Smooth Running Democracies

[lookout123]

OK, think this one through rationally. If you live in one of the more powerful prosperous nation why in the world would you want your nation to submit to an international organization with power to enforce what they vote on democratically? A large centralized government cannot not work in the best interests of everyone at everytime. There will be compromises and tradeoffs that cannot possibly work in my favor.

In order for something like that we would have to all be of one utopian mind where we all agree that the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. No dice, we're human.

[ZenGum]

Lookout, yes, very true, that is one of the (many) problems to be dealt with.

The best solution is to persuade you that although you will take an occasional loss, in the long run you'll be on a nett gain from yielding some of your national sovereignty to a global government. Selfishness is not always rational, especially if you think long term.

There is also something like conscience or altruism. In most countries where women have the vote, they got it only after a referendum in which only men voted. Why would this group throw away such a position of privilege? Why did many white people in the US stand up for black rights? Why did 90% of (white) Australians vote to abolish the racist sections of our constitution? I don't think that these were from immediate self interest, but because it was somehow right. I have SOME hope for human goodness.

The uniting of Europe is a very interesting example of the process we will most likely have to follow if we are to create a working world government. Slow, torturously difficult negotiations, bureaucrats, local losses, some old traditions fading out ... but new growth, a new way of resolving disputes without the human and economic cost of major war, and new opportunities both at the personal level and at the super-national level.

I do not think that the time is ripe for a world government. While much of Europe lost its taste for war in the last century, the US didn't suffer so badly, and has not yet had the "never again" moment. I don't think there will be the real motivation for a genuine world government without another world war. The obvious candidate is USA Vs China, but not for several decades yet.

So in the meantime, we'll have to get by with the hamstrung, ineffective UN. It's shortcomings are no reason to abolish it, but rather to try to improve it.

[lookout123]

Improve it all you want but always with the knowledge that the participants who are strong enough to stand on their own can walk away from the table anytime they please.

Women and Black votes? That came through a lot of fighting but in the end succeeded because it was undeniable to enough people that they were people too, and as such should have the same rights and privileges extended to them under the constitution.

You are asking that someone here in the US sacrifice sovereignty in exchange for...what? What tangible benefit can be given? What must be given in exchange? Certainly some form of international taxation - the smaller poorer nations will certainly expect to be brought up to the standards of the first world. Government organizations only know how to solve problems through one route, throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. That just won't fly when it comes to the vote.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Government organizations only know how to solve problems through one route, throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. That just won't fly when it comes to the vote.

There are many people in Government who know how to solve problems with more then just "throwing money at it", and hoping the problems go away. Many, many care about people and finding solutions in their particular field of endeavor.

This way that I see the term government used, I don't like it. The government is a large corporation, full of people. Some are honest, selfless servants, others are not. Most of the people toiling away on our behalf deserve our respect. The government in our country is not out to get us, it's out to serve us...collectively.

Is it perfect? No. Is it possible to be perfect? No. Can we serve and please all people at all times? No. This whole idea that "the government" is bad, only spends money, doesn't know what is going on, this huge intangible thing that is out to get us; it's a little off track.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

...if we are to create a working world government.

Hopefully that will never happen!

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Hopefully that will never happen!

The original 13 states of the USA got together because it was in their interest to do so.
There are some reasons that it is in the interests of everyone - or at least the large majority - for the whole planet to get together in a similar way.
The most obvious examples are environmental: the current political farce that is crippling attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions shows how the present political situation just cannot handle global issues. Or look at unsustainable fishing quotas, other kinds of pollution, China's artificial currency value screwing the rest of the world's trade figures ...
For some things, we need a world government that can make good decisions and then enforce them.

And I agree, BTW, that in the main the UN is an unproductive bitch fest that is rarely capable of making a good decision and when it does, cannot enforce it.
The WHO has a few victories to its credit, and some peace-keeping operations have helped: Cambodia for one.
I'd never say the UN is doing a great job and we ought to keep it just as it is. Just that some things need a world government and it's too important to give up on.

But no need to worry, Merc (and I'm sure you're not). The USA formed out of the common interest of resisting an external foe, and the UN formed in the wake of a disastrous war. I don't see a real world government appearing until either after WWIII, or the appearance of hostile extra-terrestrials. Massive environmental melt-down might do the trick, but even that I doubt. We'd be too busy squabbling over the bones.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The original 13 states of the USA got together because it was in their interest to do so.

But no need to worry, Merc (and I'm sure you're not). The USA formed out of the common interest of resisting an external foe, and the UN formed in the wake of a disastrous war. I don't see a real world government appearing until either after WWIII, or the appearance of hostile extra-terrestrials. Massive environmental melt-down might do the trick, but even that I doubt. We'd be too busy squabbling over the bones.

Well the formation of our country is not really the same issue, not to mention that it happened over 200 years ago...

And for the later paragraph, I hope you are right. We will never form a "World Government" IMHO.. the EU can barely get it together.

[lookout123]

The original 13 states of the USA got together because it was in their interest to do so.
There are some reasons that it is in the interests of everyone - or at least the large majority

They came together as a means of self-preservation from outside threats. They knew that none of the 13 states could defend itself from a foreign invasion without the help of the other 12. Trade and economics are part of the package in dealing with outside entities. So until such time as Captain Kirk comes to us, there is no purpose in having a centralized global government. You see, human nature abhors not having something to fight against. So until we have an identifiable enemy with a face who comes from outer space... humans aren't going to submit to a global government.

Also, AD keeps going back to Democracy and how the US is undemocratic because we don't submit to the great and glorious will of the UN. Get it straight - the US is a democratic republic formed for the purpose of protecting the persons and the interests of the people found within her borders. National interests come first. We should strive to be good global citizens whenever possible, but when the immediate interests of the US do not align with some UN or international plan, it needs to be perfectly clear - the primary responsibility of the US government is to her citizens.

You can argue over whether a course of action is in the US best interests or not from a variety of angles - and that is good and healthy - but to believe that the US should submit to a course of action that is counter to our interests for the sake of "democracy"... not so much.

Originally Posted by lookout123

If you live in one of the more powerful prosperous nation why in the world would you want your nation to submit to an international organization with power to enforce what they vote on democratically?

Because balance and self-discipline are both part of what democracy stands for.

First of all you must agree that democracy is there for ALL THE PEOPLE (one man-one vote) to have their say and then "the majority" will have a voice in the power to "do the right thing" for the benefit of its' people. If you don't agree with that then you can just as well ignore the rest of this post.

Secondly, it is very well understood that what we do (as any one nation) actually affects the world, i.e. every nation - in one way or another. Some of our national actions affect the world more than other actions - such as war and the invironment (air, water, ozone, etc) with respects to the economy, global warming, ethnic preservation, etc. etc. etc. In the same way that a proper democratic nation solves its' national problems in a constructive, meaningful manner - so too do international bodies of government. The word "government" means just that. To oversee the real-life situation for the benefit of the human race. Therefore, international organizations must eventually become the most important governing body on this earth - or we will perish. This ought to be clear to everyone and I'm surprised that it is not so.

The U.N. (as we will all agree) is lacking the right grit. This problem is partly due to one of the strongest members sabotaging the U.N.'s international efforts by doing exactly what "LOOKOUT" considers to be correct behaviour.

If I ignore your advice to "put the gun back in the holster", and shoot my brother dead anyway, should I claim that you are to blame for my brother's death? That is (more or less) what the U.S. is doing. The U.N. forbade the Americans to invade Irak - on false pretenses. The Amercians invaded Irak anyway and then critisized the U.N. for being an inadequate organization.

The Americans talk of leaving the U.N. and I'm not completely convinced that it wouldn't be a good thing for the rest of the world. Any thoughts on that, anyone? What would be the advantages versus the disadvantages for the rest of the world?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aretha's doctor

The Americans talk of leaving the U.N. and I'm not completely convinced that it wouldn't be a good thing for the rest of the world. Any thoughts on that, anyone? What would be the advantages versus the disadvantages for the rest of the world?

Who cares? If we are such a bad place, filled with all these bad people, doing bad things to the rest of the world, and we have such a poor set of standards of democracy, why would the world care if we left the UN. You can't have it both ways. You can't expect us to continue to pour our tax dollars into that Hell Hole {UN} and expect us not to have a say in how things are done and how money is spent. You don't want to tell us how to do things in your country but you turn right around and try to tell us how to do business. If I had my way I would cut off the UN completely and then kick their HQ out of New York and let them trundle off to Europa to find a new home. We really need to start to cut of much of our international funding and bring that money home to fix our own problems.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who cares?

Then why did you post this rubbish in this thread? I think that you are a very confused person.

Close your eyes and repeat after me ....... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aretha's doctor

Then why did you post this rubbish in this thread? I think that you are a very confused person.

Not rubbish, and not confused. I think people who live in other countries find it very easy to trash people and places that they don't understand. We do it all the time, just look at the French.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not rubbish, and not confused. I think people who live in other countries find it very easy to trash people and places that they don't understand. We do it all the time,

Okay Merc. Enough is enough! Now I must agree with you TWICE in the same thread. Don't you think you've gone too far?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aretha's doctor

Okay Merc. Enough is enough! Now I must agree with you TWICE in the same thread. Don't you think you've gone too far?

You forgot the bit, Just look at FRANCE!