Dou you think a centeral government would be useful?

Clearly, you choose to not understand my point.

 

No, I choose to disagree with your point.

We HAVE a global governmental framework that is highly active.

Almost ZERO of it has any chance of ever being enforced by military threat, and everybody in the world knows that.

Almost all of it is decided by negotiation, since most of the action is toward goals that are favored by all or almost all participants.

 

Makes good sense.

I do think a natural law set of principles that was very basic logic of "plan" towards regenerative, sustainable living, could be developed.

One thing about science having common recognition is that it can quantify a great deal about needs in the short and long term relating to our behaviors.

 

Yes I think that a world government would be 'effected' and adverse to human development. It's bad enough in America where we are supposed to have 'rights' but are subject to a dictator-like President who has a 'pen and a phone.'

 

Unicorn milk is refreshing but unfortunately not substantial. There is no 'natural law' because 'mother nature' is not real. Get over it.

 

Really?
How can any law, international or otherwise, have any value or meaning if it is not enforced?

 

I think this is the single greatest danger facing mankind in the coming centuries. The modern, centralized nation state is an evil itself, but it pales in comparison to a system of global government: of complete sovereignty over the species being placed in a single institution.

• In the absence of competition, it will become bloated and totalitarian.
• Local autonomy and policy representative of the individual will be either diminished or abolished.
• The political science laboratory which is the variety of sovereign nation states will cease to operate. New ways of doing things will be indirectly prohibited.

To the people who think what you say is impossible, I'd direct them to history. Until 1835, man knew nothing faster than a horse or pigeon. This limited the ability of central organizations to effectively administrate their domains. With technology we can now communicate almost instantly across the globe. This makes central government much easier: no longer do you have to govern from 2 months distance by sea.

Governing all the states of the US under a single legislature seemed absurd in 1776, due to advances in technology, it does not look so today. The EU manages to legislate and enforce a variety of regulations across the whole European continent. The West frequently colludes to interfere in the affairs of nations literally on the other side of the planet.

So give it a few decades/centuries. As technology advances, the barriers of distance become even less significant, and the calls to unite stronger. That's just the way force and government work: it's like a virus. It infects everything it is able to, its only limit are the realities of living in a world with physical laws.

[hr][/hr]

Liberty will resume when we discover means of spreading out across multiple lightyears - this provides a certain barrier against central government of however many lightyears you are from the nearest colony.

No matter how powerful or tyrannical the global government might be, it cannot sustain itself through such isolation. Separate colonies will begin to seek local autonomy. So I suppose in the short term we're okay (because global administration is still impractical), (*)(*)(*)(*)ed in the medium term (because global central government will end the tyranny of distance), but pretty tip-top in the long term (because physics (*)(*)(*)(*)s up their plans).

 

Yet, we have global government and your fears are not coming to pass.

I think you are really just saying that it would be possible to have bad global government. And, you support that by providing us really bad examples.

So, I cheer your creativity in finding stuff we should not do.

But, I do not see how that is a critique of what we have today, nor do you describe how our existing system of international law might be improved.

 

The law of gravity and the golden rule are useful. Neither are enforced. Expressing what is possible or recommended often has value, even without regulation.




​

 

How our system works is too much to describe in a post.

My point is that it exists, and is being used with success.

 

Because., sometimes, there are people willing and able to enforce it.
Just like I said.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither of these are laws, in the context of the discussion.
But, you knew that.

 

A law against walking on the grass or jaywalking is useful, even when it's not enforced.




​

 

Sorry but your auto-correct can't be blamed for this oxymoron. 'under and effective but powerful, gentle but harsh central Hegemony' There is no mind altering chemical devised in an underground lab, which can produce this image, let alone a reality.

 

I gave you numerous areas of success where there is no chance that military threat will ever be used, remember?

 

I'm not sure why you choose to not understand my argument.
But.... your problem, not mine.

 

The problem is that your argument is incredibly weak. Military strength is clearly not the basis for what is going on in international law. If it were, things would be VERY different. Today, there are all sorts of cases of nations breaking international law in some way. Yet, a) no military threat is called to bear, and b) there is huge success in numerous areas as I've pointed out.

In the face of that, you have to reconsider you assertion.

There ARE times when military threat is used. But, there is NO chance that military threat is driving the success of international law.

In fact, a whole lot of Americans agree that force or threat of force is rarely even proposed - note all those who call the UN a "debating society". We Americans seem to love the notion that if we don't get our way, we should be bombing someone. We seem to think that even though one can look at case after case after case of our military action and notice that, despite the incredible success of our military, the situation after the action was no better (and usually worse) than before.

So, once again, we are making serious progress with international government WITHOUT military threat. And, in fact, cases of military threat have not been particularly successful.

 

There were large Empires even in Antiquity. It took literal years even for the Emperors to travel from Roman Britain to Trajan's farthest conquests in what is now Iraq. Rome was not a free place but the whole concept of freedom had not been invented then. For their era's most of our World Empires. Rome, Britain, Persia were not terribly oppressive places to live in

The major concept that recommends world governments would be the end of war. Think of what the world could do if we did not have to maintain Armies and live in fear of every other country in the world.

 

And yet, you post examples of it being correct.
This can only mean you choose to not understand my argument.

 

You said that unless there is force, it can't work.

I showed a long list of important areas where we never involve our military in any way, nor will we in any future we can imagine.

 

-All- enforcement is force of some kind.

 

In EVERY decision making body where there are negotiations there is give and take based on what various participants want to have happen.

And, THAT is MY point!!

At the international level there are major areas of mutual interest among nations. Working together causes improvement, and is a stronger direction than threats of force. In fact, threats of force usually have negative consequences - spreading polarization, lack of cooperation in other areas, gigantic expense, lost opportunity, etc.

BTW: One fantastic thing about our international law (as represented by that list of areas of activity) is that it is being successful AND the guy in the OP (and many other posters) didn't even know it EXISTS!!!

 

I never said that we could accomplish this feat by just asking people, we would have to gain support, not dictatorship, but unification, if small wars are necessary to accomplish this, so be it. After that, nobody would be insane enough to go up against the rest of the world.