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 (124327)	2/3/2004 10:36:14 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

re: world government <If there is no consensus for a world government it can only be established by force.> True. A world government established by force, would be an Empire. It could be held together only by continual massive violence. It would look, in fact, a lot like what the U.S. has already established: soldiers in 130 other nations, permanent war, a series of interlocking institutions to enforce compliance by other nations (IMF, World Bank, etc.). No, the model I use is the EU. It was established, and has grown steadily, without any force, without any wars. It has united more of Europe, than the Empires of Rome or Napolean were ever able to do. A World Government doesn't have to be established all at once planet-wide. It could be started by a core group of nations, who agree on certain basic principles (democracy, a market economy, freedom of expression, mutual defense, and an agreed mechanism for the peaceful settlement of conflicts within the group). It can grow slowly, adding nations as they meet the entry criteria and see benefits in joining. <government directives are always imposed by force. The force may be more hidden and often less destructive then open warfare but its still force.> That's not an argument against a World Government. That's an Anarchist or Libertarian argument against any government at all (global, national, or local). <Argument A for cause X can follow...> The fact that so many pro-slavery arguments are identical to pro-war arguments, is not a coincidence. It arises from the fact that both slavery and war establish the same relations between people: a relationship based on violence, subjugation, exploitation, and fear. The human relationship, between slaves and masters, is very similar to the relationship between conquered and victor.