Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are without a doubt way more intelligent than I am, so that could be the reason I'm not seeing what you're talking about at all. There would still competition and reward (just as it is within the borders of any nation), the way I see it. It's just that noone will be able to use benefits given by birthorigin (nation-wise). Noone will be given a head start in life so to speak.
In essence, the utopia you are describing would preclude capitalism, as homogeny would rule. With all now equal, everything is 'special,' so to speak, meaning, nothing is special. There is no reward possible for effort (or results), no punishment for lack of effort (or, conversely, poor or undesirable results).
The sole basis for such a society is a b ...[text shortened]... on... pushing and shoving, learning and yielding, competing at its best in the open market.
You'd have to actually earn your keep in another manner of speaking. And anyone who can't keep up would be given the minimal essentials to survive and keep it up.
😕
Originally posted by stockenIntelligence manifests itself in a variety of ways: you're no slouch, by any means.
You are without a doubt way more intelligent than I am, so that could be the reason I'm not seeing what you're talking about at all. There would still competition and reward (just as it is within the borders of any nation), the way I see it. It's just that noone will be able to use benefits given by birthorigin (nation-wise). Noone will be given a head start ...[text shortened]... ne who can't keep up would be given the minimal essentials to survive and keep it up.
😕
What manner of reward are you invisioning for this system? Moreover, what manner of protection for that reward will be allowed?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
diferent nations competing with each other, is not capitalism, unless you are talking purely in economic terms. we may have to agree to differ on this point but while capitalism and nationalism are often found together they are as I have stated mutually independent, they can both exist or not without refference to the other.
simply consolidating all the national governments into one does almost nothing to stop competition or capitalism. companies today compete within counties and between them, customers are competed for as are reasorces where and when they are found. also different regions (politically speaking) would be competing to get reasources from central govenment based on population ect, trying to keep buisnesses in there region, atract new ones, in fact pretty much everything stays the same except it's all internal politics instaed of external forien politics.
Originally posted by stockenLet me ask you this, if we all were under one flag and one government, what would change? Would manknd make a miraculous metamorphosis from a caterpillar into a butterfly? In other words, what is at the heart of such division in the world. What I see is continueous fighting over self interest. The nations we live in are supposed to "serve" us and fight for our self interests, no? However, do they always? It seems to me the bigger government gets, the less representative it becomes due to the personal self interests of those who are suppoe to be representing us who continue to have ever increasing power. In the United States, our Forefathers recognized this flaw of human nature and attempted to institute checks and balances to hold one branch accountable to another. However, over the years the federal government has taken more and more power away from smaller local and state governements and has increased its own stranglehold of the supreme law of the land. Now its to the point that the federal government is making decisions about what is best for my local public school. How proposterous is that? This is what happens when you consolidate power. The more power politicians have the more they attempt to continue to grab and the more corrupt they tend to become. I say that having different nations in the world fighting each other is a type of check and balance. It may not be as effecient or peaceful in terms of armed conflicts, but it divides the power and frustrates power hungry men who increasingly try to herd us like cattle.
Is it a good idea? Do we really need to divide into groups like that? I mean, every nation (not a single one is above this) has internal problems with people not really wanting to be part of their nation; not feeling properly represented by their nation.
Is a society only based on the fragile ideal that the majority of it's citisens desire in life? How ca ...[text shortened]... en fighting for peace in this world. The national pride and patriotic stupidity.
Debate me!
