|
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
So your idea is to redefine the meaning of "nation"?
No, my idea is to establish a world government, like I said.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
So under a world government, we don't all live in one nation. We live in one state. A very different thing. Nationalists don't want to be part of a state, so those who reject a world government will be nationalists... people who want self determination.
Well I don't think having a global government says anything about what the structure beneath it is, but having just one nation could in theory have great benefits. People are always gonna complain want all kinds of stuff no matter what. All of the negative consequences you're stating are already problems now.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
Let's give a purely hypothetical example. Let's say we have a global election to decide if we have a democratic world government. 55% of the world says yes. 98% of Iceland say no. Iceland is a peaceful country, by some standards the most peaceful country on the planet. Do you suppose it remains peaceful? Do you suppose they just accept global rule? Do you suppose they just willingly abandon the nation of Iceland because most of China and India voted for a world government?
I don't know and I don't care, those are hypothetical technicalities of implementation.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
The difference is with smaller governments, in our case they are democratically elected and subject to regular elections. People accept rule in this way. People will not accept global rule.
And what exactly is stopping a world government from being democratically elected? That's not a new issue, just look at Russia.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think it's incredibly naive to think a central global government will not oversee a system which continues to favour the rich.
Yes, worst case scenario is that things will stay like they are.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who use tax havens? The rich and powerful. You're suggesting we eradicate corruption by giving corrupt people more power, not just more power but ultimate power. How can you not see how ludicrous this is?
Why would you give them more power? And why would it have to be exactly like some current form of government?
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who do you think will be the people who make up the world government? The same people who have interests in global corporations.
Who are those and why would you give them the power?
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
Do you think this one-world government is going to be normal folk like you and me? No, it'll be your Blairs and Merkels.
Well I wouldn't personally elect those kind of people but ok. How would things be different then? Yes, some people might be able to wield more power than they do today, why would that be worse situation than we have now? Think Russia, China, Philippines, Syria, Afghanistan, half of Africa, Ira*, Myanmar, etc etc. How well are we doing currently?
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
"Self determination" refers mainly to the right of a nation. And by nation I mean a people, not a country. The concept you don't seem to understand. Scotland has the right to self determination. This is why England are unable to stop them leaving the union. England can make it difficult, but ultimately not stop them. Glasgow on the other hand does not have the right to self determination. That is because Glasgow is not a nation, it is a city, a settlement. If this confuses you, then you really need to learn what nation means. Briefly, it means a people with a common culture, language, and territory, usually with some history of self rule.
Do you feel your responses have more gravitas if you start every paragraph by saying I don't understand? Rhetorical question.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
I guess the upper bound of a country is the population of China. If they absorb more territory, that's a problem, right? They would need to invade, say Mongolia. Maybe Mongolia could democratically elect to join China, but Japan won't. There's no way that every country in the world will ever agree to be part of a global state with common law and currency. Not democratically, anyway.
So China will seize to function momentarily since its population is growing?
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
Democracy. It's the only thing that stops our governments becoming truly rogue.
Like the X-Man? You do realize that even if we populated half the Milky Way we could still have a democracy?
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
Because there would be no way to hold the global leaders to account. This is not a democratic possibility for reasons I've already stated. This can only happen by force.
Right. Because there just couldn't.
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by OngBonga
The problem you have is you're trying to erase a fundamental part of human nature, and that is culture. The concepts of nations and culture are very much linked. You erase a nation, you erase culture. But culture is what makes humans diverse in the first place. It's like you're trying to eradicate diversity. Make everyone exactly the same, a population of sheep. You don't seem to realise this is what you're arguing for. You want to change what humans are.
Yeah, I'm still mourning all the cultures lost when the EU was formed, so tragic.
|