One world government?

[gnome]

It's a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy thing... in the books, a kook named Zaphod Beeblebrox (sort of an interstellar Howard Stern, as I see it) was set up as President of the Galaxy to distract attention away from the real power...

Now, regarding the OWG... a good idea, but unlikely. It cannot be pushed, or it will fall apart to civil war--it can only evolve. Or, to say it another way... a one-world government cannot create unity... unity can create a OWG.

We will begin to have more and more ties to other countries as global economies and international laws expand, but whether any formal handover of sovereignty will ever occur... I won't hold my breath.

Personally I think it would take something sci-fi-like to cause it... responding to an alien threat (low likelihood--if they are out there... how likely is it that our technological levels are similar enough that the outcome of a war would be in doubt?)... or perhaps more likely, a united Earth in response to extra-terrestrial colonies we made ourselves.

 

[username]

If you live in a nation where you have an above average standard of living this idea isn't likely to seem as appealing as if you live in a nation with a below average standard of living.

One collosal problem with a one world government is that most of the tax revenue would come from a handful of places and would go to a plethora of areas that have major issues. This would make it impossible for those prosperous areas to maintain their standard of living. Perhaps over time things would improve, but initially it would be a real bummer.

The closest thing we have to a one world government is the UN and it is a joke riddled with corruption and scandals. I can't even imagine giving that body any real power let alone giving any entity global political/legal power enforceable with a military apparatus.

The next problem would be the vastly different values of the many cultures on our planet. Undoubtedly a one world government would eventually feel the need to enforce the "right" morality and would make criminals out of peaceful people, like the US does with pot smokers.

I see value in a centralized government, but only one which is sharply limitted in it's areas of control. A world government would, by definition, have boundless control for the taking.

 

[Kopji]

Do you mean Zaphnathpaanea?
No sorry. Hitchhikers. I should try to be more serious.

The story of Joseph in the OT was always a favorite though. Sort of a 'hero dies and is resurrected to glory' theme that is repeated in many books?

I was surprised to see so many in the survey supporting OWG. This is a very evil idea in the US and mentioned almost always with with the coming of the antichrist, gun control, abortion, or whatever other nefarious thing is popular.

 

[Iacchus]

Do you mean Zaphnathpaanea?
No sorry. Hitchhikers. I should try to be more serious.

The story of Joseph in the OT was always a favorite though. Sort of a 'hero dies and is resurrected to glory' theme that is repeated in many books?

I was surprised to see so many in the survey supporting OWG. This is a very evil idea in the US and mentioned almost always with with the coming of the antichrist, gun control, abortion, or whatever other nefarious thing is popular.

Yes, but isn't it the least bit strange how similar the name is to Zaphod Beeblebrox? What do you think the odds are of the first four characters, in such an oddball name as Zaphod, being the same? But then again, maybe this is where of author of "A Hitchhiker's Guide ..." derived the name? I suppose anything's possible. Yet what do you think the odds are of me catching that movie yesterday and specifically trying to remember that name? Hmm ... Maybe it has something to do with ignorance theme that I started in the other thread which, by the way, was contingent upon the theme of Joseph in my book ...

38 And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?

39 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:

40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.

41 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.

And here it is Joseph (Zaphnathpaanea) is being put in charge over everything.

 

[jay gw]

One collosal problem with a one world government is that most of the tax revenue would come from a handful of places and would go to a plethora of areas that have major issues. This would make it impossible for those prosperous areas to maintain their standard of living.

Here's why this fear is misguided: Have you ever heard the saying "The rising tide lifts all boats?"

Think back on the last 10, 20 plus years, and the number of jobs that have been created because of exports.

Those jobs didn't exist prior to other markets in other countries opening up.

The only reason that millions of Americans have jobs at all is because the publics around the world can afford to buy the products.

As the standard of living rises in poorer countries, won't they buy products from around the world?

Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones. If they could solve the problems, why do they still have them?

 

[RandFan]

Here's why this fear is misguided: Have you ever heard the saying "The rising tide lifts all boats?"

Think back on the last 10, 20 plus years, and the number of jobs that have been created because of exports.

Those jobs didn't exist prior to other markets in other countries opening up.

The only reason that millions of Americans have jobs at all is because the publics around the world can afford to buy the products.

As the standard of living rises in poorer countries, won't they buy products from around the world?

The reunification of Germany is an excellent example of why this is very problematic. It is difficult to merge governments and economies when there is no parity because it creates instability. South Korea has studied the reunification of Germany and knows that before there can be a reunification of Korea the North must be stabilized and the economic conditions close to par first, before there can be a reunification.

Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones. If they could solve the problems, why do they still have them?

One word, politics. It is demonstrable. And it is demonstrable that countries can overcome problems without transfers. You are simply claiming something as though it is fact when the truth is that there are plenty of examples that belie your claim.

 

[jay gw]

One word, politics. It is demonstrable. And it is demonstrable that countries can overcome problems without transfers. You are simply claiming something as though it is fact when the truth is that there are plenty of examples that belie your claim.

Please list some examples, from the last 100 years, of nations pulling themselves through solely and exclusively their own national efforts, from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world.

And links to your sources/or bibliography please.

 

[RandFan]

Please list some examples, from the last 100 years, of nations pulling themselves through solely and exclusively their own national efforts, from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world.

And links to your sources/or bibliography please.

I will gladly take you up on that but first I need to point out that it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable?

 

[RandFan]

Please list some examples, from the last 100 years, of nations pulling themselves through solely and exclusively their own national efforts, from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world.

And links to your sources/or bibliography please.

I'm curious, why put any limits on the evidence? Why are you the arbiter to determine whether any inference can be drawn from other similar instances or ones that happened prior to the 20th century?

 

[Z]

He probably doesn't want America pointed out. From a few struggling colonies to the top superpower, with very little (any?) financial transfer from other nations.

 

[jay gw]

He probably doesn't want America pointed out. From a few struggling colonies to the top superpower, with very little (any?) financial transfer from other nations.

Oh my goodness. Another American historical revisionist!

Americans colonized from Europe, the most advanced society in the world at that time. Get real.

I'm setting the conditions for anyone here to demonstrate a nation rising from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world in the last 100 years solely and exclusively by their own national efforts.

If you're not up to the challenge, don't act silly and divert attention to my post 100 posts ago and other such nonsense.

Just grow up and say the idea that lesser developed cultures can rise through their own efforts is foolish.

That's why 1 world government is the only way that the world will become more rational and fair, and the weath will increase exponentially for all nations.

The rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[RandFan]

I'm setting the conditions for anyone here to demonstrate a nation rising from a 3rd world status to that of 1st world in the last 100 years solely and exclusively by their own national efforts.

But you wont say why. This seems arbitrary. Why are you doing this? Isn't this a no true scotsman thing. You are limiting the variable to prove a point but it doesn't seem justified.

Again, it is your claim, why can't YOU support it? Saying prove me wrong is poor form.

 

[RandFan]

I will gladly take you up on that but first I need to point out that it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable?

Jay,

Answer the question.

 

[jay gw]

But you wont say why. This seems arbitrary. Why are you doing this? Isn't this a no true scotsman thing. You are limiting the variable to prove a point but it doesn't seem justified.

A "no true Scotsman" would be something that is impossible to show because the definer keeps changing the definition so no example fits it.

The definition has not changed. I'm looking for you to describe a country that has risen from a 3rd world status to 1st world solely and exclusively by its own efforts. 100 years is enough time for you to investigate and find one, I'm not asking for a dissertation.

 

[RandFan]

The definition has not changed. I'm looking for you to describe a country that has risen from a 3rd world status to 1st world solely and exclusively by its own efforts. 100 years is enough time for you to investigate and find one, I'm not asking for a dissertation.

I disagree with your requirements. I think it is wrong to assume that inference can only be drawn from an example that meets your requirements.

However, before we even get there.

I will gladly take you up on that but first I need to point out that it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable?

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

 

[RandFan]

A "no true Scotsman" would be something that is impossible to show because the definer keeps changing the definition so no example fits it.

And you are already arbitrarly changing the rules assuming no infernece can be drawn. You give no reason why no inference can be drawn. Your requirements are arbitrary and it seems fair that we should be able to agree on them.

ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS! Are you being obtuse? Why do you ignore the question?

it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable?

 

[jay gw]

I disagree with your requirements. I think it is wrong to assume that inference can only be drawn from an example that meets your requirements.

What inference? I didn't make any. I asked for an example of a poor country in the last 100 years that's gone from 3rd world to 1st world solely and exclusively by it's own efforts.

An example you still haven't provided.

I will gladly take you up on that but first I need to point out that it is YOUR claim that "Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

Now who's obtuse. I just stated several times that there are no examples of a country going from 3rd world to 1st world without transfers from rich countries. Then I've asked you 5 times to counter it, and you keep printing in bold red letters, as if that means something.

The ball is in your court. If you can't answer the challenge, just say so.

 

[INRM]

I actually oppose.

The same reason I'm not fond of monopolies.

If you have one big government, and it goes sour... what do you do? Fly to Alpha Centauri???

I think having at least 3-nations would be a good idea.

That way you can run to another nation if the other goes sour.

-INRM

 

[crimresearch]

What inference? I didn't make any. I asked for an example of a poor country in the last 100 years that's gone from 3rd world to 1st world solely and exclusively by it's own efforts.

An example you still haven't provided.

Now who's obtuse. I just stated several times that there are no examples of a country going from 3rd world to 1st world without transfers from rich countries. Then I've asked you 5 times to counter it, and you keep printing in bold red letters, as if that means something.

The ball is in your court. If you can't answer the challenge, just say so.

And how many times have you failed to answer the earlier questions about power corrupting?

Or did I miss your examples refuting that axiom?

 

[RandFan]

What inference? I didn't make any. I asked for an example of a poor country in the last 100 years that's gone from 3rd world to 1st world solely and exclusively by it's own efforts.

{good grief} The inference that I am talking about is the infernence from the examples you refuse to accept. This is dishonest.

An example you still haven't provided.

YOU MADE THE CLAIM FIRST! Why do you not get that?

Now who's obtuse. I just stated several times that there are no examples of a country going from 3rd world to 1st world without transfers from rich countries. Then I've asked you 5 times to counter it, and you keep printing in bold red letters, as if that means something.

YOU made a claim before I did. I have not denied or ignored my claim. You are ignoring that you made a claim. YOU ARE BEING OBTUSE.

The ball is in your court. If you can't answer the challenge, just say so.

I have not refused the challenge but the ball is in YOUR COURT!

Look a$$hole you made the following claim.

jay gw

Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones."

You made it before mine. I'm not ignoring my claim. You however ARE ignoring your claim WHICH YOU MADE FIRST! it is YOUR claim that:

"Poorer countries can't overcome their problems without transfers from richer ones." Remember those words? You should they are yours.

Are you speculating or is this demonstrable?

Answer the question. It is your claim. If you withdraw the claim then my argument is moot isn't it? Are you ready to step up to the plate? It is demonstrable that you made the claim first. Look your post was the 5th post on the 2nd page. 04-24-2005 02:55 PM Mine was the next one 04-24-2005 03:04 PM.

So stop being a jerk and have a backbone and some honesty. Your claim WAS first. My claim WAS second. Are you getting this yet?

Jay's Claim: 04-24-2005 02:55 PM

Randfan's Claim: 04-24-2005 03:04 PM

Is there something about that you are not getting?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!