Discussion in 'World Events' started by Bowser, Feb 21, 2018.
Has it ever been tried other than under the guise of the UN? Would we want one?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We would have to do away with alot of tribalism before that happens, I would say a colony on mars and asteroid belts would need to break away from earth before earth tries to actually have unified world goverment, we always need and "us" and "them" mindset.
I have no problem with a theoretical world government.
You mean as long as it stay theoretical? I would see somekind of world wide democracy, but power would need to be distributed between at least three legislative houses, one for state, one for population and one for economic capital, one overseeing and counter balancing the other in a "paper-rock-sissors" configuration. Each nation would have to be allowed a high degree of internal autonomy, so long as they don't invade others or present refuge problems to other nations. Trying to unify every nations laws would likely be destorious because ot tribalism and conservatism, the world goverment would merely manage afairs between nations, ending wars.
Without going too deep in sociology, if we boil it down to simple terms, politics is always about deciding who gets more, and who gets less. We separate "us" from "them" to make this decision more easily - we always want "us" to get more than "them". If we unify every country under one law, who would decide who gets more, and who gets less? People will still try to separate into their own groups to try and take more, so we will end up with countries again.
Only when people realize that by efficiently managing resources together on the global scale they can achieve an adequate level of resource distribution for everyone, and that a lot of things we consider riches (luxury car, yachts, golf fields, huge mansions) are not really needed for happiness, we'll be able to reach something that resembles utopia. But that goes against the mindset build into us by nature, that dictates "get more, more, MORE!!!". No matter how much resources you consume, you always want MORE. Well, not you specifically. Humanity in general.
Sorry, blowing steam a little. I always get emotional when it comes to this.
So federal government can't work? Only state government? Or do you mean local city government? Because I don't see how a world government needs to be any different than a federal government. They can deal with issues relevant to countries without eliminating countries, and leave more local governance to local organizations. Taxes can be progressive without completely eliminating the incentive to get rich, and of course we always have to fight against corruption, but it seems plausible.
Yes, it seems plausible, and I'm all paws for supporting this. Buuuuuut:
1. Every superpower dream of world domination. They want to dictate their own ideology, and political ideology is, again, at the very basic level, deciding who gets more and who gets less. If all countries could agree on one ideology, maybe we can be united under one global government
2. Even if that was achieved, some countries would eventually want to separate, because as I've said, they would think they're not getting enough. They would want more. They would want to take AWAY something from someone - the basis of most wars in human history.
I'm intentionally using simple language because I believe that the problem is in the very basis of who we are.
Democracy or dictatorship ?
why is it that the top 5% own 95% of all things ?
does that dictate social engineering ?
freetrade agreements ?
corporate global entity's ?
'we' already have them
Can we find unity through commerce?
what is commerce ?
do people need to have equal rights for there to be commerce ?
does there need to be no slavery to have commerce ?
does there need to be no war to have commerce ?
what is "unity" ?
"Columbine " bowling alley ?
It seems that commerce is the only thing on which we can agree.
can commerce exist without greed ?
It depends on your motivation.
World government isn't a good goal.
Smaller countries have a better chance of being more representative, less corrupt. That's not to say that most small countries are like that. They are not. Most countries of any size are not but the more prosperous countries usually are small ones.
The key though, is low corruption and "good" government and those things are hard to come by. Most countries are a mess. It helps to have a fairly small, educated, and homogeneous population and a pragmatic and responsible government with a longer term outlook.
If the U.S. keeps electing people like Trump we will soon enough become a joke like most of the rest of the Americas.
You have to start out by being responsible. Spending more than you take in isn't responsible. You have to insure higher levels of education.
As far a a world government is concerned...that's just going in the wrong directions. You get agreement and a governable populace by keeping things small.
There is an old wisdom that states simply that it is only when sharing resources has a greater priority than competing for them, world peace, harmony and co-operation is possible.
For this to happen a fundamental shift in human nature would be required.
A functioning global social contract would demand such a shift. IMO
Human minds are at such a primitive, immature state that globalism just isn't going to work. More than half the world is religious, some of these religions directly oppose the existence of outsiders. Politics is already corrupt as is, giving them even more power, is asinine.
The equivalent would be a jobless, skinny philosopher heroine addict who watches porn all day, trying to marry an obese, elitist religious prude who hates drugs and prides herself in her (limited) knowledge of her religious texts. The relationship was doomed to fail at the beginning.
going back to your earlier point.
can collectivism be collectivism under a different name ?
sure. it can be called anything. commerce, socialism, facism... doesnt matter what it is called.
the mathamatical formula is critical though.
is it 2 groups of people agreing to not commit genocide against the other ?
is it 2 groups of people agreing to regulate how it steals and tricks the other ? commerce ?
the nature of a fair trade is that both partys are equal, yet capitalism dictates that you must always gain the upper hand.
motivation has no connection to the nature of agreement. only to the nature of the ends, as greed does not openly admit it wants, because it knows that once others know it wants, it will undermine its ability to get more than everyone else.
greed has a consciousness.
"having a motivation" or 'not' having a motivation is a distortion of the mechnism.
greed its self IS the motivation.
the impirical measurement of "things" post greed is not the quantifiable true nature of "greed".
Separate names with a comma.