Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK Tim McNamara - you get to play God and design the world. Would
>>>> it have competing nations fighting and squabbling, restricting
>>>> movements of each other's citizens, or a unified human society?
>>>
>>> Sorry, not believing in gods I can't play god. The world wasn't
>>> designed. It is what it is, deal with that rather than playing
>>> philosophical games that can accomplish nothing. In this instance
>>> you have created a false dichotomy in order to bias my choices. A
>>> unified global human society is not a possibility now and may never
>>> be.
>>
>> That is opinion, not a statement of fact.
>
> You get what you ask for. Duh. However, pointing out your creation of a
> false dichotomy is a statement of fact.
No, the first choice is what we actually have now, and the question was
would you find the other alternative preferable.
Is a third alternative with nations that do not squabble and fight any
more realistic?
>>> The alternative to governments is not a unified human society- it
>>> is anarchy and petty warlords. There would be more Rwandas, more
>>> Bosnias, more Darfurs, more Khmer Rouges.
>>
>> Where did I suggest abolishing governments? I missed that part.
>
> The tone of your rhetoric is resolutely anti-government.
No, it is anti-large tribal accumulations (i.e. nations) that denigrate
each other and commit violence (military and economic) towards each
other (i.e. the world we are in now).
>>> You choose to filter your perceptions of government to examine only
>>> problems- some of which may not actually even be problems in
>>> actuality. Governments also provide significant benefits- not the
>>> least of which is restraining the violent impulses of human
>>> nature. While governments can and have accomplished violence on a
>>> large scale, they also provide for the prevention of violence on
>>> both large and small scales.
>>
>> More the former than the latter, especially when economic violence is
>> included.
>
> You're selectively filtering your view of reality again. While these
> things are lacking in the United States due to the haves and the
> have-mores (to use GWB's description of his "base") running the show for
> their own benefit, many countries in the world provide public policy
> that actually does value families including a reasonable social safety
> net, health care, living wage standards, liveable retirement benefits,
> good public transportation, bicycle infrastructure, mandated vacation
> benefits, a shorter work week etc. And- despite a higher tax burden
> that would cause conservatives in the US to declare that the end of the
> world is at hand- many of these nation equal or outperform American
> productivity on a per-capita basis. The quality of life ratings of big
> chunks of the world equals or surpassed those of the US.
Like the EU? But the US is almost as bad as the US when it comes to
committing economic violence towards other nations outside the EU and G8
- they are just less strident than the US in the manner they go about it.
> OTOH, three billion people on the planet live on $3 a day or less and
> nearly half the world's wealth is controlled by a relative handful of
> people. The prosperity of the few is built upon the poverty of many,
> and that is an ethical problem that condemns much of the "values based"
> leadership touted by the haves and the have-mores.
>
>>> Governments are certainly imperfect, but one of the benefits of the
>>> democratic process is that it allows governments to be held
>>> accountable and improved over time.
>>
>> Or the opposite can happen, e.g. do you really think government has
>> improved in the US over the last three decades?
>
> It's hard to see in the throes of the Bush Administration's stunning
> incompetence, thanks to its dedication to patronage, nepotism and
> preference for loyalty over ability. I'll grant you that. Memory is
> short and tends to be overwhelmed by proximal events. The 2006
> elections were a sign of hope.
More smoke than fire so far.
>>> In the interim, governments declare the right to control who enters
>>> their borders and through this to protect their people and their
>>> resources. A nation with unrestricted borders would soon cease to
>>> exist.
>>
>> On a smaller scale, groups of nations have allowed free movement of
>> people, without disastrous consequences. Again, restricting free
>> movement is a violation of a fundamental human right.
>
> Movement between selected partner nations, such as the EU, which are
> pretty homogeneous in terms of values, governmental systems, culture and
> economic stature. The risks are low in those circumstances. On the
> other hand, relatively open borders did not do the United States any
> favors in 2001.
So why not have a goal of improving and extending this model? That is
basically what I am advocating.
>>> Like any other endeavor, however, this of course can be carried to
>>> far as recently seen in Burma and the current situation in
>>> Pakistan, or as shown in China or the former USSR.
>
> No comment on this?
How does it relate to the argument of how nations are a good or bad way
to organize humanity?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
