Originally posted by rwingett Your vision for the world is a frightful one. Needless to say, I am of the exact opposite opinion. Governance should be kept as small and as local as possible. A world government would inevitably end in totalitarianism.
Is there some inevitable law of nature that allows a non-totalitarian government to govern 300 million people, but not 7 billion? What's the tipping point? One billion? Five billion? Please elaborate.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Is there some inevitable law of nature that allows a non-totalitarian government to govern 300 million people, but not 7 billion? What's the tipping point? One billion? Five billion? Please elaborate.
You get a monopoly of government. Nobody can escape it!
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Is there some inevitable law of nature that allows a non-totalitarian government to govern 300 million people, but not 7 billion? What's the tipping point? One billion? Five billion? Please elaborate.
The larger a government is, the more distant it will necessarily be from the people it governs, and the more totalitarian it will inevitably become in nature. There is no "tipping point", but larger is always worse and smaller is always better.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra What does it matter how it would be called, and what part of "not hastily" don't you understand?
I understand just fine son.
You are the one who said "eventually" and "should merge into one". You dont understand your own words ?
When this dream of yours eventually come to fruition, who do you picture running it ? The UN ? What form of government ?
Originally posted by utherpendragon I understand just fine son.
You are the one who said "eventually" and "should merge into one". You dont understand your own words ?
When this dream of yours eventually come to fruition, who do you picture running it ? The UN ? What form of government ?
A multi-party democracy with proportional representation and constitutional safeguards for human rights. So no, not the UN in its current form. The UN is not even a government.
Originally posted by rwingett The larger a government is, the more distant it will necessarily be from the people it governs, and the more totalitarian it will inevitably become in nature. There is no "tipping point", but larger is always worse and smaller is always better.
Unfortunately, anarchism provides little protection against those abusing others.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra A multi-party democracy with proportional representation and constitutional safeguards for human rights.
Given the enormous diversity of opinions, values and preferences in the world, that world government is going to end up offending and disappointing an awful lot of people. This is true even if basic safeguards for human rights are respected - are you going to find agreement between the voters of Sweden and the voters of Texas regarding appropriate tax rates, for instance?
The system we have presently, of numerous nation states with different governments, is at least likely to ensure that the majority of people get roughly what they want in each of the democratic countries.
Originally posted by Teinosuke Given the enormous diversity of opinions, values and preferences in the world, that world government is going to end up offending and disappointing an awful lot of people. This is true even if basic safeguards for human rights are respected - are you going to find agreement between the voters of Sweden and the voters of Texas regarding appropriate tax rate ...[text shortened]... sure that the majority of people get roughly what they want in each of the democratic countries.
Imagine womans rights or gay rights. How could it ever be possible to find common ground with the fundamentalist Islamo Arab world ?
Originally posted by Teinosuke Given the enormous diversity of opinions, values and preferences in the world, that world government is going to end up offending and disappointing an awful lot of people. This is true even if basic safeguards for human rights are respected - are you going to find agreement between the voters of Sweden and the voters of Texas regarding appropriate tax rate ...[text shortened]... sure that the majority of people get roughly what they want in each of the democratic countries.
The enormous diversity of opinions, values and preferences around the globe is declining, and it's declining fast. English being adopted as the world's lingua franca is the first step. The EU and the euro are a blueprint of what will happen next - a slow, gradual change to further integration of economies and governments, despite petty nationalist sentiments. Will voters in Sweden and Texas be able to agree on national tax policy? Probably not. Will they in 100 years? Probably.
Originally posted by utherpendragon Imagine womans rights or gay rights. How could it ever be possible to find common ground with the fundamentalist Islamo Arab world ?
Of course women's rights and gay rights will be under pressure in the "fundamentalist Islamo Arab world" forever.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Of course women's rights and gay rights will be under pressure in the "fundamentalist Islamo Arab world" forever.
I agree. I see no way how this large segment of the worlds population could ever be assimilated into a one world government.
That is only one example of why it is a pipe dream to have a unified world.
You speak of "petty nationalist sentiments". There are nations for a reason and they are far from petty. Many of these separate nations have extremely different views of the world, life, human rights,religion, etc.
IMO there could never be a unified world today, tomorrow or 100 years from now.
02 Jan '12 22:33
YouTube
Should the US and Euro comine? The Ameruo?
Back to Top