Someone really needs to create a globalization thread, because every time IBA says anything in support of destroying the sovereignty of every country in the world, I want to jump down his throat.
In this thread, Shink will (presumably)
a) Define what he believes the sovereignty of every country in the world to entail;
b) Explain why he thinks ideas such as a world government (meaning in this case an effective one; not the UN) would destroy that sovereignty;
and,
c) Why, exactly, this is something that would be undesirable (partially contingent upon point a).
Perhaps, but a thread was requested by Shink. I would not deny him his pleasure. I assume that additional outside commentary is not adverse to his desires, given that he did ask for a thread.
Ok I will bite on this one why would we want a one world government? or do I have the wrong idea about this thread?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
a) Define what he believes the sovereignty of every country in the world to entail;
b) Explain why he thinks ideas such as a world government (meaning in this case an effective one; not the UN) would destroy that sovereignty;
and,
c) Why, exactly, this is something that would be undesirable (partially contingent upon point a).
I await in eager anticipation.
Quote from Wikipedia »
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other. Thus the legal maxim, There is no law without a sovereign.
(emphasis in the original)
"Supreme lawmaking authority" translates directly to "power." Has it not been the observation of many people over many years and governments that "the People" are better off when "the People" are in control? In what way is it better for the people of the world to be controlled politically (and militarily, would follow) by a small group of people? The idea of One World Government with the intended goal of benefiting all, fostering peace and prosperity, is simply a lofty goal that is beyond human capability. Mankind is violent and prone to selfishness. This shows that world peace isn't possible, neither is neutral, unselfish governing, especially on a global scale. The more expansive this one government would become, the less say in world events a (former) country would have. I put forcing a One World Government slightly higher than forcing a One World Religion on the list of terrible ideas.
How is being subject to One World Government (that's what this is; euphemisms would abound, most likely "union" or somesuch) not destroying sovereignty ("Supreme lawmaking authority")? If your country had "Supreme lawmaking authority" over itself, and then one day it got turned over to a worldwide governing body which had its own laws you had to abide by, you by definition, lose your "Supreme lawmaking authority." This idea should be considered a threat to the freedoms of every man, woman, and child on earth.
While I am sure your individual intent is a good one, IBA, there is no evidence to support belief that the intent of the controllers of this government would be good.
If this thread is just to respond to him, wouldn't it be better handled in a series of private messages?
(Much like how this comment, which is just to respond to you, would be better as a private message.)
That depends. If enough people care to discuss this subject, it is more than justified to create this thread. If not, it goes away, and no one really cares.
"Supreme lawmaking authority" translates directly to "power." Has it not been the observation of many people over many years and governments that "the People" are better off when "the People" are in control? In what way is it better for the people of the world to be controlled politically (and militarily, would follow) by a small group of people?
Actually, this has not been the observation. What has been observed is that it works best when The People have power to elect a (relatively) small group of people to exert Power over them, because The People are notoriously inept at ruling themselves. An international Senate of representatives chosen by The People to determine matters of international politics would in no way infringe upon your ideas.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Actually, this has not been the observation. What has been observed is that it works best when The People have power to elect a (relatively) small group of people to exert Power over them, because The People are notoriously inept at ruling themselves. An international Senate of representatives chosen by The People to determine matters of international politics would in no way infringe upon your ideas.
I don't know what that's supposed to be referring to: my "ideas?" My "beliefs?" The few can't be trusted to justly, humanely 'exert Power over' everybody. While America steadily veered off the path set by the Founding Fathers, it was the very ideal of freedom with minimal government intrusion in life that supposedly defines the country. Live free or die, and whatnot. Oligarchy is normally not viewed as a better means of governing than democracy.
There are too many regional differences in climate, topography, and ecology to justify a one-size-fits-all approach to global resource management let alone civil government. I do believe some sort of globalised regulatory body is needed but it should not be the dominant force in people's lives, but rather an example of generic stewardship and the appeal of last resort for drastic civil disturbances, disasters, famines, and droughts.
The UN fails miserably at what it does because regional and local autonomy always trumps nonspecific groupthink in the minds and hearts of the people. The harder it tries to intervene, the more dissipated it becomes. It is burdened by special interest groups and pushes an agenda along with every decision it makes or arbitration it effects. It's decisions are short term, Eurocentric and top-down. Same thing with the World Bank.
I don't have any evidence, these are just my opinions based on general observations of human nature in world affairs. I believe change must come from within a country or region in order to be taken seriously instead of resented and scorned.
The few can't be trusted to justly, humanely 'exert Power over' everybody. While America steadily veered off the path set by the Founding Fathers, it was the very ideal of freedom with minimal government intrusion in life that supposedly defines the country. Live free or die, and whatnot. Oligarchy is normally not viewed as a better means of governing than democracy.
Is there a single country today that governs solely by means of direct democracy? Since you brought up the Founding Fathers, I'll point out that they felt, in no uncertain terms, that direct democracy was bad for all involved, as The People can't be trusted to know what's really going on, they're too easily swayed by temporarily fashionable thought, and most troubling is the idea that the majority would be unconcerned by minority views. Until just recently, representative democracy has been the most practical method of granting Power to The People, and even then direct democracy is viewed as undesirable by many.
Also, note that it's never been said how intrusive the proposed international government will be. It can be a decentralized government that only holds power for international issues, leaving nations sovereign to those things that have no direct impact on other countries, holding to the antifederalist ideas in the early United States.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
A one world government I can’t see this one happing for quite a while the only hope for it would be to get the United States on board and want to do it but it seems to me that the US is moving the other way by refusing to sign the following The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Kyoto Protocol, The International Criminal Court (ICC), The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, The Convention on the Prohibition, Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (The Ottawa Treaty), International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (MWC). So I just don’t see this one happening and really why would we want a one world government I am sure that would be a fantastic way to throw money at things that cant’ be fixed. We have already have had two excellent examples of this the League of Nations and now the UN. The United States was founded by rebels that wanted to do things there own way, yep over 200 years later not much has changed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
There are too many regional differences in climate, topography, and ecology to justify a one-size-fits-all approach to global resource management let alone civil government. I do believe some sort of globalised regulatory body is needed but it should not be the dominant force in people's lives, but rather an example of generic stewardship and the appeal of last resort for drastic civil disturbances, disasters, famines, and droughts.
The UN fails miserably at what it does because regional and local autonomy always trumps nonspecific groupthink in the minds and hearts of the people. The harder it tries to intervene, the more dissipated it becomes. It is burdened by special interest groups and pushes an agenda along with every decision it makes or arbitration it effects. It's decisions are short term, Eurocentric and top-down. Same thing with the World Bank.
I don't have any evidence, these are just my opinions based on general observations of human nature in world affairs. I believe change must come from within a country or region in order to be taken seriously instead of resented and scorned.
An analogy:
The UN is the USA under the Articles of Confederation: a toothless organization that unites sovereign states more or less in name only. A desirable world government would be like the US under the Constitution: a federal system that preserves as much local power as possible while still exercising considerable power over inter-state and global affairs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ok I will bite on this one why would we want a one world government? or do I have the wrong idea about this thread?
If one desired power, one would want a one-world government. Government is a monopoly privilege on force. With this monopoly comes great power. Expand its formerly tiny reach across the entire globe and you can turn the whole planet into your very-own slave plantation. Death to freedom! Death to liberty! All praise be to the one-world socialist dictatorship!
While a world government may be a nice ideal, it won't come into existence until far into the future, if at all.
Why? Because governments form under an "Us vs Them" basis. You elect one group to lead you to keep the other group out. People don't want to give up their rights, money or privacy to the government until the government can adequately prove that their presence will be beneficial for keeping someone else away. Case in point: The US didn't form until Americans felt that the British were treating them unfairly, at which point they formed their own government and convinced the general public that their protection was needed to keep the British overseas.
So no current government would be willing to give up its powers to a world government without proper threat: such as aliens invading (unlikely) or other worlds competing with us (if we manage colonization of our solar system).
While a world government may be a nice ideal, it won't come into existence until far into the future, if at all.
Why is a global slave plantation a 'nice ideal'?
So no current government would be willing to give up its powers to a world government without proper threat: such as aliens invading (unlikely) or other worlds competing with us (if we manage colonization of our solar system).
Agreed.
It may happen before that though, whether those politicians want to give up their power or not.
It just seems that whenever someone advocates making a global government, it goes along with world peace, happiness, no hunger, no homelessness, etc. IBA started the thread off giving this sort of viewpoint, where a world government would aid humanity. To clarify, I should have said that "That sort of world government would be a nice ideal..." Since I don't see such a government in existence, I haven't really thought about whether the government would be a beneficial one, or a "global slave plantation."
Ironically, a world government would be the only not arbitrary distinction. Most internal conflict in nations today arises over minority groups that are marginalized by the political process, even when it is actually democratic (and often it's simply not), and who seek to break away to form their own nations. There are two trends in human politics; the unifying and the divisive. It's hard for many Americans to grasp this as they don't, for the most part, have the same extensive ethnic ties to a very large extended family/clan/tribe that exist in most of the old world, so the only subgroup they could really desire is one based along skin color lines or around their own immediate family, the latter of which is usually transparently silly to even the most irrational human being as the basis for a government.
Iraq for instance, has completely arbitrary borders that encompass certain populations in such a way as to marginalize them; it's reasonable for the Kurds, for instance, to expect there never to be a Kurdish prime minister.
Most nations are arbitrary boundaries defined by non-existent cultural traditions; Americans rarely notice this problem because they don't have any real unifying culture at all. However, breaking up into millions of tiny nations doesn't do anyone a lot of good in the long run. A singular world government, representative democracy, would go the longest way to solving this problem; if everyone's a minority, then no one can feel particularly put down upon. The distinction here certainly isn't arbitrary, as it encompasses all of mankind.
If ljoss and Shink are quite down with meaningless slogans, I'd like to see a rebuttal of this point.
Also
- No, it has not been the observation of many people over many years that the people are better off when the people are in direct control. Quite the opposite has been observed; a government of direct majority rule is a mob, not a state.
- Men organize into cities, and cities into states, and states into nations, and nations into greater empires and confederacies. Why is the next step of a world government impossible? I'll admit that it's someways down the road, but it's an inevitable and necessary step in human history.
- I don't make laws in the first place, nor could I simply do so if society was to remain intact and functioning. Why is it that a hundred thousand losing their self-governance from nature to a few in order to promote civilization is acceptable, or sixty million doing so is acceptable, but six and a half billion doing so is unacceptable?
- People will, as always, get the leaders they elect. A government of such size would have to be carefully balanced, as the US government, in order to check the power of any one group, but it's silly to assume that everyone elected would be a shadowy sinister figure bent on kicking puppies for sport.
ljoss, if you'd like to join the conversation instead of ranting incoherently, I will happily welcome you in at any time.
World government as I see it wouldn't really be either a dictator-maker or a savior for humanity, but rather it'd be a forum for international issues to come up between delegates from the various nations. It might make humanitarian aid easier, but I rather doubt anything would come from that. Most likely it'd be similar to the UN, but with power enough to enforce its measures and put a stop to war crimes, heinous crimes against humanity, and international disputes. Also, I'd expect it to be as reticent law-making as the US Senate in requiring large majorities for any global laws.
But there wouldn't be any dictators from it as there wouldn't be any single party with great power, and surely measures to prevent such things from occuring. Power would have to come logrolling/horse-trading and the like just as it does in other representative democracies that grant its elected officials equal power.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
- Men organize into cities, and cities into states, and states into nations, and nations into greater empires and confederacies. Why is the next step of a world government impossible? I'll admit that it's someways down the road, but it's an inevitable and necessary step in human history.
They only do these things when the conflicts of their lives are too hard to deal with alone, and they join up with the larger group for protection. So initially tribes started to facilitate hunting because wild animals were too difficult to take down alone. Then the either took over or joined up with another tribe to keep yet another tribe away. People flock to cities because there is more work available, stores closer by, and less danger than the wilderness. As long as people have a common enemy, they will willingly form a type of government, but they are resistant to giving up their liberties until that time. The reason I see no world government is because I cannot see a way to give the entire world a common enemy. There is no reason for people to stop their fighting for land, power, and money to work together. None of the world powers want to lose their power to a common, worldwide government that may not rule along with their interests.
They only do these things when the conflicts of their lives are too hard to deal with alone, and they join up with the larger group for protection. So initially tribes started to facilitate hunting because wild animals were too difficult to take down alone. Then the either took over or joined up with another tribe to keep yet another tribe away. People flock to cities because there is more work available, stores closer by, and less danger than the wilderness. As long as people have a common enemy, they will willingly form a type of government, but they are resistant to giving up their liberties until that time. The reason I see no world government is because I cannot see a way to give the entire world a common enemy. There is no reason for people to stop their fighting for land, power, and money to work together. None of the world powers want to lose their power to a common, worldwide government that may not rule along with their interests.
Well said The problem with big government is the constant settling for the lowest common denominator and by going to a world wide government is that I would have less of a say about how it was run. That does not sit well with me. I am a spoiled American and proud of it. I have seen with my own eyes the sad state of other countries around the world and know that we cannot fix them. So why should we want to lower our standard of living to raise theirs?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
It certainly won't be a situation where you wake up one day soon and suddenly there's a world government. Instead, globilization is a very slow process. The United States has quite a good relationship with Canada, for example, and it is usually not difficult for citizens of one country to pass into the other. If national security and the international situation allow, this process could become even easier as time goes on. Meanwhile, as we continue to explore the growth of the Chinese economy, it is not inconceivable that we would develop a more special relationship with China that would allow for an easier exchange of goods and services. Elsewhere, the EU could continue to become more nation-like, developing economies might continue to grow, standards of living around the world might increase, and maybe conflict zones will stabilize. There is also room for the influence of global corporations to grow, and although it is unrealistic to assume we'll see megacorporations like in science fiction, it is clear that large companies have an important role to play in this century and beyond. In addition, good education might become more commonplace and people may begin to speak the same languages in more places. Perhaps then the nation you're from may be less of a socioeconomic issue and more of a cultural one.
I don't really believe we'll ever be able to achieve a single world government with a unifying executive, a legislature, a military, and the like, nor do I believe that we'll ever be completely at peace everywhere, but it is definitely possible that if we are careful stewards of our future and the situation improves for many people in this world, international cooperation could reach an unprecendented level of closeness. I don't think that would be such a bad thing.
They only do these things when the conflicts of their lives are too hard to deal with alone, and they join up with the larger group for protection. So initially tribes started to facilitate hunting because wild animals were too difficult to take down alone. Then the either took over or joined up with another tribe to keep yet another tribe away. People flock to cities because there is more work available, stores closer by, and less danger than the wilderness. As long as people have a common enemy, they will willingly form a type of government, but they are resistant to giving up their liberties until that time. The reason I see no world government is because I cannot see a way to give the entire world a common enemy. There is no reason for people to stop their fighting for land, power, and money to work together. None of the world powers want to lose their power to a common, worldwide government that may not rule along with their interests.
A common enemy? I think that would be global warming.
If something can unify the world, I believe it'll be the fight against global warming, since it is something that threatens everybody.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signature and Avatar by Fatal GFX ---FatalAssasin---
:symb::symb::symb: Scion of Corruption of Clan Mono-Black:symb::symb::symb:
Globalists are crossing their fingers hoping people buy into global warming or any other 'threat' as it will make people more likely to go willingly. Shouldn't the scientists who say global warming is natural be taken into consideration before running around ****ting yourself over it?
For those who think the EU is an amazing idea and a model for what should happen to the rest of the world, how about the parroting of this disgusting maxim: "If you don't support x you are a terrorist" by the Italian president? Read here. Demagogues oppose globalizing? How about a look in the mirror?
Quote from Wikipedia »
Demagogy (Demagoguery) (from Greek δῆμος, "people", and ἄγειν, "to lead") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public
Fear is the modus operandi used by the New World Order. Let's just lay that to rest right now, calling people who oppose anything like this, or anything someone in power claims is right and must be done, terrorists. Dissenting opinions do not make a person a "terrorist." Who here thinks otherwise?
Also, what the **** does this mean?
If ljoss and Shink are quite down with meaningless slogans
A common enemy? I think that would be global warming.
If something can unify the world, I believe it'll be the fight against global warming, since it is something that threatens everybody.
It may get the world to work together to solve it, but it's not going to cause countries to give up their own sovereignty to a new, worldwide government. The problem is not something that individual countries cannot try and fix and overcome by themselves, but rather that these countries are ignoring the problems.
Globalists are crossing their fingers hoping people buy into global warming or any other 'threat' as it will make people more likely to go willingly. Shouldn't the scientists who say global warming is natural be taken into consideration before running around ****ting yourself over it?
I'm not sold on global warming. However, it's true that at this point humanity is becoming the environemnt. We're going to have to understand the impact we have very thoroughly. And this is an area where disunity could be very damaging.
For those who think the EU is an amazing idea and a model for what should happen to the rest of the world, how about the parroting of this disgusting maxim: "If you don't support x you are a terrorist" by the Italian president? Read here. Demagogues oppose globalizing? How about a look in the mirror? Fear is the modus operandi used by the New World Order. Let's just lay that to rest right now, calling people who oppose anything like this, or anything someone in power claims is right and must be done, terrorists. Dissenting opinions do not make a person a "terrorist." Who here thinks otherwise?
And if one person for the forces of unity says something, epso facto every other globalist must think the same way.
Also, what the **** does this mean?
It means you use propagand and buzz words instead of arguments. Don't feel bad, ljoss does it too.
Examples:
Quote from Shink »
...every time IBA says anything in support of destroying the sovereignty of every country in the world...
... In what way is it better for the people of the world to be controlled politically (and militarily, would follow) by a small group of people?...
...Oligarchy is normally not viewed as a better means of governing than democracy...
...Fear is the modus operandi used by the New World Order...
Would it be like that episode in Gundam Wing where da Rommafeller Foundation united all countries in the "Earth Sphere Alliance" and then announced that "All national borders are dissolved". There would be no more countries who's borders are arbitrarily decided, as that was seen as the cause for all wars, "Them vs Us." Creating a single culture.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In this thread, Shink will (presumably)
a) Define what he believes the sovereignty of every country in the world to entail;
b) Explain why he thinks ideas such as a world government (meaning in this case an effective one; not the UN) would destroy that sovereignty;
and,
c) Why, exactly, this is something that would be undesirable (partially contingent upon point a).
I await in eager anticipation.
(Much like how this comment, which is just to respond to you, would be better as a private message.)
(emphasis in the original)
"Supreme lawmaking authority" translates directly to "power." Has it not been the observation of many people over many years and governments that "the People" are better off when "the People" are in control? In what way is it better for the people of the world to be controlled politically (and militarily, would follow) by a small group of people? The idea of One World Government with the intended goal of benefiting all, fostering peace and prosperity, is simply a lofty goal that is beyond human capability. Mankind is violent and prone to selfishness. This shows that world peace isn't possible, neither is neutral, unselfish governing, especially on a global scale. The more expansive this one government would become, the less say in world events a (former) country would have. I put forcing a One World Government slightly higher than forcing a One World Religion on the list of terrible ideas.
How is being subject to One World Government (that's what this is; euphemisms would abound, most likely "union" or somesuch) not destroying sovereignty ("Supreme lawmaking authority")? If your country had "Supreme lawmaking authority" over itself, and then one day it got turned over to a worldwide governing body which had its own laws you had to abide by, you by definition, lose your "Supreme lawmaking authority." This idea should be considered a threat to the freedoms of every man, woman, and child on earth.
While I am sure your individual intent is a good one, IBA, there is no evidence to support belief that the intent of the controllers of this government would be good.
That depends. If enough people care to discuss this subject, it is more than justified to create this thread. If not, it goes away, and no one really cares.
That is precisely the concept of this thread.
RON PAUL
R[ƎVO˩]UTION
The Philosophy of Liberty
Actually, this has not been the observation. What has been observed is that it works best when The People have power to elect a (relatively) small group of people to exert Power over them, because The People are notoriously inept at ruling themselves. An international Senate of representatives chosen by The People to determine matters of international politics would in no way infringe upon your ideas.
I don't know what that's supposed to be referring to: my "ideas?" My "beliefs?" The few can't be trusted to justly, humanely 'exert Power over' everybody. While America steadily veered off the path set by the Founding Fathers, it was the very ideal of freedom with minimal government intrusion in life that supposedly defines the country. Live free or die, and whatnot. Oligarchy is normally not viewed as a better means of governing than democracy.
RON PAUL
R[ƎVO˩]UTION
The Philosophy of Liberty
The UN fails miserably at what it does because regional and local autonomy always trumps nonspecific groupthink in the minds and hearts of the people. The harder it tries to intervene, the more dissipated it becomes. It is burdened by special interest groups and pushes an agenda along with every decision it makes or arbitration it effects. It's decisions are short term, Eurocentric and top-down. Same thing with the World Bank.
I don't have any evidence, these are just my opinions based on general observations of human nature in world affairs. I believe change must come from within a country or region in order to be taken seriously instead of resented and scorned.
Also, note that it's never been said how intrusive the proposed international government will be. It can be a decentralized government that only holds power for international issues, leaving nations sovereign to those things that have no direct impact on other countries, holding to the antifederalist ideas in the early United States.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW), Kyoto Protocol, The International Criminal Court (ICC), The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, The Convention on the Prohibition, Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (The Ottawa Treaty), International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (MWC).
So I just don’t see this one happening and really why would we want a one world government I am sure that would be a fantastic way to throw money at things that cant’ be fixed. We have already have had two excellent examples of this the League of Nations and now the UN. The United States was founded by rebels that wanted to do things there own way, yep over 200 years later not much has changed.
An analogy:
The UN is the USA under the Articles of Confederation: a toothless organization that unites sovereign states more or less in name only. A desirable world government would be like the US under the Constitution: a federal system that preserves as much local power as possible while still exercising considerable power over inter-state and global affairs.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If one desired power, one would want a one-world government. Government is a monopoly privilege on force. With this monopoly comes great power. Expand its formerly tiny reach across the entire globe and you can turn the whole planet into your very-own slave plantation. Death to freedom! Death to liberty! All praise be to the one-world socialist dictatorship!
Why? Because governments form under an "Us vs Them" basis. You elect one group to lead you to keep the other group out. People don't want to give up their rights, money or privacy to the government until the government can adequately prove that their presence will be beneficial for keeping someone else away. Case in point: The US didn't form until Americans felt that the British were treating them unfairly, at which point they formed their own government and convinced the general public that their protection was needed to keep the British overseas.
So no current government would be willing to give up its powers to a world government without proper threat: such as aliens invading (unlikely) or other worlds competing with us (if we manage colonization of our solar system).
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Why is a global slave plantation a 'nice ideal'?
Agreed.
It may happen before that though, whether those politicians want to give up their power or not.
It just seems that whenever someone advocates making a global government, it goes along with world peace, happiness, no hunger, no homelessness, etc. IBA started the thread off giving this sort of viewpoint, where a world government would aid humanity. To clarify, I should have said that "That sort of world government would be a nice ideal..." Since I don't see such a government in existence, I haven't really thought about whether the government would be a beneficial one, or a "global slave plantation."
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Iraq for instance, has completely arbitrary borders that encompass certain populations in such a way as to marginalize them; it's reasonable for the Kurds, for instance, to expect there never to be a Kurdish prime minister.
Most nations are arbitrary boundaries defined by non-existent cultural traditions; Americans rarely notice this problem because they don't have any real unifying culture at all. However, breaking up into millions of tiny nations doesn't do anyone a lot of good in the long run. A singular world government, representative democracy, would go the longest way to solving this problem; if everyone's a minority, then no one can feel particularly put down upon. The distinction here certainly isn't arbitrary, as it encompasses all of mankind.
If ljoss and Shink are quite down with meaningless slogans, I'd like to see a rebuttal of this point.
Also
- No, it has not been the observation of many people over many years that the people are better off when the people are in direct control. Quite the opposite has been observed; a government of direct majority rule is a mob, not a state.
- Men organize into cities, and cities into states, and states into nations, and nations into greater empires and confederacies. Why is the next step of a world government impossible? I'll admit that it's someways down the road, but it's an inevitable and necessary step in human history.
- I don't make laws in the first place, nor could I simply do so if society was to remain intact and functioning. Why is it that a hundred thousand losing their self-governance from nature to a few in order to promote civilization is acceptable, or sixty million doing so is acceptable, but six and a half billion doing so is unacceptable?
- People will, as always, get the leaders they elect. A government of such size would have to be carefully balanced, as the US government, in order to check the power of any one group, but it's silly to assume that everyone elected would be a shadowy sinister figure bent on kicking puppies for sport.
ljoss, if you'd like to join the conversation instead of ranting incoherently, I will happily welcome you in at any time.
But there wouldn't be any dictators from it as there wouldn't be any single party with great power, and surely measures to prevent such things from occuring. Power would have to come logrolling/horse-trading and the like just as it does in other representative democracies that grant its elected officials equal power.
They only do these things when the conflicts of their lives are too hard to deal with alone, and they join up with the larger group for protection. So initially tribes started to facilitate hunting because wild animals were too difficult to take down alone. Then the either took over or joined up with another tribe to keep yet another tribe away. People flock to cities because there is more work available, stores closer by, and less danger than the wilderness. As long as people have a common enemy, they will willingly form a type of government, but they are resistant to giving up their liberties until that time. The reason I see no world government is because I cannot see a way to give the entire world a common enemy. There is no reason for people to stop their fighting for land, power, and money to work together. None of the world powers want to lose their power to a common, worldwide government that may not rule along with their interests.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Well said
The problem with big government is the constant settling for the lowest common denominator and by going to a world wide government is that I would have less of a say about how it was run. That does not sit well with me. I am a spoiled American and proud of it. I have seen with my own eyes the sad state of other countries around the world and know that we cannot fix them. So why should we want to lower our standard of living to raise theirs?
I don't really believe we'll ever be able to achieve a single world government with a unifying executive, a legislature, a military, and the like, nor do I believe that we'll ever be completely at peace everywhere, but it is definitely possible that if we are careful stewards of our future and the situation improves for many people in this world, international cooperation could reach an unprecendented level of closeness. I don't think that would be such a bad thing.
A common enemy? I think that would be global warming.
If something can unify the world, I believe it'll be the fight against global warming, since it is something that threatens everybody.
Wise words:
For those who think the EU is an amazing idea and a model for what should happen to the rest of the world, how about the parroting of this disgusting maxim: "If you don't support x you are a terrorist" by the Italian president? Read here. Demagogues oppose globalizing? How about a look in the mirror? Fear is the modus operandi used by the New World Order. Let's just lay that to rest right now, calling people who oppose anything like this, or anything someone in power claims is right and must be done, terrorists. Dissenting opinions do not make a person a "terrorist." Who here thinks otherwise?
Also, what the **** does this mean?
RON PAUL
R[ƎVO˩]UTION
The Philosophy of Liberty
It may get the world to work together to solve it, but it's not going to cause countries to give up their own sovereignty to a new, worldwide government. The problem is not something that individual countries cannot try and fix and overcome by themselves, but rather that these countries are ignoring the problems.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
I'm not sold on global warming. However, it's true that at this point humanity is becoming the environemnt. We're going to have to understand the impact we have very thoroughly. And this is an area where disunity could be very damaging.
And if one person for the forces of unity says something, epso facto every other globalist must think the same way.
It means you use propagand and buzz words instead of arguments. Don't feel bad, ljoss does it too.
Examples:
Control is the ultimate expression of power.