He stated “people”. He said nothing about the “government”.
He said “Saudi Arabia”. SA is not a democracy, the people don’t have a voice.
D’oh!
Stupid typo.
That should read "I certainly wasn’t born in one, nor did my father grow up in one.
I have though that one of the main reasons why a world government will come is precisely that end run game, the world government will come as people become more aware that corporations and many well to do already have very little loyalty for the states they reside and some organization will have to be present to deal with their abuses and tax avoidance.
The premise of the OP is that this one world government would be democratic and Bryan was upset at the idea of votes from certain groups of people he deemed culturally inferior having their votes count the same as his.
True, but there are quite a few Americans who almost puke at the idea of having a world government out of condescension. They feel that since they are superior to other nations in the world, it would be a bad idea to establish this idea because America would have to spread its wealth in order to help other countries. I feel like this sense of superiority that the United States has over other nations is not good. In my opinion, we should be looking to become stronger as a world, rather than isolating ourselves from other nations because we are so self-centered to help them out. I think you’re right that the United States does give a shit about other countries in trouble or underdeveloped, but I also think the the United States needs to get over themselves and stop being so selfish every time someone suggests a world government. It’s part of the reason some people in the United States are opposed to a world government, and in my opinion, that line of thinking is wrong.
They could, eventually. It certainly isn’t probable that animal cruelty would be a resolved issue as soon as a world government is created, but the point is that they do have that power. Right now, no one can really do anything to stop animal cruelty in other nations because no such authority exists. With a world government, at least there will be potential to establish such laws, and as the world becomes more civilized with time, it may actually happen.
What if the world government still allowed dictatorships in countries? The only difference is that while the dictator would still be in charge of their own country, the would have another level of authority above them. Let’s say dictatorships were allowed in individual states here in the United States. Someone could be the dictator of California, but still have federal government above them. Similarly, world governments could allow whatever form of government one wants to within their own nations. The only difference is that nations would have another level of government above them, and nations would have to abide to laws created by the world government. For example, if someone breaks a “world law”, then they would go to “world prison” like people who break federal laws go to federal prison.
I agree with this. It would be nice if we could eventually establish a world government, but I don’t think it’s happening any time soon. I was just wondering, is there any current effort going into trying to create a world government? Or in other words, are there people trying to establish such a thing right now? I am pretty sure that it would take a long time, decades and/or centuries, but it would be a great thing if we could get it to work.
World governments could create “human cruelty” laws as well. The point is that some of the unfairness in the world may be able to minimized if we have a world government that can outlaw cruel practices. This isn’t only about animal or even human cruelty; it applies to all unfair practices. Part of the reason that so many unfair practices still exist in other nations is that no such authority exists that can outlaw them. A world government is much more likely to be effective at outlawing unfair and cruel practices because they will actually have the power to do something about it.
However there is one potential problem with this (which another poster has mentioned in this thread), and that is that if the majority of the world decides that all women should be second-class citizens and not be allowed to vote, etc., then we have an issue. So at the same time, we have to be careful that we don’t end up in that kind of situation. If it works out the wrong way, we may have more unfairness and cruelty in the world.
Morally inferior.
I think its a bad idea. What happens when the one world government gets crappy? And I don’t mean run by dictators. What if it just generally gets worse and worse? And the solutions to solve the problems are the wrong ones and just exacerbate the situation? What choice does the populace have? Flee to Mars? Not practical. World wide revolution. That doesn’t sound so hot.
It seems to me most human organizations, particularly when they are the only game in town (that you HAVE to play with), big to very big, and have no competition or other organizations to be compared with, will sooner or later go to shit. And I can’t afford to go to Mars.
World peace and cooperation? Sure. But lets keep a bunch of various models going so we can see what works and what doesn’t and stay out of a one way road to hell.
I’m fairly confident that if you really thought about it, yes not granting votes to Arab and Iranian immigrants because you don’t like the policies of their respective governments on gays is bigotry.
Similarly, I met one person who following the infamous vote on gay marriage in California when African-Americans overwhelmingly came out against it saying(after having several drinks in him) “Maybe they shouldn’t have been allowed to vote.”
When he sobered up, he was horrified by his comment and promptly apologized to several of us for saying it and very clearly regarded the statement as bigoted, though he himself is not a bigot.
I’m reasonably confident that you’d agree that claiming California’s African-Americans shouldn’t be allowed to vote on the Civil Rights of gay Americans is bigotry.
Er… No, he made a value judgement about people’s worthiness to vote based solely on where they were born and what culture they were born into.
People who think my father shouldn’t be allowed to vote or that they don’t want their votes to be “equal to his” because he was born and grew up in Iran are bigots.
How many wars are international wars between sovereign countries versus internal civil wars, revolutions, insurgencies and ethnic conflicts within a country or region? A world government isn’t going to stop those.
The fact is, between the UN, WTC and other IGOs, we already have a decent mechanism in place for countries to come together, discuss problems and reach agreements on an international level. Much of the problems in the world are in places that don’t have an effective national government.
Besides. The EU is barely able to keep itself together. The US Federal Government can barely do anything and it’s just two parties. What would you expect a world government of hundreds of disparate states and cultures actually accomplish?
Let me get this straight - there are laws that you feel need to be imposed upon the whole world and the answer is a world government. And you intend to impose these laws without a dictatorship but with a democracy. Has it occurred to you that most of the world not caring about or wanting these laws would cause problems with democratically imposing them upon the world?
The problem you feel is that we are not able to outlaw practices that you feel are unethical in foreign countries, but with a world government we will be able to make animal cruelty laws to impose upon the rest of the world. Democratically. The rest of the world doesn’t seem to think this a problem, so democratically such laws would never be passed. Yet you intend to have the world government write such laws, impose them upon the entire world, and do so by fiat and remain a democracy rather than a dictatorship?
Furious? Hardly. Distrustful with excellent reason that votes cast by people who don’t live in liberal democracies (which I assume is what you mean by “people like me”) will not respect human rights? Definitely. I’ll trust a black Canadian voter over, for example, a Saudi Arabian voter of any race. I might disagree with the black Canadian on some issues, but I feel it more likely that he (or she) won’t want to make blasphemy a crime, or make freedom of the press a crime, or make being a rape victim a crime.
Well, unlike the racists, I can point to actual events in Saudi and Iranian history (to pull up just two of the more obvious national examples - add in North Korea, if you like) that demonstrate that the democratic ideals I cherish could be voted away in a heartbeat if the citizens of those nations were were given equal footing in an important election as the citizens of Canada.
Well, let’s see those countries first establish the principals of democracy, shall we, and see if they can hold onto them for at least 20 years without losing them to a military or theocratic coup.
Well, I can’t make you see the obvious difference between life in a democracy and life in a not-democracy. I hope you’ll figure it out eventually, as will all citizens of non-democracies.
Which of course is because too many of the world’s governments just aren’t in a position to be part of such a thing.
The idea of Canada being in some kind of EU-like union with Europe, the USA, Australia, Japan et al. is intriguing enough for me to consider the arguments for and against it. But democratic, free countries can’t be in any “government” worth the name with a country like Burma or Saudi Arabia; there are no significant shared values between our nations’ governments. Any shared govenrment will be merely a forum and will at best be an agent for charitable works - which, of course, we already have. They have a big HQ in New York City.
But the idea of a United Free World, which will eventually accept new applicants as they merit their inclusion, is very intriguing.
Iran actually had done so before the British and the US decided that they didn’t like what Iran’s Democratic leader was doing and then imposed the Shah on them.
Er…I’m a citizen of both Iran and the US.
Ok, then point me to the events that occurred in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea where the citizens of each country voted away their rights.
Is your contention that by voting Mosadegh into power, Iran prompted the US to install the Shah and therefore demonstrated that they can’t be trusted with the vote?
Anyway, the people of East Germany, Poland, and South Africa can testify to the fact that your idea that people in dictatorships can’t be trusted with the right to vote is utterly moronic.
You may feel that Black South Africans being allowed to vote in the 90s was mistake because they grew up in a non-democracy, but the rest of us don’t.
No. It is up to you to prove that a majority of the people in the world are pro-democracy. You seem to think that democracy is the natural state of mankind, and the fact that the whole world isn’t democratic is because of repression by powerful minorities. Myself, I’ve seen no evidence of this.
If the Iranian people didn’t want the Ayatollahs in power, they’d get rid of them tomorrow. Din’t blame it on something that happened 60 years ago. They bear full responsibility for their own predicament.
I think it’s more likely that we destroy ourselves or blow ourselves back to the stone age than we get the point where a democratic world government comes into being.
So then you’re saying that Black South Africans wanted the Apartheid government in power for all those decades before world pressure finally caused the government to collapse.
I ask, because that is the logical conclusion to your claim.
Do you also think that the Jews of Auschwitz wanted to get shoved into the showers that didn’t give off water?
I ask, because the Jews in those camps vastly outnumbered the Germans so, by your logic, had they wanted to leave they could have done so at any time.
-
The death camps weren’t run by Jews, and black South Africans weren’t being oppressed by other blacks. The Iranians, OTOH, aren’t being oppressed by anyone but themselves.
-
I think this thread may be going a bit too far.