The World Is Not So Bad

[Kontiki]

Perfection was already achieved in the 1950s US before the dirty hippies took over. High school drop outs could make a good living in the factories, everyone loved God and never did anything wrong, women and minorities knew their place, the evil, godless commies were contained and all the white people that mattered could afford to buy a house in the suburbs. It's all been downhill since then.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Vince278
Your glass is definitely half full.

The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

[Cort Haus]

I think that the world is not so bad, despite still being bad in many respects - and here's one reason why :

My grandfather was one of thirteen children living in a two-room dwelling in East London. Life was a bitter struggle for survival, with little prospect for people of that social class. Because of a quality state education his son was able to climb out of this poverty to have a decent life, and subsequently give me a decent start in mine.

Millions are still trapped in poverty, but millions have escaped, and even the poor of the industrialised west have far better living conditions, health, education, diet and prospects than most of their forefathers.

So, for those of us that can avoid war, poverty and serious disease, and can have jobs that do not physically break our bodies (even if they can drive us a bit mad now and again), life has got much better over the last hundred years, and we'd do well to remember that in the current negative climate of fear and distrust of human agency.

[Flip McWho]

I can imagine the bureaucracy involved would be quite something else...it would be an interesting exercise so I would imagine it would end up as some form of federation. However the resources available to such an organisation would be unimaginable.

Yeah, the bureaucracy would be something chronic unless you had a federation, which even then the bureaucracy would be nothing to sneeze at.

Another nightmarish thing about a world government is what if the government starts doing crap that you can't stand? In today's world, you can (concievably) move countries. If the US starts getting really bad on civil rights, I could move to Canada or something. There is that choice (of course there are limits and barriers, I understand). In a world government, you are stuck.

Aye that's true. You'd have to make the constitution very strict on the powers given to the executive, legislature and judiciary and have the constitution entrenched in that it would require a something like 90% majority of the worlds population vote to change.

A world government is advocated by idealists with poppy access.

Cannabis and LSD actually.
The people who oppose world governments have yet to realise that states breed conflict and think the differences between people are too great to reconcile. Just like the people who scoffed at the UN, the EU, ASEAN etc. People gain more by working together and the logical extension of this is a world government.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Another nightmarish thing ... [i]n a world government, you are stuck.

Then (a) get it right and (b) watch it like a hawk.


One of the cool things about a world government is that when someone in government says, "We need a war to distract the people from our domenstic screw ups," the first question will alway be, "With whom??"

[Flip McWho]

Aye the vast defensive budgets that states love to waste money on will be no longer.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
The people who oppose world governments have yet to realise that states breed conflict and think the differences between people are too great to reconcile. Just like the people who scoffed at the UN, the EU, ASEAN etc. People gain more by working together and the logical extension of this is a world government.

States are not needed to start conflict. Terrorists do the job just as well, as anyone living in the real world will have observed. I expect there'd be a lot of 'National Liberation Movements' under a world government

And on the human rights thing - they just don't add up, they just conflict. Arabs might protest that their human rights are being violated by the very presence of the 'Zionist Entity', while Israelis might protest that their human rights are being violated by the very presence of neighbours who want to destroy them.

A world government is going to have to take some tough decisions. Could it ever be impartial? Will the lobbyists with the most money prevail? TBH, one of the few things that can actually keep a government in check is other governments.

Who are the Christian sect that advocate World Government? Is it the JW's?

[Flip McWho]

Umm why do those terrorist organisation exist? To destroy a state, the political structure of the world is state based. Any organisations that undertake a political action are operating within a framework of sovereign states. INGOs are definitely actors but they are within this framework.

And I agree that there would be a few national liberation movements untill people get the stupid idea that a nationality needs a state in order to survive out of their heads.

As for human rights, it all depends on what you define as human rights.

How the world government makes decisions is dependant on the structure of the constitution.

Who are the Christian sect that advocate World Government? Is it the JW's?

Umm are you trying to imply I'm a JW?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Then (a) get it right and (b) watch it like a hawk.


One of the cool things about a world government is that when someone in government says, "We need a war to distract the people from our domenstic screw ups," the first question will alway be, "With whom??"

Separatists.

[Flip McWho]

But thats not a war, thats a police matter

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Umm are you trying to imply I'm a JW?

Oh no, of course not.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
But thats not a war, thats a police matter

Ah, so a WG abolishes war by redefining it as 'Police Action'. A masterstroke.

[Flip McWho]

Exactly, now you're catching on.

It's just that without other states a military is no longer necessary, but because people often like to employ violence as a method you'd need a subsection of the police that the military would evolve into.