|
|
|
|
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/19/2005 10:39:45 PM | I think a world government (= U.N. with a standing army/police) would solve a lot of problems
It is obvious to me countries need to be kept in line just by looking at the various dictators and tyrannical governments around the world.
For instance I don't believe iraq would be in such a mess if the UN had dealt properly with Saddam using weapons/troops as necessary.
The american government is the world government by proxy, but so far they have been inept and incompetent at keeping world peace/order - or even worse fermenting war/strife for their own selfish benefit.
Any one nation will always have detractors - so the only solution in my mind is to have a world body which can quickly and easily kill or remove any dictator.
So what do you think - Sovereign Nations or World Goverment? | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 2 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 1:32:22 AM | The biggest problem would be voting for the leader of the World Government
He would definetly be Male and probably Chinese or Indian
Caucasions would have a major problem with voting either way
But because they are a minority group, could not expect to lead
We may control most of the power
But if the voting was done democratically, we would no longer lead anything
..
. | |
|
| |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 2:16:03 AM | You don't have to have one world leader. You could have a committee of leaders. In my view it doesn't matter at all about their ethnicity/sex. What matters more is their education. I would advocate there should be a world standard education curricula accessible to all and only those who reach a reasonable level should be able to vote. What is a reasonable level in my view? - reading riting rithmetic - with alternative equivalent levels defined for those with dyslexia, missing limbs etc...
Obviously there would be a need for a constitution so that democracy is well defined and couldn't be abolished and religion couldn't take control.
A world government should also have a standard health system then we could say goodbye to mass starvation.
I don't think we need to get rid of national governments completely - Just replace corrupt ones. Just as we have local body politics today, they weren't replaced when national govns came into being, I expect the concept of nation to be reasonably permanent, just not sovereign.
If the world stood together no one nation could get the better of it. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 5 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 3:24:17 AM | In a true democracy everyone can vote
Who would set the standards as to what educational level was permissible??
Who would decide which governments were corrupt??
Religion already controls so much
Who would decide which religion was allowed power and which one wasn't??
If we decided to set our standards, the rest of the worlds population [who outnumber us]
would quite rightly object fiercely
The theory behind your proposal is not bad
but the practicality of implementing would be difficult
..
. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 3:59:58 AM |
In a true democracy everyone can vote
kids, babies, everyone? I believe you have to set some standard. Education is good standard, much better to discriminate on that rather than sex.
Who would set the standards as to what educational level was permissible??
The constitution
Who would decide which governments were corrupt??
The world government could rule on that if/when any laws against human rights are violated.
Yes it would be difficult, but I don't think it would much more difficult then setting up a national government. You only need a few powerful entities or many small ones to start with then the rest will follow or be a part of it by default. Look at the EU, everyone's trying to join. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 7 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 5:29:17 AM | "In a true democracy everyone can vote
kids, babies, everyone? I believe you have to set some standard. Education is good standard, much better to discriminate on that rather than sex."
Age is usually a prerequisite
So this would cut out the children aspect
"Who would set the standards as to what educational level was permissible??
The constitution"
But who would make the constitution??
It could not be western society because we are a minority group
"Who would decide which governments were corrupt??
The world government could rule on that if/when any laws against human rights are violated."
But we still have not formed a government yet
""Yes it would be difficult, but I don't think it would much more difficult then setting up a national government. You only need a few powerful entities or many small ones to start with then the rest will follow or be a part of it by default. Look at the EU, everyone's trying to join"
By powerful entities I take it mean either Corporations or existing Western Powers
Why would the Chinese, for example, follow anything other countries wanted them to do
They have very few problems
A massive trade surplus
A declining population
If western Countries wanted to they could try to impose a world government
But would a world government placed there by force ever work???
..
. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 6:09:17 AM | If the rest would lead the west would follow too or be forced into it - not necessarily by armed troops but by economics. Blockade the **stards until they come to the party. Or they might find their currency becomes defunct (one world one currency).
China has changed a lot so they could play on the world market. It doesn't have to be all bullets and bombs - only use them on those who use them or threaten to (or they abuse their citizens)
There are plenty of governments that were put in place by force to begin with. America, China, in fact, I would say probably most have been if you go back to when they were formed. But that does not mean force will be necessary for most countries.
Just because a group is in the minority doesn't mean they can't participate in forming a constitution. how many people actually got together and formed the american constitution? not many. If the pop. didn't generally agree they wouldn't have cooperated with the government.
We could argue all night about how exactly we could go about forming a world government but that doesn't answer the basic question: which is better, sovereign nations or a world government?
But on the topic of actually forming a world govn, one way would be to form an international body politic which would have an initial constitution, members from all over the world etc.. A nation without borders... register it as a local political party in all democratic nations...start with one area/country etc.. campaign strongly according to the system, lobby etc... when they win they change the laws to join the world govn. Slowly but surely....
In my view if the world doesn't get together to form a strong world govn we are doomed to eternal war, starvation, human misery etc... and ultimately, possibly, the end of the human species. Therefore I think the current path is harder to follow than the path to a world government. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 9 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 6:32:12 AM | I totally agree that the idea is very meritorious
But the practicalities are virtually insurmountable
All the standards of living in Every western country would drop
Because of this Western People would oppose it being set up
Because the people with the most to lose, also control most of the power now,
how could they be convinced to give it away
For example: If all foreign ownership in third world countries was removed, these countries would improve rapidly
But who could ever convince the multinationals to give up their ownership??
Any World Government would have to examine things like Aids in Africa
This problem is exploding on a daily basis
A World Government would be expected to fix it
Fixing it is virtually impossible no matter what is done now
Millions will die, and nothing can stop that now
Overpopulation is rife in many countries
A world Government would have to insist that countries like USA Australia Europe take many many millions of new immigrants
This would change the standards of living very quickly
It is a good idea
But very hard to put into practise
Probably the only ones who could do it never will
Simply because they would be the big losers
..
. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 7:03:03 AM | I don't agree that the successful nations need to be dragged down in order for other nations to be lifted up. It's not a zero sum game.
Aids and overpopulation are balancing each other however horrible that is. I don't know about insisting on immigrants or whatever, if necessary you can keep visa restrictions until you have most on a level, then you can open borders - if too many people move into a particular area, some people will move out.
Education also helps with population control. The more educated people are the fewer children they have.
If most people agree to a world govn then it doesn't matter what the multinationals think/do. They can't win against the tide.
It's not going to happen overnight but I believe it will happen....eventually....
Happy World Peace Day tomorrow (UN resolution for cease fire day agreed to by all members) | |
|
| |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 1:34:22 PM | Okay, first off, yes, a "world nation" would probably solve some problems, like standardised regulations and laws. Beyond that, I don't see it as all that beneficial. I'm not even going to go into the fundamentalist argument of the One World Government being the precursor to the Tribulation. Let's do this practically, yes?
It is obvious to me countries need to be kept in line just by looking at the various dictators and tyrannical governments around the world.
Different strokes for different folks. Sure, it might be obvious to some that certain types of government are less desirable than others. Some people disagree. Who's to say dictatorships and tyrannies are bad forms of government? Likewise, who's to define human rights?
The american government is the world government by proxy, but so far they have been inept and incompetent at keeping world peace/order - or even worse fermenting war/strife for their own selfish benefit.
The tragic part of this is not that the leadership of the U.S. bolloxed the job, but that they make a point of doing too much for other nations, when there are still internal issues that the American government should be dealing with at home.
You don't have to have one world leader. You could have a committee of leaders. In my view it doesn't matter at all about their ethnicity/sex. What matters more is their education. I would advocate there should be a world standard education curricula accessible to all and only those who reach a reasonable level should be able to vote. What is a reasonable level in my view? - reading riting rithmetic - with alternative equivalent levels defined for those with dyslexia, missing limbs etc...
This one's just juicy.
Sure, you can have more than one leader, but when the polarisation and infighting start...
Good for you that ethnicity and gender are not a concern, and hopefully, one day, those issues won't register for the rest of the world, but until then...
As to education, that's all fine and dandy, but who's going to be paying for the entire human population to get taught? Are we talking public, taxpayer-supported, bureaucracy-controlled schools (with the institutional mentality and therefore lower standards -- "No child left behind") or private, boarding-school style educational facilities that require a lot of money to operate but tend to give better results? And, if there are to be "alternative equivalent levels" defined for those with dyslexia, etc., does that include brain-damaged folks, people with severe psychological disorders? What about Downs Syndrome and mental retardation?
I don't think we need to get rid of national governments completely - Just replace corrupt ones. Just as we have local body politics today, they weren't replaced when national govns came into being, I expect the concept of nation to be reasonably permanent, just not sovereign.
As mentioned before, who defines corruption? And who's to say regional and local governing bodies _aren't_ corrupt? The larger the government, the more there is to corrupt, wouldn't you think?
"In a true democracy everyone can vote --- kids, babies, everyone? I believe you have to set some standard. Education is good standard, much better to discriminate on that rather than sex."
Again, if education, see above. How "crazy" does a person have to be to get his voting rights taken away? What happens when large religious movements begin to sway the voting away from true democracy?
But on the topic of actually forming a world govn, one way would be to form an international body politic which would have an initial constitution, members from all over the world etc.. A nation without borders... register it as a local political party in all democratic nations...start with one area/country etc.. campaign strongly according to the system, lobby etc... when they win they change the laws to join the world govn. Slowly but surely....
Ahh, the subversive tack. Isn't that how Hitler and Mussolini both got "voted" in? Didn't Saddam get his office democratically before changing the rules? Even if that's not what's being aimed at here, if it's above-board and people know about it ahead of time, I don't know who would willingly vote away their sovereignty. Shoot, even Puerto Rico gets a better deal being "commonwealth" than having to deal with the headaches that being a State would cause.
In my view if the world doesn't get together to form a strong world govn we are doomed to eternal war, starvation, human misery etc... and ultimately, possibly, the end of the human species.
Two things here. First, call me whatever you like, but I don't think we would necessarily be "doomed to" any of those things, but even if we were, would that, honestly, be such a bad thing? Secondly, and the reason I hope I don't get lionised too badly for #1, is that I have a lot more faith in humanity than that we couldn't overcome those issues, even without a world government.
I don't agree that the successful nations need to be dragged down in order for other nations to be lifted up. It's not a zero sum game.
It is if you take the economics of human nature into account. Not for or against, but aren't some African-American citizens still demanding restitution? What would happen if all of the countries with outstanding international debts suddenly had all the markers come due, and the nations they didn't directly owe money to simultaneously demanded restitution for economic hardships? Oooh, that'd get uuglyy..
So, anyway, my input is that, while a world government could work, so could multiple sovereign states as long as they take care of stuff at home first. The U.S. could do a lot better for the itself, as well as the world if it concentrated on educating its citizens and taking care of domestic issues before going off on the newest crusade to save "those poor lost heathens in their other-countries-not-ours wilderness" from themselves. Anyway, that's my take on it. Fix the countries we've got. Then worry about others, then the world. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 6:49:57 PM | Different strokes for different folks. Sure, it might be obvious to some that certain types of government are less desirable than others. Some people disagree. Who's to say dictatorships and tyrannies are bad forms of government? Likewise, who's to define human rights?
I would say obvious to most. It's often been said the best form of government is a benevolent dictator but how many of those has the world ever seen?
Human rights have been well defined by the UN for some time now.
The tragic part of this is not that the leadership of the U.S. bolloxed the job, but that they make a point of doing too much for other nations, when there are still internal issues that the American government should be dealing with at home.
I believe they have bolloxed the job very badly, but I don't care to bash. The brits did a much better job 
If there was a WG, then the American Govn. along with other national govns could put all their time into sorting out local issues at home and leave the world issues to the WG.
Sure, you can have more than one leader, but when the polarisation and infighting start...
Any odd number in the committee would put paid to that.
As to education, that's all fine and dandy, but who's going to be paying for the entire human population to get taught? Are we talking public, taxpayer-supported, bureaucracy-controlled schools (with the institutional mentality and therefore lower standards -- "No child left behind") or private, boarding-school style educational facilities that require a lot of money to operate but tend to give better results?
I guess both national govn and WG both contributing according to their means, as populations become more educated they will have more means.
A number of countries in Africa USED to have fine education systems, it may take a decade or two to bring them up to scratch but it's not insurmountable or too expensive (too expensive not to)
I imagine there would be a mix of public and private schools just like now only more of them.
And, if there are to be "alternative equivalent levels" defined for those with dyslexia, etc., does that include brain-damaged folks, people with severe psychological disorders? What about Downs Syndrome and mental retardation?
I specifically mentioned dyslexia and those with missing limbs because that doesn't impair intelligence, logic and reason. Severe, brain damaged, mentally retarded people, phycho's etc.. are obviously excluded. Too easy. Medical problems can easily be identified/graded by those qualified.
As mentioned before, who defines corruption? And who's to say regional and local governing bodies _aren't_ corrupt? The larger the government, the more there is to corrupt, wouldn't you think?
The WG could easily define it. I don't think the larger it is necessarily means more corrupt. It means to me more checks and balances. The whole world would have a vested interest to keep watch.
Again, if education, see above. How "crazy" does a person have to be to get his voting rights taken away?
and national govns don't have rules about this? of course they do. You can lose your voting rights by being in prison, a mental institute and probably a whole host of other well defined things.
What happens when large religious movements begin to sway the voting away from true democracy?
The constitution should eliminate concern for any religious movements trying to take control and jumping all over the rights of minority's. Freedom of Religion.
Ahh, the subversive tack. Isn't that how Hitler and Mussolini both got "voted" in? Didn't Saddam get his office democratically before changing the rules? Even if that's not what's being aimed at here, if it's above-board and people know about it ahead of time, I don't know who would willingly vote away their sovereignty. Shoot, even Puerto Rico gets a better deal being "commonwealth" than having to deal with the headaches that being a State would cause.
I don't know about subversive, just slow and steady wins the race. I don't believe in duping people with false promises etc. I think if the 'International party' was open and honest with their agenda it would be a great attraction to voters who are used to the opposite. The concept of nation, which is fairly arbitrary to begin with, is slowly being eroded with more and more travel and intermixing of peoples.
Two things here. First, call me whatever you like, but I don't think we would necessarily be "doomed to" any of those things, but even if we were, would that, honestly, be such a bad thing? Secondly, and the reason I hope I don't get lionised too badly for #1, is that I have a lot more faith in humanity than that we couldn't overcome those issues, even without a world government.
You may have faith, but 'nature is red in tooth and claw', it is only our higher faculties that have brought us thus far, with strong govns. to protect people from others who would do them harm.
Just as we need policemen to deal with those elements, we need something at the govn level to sort out those govns that have got out of hand.
And yes it is such a bad thing to ignore other nations who have abusive govn. because whose to say we won't be next if we allow it to happen elsewhere by turning a blind eye.
"I don't agree that the successful nations need to be dragged down in order for other nations to be lifted up. It's not a zero sum game."
It is if you take the economics of human nature into account.
I still don't agree. The govn is for the good of the people as a whole, it should take human nature into account and overcome the more selfish/evil/detrimental impulses by passing and upholding laws such as no murder, thievery etc..and taxing people to provide reasonable standards of education and health.
Not for or against, but aren't some African-American citizens still demanding restitution? What would happen if all of the countries with outstanding international debts suddenly had all the markers come due, and the nations they didn't directly owe money to simultaneously demanded restitution for economic hardships? Oooh, that'd get uuglyy..
What the? I don't see why they would do that then more so than now?
So, anyway, my input is that, while a world government could work, so could multiple sovereign states as long as they take care of stuff at home first. The U.S. could do a lot better for the itself, as well as the world if it concentrated on educating its citizens and taking care of domestic issues before going off on the newest crusade to save "those poor lost heathens in their other-countries-not-ours wilderness" from themselves. Anyway, that's my take on it. Fix the countries we've got. Then worry about others, then the world.
The US has done rather well for itself exploiting other nations. Giving aid, which is really just oversupply they would otherwise dump if the world didn't condemn that so much. Yep, not allowing third world countries onto the world market on a level playing field. Yes the US will continue to do well for ITSELF as it continues on this path, but sooner or later the rest of the world will have enough of it and the US is spreading itself rather thinly on the ground.....reminds me of the romans, french, british....the slow spiral....
Any one nation's supremacy is temporary at best. A world body could be invincible.
btw I'm not against America per se. I think a lot of governments/nations are just as selfish all the more reason for a WG to level the playing field. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 7:00:18 PM | Paulson sez:
I completely oppose any attempt to set up a world government. It is a terrible idea.
I guess we'll have to take your word for it since you don't give any reasons.  | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 7:44:28 PM | Taking my word on it would be best, however I guess I should give a slightly more detailed view.
The first problem would be that I think your utopian dream would disolve into a distopian nightmare due to the shear scale of the bureaucracy needed to maintain a one world government. The bureaucratic inertia would be staggering. You think that city hall is unresponsive...imagine the practical problems of administration on a global scale.
Second problem is that Nationalisim exists. Love it or hate it people have a need for cultural and national self determination. Even modern western countries like Canada, Spain and the UK have serious nationalist concerns. Multiply this on a global scale and see what you get. Across the globe people want self determination, not domination.
And how I fear the idea of a supranational army. To be a government really means to have a monopoly on violence, to quote Hobbes, it should be a Leviathan. What possible guarantees would be sufficiant to convince nations to give up their ability to defend themselves and allow a unchecked superarmy to take over. And without the ability to monopolise force the world government would not be a government at all. It would be a UN like joke only even more expensive.
The world you are talking about reminds me of the book "The end of History" by Francis Fukiyama, where he postulated that the end of the cold war would usher in a new era of peace, prosperity and global unity. Fukayama was clearly wrong, probably because he failed to understand human nature.
He ignored the strongmen, the nationalists, the patriots, the criminals, the warriors, the zealots and the fanatics. The men who in the tradition of Achillies and Richard the Third have no use for peace. ( "You talk of food, I have no taste for food, what I really crave is slaughter and blood and the choking Groans of men, Achillies The Illiad, book 19").
Your world government is not practical, and because it would not function it would be like the Ill fated Weimar Republic...and innefective and weak administration that would inevitably be overtaken by the ruthless. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:10:56 PM | | Not to mention that the larger the government, the less responsive they are to local concerns. This is one issue where you and Noam Chomsky would be in complete agreement. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:15:35 PM |
Not to mention that the larger the government, the less responsive they are to local concerns.
I'm not talking about removing all national govn. like I said when nat.govn were formed, they still kept the local govn. So you'd still have the govn to take care of the local issues/concerns. There would just be a (real) higher power to keep those govns in check!
Glad ol Chomsky is on my side  | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 18 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:25:47 PM | Here would ba a classic example case for the World Government to fix
India Indonesia and China decide they want to be able to travel anywhere at any time and take up residency in the USA if they want to
USA says NO
World Government says YES
They would have to say Yes
They must say Yes because there are three local governments voting against one
Five times the population voting as well
The basic idea sounds great
But it is totally impractical to implement
The European example only worked because most of the populations had nearly similar lifestyles and standards of living
But if you allow free travel/living between all countries only chaos can reign
And you cannot Not allow it
Because it would be the first thing voted into place by third world countries
..
. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:36:12 PM | Paulson:
You say it would be too bureacratic. I say it's not at all - I'm not about concentrating ALL power in the hands of a few mighty people.
Just another level above what we have to keep the national level honest. Much like the UN, except a lot less talk and more action. The UN doesn't have any real power. They don't have control over a single world currency, standing army etc... They make resolutions and the dictators laugh because they know it don't mean shite.
I don't think it's utopian either. I think it is absolutely necessary. The UN has become inert, we NEED to get rid of certain dictatorships and very bad incompentent corrupt govns.
The US has had it's fill in Iraq. We can't continue to leave the fate of the world in the hands of the 'merican voting public.
like I said, turn a blind eye to your neighbour bashing his wife and next thing you know, when it happens to you or your kin, no one gives a hoot. There comes a point where we must act to stop the madness. Just because it's in Africa or the middle east or wherever far away, in this day and age of globalisation/mass media we might as well be right next door. We get to see/hear it all. So if we don't give a shit, neither will they when our govns go out of control as they sometimes are want to do (they're on a slippery slope now with the balance of privacy/security tipping in the govns favour)
Sometime the populations of the effected countries have had decades of tyranny and abuse and are beaten down so much they can't help themselves. Look at Zimbabwe as a prime example.
I don't think it could be taken over by the ruthless, since power will not be concentrated in the hands of one person, but at each level of govn with clearly defined roles and limits (local govn, state govn. nat.govn, WG)
The WG doesn't have to concern itself with chasing individual murderers/theives/boot boys, that can be left to the locals as long as they can handle it. If not some help can be forthcoming.
I see it as much like the UN but with the big stick to follow through on all the talk if necessary.
As far as the unchecked superarmy, NO! it would be checked - there would still be local troops - but all under the umbrella of the world defence corps. or whatever. Then if one local set of troops decide to take over their country in a bloody coup, the rest of the corp will stop them. It doesn't mean a marauding army laying waste to the world, too many checks and balances.
You may think it is not practical, I continue to think it is inevitable. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:49:42 PM |
India Indonesia and China decide they want to be able to travel anywhere at any time and take up residency in the USA if they want to
USA says NO
World Government says YES
They would have to say Yes
They must say Yes because there are three local governments voting against one
Five times the population voting as well
You forget about the other countries who can vote. Maybe all the EU countries populations would vote against it, along with all the many little beautiful pacific countries who don't want to be invaded by australians and americans too. (oh and remember the education level requirement to vote - that keeps the havenot anything at the moment from voting to bring down the system to their level)
I said above, you could have visa restrictions until most are on a level then slowly ease them.
I'm not talking tomorrow here guys....you know years, decades - even centuries if this thread is anything to go by
Anyway I'm all for open borders eventually - hell it's how I live - and probably most of us in the first world - we travel where we like with very little restriction.
It's not practical to open borders tomorrow because of all the poor, ignorant forgotten/ignored who would flood our 'civilised' society. Maybe we could do what America does and hire them as maids/gardeners/labourers on starvation rates to prop up the economy  | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 8:50:59 PM | To quote the late great Mao. Power grows from the barrel of a gun.
And to quote Cicero, "the sinews of war are unlimited money".
Money, and Guns. Or more exactly a monoploy on force and an efficient taxation system are two of the hallmarks of government.
Who will pay for this army, which would have to be large enough to be able to defeat the largest standing army on the planet or else the world government would not have the monopoly on force? And this army would cost megabillions.Your Utopia has a huge military budget.
If there are still national armies, then what you are really talkin about is an arms race on an epic scale. If not, you are lookiing at a disarmed population at the hands of this global standing army.
Both options are worse than what we already have, which is an international system of checks and balances where no one power has a monopoly. | |
|
longte
|
Joined: 10/18/2004
Msg: 22 | |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 9:01:52 PM | ""You forget about the other countries who can vote. Maybe all the EU countries populations would vote against it, along with all the many little beautiful pacific countries who don't want to be invaded by australians and americans too. (oh and remember the education level requirement to vote - that keeps the havenot anything at the moment from voting to bring down the system to their level)''
The combined populations of India China and Indonesia are a lot more than the combined population of the rest of the world
The education requirement could never be implemented fairly so it could never be implemented
The only way voting could work would be on an age agenda
Anything else is totally unjust and impossible to enforce
"I said above, you could have visa restrictions until most are on a level then slowly ease them.
I'm not talking tomorrow here guys....you know years, decades - even centuries if this thread is anything to go by"
..
. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 9:16:49 PM | america is a like a toy model of a world govn. there were a few fights getting to where they are now. I don't see any major problems.
yes there will be national armies but under the umbrella/direct orders of the WG. Just like there are various troops stationed around the country. I don't fear the Western Australia division is going to rise against the East just because we're richer smarter and better looking (or whatever reason). Same principle.
What international system of checks and balances....we let saddam get away with it for decades, same with mugabe and lots of others....the current system is a pile of steaming crapola, it's more like - oh HIM, he's just killing his own people, not us - so that's ok, no worries, be happy! Let them beat themselves up - then we're safe! Hey why don't we sell him weapons and chemicals as well! - That's a great check and balance mechanism. Just great.
When the Rwandan genocide was occuring, the UN took off and the west argued over the definition of genocide for *&%*^ sake. They stood by in Bosnia until it was too late. They stand around and watch like it's some sick porn show. Well enough is enough. Something has to be done about it. Sovereign nations pretty much care only about themselves, and for other nations only insofar as it suits themselves. It's too selfish, especially when you have one superpower like america (who checks and balances them? | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 9:31:02 PM |
The education requirement could never be implemented fairly so it could never be implemented
The only way voting could work would be on an age agenda
Anything else is totally unjust and impossible to enforce
I totally disagree, it is very just and easy to enforce, most people with an education have it recorded in govn. records. Very easy to enforce. You don't get registered to vote unless you have reasonable *basic* education. RRR.
Why is age discrimination fair and education not?
Some people are very grown up at 10 and there are others who are immature for their whole lives.
So age discrimination isn't implemented completely fairly either.
I believe you have to draw the line somewhere and if someone falls a little short of the standard, that is sad but they have an opportunity and the motivation to cross it, just by learning basics. Seems fair to me. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 9/20/2005 10:25:25 PM | When the Rwandan genocide was occuring, the UN took off and the west argued over the definition of genocide for *&%*^ sake. They stood by in Bosnia until it was too late. They stand around and watch like it's some sick porn show. Well enough is enough. Something has to be done about it. Sovereign nations pretty much care only about themselves, and for other nations only insofar as it suits themselves. It's too selfish, especially when you have one superpower like america (who checks and balances them?
If anything the complete irrelevancy, bureaurcatic paralysis, endemic corruption and general uselessness of the UN discredits the idea of world government.
Think of how bad the UN is right now. They are so useless that if they were not so expensive it would almost be funny. The UN is a joke.
But if the UN had 12 aircraft carrier battle groups, a fleet of nuclear subs. Stealth bombers, cruise missiles, Apache Helicopters, and 1,500,000 mechanised Infantry they would be downright scary.
By the way, who is going to pay for that stuff? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
