?

That said, I don't like the European Union. I don't think they are a particularly well-created body and think that the principles of the organization are those of the most liberal members. What steps they have taken hardly impress. All I can say is that it will be interesting to watch, and while the EU certainly confers some benefits, I'm personally glad that the United States isn't a part of such an organization. And more importantly, that the U.S. doesn't need it to compete.

I don't agree, though, that the book of Revelation addresses this issue. Though it speaks of ten kingdoms united behind the Antichrist, this isn't exactly an indictment of unity; it is, rather, a matter of who the nations are unified behind. I generally dislike global bodies, but if the people of Europe want to form some new republican government, I don't see why we should find this bad per the book of Revelation.

I suppose one could say that this will lead to the end times events. It could, I suppose. Then again, there have been a lot of empires in history. There have been plenty of situations in which we've had vassal kingdoms. To presume that this will be "the one" is to presume too much, in my opinion. And anyway, even if this does lay the groundwork, so to speak, is this necessarily a problem? The events foretold are going to happen either way, at the time of the Lord's choosing.

*daniel · Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:23 pm Post subject: