02 Jan 12
Originally posted by rwingettIs 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.
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.
02 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe 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.
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.
02 Jan 12
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell I suppose we could annex the rest of the planet...but I don't think it would be very practical.
If by "quite a few" you mean "barely any, and chiefly for different reasons" then yes.
Government policies and the economy are intertwined. If people are moving to Brazil for economic reasons then the government is a factor.
Besides, we're not allowed to use jet bombers and such on our own citizens. We gotta kill somebody with all this cool stuff we have!
Handlebars by Flobots
02 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI understand just fine son.
What does it matter how it would be called, and what part of "not hastily" don't you understand?
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 ?
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonA 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.
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 ?
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by rwingettUnfortunately, anarchism provides little protection against those abusing others.
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.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGiven 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?
A multi-party democracy with proportional representation and constitutional safeguards for human rights.
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.
03 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeImagine womans rights or gay rights. How could it ever be possible to find common ground with the fundamentalist Islamo Arab world ?
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.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe 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.
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.
03 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI agree. I see no way how this large segment of the worlds population could ever be assimilated into a one world government.
Of course women's rights and gay rights will be under pressure in the "fundamentalist Islamo Arab world" forever.
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.