The delusions of Western "natural rights".

Nope. Because many kingdoms were sovereign. And there were many. Most were never above the next. Sometimes there were wars to try and figure it out. But in the end, non ruled the world.

 

It would have to rely on deterrence. A dominant military power that only acts to enforce international law that stays on top in every way militarily. That is, sort of like the UN but with actual teeth. Sort of like NATO militarily, but of all nations with fairer contributions.

Getting the main powers to agree to this is really the issue. China wants to have the option to do what nobody else likes, e.g.

But with globalism, the consequences of going against everybody is already high, so the downsides of a global government are lower as well.

 

Depends on what you mean by run the planet. The federal govt in the US doesn't micromanage everything in every state, but it is heavily involved in things like the military and trade and basic rights. One would think an actual international government would act analogously.

But yes, the best thing would be if it were composed of the smartest people.

 

Well, the thing about "Law" that many, especially those on the Left, do not understand is that it can often be open to a great deal of interpretation.

So the question is exactly who gets to enforce the law and decide how it should be interpreted.

Not only that, but the law can also be abused by selectively enforcing it, enforcing it against one side but not the other. It can be very hard to create an enforcement mechanism to hold a party responsible for not enforcing a law.

The idea to try to help promote world peace is nice and all, but much of it seems to be based on a lot of ignorance and naiveté

 

Have the US register of rules and regulations? I suspect you haven't the damn makes John Jakes two volume eipic Shogun look like a light after dinner read. With rules covering everything from where to put the coat hooks in public restrooms to the acceptable water flow rate from a shower head. It is apparently written for two reasons only. The first to enrich trial lawyers, and the second a vain attempt to idiot proof the world.

 

That's just silly. At one point in time the sun actually never sat on the British Empire. WWI was a world War almost entirely because the Brits brought in army units from all over the world, South Africa, Egypt, India, Canada..

 

I can see international law being supportive mainly in events like some Nazi state like Russia invading Ukraine trying to steal land in a poor war attempt. Mainly to keep the peace between nations.

When it comes to Domestic issues, International Law should never be involved.

 

Round two, Dude it doesn't matter how smart you are there is simply too much there there. And power always corrupts and becomes increasingly self serving over time.

 

So you are only presenting this, much as was Plato's Republic, as your conception of an ideal system, for our imperfect but, under your prescribed system, "better world?" That is, you have no illusions, over how outside the realm of possibility is the image you paint, at least for the far foreseeable future? This is important for me to understand, so as to know whether I should commence with detailing what I see as the practical problems with your envisaged world order, or if I should confine my remarks to the hypothetical foundation, upon which this order, is built.

 

Yes we have seen how well that worked in Europe. Over my dead body in the United states.

 

The tendency of power to corrupt is exactly why we have a constitution that people believe must be followed, and any good system would. If people believe in smart people running things, and those smart people are constrained by a framework like a constitution, it can work.

I disagree there is "too much out there" for a world government to exist and function well.

 

I don't think our system is perfect, I was just using an analogy to show how powers can be divided between more local and more centralized governments. The point is a world government wouldn't have to micromanage everything, or even most things, to function. Putting charismatic lawyers in charge, rather than experts, was one mistake. Charismatic lawyers being a bad choice because they don't have a special understanding of anything except their own blindly made rules. Making it so that campaign contributions are considered free speech rather than bribes was another.

 

Then you aren't paying Japan refers to the nineties as the list decade because the people in charge missed their guess on the hd TV revolution and the economy took ten years to revive fully. The Soviet union never did catch up technologically. China has accomplished their miracle almost entirely through theft of intellectual and other property.

 

And I was informing you our central government through it's 46 -53 agencies really does try to micromanage damn near everything.

 

This is not quite intelligible. But even if I imagine the missing/correct words, I still am not sure what the point is.

Probably more than it should. But it doesn't have to in order to exist.

 

One should note that the first clue there is a problem is that no one seems to know exactly how many agencies there are.

 

It just doesn't prove that having a central government of a large area (of the world, e.g.) is inherently unworkable. It does suggest, if it even needed to be proven, that ONLY having a central government and not having local governments is unworkable.

 

At one time?
Where is that empire now?
The British empire was not Sovereign. Some nations they occupied may have been sovereign. Some maybe even held their own sovereign gov't.

Just because they controlled many countries, did not make them sovereign to the world. Which I assume is what your version of sovereign is.

 

IMO, A world gov't can function similar to the USA fed gov't.
States have rights.
Local community have rights.
But where each over lap with other States, then the fed gov't can take precedent.

Same with any world gov't. It just pertains mostly to interactions with other countries and nations.

 

Yes, in the context of examining the classical-liberal-postulated (in the 18th century) 'natural inherent rights' - supposedly possessed by individuals - which appear to be the barrier to good governance on behalf of the collective (nationally and globally) eg, as expressed in the UN UDHR.

No illusions, but nevertheless an optimist; political and economic and ecological conditions around the globe appear to reaching a point of terminal crisis, which only global co-operation will be capable of managing.

Clarified, above.

Note: I am a follower of MMT which will part of the solution of economic management, in the post-neoclassical era with its false 'permanent growth' model.

And this just caught my eye re the current 'flat-earth' monetary orthodoxy:

Kevin McCarthy’s debt ceiling standoff is yet more Republican madness (msn.com)

 

Ok....but the Law created order out of chaos, so long as law existed in the land.

"All must submit to rule of law, for all to be free": Cicero.

...as opposed to the delusional 'freedom or death' ideology of war mongers

I'm with Cicero, on rationalist grounds.

No, whether law is based on 'Divine Right', or Parliament, rule of law is paramount to avoid anarchy.

So you agree classical liberalism and "inalienable individual natural rights" is delusional? As for slavery, its the outcome of economics based on 'survival of the fittest', in modern times "invisiible hand" free amrkets.

Rationality; there is no shortage of essentials (housing,food, utilities), in today's highly productive economy.

 

Two things.

1: Property Rights are not bound by whether or not you can afford land property. In fact "property" is any material item which you own. IE: Even a piece of paper is considered "property". And while you certainly do have a Right to own land property, you don't have the Right to own someone else's property. Which means you have to buy it from them in a mutual agreement. Since every part of the US is owned by someone, you will have to buy it from someone.

2: "Natural Rights" or "Inalienable Rights" may very well be created by men. But the use of those terms is to depict how important they are. To depict that if they were ever to be violated/gotten rid of then you would more than likely be living in a tyrannical form of government. It is also used to depict that they exist outside of Government and that even if they are violated/gotten rid of, you still personally have those Rights and have every Right to fight for those Rights...and yes, that even includes in the form of a civil war.

And "international law" is useless without a military to back it up. Which is why the UN is useless.

Ok, so 3 things. Sue me. :shrug:

 

The assumption being that the state is the only source of law. An assumption that is neither logical nor historically accurate.

Besides that, where is the rule of law at the international level? Anarchy exists; every state is a sovereign entity and is not bound to any law but instead it is rule of bullies.

 

Locke was obviously referring to the "right" to own land and housing. The US constitution cleverly side-steps that issue.

Of course, the US government also owns property, and indeed should own sufficient housing to ensure everyone can be decently housed, regardless of circumstances in the private sector market. All those tents in major city streets are a condemnation of your 'individual rights' ideology based on "invisible hand" markets.

Better to create law based on reality, regardless of how important the laws are.
The reality is so-called 'individual natural rights' are merely DESIRES of individuals, but in the aggregate a problem arises because naturally competitive, self-interested individuals have different -sometimes opposing - desires.

Not necssarily; government which implemented economic justice and security for all would - by definition - NOT be "tyrannical".

See the contradictuions? Yoir "rights" ideology leads directly to war, not the good governance defined above.

The UNSC has 99% of the world's military force. The problem is the obsolete comcepy of 'national sovereignty', and the associated veto power held by the five members of the UNSC.

See above.

 

Er....the state can't exist without law and a national supreme court; and btw, money exists as an enabler of sovereigny to be established over the population.
The British tribes had no need of money; Rome introduced it as part of establishing sovereignty over the natives.

Just as a nation's government is established to "promote the common welfare" and a "more perfect union" (of different groups), so interntional law was proposed to "save mankind from the scourge of war".
The problem is your Libertarian 'individual rights' delusion which is responsible for the crippling UNSC veto power demanded by the US and USSR (victors in WW2) in 1946, against the wishes of the delegates of smaller nations present at the founding of the UN Charter.