Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (124058)	1/31/2004 12:38:31 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<The American government can be bad enough but I think it protects individual liberty better then any world government would. Also I doubt that you could get a majority of the people in the world to support world government. If there was a world government it would have to allow for most decisions to be decided on a lower level. One big solution for all the different people, cultures and traditions around the world is unlikely to be a good idea.> Tim, people always seem to assume that a World Government would necessarily be a 1984 Big Brother USSR-on-steroids type suffocatocracy. It would of course be much simpler to find a lowest common denominator on which all members of a NUN could agree and constitutionally limit the NUN to that single aspect. As confidence develops that a federation of states could offer a lot of gains not otherwise available, then powers and constitutional framework could be extended. As Jacob Snyder said of Alaska on environmental matters, they prefer the USA Federal authorities to look after things. The same sort of thing would happen with Earth-size matters. For example, ocean management might willingly be handed to the NUN to handle. Similarly, radio spectrum management from space to Earth and across borders is no doubt better handled by some international agreements [which is already done]. There are many areas where an Earth Law would be better than a Law of the Jungle. Even the whole universe is based on only 4 [I think] fundamental forces [or Laws]. All the rest is a matter of how local effects put those forces together. A NUN doesn't have to manage every minuscule eddy of activity such as how somebody brushes their teeth. Mqurice

To: TimF who wrote (124058)	1/31/2004 3:40:04 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<Eventually a world government might make sense but that time is a long way off.> The attitude today, towards a global government that can abolish war between nations, is the same as the attitude in the 1700s toward abolishing slavery. Rational educated realistic people, in 1750, said that slavery had existed in most nations in most times, and it was utopian to think it could be ended. The anti-slavery movement was first championed by a group of wierdo religious fanatics, crazy utopians: the Quakers. The movement went through several stages: 1. ignored by all reasonable people 2. a pleasant but impractical ideal for the distant future 3. a modest-sized protest movement 4. general acceptance 5. practical application Message 19727587 The arguments you make against a world government, and the abolition of war, are exactly the same as made against the anti-slavery movement in the late 1700s.