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: aladin who wrote (124328)	2/3/2004 11:16:35 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

That's true, it doesn't. Almost any structure, would be better than the current chaos. It's rather strange, that I am defending Order and Structure and Rules, while those who I usually call Authoritarians are, in this case, defending Chaos. My State, local, and national governments waste a lot of money, spend money on things I don't like, and enforce some laws I don't like. But, even with all their flaws, things would be a lot worse if they didn't exist. Without a U.S.A., Virginia and Pennsylvania would have gone to war around 1790, over who owned the Ohio Territory, and warfare between the States would have been continuous ever since. Without a World Government, warfare between nations will continue. My model is the EU. They have a long list of entry criteria. Nations that practice barbaric customs, such as slavery, setting up concentration camps, and execution of prisoners, cannot be admitted. Sure, the EU has a lot of flaws. But the EU has made war between France and Germany unthinkable, and that is a benefit that outweighs all the flaws. Nations would need to cede to a World Government the power to: 1. arbitrate disputes between nations 2. make war 3. manage the global commons (the atmosphere, the oceans, Antarctica) All other powers could stay with nations.