Going Global

[Serra Belvoule]

Arbutus has a good point too, having a too-general scenario would make for horrible complications.
A case specific scenario would be the best, if the resources were there.

[Arbutus]

I dug up an old email I sent to some friends last year. I think it does a lot to shore up my views on the UN specifically and on internationalism in general.

I've actually been thinking about this recently, given that the UN General Assembly made an unusual number of terrible decisions last month. They debated a declaration decriminalizing homosexuality and couldn't even get enough signatures to get it passed. (To be clear, it had nothing to do with gay marriage or anything where legitimate controversy exists; it was a declaration saying that you weren't allowed to execute people for being gay. It got 66 signatories and 57 avowed opponents.) Then the very next week, propelled by the same grouping of Islamic states that so vociferously defended their right to kill gay people, they voted to condemn the "defamation of religion" for the fifth year in a row, which amounts to an anti-free-speech law aimed squarely at Denmark and all other nations like it. Not only do votes like this leave a bad taste in the mouths of most Americans... they also show us what it's like to be on the other side of the international power game. You know? We're accustomed to using international organizations for our own ends, to advance US foreign and economic policy under a thin veneer of internationalism, and we couldn't imagine it any other way. But votes like these-- which could very well have forced changes in the US Constitution, were the UN not so blessedly weak-- are enough to make diehard UN supporters question whether they actually support the UN, or whether they only support it when their own nation makes the rules.

[Yip]

I think a one world government could possible, but it would be extremely important that it be done right.  Ideally, it would need to be a system that cannot be corrupted, or that at least be designed to greatly discourage corruption. I'm not sure how likely that is. Thus I see a lot of potential for things to go wrong.

However, I don't think it's as bad an idea as some people make it out to be. ( for example, I don't think it'll bring about the end times, and I don't think it's a conspiracy for some secret society to take over the world. There are actual -real- issues to be considered with here.)

[Mooshi]

The middle east...one of the regions of the world we'd be better off without. While the rest of us live in the 21st century, they are still stuck in the bronze ages. I suppose that is their right, even if their views are backwards.

Instead of a one world governing deal, How about we gather the sane nations together instead? First world nations + the 3rd world nations that want to make their country better, but are too poor to do so. Nations that support radical beliefs such as killing someone for being gay or that you should be be-headed for making any anti-religious remarks are a lost cause. Humanity would be much better off we cut ties to these regions.

I know you might view that as closeminded, but ask yourself this: "Do I personally support the killing of gays and other extreme beliefs?" If the answer is no, then you can't be too mad at me for my suggestion. If we tried that route, maybe we'd be able to advance alittle more. Let them continue killing each other trivial things while the rest of the world lives in the present. If they don't like our views, they should stop using our tech, destroy their tvs and internet connection to see what we are doing and stop getting themselves involved in to our countries and forcing their views on us via threats. -- This also means our countries should stop butting into their business as well and forcing our views on them. They don't like our views and we don't like theirs . We are wasting each others time while countless are losing their lives. Views and laws are two very different things, but linked together. If you can't see a common ground, you can't create laws to keep things civil.

[Serra Belvoule]

The main issue here is the sovereign part of the deal. Most countries either will try to impose their beliefs on what can and cannot be done, or will defend their right to be sovereign. For example, we as Americans (as a continent, and as a whole) are used to see things like killing people as bad, but we have life sentences and death row. Other countries have as a crime to be homosexual with capital punishment as a result, which we see as bad. Sometimes, trying to force our views of what is wrong is just so one sided that we don't stop to think we might be being a little bit hypocritical.
There's also the fact that USA have shown a tendency to try to impose itself to other nations...



This is a +1 freebie point

[Shim]

The main issue here is the sovereign part of the deal. Most countries either will try to impose their beliefs on what can and cannot be done, or will defend their right to be sovereign. For example, we as Americans (as a continent, and as a whole) are used to see things like killing people as bad, but we have life sentences and death row. Other countries have as a crime to be homosexual with capital punishment as a result, which we see as bad. Sometimes, trying to force our views of what is wrong is just so one sided that we don't stop to think we might be being a little bit hypocritical.
There's also the fact that USA have shown a tendency to try to impose itself to other nations...



This is a +1 freebie point

I entirely agree..I have a friend whose moved to London recently, and she's been telling me just how different everything is. Less.."Forceful", she might have said. She said that there's nobody telling her (in school), what's inherently right and wrong.

[Mooshi]

What we need is individual freedom. True individual freedom - something the USA used to believe in before we started making illogical laws that help no one in the real world and all this political correct bullcrap. Individual freedom with a government that doesn't stick its nose in our private lives, but operates quietly in the background to make sure everything works properly. That is how it should be done. This is how government should be, an efficient system running in the background, not foreground.

[Foxpup]

Can I summarise this entire thread by saying you're a libertarian minarchist like me?

[Mooshi]

Is that good or bad? ._.

[Foxpup]

Mostly good, although some have suggested that it under-provides public goods, such as air, but that's a small price to pay for freedom. (Besides, I think privatised air will do the human race some good. Make them think about how much of it they're wasting. )

[Alsek]

Mostly good, although some have suggested that it under-provides public goods, such as air, but that's a small price to pay for freedom. (Besides, I think privatised air will do the human race some good. Make them think about how much of it they're wasting. )

So all the folks that own lots of land out in the country with thousands of trees producing a large amount of oxygen would suddenly start receiving paychecks funded by money collected from city-dwellers?   Sounds good to me,  but only if the hill-folk pay the city-dwellers for the massive amounts of carbon dioxide they produce used as raw materials in the manufacturing (by the plants) of the oxygen product.

[Fenny the Fox]

Mostly good, although some have suggested that it under-provides public goods, such as air, but that's a small price to pay for freedom. (Besides, I think privatised air will do the human race some good. Make them think about how much of it they're wasting. )

So all the folks that own lots of land out in the country with thousands of trees producing a large amount of oxygen would suddenly start receiving paychecks funded by money collected from city-dwellers?   Sounds good to me,  but only if the hill-folk pay the city-dwellers for the massive amounts of carbon dioxide they produce used as raw materials in the manufacturing (by the plants) of the oxygen product.

So, it balances out? Or is one worth more than the other?


Anyway.
I honestly think that, were it possible, a small degree of changes in laws internationally to match up would fair well. Such as more standardized labor laws and sales laws (if only so as to improve global economy and trade between nations). But I feel this is very unlikely to ever happen.

Though I do not support any combining of systems/governments or laws for this purpose. If two countries agree to make similar laws, good on them. But jointly doing so -single law for two nations, or single set of laws or guidelines by one major power [UN for example] to be obeyed/followed by all/many nations- only opens the floodgate for more oppressive ability in law making and governance and at a larger scale than before.

[Foxpup]

Mostly good, although some have suggested that it under-provides public goods, such as air, but that's a small price to pay for freedom. (Besides, I think privatised air will do the human race some good. Make them think about how much of it they're wasting. )

So all the folks that own lots of land out in the country with thousands of trees producing a large amount of oxygen would suddenly start receiving paychecks funded by money collected from city-dwellers?   Sounds good to me,  but only if the hill-folk pay the city-dwellers for the massive amounts of carbon dioxide they produce used as raw materials in the manufacturing (by the plants) of the oxygen product.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of industries selling clean air assurance contracts ("Give us some money and we'll stop polluting the air.") It sounds like a Mafia protection racket, but it really is the best solution: people can decide how much they're willing to pay for clean air (thanks to the free market), companies can make a tidy profit by not polluting, the whole scheme is much more honest than the current "carbon trading" schemes, and the government never enters the picture. Everybody wins! Except people who don't like paying for air directly, and would rather pay hefty taxes for "socialised" air (which is what pollution control laws really are, after all).

[Serra Belvoule]

I agree with the "protection" thing.
Seriously, why should we be paying people to incentive them to protect the environment we ALL share? Is like they don't care they'll get cancer in the next five years...

[Foxpup]

Seriously, why should we be paying people to incentive them to protect the environment we ALL share? Is like they don't care they'll get cancer in the next five years...

You've never heard of the tragedy of the commons?

[Serra Belvoule]

You've never heard of the tragedy of the commons?

Yes but WHY should it happen?

[Mooshi]

I think the main reason people freak out over the phrase "one government" or anything that remotely resembles it is because worldwide, we are used to our current subpar systems. We /need/ some government like it or not or else we'd be the wild west all over again. Someone didn't like how you looked at them, you get shot and that's that. If the governments around the world stuck to protecting instead of intruding, we'd be more open to a more uniting approach. At least, that is how I see it.

[Foxpup]

You've never heard of the tragedy of the commons?

Yes but WHY should it happen?

Because humans are basically a bunch of short-sighted idiots who need to be bribed into looking at the bigger picture?

[Cimarron]

I agree with the "protection" thing.
Seriously, why should we be paying people to incentive them to protect the environment we ALL share? Is like they don't care they'll get cancer in the next five years...

I do not support this... Im all for saving the environment... but not at paying outrageous amounts for everything.  Where do you think that money is going to be comming from?  The companies are going to pass that cost right on to you.  Im sorry, but I dont want to pay $8.00 a gallon gas, and $5000 more for a car, X dollars more on my electric bill, etc... Things are tough enough for people right now, I dont support any additional taxes on things.  If people want to feel good about saving the environment, donate your own money, dont force me to donate mine.

[Serra Belvoule]

I agree with the "protection" thing.
Seriously, why should we be paying people to incentive them to protect the environment we ALL share? Is like they don't care they'll get cancer in the next five years...

I do not support this...

You don't support what? >>; You disagree on me disagreeing...?

[Avan]

You've never heard of the tragedy of the commons?

Yes but WHY should it happen?

Because humans are basically a bunch of short-sighted idiots who need to be bribed into looking at the bigger picture?

Short-sighted idiots, yes. Bribed? Not sure if that's the best solution.

[Foxxhoria]

I think in the past when people lived in smaller communities and knew everyone they lived with, people would have been much less likely to abuse common resources like this, because when you know a person you're much more likely to care about their needs and wishes (because they're relevant to you).  Or at least, people who were likely to do so would have been rooted out.  But now when people don't even know the person next-door, people are much more likely to care, over all, about "number 1" (as that's often the only thing relevant to them).

//Edit://

,Damn, always has to be a crisis for us to stop bickering, huh?

My view is that the human mind is problem-solving device, and when we have nothing like a crisis to problem-solve over, our minds find problems in smaller things (which become apparent when you have nothing more important to think about).

[Foxpup]

I agree with the "protection" thing.
Seriously, why should we be paying people to incentive them to protect the environment we ALL share? Is like they don't care they'll get cancer in the next five years...

I do not support this... Im all for saving the environment... but not at paying outrageous amounts for everything.  Where do you think that money is going to be comming from?  The companies are going to pass that cost right on to you.  Im sorry, but I dont want to pay $8.00 a gallon gas, and $5000 more for a car, X dollars more on my electric bill, etc... Things are tough enough for people right now, I dont support any additional taxes on things.  If people want to feel good about saving the environment, donate your own money, dont force me to donate mine.

That's why my idea is better than current pollution controls. Companies will have no legal obligation to do anything for the environment. They only reduce emissions if they will make a profit doing so, in other words, if people pay for it. With my scheme, payment is completely voluntary. If you don't mind pollution, you don't have to pay one cent for companies to clean it up. Naturally, if everyone did that, we'd all be wearing gas masks, but if that's what the free market wants, then who are we to argue?

Because humans are basically a bunch of short-sighted idiots who need to be bribed into looking at the bigger picture?

Short-sighted idiots, yes. Bribed? Not sure if that's the best solution.

Humans will generally only do the right thing if it profits them to do so, so as far I can tell, throwing money around is the only solution. If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

[Mooshi]

Might wanna rephrase that. Throwing money around is actually worst than what we have going today. This is what Obama is doing in the states - throwing money flamboyantly. In fact, I think he is shaming ex president "W" in who can leave the biggest debt while in office. -- The only way to truly fix a problem is to start anew from the ground up - not throw cash at the unfixable. That is how infrastructure and the ecnomy works. Things may seem more expensive at first because its scarce, but once things take off, it evens out.

If you're like me, you live somewhere where petrol stations are damn near everywhere. This is modern society. Now if you're in the middle of nowhere with only one station for miles, expect to spend x2+ more for the same fuel elsewhere. It's easy to go into fear mode and shout I AINT PAYING 10 DOLLARS A GALLON! (for example) But honestly, it's a foolish viewpoint. Yes things to take money (big surprise) but if the money is used wisely to improve our living conditions, then we have something going here. Supply and demand principles. Have an ample supply of services with things in check, the end cost onto you won't be insane as Cimmaron is putting it. The problem though, is greed and the stubburness by both the government and citizens to actually give this a serious chance. All we're doing is complaining that the world sucks and then act like snippy chihuahuas trying to bite someone who gets close the moment extra cost gets mentioned. Guess what? If you really want the world to be better not only for others, but yourself, you have to stop and look at the bigger picture. Things will initialy be more expensive at first, but that will improve in time as we have better infrastructure in place ect. The whole "me me me" attitude makes me sick. If everyone had that mentality, only those who were multi millionares could see doctors because if medical facilities were that selfish, they would charge thousands for basic services alone and if you could't afford that, tough, screw you. The US is /almost/ like that in that regard, which is sad. Think next time you wanna spout all for me when you or a loved one needs help and can't get it.

[Foxpup]

Might wanna rephrase that. Throwing money around is actually worst than what we have going today. This is what Obama is doing in the states - throwing money flamboyantly. In fact, I think he is shaming ex president "W" in who can leave the biggest debt while in office. -- The only way to truly fix a problem is to start anew from the ground up - not throw cash at the unfixable. That is how infrastructure and the ecnomy works. Things may seem more expensive at first because its scarce, but once things take off, it evens out.

I think you've missed my point entirely. I'm not talking about the government throwing money around, I'm talking about people throwing their money around to get what they want (which is how an exchange economy is supposed to work, at least before the government sticks their noses in). Now, the problem is that what people want isn't always what's best for society, but it will eventually work itself out. Once people start choking to death in the streets, they'll probably realise it's in their best interest to start paying money for clean air. Hopefully they'll realise before it gets to that point, but whatever.