5Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteOne can but hope. The likelyhood of any government giving up revenue however trends to zero...Originally Posted by 1979
Climate Change 1065360
this obviously got to go...
Wayfarer,that's true,IMO.Thanks to our technology I could be anywhere on earth in 24 hours,at most.Thanks to the internet I could see anything on earth without moving my butt from the chair.There is no justification in waking up in the morning and seeing Shanghai or Mombasa right across the street.It's good as it is now.
Those who know don't speak
Fools seem to be artificially made,'cause there's a hell lot of them and they have no disease
One can but hope. The likelyhood of any government giving up revenue however trends to zero...Climate Change 1065360
this obviously got to go...
Socialism is simply the Collective denial of responsibility.
DOR,
The next line in Wiki states, "Dhimmi have fewer legal and social rights than Muslims, but more rights than other non-Muslims." Since you claimed my statement on Islamic government to be biased and that dhimmi is not radical, am I to assume that you advocate for different classes of rights based on religion in an ideal state?
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Was told there was a vote (sometime in the 19th c) on what would be the official language in the US and English beat out German by just one or two votes. How different things would have been if German won out.
Elites on the east coast vice the non-elites in the rest of the country ?
The key here it would seem isn't size per se but rather diversity. The more diverse in culture & language an empire grows the larger the demands for autonomy. Would offer India vs (US, Canada & Australia) as an example. How many independence movements in the latter ? US had a civil war and after that nothing more. Canada has seperatists but they are not in a hurry to take up arms yet. Australia ?
But these are nothing more than just political positions staked out by politicians to divide the people. They've been very enduring though over the ages more so than a difference of opinion on more abstract philosophical principles. Wait, isn't religion just that, certainly worked to partition my country. Also as a basis for the US civil war. Hmm, so culture isn't always enough to hold a country together.
Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Apr 11, at 12:05.
Clarify? Your talking about an independant Quebec yes?
Western Australia has actually voted in the affirmative a long time ago to leave the federation. But it never acted upon it.
We aint ruled by the British, we aint had no civil wars, we aint had no assinations of PM's.
Ego Numquam
How about the legal authority to impose lethal force anywhere it could?
Chimo
How about the concept of a confederation, where the power remains with the states (nations), but the coordination of their larger global efforts being guided by an elected congress of nations - who can call on the national forces to execute policy? The points made about past failures are compelling, but with modern global connectedness, things like the Internet and instant global communications might make things a little different today, compared to even 10 years ago. The confederation approach might help decouple things like religion and culture from the equation of global coordination of efforts. The composition of the Global Congress (GC) would need a lot of work for sure, one person one vote would not be appropriate, since huge population is not the current measure of global power. The UN concept of the security commission would be a potential way to separate military and economic power fields, since nations with a powerful military could have a bigger voice in security, and nations with a large GDP could have a bigger voice in the economic branch of the GC. To work, this idea would need to replace currently ineffective systems, not simply add to and expand them - increasing cost and complexity and adding little or no value. Incentives to participate would need to be economical, like trade agreements and potential credit. Incentives to potential terrorist states could be security and binding arbitration of disagreements - permitting them to avoid terrorism as a way to be heard.
The control of someone else's forces by another country has historically lead to some terrible results, like Gallipoli in WWI for example.
The question that remains is how can the world cooperate more effectively? IMO, "it can't" isn't a good enough answer for bright people like us. While it might be true that "it can't", having no ideas for a better way doesn't seem to personify the WAB...
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
The problem again remains with the big boys. And we have an example of this. Kyoto. Everybody said yes. The US said no. Kyoto died.
Chimo
With globalisation (read trade) there's a multitude of ways in which nation states can and do cooperate and move more closely together. Floating of exchange rates, synchronisation of tax and property laws and the freeing up of the movement of human capital. All this and the radicalisation of information flows are all occuring without some overarching political control. Life expectancy world wide is improving as are standards of living, despite the luddites assertions to the contrary both the environmentalism and work conditions are improving and resources are being better managed. Again, all without a global ruling elite dictating policy.
Such an elite would IMO be counterproductive to this, bringing an entropy, a stalemate which would stifle this growth in knowledge, wealth and creativity. Human beings are perfectly capable of improving themselves without some guiding elite, it's our diversity and conflict that brings growth.
Socialism is simply the Collective denial of responsibility.
Perhaps a "guiding elite" is not the answer at all. Are things progressing as well as possible now? Is there anyway to improve on this cooperation? I suspect everything that is needed already exists in some form, and improvement might be found by cleaning up the exisiting system, loosing the bad or obsolete parts and reinvesting the savings into the effective parts and back into society (by reducing appropriations).
How about a Global Corps of Engineers, able to respond to global disasters with humanitarian aid and repairs? This could be a place where coordination might yield results. To clarify my idea: the engineering regiments would be national units, and have their own command, they would also have medical battalions. The centralized part would operate like a dispatch and logistics planning center, with representatives from the regiments holding all military positions. The global center would also handle paperwork and permissions - "we can send 3 engineer regiments to your disaster, mr local leader, sign the release please.." The central part would be small compared to the actual national units. The national governments could refuse to commit their regiments.
Last edited by USSWisconsin; 10 Apr 11, at 23:44.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
Let me ask a hypothetical question/raise a different scenario:
Does anybody see one country grow so strong that it literally absorbs all other countries into it, legally or otherwise? Thus there would be a world government, but not of the kind you guys are envisioning. The first example that jumps to mind is the USA, what with states being allowed to join the Union and with territories all over the world. The advantage to this scenario and a government of this kind is that you do not need a new layer of government, and we're accepting the premise that whoever is in this Supercountry is either there willingly, or was forced to submit and become part of the Supercountry, thereby negating all the issues of War, religion, etc...
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
How will you control migration? Lots of people will rush in NYC, LA, SF... for better wages
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
I was avoiding that idea, but it does seem to be a possible scenario - not probable, and not one I am advocating, but in this discussion about things that might be impossible, it belongs on the list of ways the world might come under a single leadership. All the points about the Roman, and British Empires would apply.
In a confederation type system: nations would each control their own migration, and be sovereign inside their borders.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
Again, using the US as an example, the Enabling Act of 1802 allows the US to lay down the requirements that must be met for statehood. One of those could be a cap on immigration to larger cities for a period of X years.
Another option could be to let nature and economics run their course. If everyone rushes to NYC, LA, SF, etc... eventually jobs will run out, and they will no longer be the powerhouse cities with big wages, that honor will transfer somewhere else. It may take 100 or 200 years, or whatever, but with unlimited immigration and free economics eventually things will balance out and reach an equilibrium.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
@USSWisconsin: US is still a federation, right? Guess BR is talking without changing the current system.
@BR: According to your idea I have two doubts:
1. Are you sure voters on both sides will agree with such a scenario. I am old-fashioned and can't imagine Russians, Chinese,.. saying yes to enter such a union. Would love to live that day, but doubt it. After all, what will happen with the countries that will be outside of the new Super Country?
2. You are right, the economy will find a way to sort things out. Just try to explain your grandkids why there is no job for them. And to go to some other place in persuade for a better live. Please share the experience Israel had in the '90s when the Russian Jews migrated. Or ask the Germans how was it when they reunited with Eastern Germany. And remember that in both cases the newcomers were less in numbers.
There are still the identity, language, cultural... differences to get sorted
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: