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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124336)	2/3/2004 11:41:21 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

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. But they can't even manage to agree on a constitution... And now they are griping about the USD being so weak that the IMF (director) was commenting that he believed the Euro was becoming so strong as to risk a European recovery. I thought the Euro was supposed to compete against the USD.. Supposed to replace the USD, it was... But now they are trying to talk it down. Yeah... and you want the UN to come together like the EU? It would be nice to think that Billions of people could come together into one big, happy, international family... But the odds are greatly against it. After all, the bloodiest war in US history still remains the Civil War. Hawk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124336)	2/3/2004 11:43:22 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<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.>> I am beginning to picture any world goverment as a soft government, rather than hard line government with all the complexities such as political voting and fixed laws When problems rise to the fore, like the ozone layer depletion, or collapse of a nuclear power government, or destruction of ocean fishing grounds, the assigned members would be called into session to debate and implement a solution. The first need is providing education to those in trouble such as demonstrating that clear-cutting of hills can lead to major floods. To convince nations that keeping their people in poverty leads to revolts. There already exist, almost too many, organizations and studies on such subjects. Many disagreements can be worked out by treaties as you suggest, but in some instances a reluctant nation, like ones building unsafe nuclear plants that could contaminate another nation, may have to be told not to do (this or that) Is our pollution drifting over to Europe, and where is the pollution in Europe going ?. Is a sunken Russian sub a threat to fishing grounds? We wont need a high and mighty world leader to cause unrest and attract the attention of dissenting religious leaders who are gods in their own country. A body headed by an elected Secretary General that will determine which problem in human endeavors is the most critical at the given moment. Who can call in the best experts in any field to help decide a course of action. Appoint committees to study future choices when its a continuing problem needing more study. Not much different in organization than the present UN ,but since politicians are everywhere, the new members would need to listen more carefully to the scientific opinions and debate the solutions with far less emphasis on politics. The present UN rotates assignments , which avoids the presentation of power, and dilutes responsibility. Toss idiots like Aziz out of there and stop being so wordy If its time for Saddam to be replaced, say so. Somebody may volunteer. Sig @apolitical,com

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124336)	2/5/2004 6:59:05 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

True. A world government established by force, would be an Empire. It could be held together only by continual massive violence. agreed It would look, in fact, a lot like what the U.S. has already established: Not really. No, the model I use is the EU. Probably a better model then an empire but not one I would seek to emulate. <"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). It wasn't directly an argument against world government, it was rather an argument against your argument for world government. Specifically it was an argument against what I quoted in my earlier post - <"Until there is a world government that abolishes war, relations between nations (and therefore between the inhabitants of those nations) will be based on force." > The point is that world government or not government is based on force. This isn't an argument against government just a recognition of the reality of government. Without government relationships between individuals or groups are often based on force as well. I agree that a world government could result in a situation where the force that was used would cause less destruction then happens in our current situation, but either way the government will be based on force. The fact that so many pro-slavery arguments are identical to pro-war arguments Your attacking a strawman. No one is making an argument that war is a good thing. Tim