Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Besides, I’d rather change them by making it be in there best interest to change. Rather than using bombs. Although I’ll concede the point that bombs would definitely change them. But it’s what they’ll change into that I’m concerned about.
The US would have control over it in the same way that New York or California has control over our military. Or the control you have over it as a voter. If the entire world thinks what we’re doing is wrong, they’re probably right.
That would be true if it were just one country taking them on. But if it was the sum of all our might, the entire world together, the risk would be much, much smaller. That’s why I think it would be more efficient. For instance, when you squash an ant, are you afraid of it tearing your leg off?
In fact, if the whole world banded together, they probably wouldn’t even try to rebel. Not with the odds being 1,000 to 1 against them.
The trouble with world government is that most countries in the world are not constitutional democracies. Sure, we could have a union with Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc. But a union with Burma, Iraq, Syria, Rwanda, North Korea, Serbia, Algeria? It wouldn’t work.
If you want world government, follow the example of the European Union. Sovereign countries slowly give up more and more control over things like currency, tarrifs, border controls, etc because they trust their partners. Why would Saddam Hussein join the world government when that would mean losing his dictatorial powers over Iraq?
Um…come on. China and India are half the population of Earth. If they decide that America must be destroyed, does that make them right?
No. Democracy without the rule of law is dictatorship. Democracy is not the solution, the rule of law is the solution. We’re already working on that. Remember the WTO, the World Bank, NATO, etc, etc? We’re slowly converting the anarchic relations between states into lawful ones.
Arg. Don’t you remember Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan? It is possible for determined people to resist, unless we’re going for a genocidal solution. Yes, we could have solved the somolia problem simply by dropping nuclear bombs on the country till everyone was dead. That would have solved the humanitarian crises nicely, now wouldn’t it?
I think you overestimate the increased power of a unifed world military. Think about it. The US share of military power is probably 1/3 or so of total global military power. Suppose we had even more military resources. Would sending three or four times more troops to Somolia have solved anything? No.
All your talk about crushing rebellion and using overwhelming power to establish world government are making it sound less and less attractive. World government will come about if people see the benefits of it. If your government is dictatorial and oppressive, no amount of military force will keep it in power. How many troops would you need to occupy the United States? How many troops to occupy China? How many troops to occupy India?
I think you want a world government to improve things, not crush the opposition.
Actually, it’s not. Ask any Swede or Dutchman and they’ll tell you their countries consist primarily of immigrants. Of course, most of those immigrants are from other european countries, because european countries have fairly open borders to other european countries. Whereas anyone from the US or third-world countries will have a much more difficult time trying to get in (believe me, I know). But they have to be more strict because they don’t have nearly as much money as we do. We have money to waste, and waste it we will.
In my opinion we’re already beat.
Yep. And I think the problem is that we have the prosperity, but we don’t have the good intentions. Or perhaps, not the correct intentions.
JohnCorrado- actually, we do agree. I think that slow progress is the best kind because it’s less likely to fall apart.
Lemur- The democratic countries of the world are by far the most rich. Therefor, if they want to trade with us they have to join the UN. And if they want to be in the UN, they have to make some changes. At least, that’s how I think we should go about it.
No. And I didn’t say half. Or most. I said the entire world.
Think about my analogy. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be rules. I’m saying that those rules should be dictated by representatives of the people. Like in the US.
Can’t disagree with you there. We are making progress. Slowly but surely. (though I do have a beef with the World Bank, but I’ll save that for another thread)
I didn’t say they can’t. Nor did I say they wouldn’t. I said they probably wouldn’t, because it would be obvious that they’ll lose. Of course, there are some people you just can’t rationalize with. In which case you have no choice but to use force.
Never said that. I think we should get them to establish a world government by showing them that it’s in their best interest. Through trade agreements and such.
That is most certainly not enough control. What happens when the world government decides to enforce something that my country doesn’t agree with? Do they send troops to enforce the laws?
That would be true if it were just one country taking them on. But if it was the sum of all our might, the entire world together, the risk would be much, much smaller. That’s why I think it would be more efficient. For instance, when you squash an ant, are you afraid of it tearing your leg off?
[/quote]
**
Actually it is true no matter what. I would not be willing to enlist in any army to stop a war in Somolia, Kosovo, or many other areas of the world. It doesn’t matter if my side will probably win because I’m not willing to risk life and limb for someone I have no connection to.
Your analogy isn’t very good. If ants had rifles I’d think twice before I stepped on them. And why do we only discuss this is terms of small nations rebelling? What happens with the United States or China says “up yours we’re going to do our own thing?” The world government could send their “peace keeping” troops but we’ve both got a nuclear arsenal. And if threatened enough I’m sure we’d both use it.
Are you kidding? If foreign troops invaded my country I’d do my best to ensure that their stay was as unpleasant as possible. I would do my part to make the cost in dollars and the cost in lives not worth it to the other side.
I’m not what I consider to be a violent man. I don’t generally live by violence and I like it that way. But if certain conditions are met I’m pretty sure that I could be brutally violent if the situation calls for it.
Well I’m not going to hijack the thread with the argument (though I do wish you’d stay in poli-mode in a political thread ), but I’ve posted the reason it would look like a line segment back in the other thread.
Sorry for the hijack. I have continued the discussion at the other thread. In the hopes of making up for my incivility, I will do you the courtesy to address your opening post:
That’s why we’re here.
A sign of a thinking man.
So long as you are peaceful and honest, you are entitled to make decisions with respect to your own property, specifically, that with which you were born and that which you have acquired peacefully and honestly in the course of your life.
However, you are not entitled to make decisions with respect to other peoples’ property that they have peacefully and honestly acquired.
Extrapolating into the context of your remark, that means that if you find charitable behavior to be a noble act, then you are entitled to decide for yourself that you will be charitable (we take gratis that you are peaceful and honest). But you are not entitled to force other men to adopt a behavior that you find morally compelling.
Consider whether a fundamental biblicist should be entitled to what you want to be entitled to, namely, dictating to others what he considers to be moral behavior.
And who has decided what your necessities are? That’s the real focus here. The alternative is whether you will decide for yourself what your needs are (and seek out charity if necessary) or whether you will let another man decide for you what your needs are (and give you welfare if he believes you merit it).
A communist/capitalist hybrid is possible (though it makes for a weird model), but a socialist/capitalist hybrid is not possible. That’s why Fabianism (our present system in the USA) was invented.
Good lord!
All holocausts have been brought about by governments (both religious and secular).
Let us not be Nannies to the world.
That can happen only within a context of meaningful freedom, i.e., freedom from coercion and fraud. You cannot expect a man to work together with you if you presume some sort of mystical authority over him, such as to make laws constricting him to your world-view when he is living peacefully and honestly.
Perhaps. But I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to why peaceful honest people ought to be denied the pursuit of their own happiness in their own way.
Value is a relative thing, FF. Managers draw higher salaries because the positions are valued higher by the market. Wherever the market values management positions more highly it is because[ul][li]the management of the workforce is key to the success of the enterprise in a different and more direct way than the actual work being done, assuming the work is accomplished within certain reasonable parameters and can be provided by a large enough pool of potential workers; andmanagement skills are less available than the skills required for the workforce[/ul](Interestingly enough, this holds true in purely socialist countries as well.)[/li]
There are some trades that are more highly compensated than most middle-management positions. When I was a manufacturing workshop manager, there were welders in the shop that were making much more per hour than my salary translated into, and they had the same benefit package as I had.
It’s a profit/loss decision on the part of the enforcing or invading organization whether they want to pursue intervention. I don’t actually have to “win” against a superpower (or World Government); I just have to make it prohibitively costly or politically untenable for them to pursue their goals in my country.
[short illustrative joke]Clem and Luke were collecting their beaver traps when a bear came at them from the woods. As they ran away, Clem sez: Luke, ya dang fool; we caint out run that bar! Luke sez: I haint gotta outrun th’ bar, Clem; I jes got to outrun you.[/short illustrative joke]
Ouch. Do you realize most of the world thinks we’re wrong about most of our foreign policy? Fortunately, though, you’d never get a consensus on exactly how we’re wrong, so I guess it wouldn’t matter. But then, if you’re governing the world by consensus, all that means is that you never come to any decisions.
FF, I think your goals are admirable, but I must agree with Lemur866 that it is the nature of the relationships between nations, rather than the nature of governance, that is the most hopeful path toward world peace and prosperity. I also agree with Lib that a World Government could not be trusted to prevent large scale atrocities. As he says, all holocausts have been brought about by governments. A WG would have as much reason to subjugate as it would to uplift; it would have equal means to establish tyranny as to establish liberty.
We already do, all the time. We have to live next to eachother. We have to rely on eachother and deal with eachother. And as the population of the world continues to expand we’ll be living closer and closer to eachother. Therefor we have to decide on what’s good for all of us. We have to find common ground that we can all stand on. We really don’t have any choice. And I hate to be cliche, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
He does. And he should continue to, with the power of his vote.
You misunderstand me. I don’t want a government that says “This is how much you can have.” I want a government that say “This is the minimum you can have. And no matter how tough life is on you, you will always have at least this much.” A safety net.
I’m not sure why you think that is. Keep in mind that there are many different forms of socialism. Communism itself is a form of socialism. Which one are you thinking of?
Yes, but this was when they were in economic turmoil. Or when fanatics took over. With all the governments linked together, and with a firm balance going, these things wouldn’t happen. There is a herd mentality, but it tends to be localized.
You call it being a nanny to the world, I call it being a good samaritan. And besides, sometimes the baby needs a bottle. Do you want to be the person who refuses him?
I just wish people could work together. I’m not suggesting that we should force them to.
Cripes man, it was a joke. I too think everyone should be able to pursue happiness in their own way. And I said so, in a later post.
there are no purely socialist or communist countries (if anybody even dares to say “China” they will aquire my hand as a part of their face; China’s govt is just f*cked in the head). There are many countries (European in particular) that rely heavily on socialism in their government, medical system, etc.
Socialism is a crippled, transitional state of communism. If you read through Karl Marx, this is pretty clear. In his writings, a socialist state cannot last–it will either progress or revert. Since he pretty much is the defining thinker on this topic (he durn well defined the words), you kinda have to go with his word.
Ironically enough, socialism * has * lasted, and survived the torments of time much better than communism. I guess it just integrates better with capitalism; this makes everybody happier–the rich get to stay rich, the poor don’t have to worry about medical bills.
So I guess my point is that what we generally refer to as socialism is appreciably different from the more accurate model. I happen to think it’s a good thing, but that’s just my opinion. Maybe we need a new word for it…any suggestions?
You know I’ll probably jump full into this conversation in a little bit but first just a small issue.
Nationalization of industries does not a socialist make. Or something like that.
A quick definition of socialism. Workers control of the state.
Hence, you have parties that do not call themselves socialist but social democrats. Sweden is run by Social Democrats. Bismark nationalised many industries. By absolutely no stretch was he a socialist. Germany had many social programs, yet they sent communists to the death camps.
Socialism and communism are words like democracy, they tend to be twisted into whatever meaning the speaker wants. I mean it seems like almost every country in the world is a democratic republic. But are they democratic? no.
Likewise with Socialism and communism. The unisted states is definetely not moving anywhere near socialism though.
Okay, I checked into it, and you’re almost right. It’s not workers control of the state, but more, workers control over the means of production. You know, how much control you have over the office you go to every day. In which case, yes, there is a bit of a reflection of that in America. With unions and the DFL and such.
Now here’s the part that gets me all cheeky. There’s a bit of this already starting to happen. Companies (in America) are starting to realize that they’re just better off if they give each worker a say and a share. For instance, profit sharing. Profit sharing greatly increases productivity. A little bit of socialism is good for the economy. People work harder if they feel it’s worth it. Not to mention, it’s a good cause.
I’m going to address that in my thread, since it seems more apropriate. The question is, “is profit sharing a form of socialism”. The short answer is no, the long answer will be forth coming
My country already has laws against these things. In fact our justice system already works fairly well for the most part. I don’t need someone outside my country coming in and arresting people.
**
Probably. Well that’s comforting.
**
The cold war wasn’t a hot war. And you can bet if a foreign invasion was coming nuclear attack would be seriously considered.
Marc
Of course! The magical wand! How could it have taken me so long to remember?!?
Observe.
Reaches into pocket
Hmmmm.
Checks inner coat pocket
What the – ?
Massages temples
Oh! I remember now! Excuse me. . .
Walks over to painting on the wall, swings it aside to reveal a wall safe. Enters combination to safe, opens it, reaches in and removes a black leather case, four inches wide, by perhaps a foot and a half long. Unzips case, reaches within and pulls out . . . nothing
Well anyway, the point is that changing basic human nature is the magic wand that will allow a one-world government. It isn’t a proposition that admits of any type of instantaneous achievement, though (well, not until I find my wand, anyway :D). Still, humanity is on that general path. Thought experiment: get in a time machine, go to Pope Innocent (or whoever it was that thought the first Crusades was a good idea), and offer him nuclear weapons to rid the Holy Land of the infidel Moor. What do you think you’ll find in the Middle East when you get back to Y2K? Probably not much evidence that the Crusaders were ultimately too conscious of the basic humanity of the Moors to have exterminated them without a second thought. But Twentieth Century humanity has used nuclear arms in anger exactly twice, and is now scared shitless of the ultimate consequences of tossing those things around. All right, you say. There is a vast difference between staying away from the brink because of fear of mutually assured destruction, and staying away because you recognize that your foe is a member of your own species. But there’s a quantum difference between staying away from that brink (for whatever reason), and plunging over it.
Also, I think a good argument can be made that, while genocide itself is not a particularly new thing, the capacity of humans to be shocked when confronted by evidence of it is pretty much a Post-Industrial development.
So the species is on the path. It is incremental, sure. Also painfully, frustratingly slow. So were the erosion processes that created the Grand Canyon. Get over it.
In the meantime, I make my own small contributions to the political homogenization of the planet by leaving the military, refusing to entertain offers to join the Reserves, and being generally supportive of policies that place global well-being over national sovreignty as an end in itself.
), but