What is it you would like to know?

I think, whether or not a world federation had a group to define itself against, many people would still think of their identity in a national sense. This doesn’t necessarily mean they would pick up arms and denounce the legitimacy of such an institution. People in the US today still carry their local identities as well as their national ones. And the world as a whole is not lacking a common enemy: pollution, poverty, disease, illiteracy, crime and terrorism, and so forth. These things may not be as unifying as an invading army, true, but a global identity could be shaped around combating these problems.

First, when did this become about pride? One can have an identity and not be proud of it. Second, you go from saying “Part of what gives us…pride is that sense of uniqueness,” to “If everyone had the same affiliation…there wouldn’t be a sense of pride of belonging.” That sense of uniqueness cannot be both just part of our pride and the only source of our pride—this is contradictory.

Overall I don’t see how these observations illustrate that a world federation is unworkable because of human nature.

I agree that the government has done this as a way of surviving, as well as a method for empowering themselves domestically and internationally. Of course, implementing free market and capitalist principles gives the ruling “Communist Party” a crisis of legitimacy, so they still maintain their economy is socialist and adherent to Marx. So if 70% of a national economy’s GDP is in private hands, and if a majority of pricing and allocation is determined by the market mechanism, what else must a country (none in particular) do to “let its people loose” in a truly free market, in your opinion?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Now you're really reaching. It's pie in the sky to pretend that a one world government is going to magically make everyone care enough to end all the bad things in the world. If people cared enough to want such a government that would help end that kind of stuff, they'd have ended it by now.

It's not contradictory at all. There are many sources of pride. Part of the overall sense of pride one has can come from being a part of a group. You can also take pride in a job well done, in being a good person, and many other things. As such, you can achieve a sense of pride of belonging, but it is by no means the only source of pride.

The main thrust is how could you get an entire world of people to join a cause when there is nothing unique about it? It's not like the problems you want to solve aren't within the realm of solvability right now. Why should people believe that uniting under a singer government is somehow going to make a difference. With thousands of years of human history and human nature to draw from, there's no reason to believe organizing people in a certain way is going to change these things.

The fundamental acknowledgement that people are free to make their own decisions and are not subjects of the government.

A pie in the sky? Several years ago, I don’t recall hearing a single thing about Darfur. Public relations and diplomacy to raise awareness and educate are the first step—next, policy must aim to solve the problem. I’m not saying that a world federation is going to turn this into a globe of Care Bears, I’m saying that it would be more suited to combat global problems and to raise awareness of those problems. The fragmented nature of nation-states has us defining ourselves just as we’ve been talking about: against others. Global camaraderie isn’t promoted; if anything, it’s impeded.

That’s my point. You said pride is partly determined by uniqueness and then you said that pride wouldn’t exist without uniqueness, implying pride is wholly determined by uniqueness. Really, though, this talk of pride isn’t relevant.

How do companies get people to buy clothes and watches when there is nothing unique about it? Public relations, advertising, raising awareness of the product. What’s the difference between selling an item and selling a cause? Also, problems exist that can hardly be solved, if at all, without a global infrastructure of government; for example, the undemocratic process of globalization. I agree very much with Joseph Stiglitz’s analysis:

”Unfortunately, we have no world government, accountable to the people of every country, to oversee the globalization process in a fashion comparable to the way national governments guided the nationalization process. Instead, we have a system that might be called global governance without global government, one in which a few institutions—the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO—and a few players—the finance, commerce, and trade ministries, closely linked to certain financial and commercial interests—dominate the scene, but in which many of those affected by their decisions are left almost voiceless.

I think the lesson you’re drawing from human history is backwards, but that’s just my opinion. It seems to me that organizing people and institutions in certain ways have solved many of society’s troubles and inequalities. Not necessarily eliminate them—that would be absurd, I think—but certainly cut back on them.

That doesn’t really answer the question; any government official can say, “I acknowledge that people are free to make…” etc. I’m asking what must a government do, what must its economic policies be.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Do you honestly believe the reason the world is in the shape it is because people are not aware nor educated about the state of things? Raising awareness does little beyond instilling people with a sense of complacency that "something" is being done.

Of course, this doesn't even begin to address how wrong it is to invade a sovereign nation that hasn't taken direct action against your nation. Even if you're convinced you have a good reason.

So the problem is we need more government and more democracy? Yikes. I can't imagine more democracy is going to do anything besides ensure the majority can force the minority to bend to its will. Hardly a bastion of human rights if you ask me.

I agree that a government's words are meaningless. That's why a government should acknowledge through its actions that the people control it and not the other way around. A government should do only that which is necessary to protect the liberties of its citizens. This involves not taking away the freedoms of some people and "giving" them to others. Economic policies should be as invasive as necessary to ensure those freedoms but no more.

I believe that almost every person naturally has "good" intentions; but everyone also has tendencies to act selfishly and greedily. I do not believe this can be solved by putting power in the hands of a few, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I believe we should maintain a democratic system. I believe our government just needs further separation of powers to nullify corruption and oppression. It is much harder to corrupt a system with say, 4 or 5 branches of government. I believe some democratic form of government is really the only way to give the power to the people. In an anarchy, no rights are protected. Is this giving people freedom? Maybe, but only freedom to violate the rights of others.

By forming a government of any type, we basically agree to give up freedom in exchange for protection. We do not want complete freedom but no protection (anarchy), or complete protection but no freedom (totalitarianism). I believe in government because I believe that some freedom is a necessary price for protection of the basic rights of myself and others. But we must not give up so much freedom that we actually lose those rights to our government. I may be a statist economically, but certainly not socially.


The private economy doesn't have the means to do this. What you have to do when you think about economics is realize that economics and politics are the same thing, on different scales. A free market equates to economic anarchy, and can only be as good as anarchy. In a free market, I have a maximum amount of freedom but no economic protection: from monopolies, abusive corporations, and other market failures. In a command economy I am protected from these things but I have no economic freedom. In this case, like in the case of government, it is necessary to find the best balance of protection and freedom. It's as simple as that. All economics and politics boils down to is the amount of freedom and protection you think everyone should have. Thus, I believe that if everyone put deep thought into it, they'd find that they fall on the same place on the economic spectrum as they did on the political spectrum. It's really that simple, the way I see things.

I'm sorry if I didn't reply to one of your earlier posts. I know I've started replies to all of them, but these days I've been doing a lot of stuff and have had to get up in the middle of typing... when I got back I probably forgot I hadn't finished.

__________________

Read my signature; it should be a pretty good response to this.
As for democracy over totalitanianism, let me quote (I think I got this right) Mel Gibson from The Patriot. "Why would I exchange one dictator 3000 miles away for 3000 dictators 1 mile away?" Any way you slice it, people will take advantage of their power. Gas prices too high? I will make an anit-gouging law. Don't like to pay a lot for water? I will make water a public good.
And if governments were formed voulantarily, you have a good argument. Milton Friedman was debating this, trying to justify the state. He kept making the same argument you are currently making. He kept saying that the existence of the state was sort of unanimously accepted and therefor it was justifed. But the man against whom he was debating said, "Hey, is the damn thing unanimous or not?" Friedman had to admit that it was not unanimous, thus nullifying all of his previous arguments. In short, he lost.

Well, the same goes here. The state is not unanimous. I don't want the state to protect my freedoms. Let me handle that. If I can't even decide who should protect my freedoms, am I free?

I know the private ecnomy probably does not have the power to do the military things I mentioned. This is my point. In the private economy, the owners of resources have a limited supply of them. They cannot simply tax people more to fund the destruction of others. Ironicly this actualy lessens your argument. You, from what I can tell, believe that if defense was left the the private sector some nut would get bombs and kill a lot of people. But, by your own admission, the "private economy doesn't have the means to do this."

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

you cannot live freely without an organization protection you. Tell me, who in your ideal world would protect you from being exploited, robbed and enslaved?

I'm sorry, but I am just not doing this again. Go back and look at the debate Italian Ice and I are having. I have explained this several times, and I don't want to do it again.

As a sort answer: private defesne agancies will.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

You mean a mafia forcing you to pay "protection money". That is what these would be. How is that better than governement?

Why do you believe a private security force would be mafia-like?

When I awake every morning, I thank the entire pantheon of gods that yours is a very decided minority.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Because if you put your security in control of a private company they control your life. They would want to maximise profits, meaning you must pay more. To keep their clients they could kill someone to set an example. They would fight other security companies too to keep their clients. They would be the governement. A fascist governement.

In order to prevent this exploitation you can have a public initiative, meaning the people form a governement to protect themselves.

Either way there will be a governement and I'd prefer one of the second kind.

Thanks for the support

If a private security company were to kill someone to set an example or openly engage in other malicious business practices, I seriously doubt they'd get anyone to pay them anything. I wouldn't pay for them to protect me. They'd go out of business, and there'd be another company to supplant them.

Ok mate, I give up. I gave the best real life example of what happens when an organization who wants to make profit is put in charge of securty. If security is made private the company can make you pay anything or do anything, because they have the power and will intimidation you.

I do not understand you cannot see that we need a governement to prevent companies from exploiting and enslaving us and fighting over resources, including human resources. Because they would if there were no governement. They would become governements.