Winning the Argument: World Government is Bad

[INRM]

I understand that science is about making observations from objective information than using it to ultimately via establishing hypotheses and experimenting, to establish a conclusion.

However I'm not necessarily talking science here; I'm talking political discussion and debates and for this reason, I want to start with a conclusion then try and find facts to support it.

Conclusion 1: World government is bad

Conclusion 2: World government based on a banking and corporatist oligarchy is bad?

 

[jasonpatterson]

Two points:

1. Starting with a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it is completely backward. You open yourself to bias in a serious way when you do this; it inevitably leads to ignoring those things that contradict your conclusion and lending unwarranted support to things that only support your conclusion peripherally. It doesn't matter if you are making a scientific conclusion or not, any logical argument is open to this problem.

2. What the heck is this doing in the Education forum?

 

[JJM 777]

Conclusion 1: World government is bad

Conclusion 2: World government based on a banking and corporatist oligarchy is bad?

Giving all power to one is effective, but also risky if these go rogue. Also it would homologize the world and leave less room for freedom = diversity.

 

[Roboramma]

I understand that science is about making observations from objective information than using it to ultimately via establishing hypotheses and experimenting, to establish a conclusion.

However I'm not necessarily talking science here; I'm talking political discussion and debates and for this reason, I want to start with a conclusion then try and find facts to support it.

Conclusion 1: World government is bad

Conclusion 2: World government based on a banking and corporatist oligarchy is bad?

If the conclusions are warranted, a study of the subject should lead you to them on it's own. If they are not warranted, then such a study will fail to lead you to them.

Your method, however, will allow you to support those conclusions whether they are warranted or not. While I agree that's a bad idea in science, it's also a bad idea in politics.

Please stop posting "I've made up my mind about this subject without any evidence, please give me some evidence to retroactively lead me there" threads. Thank you.

 

[Brian-M]

Exactly what form of world government are we talking about?

How would it be formed, how would decisions be made, what would be the extent of the powers of the world government over member nations, and to what extent would member nations have a say and influence in the decisions made by the ruling body?

Just discussing "world government" without specifying further details is pretty meaningless.

 

[fagin]

You already have one.
We, the Illuminati, just don't want you to know it.

 

[Mark6]

There is already a thread about this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178667

 

[INRM]

jasonpatterson

1. Starting with a conclusion and then trying to find evidence to support it is completely backward. You open yourself to bias in a serious way when you do this; it inevitably leads to ignoring those things that contradict your conclusion and lending unwarranted support to things that only support your conclusion peripherally.

I'm completely aware it's ass backwards. However I'm not concerned about concluding why it's good -- I'm simply interested in proving why it's bad. This isn't about science, this is politics. I just want to make an argument that wins; then I'll try and figure out how to make it right.

 

[Roboramma]

I just want to make an argument that wins; then I'll try and figure out how to make it right.

Have you considered the possibility that it's wrong?

 

[theprestige]

Have you considered the possibility that it's wrong?

I think he's considering the possibility that there exist rhetorical tricks to make it appear right, and that we know these tricks, and that we will share these tricks with him.

 

[SezMe]

Exactly what form of world government are we talking about?

How would it be formed, how would decisions be made, what would be the extent of the powers of the world government over member nations, and to what extent would member nations have a say and influence in the decisions made by the ruling body?

Just discussing "world government" without specifying further details is pretty meaningless.

The other word, "bad" also needs more work. How do you measure bad? Bad for whom? You can't do much with your effort if you don't know what you are looking for.

 

[timhau]

I'd like to think that pancakes are semi-intelligent. You folks are now tasked to provide me with arguments for this.

 

[Puppycow]

In my youth I used to think that a world government might be a good idea, but now I think that is naive.

The EU and their current problems illustrates the problem pretty well. And those problems are mild compared to the problems that a world government would create, with so many areas of the world being at such radically different stages of economic and social development.

 

[Puppycow]

I'd like to think that pancakes are semi-intelligent. You folks are now tasked to provide me with arguments for this.

Pancakes don't watch Jersey Shore or Keeping up with the Kardashians, do they?

Have you ever seen a pancake take a homeopathic medicine?

 

[INRM]

timhau

I'd like to think that pancakes are semi-intelligent. You folks are now tasked to provide me with arguments for this.

Don't hijack my thread -- if you want to discuss this, start your own thread.

 

[PhantomWolf]

In my youth I used to think that a world government might be a good idea, but now I think that is naive.

The EU and their current problems illustrates the problem pretty well. And those problems are mild compared to the problems that a world government would create, with so many areas of the world being at such radically different stages of economic and social development.

Well the issues that the EU faces now were predicted when it formed. The main issue with the EU is that it has a united currency, but not a united financial policy. Because each country can do what they like with their own fiscal policies, if one county has poor policies that lead it to bankruptcy, it can take the rest with it, as is being seen now.

In a true One World Government, that Government would set fiscal policy for all member states and so there would be no issues of one state having poor financial controls.

 

[Roboramma]

timhau



Don't hijack my thread -- if you want to discuss this, start your own thread.

His satire of your OP is addressing the OP. The fact that it doesn't address it in a way that you consider productive doesn't mean it's not actually productive.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'd suggest that world organisation is better than world disorganisation.
In most cases.

 

[timhau]

I'd suggest that world organisation is better than world disorganisation.
In most cases.

Lawful Evil just rules.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I really don't see a lot of danger is a World Government being established in the short term. Can you imagine the issues? Even uniting just North America into one country would be near impossible given the poiltics of Canada and the US. How would you ever get them to agree on things such as Gun Control Laws, Education, and Health Care? Now try adding in a few of the US's closest Allies and Good Friends such as the UK, Australia and NZ. It'd already be a mess, and we haven't even considered countries like China, India, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. It just wouldn't work.